The phenomenon and the explanation

[Eloy Craft]

God is omnipresent for pantheists and panentheists too...

Well, if everything is God......

 

[Eloy Craft]

Buddhism has a rich spirituality to it that i'm kind of sad you sorta hand waved away.
Edit: in fact the Buddhist idea of the lose of self or lose of ego upon death, ive always thought it was a refreshingly realistic way to view death. It even helped me form my current spirituality.

Budhism is awesome. I think the pinnacle of human heights using reason alone. No divine help

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, I know. You responded to my post on a sub-discussion derived from Eloy's post concerning religions that do or do not involve divine revelation.

Your response was actually to pitabread who responded to a post I made during a discussion I was having with Eloy about religions having a common theme. It was my discussion which you jumped into.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your response was actually to pitabread who responded to a post I made during a discussion I was having with Eloy about religions having a common theme. It was my discussion which you jumped into.

Yes, now I see you're correct. Sorry, that was my mistake! I had tracked the conversation back using the up arrows and must have clicked on the wrong arrow...

 

[jacknife]

Your response was actually to pitabread who responded to a post I made during a discussion I was having with Eloy about religions having a common theme. It was my discussion which you jumped into.

I'm sorry for jumping in as well, I really enjoy discussing religions so I wanted to join.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't misunderstand. The distinction is divine revelation.

Other religions have divine revelation too. How does one test divine revelation? If one cannot do so properly the divine revelation of religion A is no different or better than the divine revelation of religion B.

 

[dlamberth]

Hi Dlamberth, the mystical experience varies as religions do. The eastern religions teach a discipline that leads to mystical experience. Buddhists commune with nothingness. Nirvana. Christian mysticism is not sought out at all. It just happens.
A mystical experience for Christians is union with another rational being, who happens to be God.
Buddhists do well at destroying the ego, losing the self.
Christians experience a finding of self. These are radically different mystical experiences.

Christian mysticism is a much broader experience than what your suggesting. Negative Mysticism, for instance, is very much like a Buddhist kind of trajectory. Than there's Positive Mysticism were the mystic rides Love like an arrow to the Heart of God. Finding the "self" as you suggested, for the Christian mystic is finding the "spark of the Soul". That's when "annihilation" comes into play for the Christian mystic. In times past, not so much today, there was Angelic Theology where the mystic would internalize the various aspect of angels in order to angelize the Soul. Than we have Spiritual marriage with Christ where the mystic has merged with Christ as One. It's all very interesting stuff. The mystics is where a lot of Christian theology bubbled up from.

 

[dlamberth]

Their religion is building up from the ground. An answer to death and life. Christianity is founded on revelation from above. Not built up over generations but concepts never imagined. Christianity has all the distinctions that would follow for a faith built on Divine Revelation.

The thing is, Divine Revelation has been brought forward within many spiritual traditions. Even Indigenous cultures where God has not been taken out of the Earth and put into the Sky somewhere have their Divine Revelations. Divine Revelations is something that is not limited to any single religion.

 

[jacknife]

Christian mysticism is a much broader experience than what your suggesting. Negative Mysticism, for instance, is very much like a Buddhist kind of trajectory. Than there's Positive Mysticism were the mystic rides Love like an arrow to the Heart of God. Finding the "self" as you suggested, for the Christian mystic is finding the "spark of the Soul". That's when "annihilation" comes into play for the Christian mystic. In times past, not so much today, there was Angelic Theology where the mystic would internalize the various aspect of angels in order to angelize the Soul. Than we have Spiritual marriage with Christ where the mystic has merged with Christ as One. It's all very interesting stuff. The mystics is where a lot of Christian theology bubbled up from.

What do you mean by "negative mysticism" if its to off topic you can dm me.

 

[dlamberth]

What do you mean by "negative mysticism" if its to off topic you can dm me.

The proper name for negative mysticism is Apophatic Theology. In Christianity, Pseudo Dionysius was a huge influence on Apophatic Theology with the Christian mystics that followed him.

Google Apophatic Theology, there's a lot of information out there that will give a more complete picture.
But here's a Wiki article to get you started:
Apophatic_Theology

 

[Mark Quayle]

So I'm betting that you've not been able to counter them.

Seems your antagonism has muddled your logic. You take "many many claims" and generalize them to sound like I have no counter to Darwinian Evolution. Then you turn around and suggest (below) that I'm being disingenuous to say, "I still have huge areas of disbelief unanswered in my skepticism toward Darwinian Evolution."

