The scientific process

Originally posted by stocken
Science can accept the existence of God as a hypothesis to be proved/disproved. So far, no evidence speaks for or against the existence of God.

Accept the existence of God as a hypothesis and then try to prove it using scientific methods. It should be interesting enough. If you could find methods that will allow us to perceive God in one way or the other, ...[text shortened]... ngs to different people (even illusionary to some), so that won't work in a scientific study.

The funny thing about evidence, it has to be looked for before it can be found.
Miracles, generally speaking, are events the break the laws of nature as we know them. Example, a little boy gets an ear infection that eats those little bones in his ear as well as his ear drum. Doctors say he'll be deaf in that ear for life. Then, poof, the bones are restored as well as the eardrum. That's a miracle and as much evidence of God as anomolies in data are evidece of dark matter. Yet I'm told that miracles are evidence of God, they are simply events we don't understand yet.
What I'm seeing is that those whose faith is in science, take the evidence for God and either dismiss it (as above) or give it another name, and then say there is no evidence of God.
If one concludes, before the evidence is found, that nothing can be caused by God, then the evidence will never point towards Him. And that's not science.

DF

Originally posted by dj2becker
Unless of course the houses are the inhabitants of his creation. Poor analogy, I know...

Maybe think of it in this way:

God is like a car manufacturer. We are the cars. He created us and knows better than everyone else how to drive us. He would like to drive the cars but the cars have the decision who gets to drive them. Either the car can try to dri ...[text shortened]... elf, kinda like Herbie, just worse. Or the car can decide to let the manufacturer drive instead.

No offense, but this is even worse. You're comparing humans with cars. Herbie and Kit being the obvious exceptions, but all cars are just mindless... Oh, wait... you do have a point, don't you?.. 🙂

No seriously, it's a bad analogy. I see what you're trying to say, though. You're trying to say that we can either choose to accept God and the written word as our guide in life, or we can deny it and be unhappy. Yes?

Well, I don't agree, so...

Originally posted by stocken
No offense, but this is even worse. You're comparing humans with cars. Herbie and Kit being the obvious exceptions, but all cars are just mindless... Oh, wait... you do have a point, don't you?.. 🙂

No seriously, it's a bad analogy. I see what you're trying to say, though. You're trying to say that we can either choose to accept God and the written word as our guide in life, or we can deny it and be unhappy. Yes?

Well, I don't agree, so...

I am not saying that you would not be happy. I am sure that there are plenty of fleeting pleasures to enjoy. And as soon as the guilt feeling comes back you have to do some more. This type of 'happiness' does not bring lasting satisfaction. I was refering to lasting happiness which can only be found in God.

Originally posted by vistesd
One of the most powerful features of Christianity (though I’m speaking here from outside the fold) is that the incarnation offers an “organic” analogy (though, in itself, anthropocentric)—whether you see that as an actual historical event or in symbolic terms.

I hope I haven't completely missunderstood the word; anthropocentric. Human-centered universe. Right? I find the idea that God permeats everything that has life (including life not as we know it), and thereby that humans are not the most exceptional living things in the universe, much easier to accept, than the anthropocentric view.

The incarnation offering an "organic" analogy is interesting. The incarnation being the union of God and man, through