So you admit that you will still accept religious tales over scientific evidence no matter what.... Great...

No. They are not "religious tales". Nor is your faith in the too-early conclusions of consensus of the noisy quite logical use of evidence.

Wait - you just wrote:

"...it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences..."

???

Almost like you're being disingenuous.

I tell you I'm skeptical about Darwinism and you suggest that then I'm being disingenuous from "...it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences..."?

A few days ago someone said something like, "All I have to do is find one thing wrong in the Bible and it is enough." Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning, that 14 billion years is enough time to go from Big Bang to the current stage of human development? Have the hoaxes all been identified, publicly admitted to and put to rest? What about the conclusions drawn on them? Are all the scientists, researchers, universities etc. above board with all their work, above the influence of money, position and possible public shame?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is said to be the first cause again? Oh, right - the God of the bible. What a coincidence. But since there is a 'law' of causation, there is an obvious question, and the typical answer to that question pretty much refutes the original claim.

What is the obvious question —the usual from those who speak before thinking? And what is the typical answer?

What other sources of "fact" are there?

fact
/fakt/
noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
   "he ignores some historical and economic facts"

Seems you conveniently didn't read the next few posts, where I talk about other sources.

Notice even your definition didn't leave "known" out of the list. I KNOW God exists. That doesn't mean he does, but he does. No, I don't expect you to accept what I know to be true.

But, since truth is truth and facts are facts, regardless of whether they are known or proven, I may be right.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Christian mysticism is a much broader experience than what your suggesting. Negative Mysticism, for instance, is very much like a Buddhist kind of trajectory. Than there's Positive Mysticism were the mystic rides Love like an arrow to the Heart of God. Finding the "self" as you suggested, for the Christian mystic is finding the "spark of the Soul". That's when "annihilation" comes into play for the Christian mystic. In times past, not so much today, there was Angelic Theology where the mystic would internalize the various aspect of angels in order to angelize the Soul. Than we have Spiritual marriage with Christ where the mystic has merged with Christ as One. It's all very interesting stuff. The mystics is where a lot of Christian theology bubbled up from.

True about Christian theology. The spark of the soul is gnostic so does positive and negative mysticism.
For the Christian it's contemplative prayer. The Christians prayer life is elevated. God joins our prayer and lifts us up to Himself. A consolation. There is also the dark night of the soul. It seems as if God has abandoned us. A time that reveals our weaknesses and strengths. Christian mysticism is union with God in a Christians prayer life. There is little in common with mysticism of the Eastern religions.

 

[Ophiolite]

Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning, that 14 billion years is enough time to go from Big Bang to the current stage of human development?

Well, I could show you but you say "it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences."

Have the hoaxes all been identified, publicly admitted to and put to rest?

I have no idea. I do know that hoaxes constitute a vanishingly small proportion of scientific output. That's one of the reasons they attract so much attention. Which makes a better headline? "Scientists confirm one small detail about the mechanism of how a small amphibious species deals with excessively high temperatures", or "Scientists fabricate data to 'prove' hominid remains from Kenya are direct human ancestors."

Can you provide a list of the top five or ten hoaxes that you think had a marked impact upon scientific thinking? Please.

What about the conclusions drawn on them?

Yes, that's what I am asking you to provide, for five or ten examples. You are the one implicitly making the claim that hoaxes have had a major, misleading impact upon evolutionary theory. This is your opportunity to demonstrate it.

Are all the scientists, researchers, universities etc. above board with all their work, above the influence of money, position and possible public shame?

I doubt it. The question has as much value as "Are all pastors, ministers, priests, denominations, churches, etc. above board with all their work, above the influence of money, position and possible public shame?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I could show you but you say "it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences."
I have no idea. I do know that hoaxes constitute a vanishingly small proportion of scientific output. That's one of the reasons they attract so much attention. Which makes a better headline? "Scientists confirm one small detail about the mechanism of how a small amphibious species deals with excessively high temperatures", or "Scientists fabricate data to 'prove' hominid remains from Kenya are direct human ancestors."

Can you provide a list of the top five or ten hoaxes that you think had a marked impact upon scientific thinking? Please.

Yes, that's what I am asking you to provide, for five or ten examples. You are the one implicitly making the claim that hoaxes have had a major, misleading impact upon evolutionary theory. This is your opportunity to demonstrate it.

I doubt it. The question has as much value as "Are all pastors, ministers, priests, denominations, churches, etc. above board with all their work, above the influence of money, position and possible public shame?"

One of the absolute worst arguments that creationists can bring against the theory of evolution is the " there have been hoaxes in evolution, therefore it is not true". By that standard every major religion is false including Christianity. There have been countless self proclaimed "next messiahs" in Christianity. People claiming that they were a personal speaker for God or even the returned Jesus. Unlike evolutionary hoaxes these quite often end tragically.

Christian hoaxes have had little to no influence over Christianity as a whole and evolutionary hoaxes have not affected evolution.

It would be nice if science deniers dropped that argument from their repertoire.

 

[Ophiolite]

One of the absolute worst arguments that creationists can bring against the theory of evolution is the " there have been hoaxes in evolution, therefore it is not true". By that standard every major religion is false including Christianity. There have been countless self proclaimed "next messiahs" in Christianity. People claiming that they were a personal speaker for God or even the returned Jesus. Unlike evolutionary hoaxes these quite often end tragically.

Christian hoaxes have had little to no influence over Christianity as a whole and evolutionary hoaxes have not affected evolution.

It would be nice if science deniers dropped that argument from their repertoire.

I completely agree. Beyond that, all the Creatonist arguments are poor arguments; it's just a matter of comparing bad with worse. (Creationist are invited to provide a fresh and effective argument against evolution that is not one of the many that has been repeatedly refuted.)
And even if they were able to genuinely refute evolution, the explanation for biodiversity does not then default to that of Creation. Individuals should, by all means, accept Creation on the basis of faith, or personal revelation, if they think that is the right way to go. But they should not think that silly objections to evolutionary theory provide any support for beliefs arrived at in that way.

 

[pitabread]

One of the absolute worst arguments that creationists can bring against the theory of evolution is the " there have been hoaxes in evolution, therefore it is not true"

Not only that, but always bring up the same two or three examples. If evolution was as hoax-prone as some creationists seem to think it is, why can't they point to anything new? And why is it that creationists aren't the ones exposing these alleged hoaxes?

 

[Eloy Craft]

Other religions have divine revelation too. How does one test divine revelation? If one cannot do so properly the divine revelation of religion A is no different or better than the divine revelation of religion B.

Human reason naturally seeks truth. On it's own It stacks reasonable conclusions on reasonable conclusions untill certainty is established and the matter is accepted as true. Human reason builds truth from the ground up. The Greek philosophers did this. One philosopher learning from the previous philosopher and adding to it or modifying it. The concepts and ideas develope over generations are passed down and refined forever.
Founders of religions usually emerge from some epic struggle that required virtuous and noble character to survive. They establish a religion and culture by living a noble life and retelling the story of their heroism. The story becomes myth, the morality of the founders is preserved and they become deified and worshipped.

Egypt had spent centuries developing their cosmology. Their creation myth explained reality as cyclic. They observed the powers of nature operate in cycles. The beginning and end of all things was symbolized by the Ouroboros. The serpent that swallows its tail. That symbol defined time as cyclic. The unending cycle of repeated history was perceived as a matter of time properly functioning. The Egyptians formed a priestly cast to pass down and preserve the wisdom they built from the ground and worship on the mountain it formed.

Then came Moses with concepts never before imagined. Truth not developed over centuries for generations but truth introduced suddenly and taught by one man.
The serpent swallowing it's tail is used by Moses to destroy the concepts attached to it. It's not time that causes history to repeat but sin. Sin has trapped human life in a neverending loop of repeated history. Moses turns the serpent's tail into a human foot that the head will try to eat but will be crushed by it instead. The Egyptian wiseman knew that the wisdom built over generations had been one upped in an instant by wisdom from above. When they read about original sin, the serpent and punishments written in the book of Genesis. Divine revelation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Human reason naturally seeks truth. On it's own It stacks reasonable conclusions on reasonable conclusions untill certainty is established and the matter is accepted as true. Human reason builds truth from the ground up. The Greek philosophers did this. One philosopher learning from the previous philosopher and adding to it or modifying it. The concepts and ideas develope over generations are passed down and refined forever.
Founders of religions usually emerge from some epic struggle that required virtuous and noble character to survive. They establish a religion and culture by living a noble life and retelling the story of their heroism. The story becomes myth, the morality of the founders is preserved and they become deified and worshipped.

Egypt had spent centuries developing their cosmology. Their creation myth explained reality as cyclic. They observed the powers of nature operate in cycles. The beginning and end of all things was symbolized by the Ouroboros. The serpent that swallows its tail. That symbol defined time as cyclic. The unending cycle of repeated history was perceived as a matter of time properly functioning. The Egyptians formed a priestly cast to pass down and preserve the wisdom they built from the ground and worship on the mountain it formed.

Then came Moses with concepts never before imagined. Truth not developed over centuries for generations but truth introduced suddenly and taught by one man.
The serpent swallowing it's tail is used by Moses to destroy the concepts attached to it. It's not time that causes history to repeat but sin. Sin has trapped human life in a neverending loop of repeated history. Moses turns the serpent's tail into a human foot that the head will try to eat but will be crushed by it instead. The Egyptian wiseman knew that the wisdom built over generations had been one upped in an instant by wisdom from above. Divine revelation.

I did not see an answer to my question. In fact you refuted yourself if anything

 

[tas8831]

Seems your antagonism has muddled your logic.

No, not really.

You take "many many claims" and generalize them to sound like I have no counter to Darwinian Evolution.

That is correct - creationists do not have counters to evolution. Why should I think you are any different? What do YOU claim to know that this PhD YEC Biochemist that has done relevant research does not know:

The truth about evolution

September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

Then you turn around and suggest (below) that I'm being disingenuous to say, "I still have huge areas of disbelief unanswered in my skepticism toward Darwinian Evolution."

Yes, because I always have doubts to those claiming such things. Add to that, what you actually wrote says it all:

"I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!")."

Seems pretty straightforward - you have a psychological need to reject evolution, and to do so, you are ready to find ways to dismiss what you see as a threat. So, regardless of your pretense.... pretty disingenuous.

No. They are not "religious tales".

Sure they are. Well, there is a little real history, but we should hope for at least some reality. But that certain places and people were real does not by any means suggest, much less demonstrate, the veracity of the miraculous claims and such.

Nor is your faith in the too-early conclusions of consensus of the noisy quite logical use of evidence.

The evidence that you pre-dismissed because you will never be convinced that there is no "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving [something]"?

I tell you I'm skeptical about Darwinism and you suggest that then I'm being disingenuous from "...it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences..."?

"Supposed" was a good indication, along with the whole "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" thing.

A few days ago someone said something like, "All I have to do is find one thing wrong in the Bible and it is enough."

Yes, because bible advocates/acolytes declare it to be 100% true and error free from cover to cover. Finding one error means that this claim is false. Scientists do not make such claims. In fact, just the opposite - we declare that science is an on-going process, and that errors are bound to occur (and ultimately found out and corrected). But unlike creationists, we are not bound to dismiss any necessitated change in favor of maintaining the status quo (contrary to what the snowflakes claim).

Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning, that 14 billion years is enough time to go from Big Bang to the current stage of human development?

Interesting, seeing as how you probably think that 6 24 hour days is plenty. But I forgot that creationists never have to explain things or provide evidence for their claims. Silly me.

Yes - it happened.
You will have to ask more relevant and logical questions if you want real answers - What do you mean "enough time"? Enough time for what, specifically? And what do you mean 'circular reasoning'? I sense some projection.

Have the hoaxes all been identified, publicly admitted to and put to rest?

Oh, you mean like the Jammal Ark hoax? He actually admitted to it, but I still find conservative Christians mentioning it from time to time.
If you have something specific in mind, spit it out, son! But please do not embarrass yourself and bring up Piltdown or Nebraska man.

What about the conclusions drawn on them?

Again, be more reality-based. Contrary to the lies Jon Wells and others make, nobody teaches or relies on any of that stuff today, nor for more than 75 years. Same with Haeckel's embryos. I mean come on - the desperation of creationists is something to behold.

Are all the scientists, researchers, universities etc. above board with all their work, above the influence of money, position and possible public shame?

So you are, as I already indicated, pre-dismissing everything due to paranoid fantasies and conspiracy nonsense. Was this your "counter to Darwinian Evolution"? Conspiracy claims and mere 'disbelief'? And by the way, there are few strict 'Darwinists' around these days - maybe try a new schtick?

I've been encountering creationists for about 25 years. I've seen every bit of nonsense they have to offer. I suspect that soon you will claim Darwin was a racist, too?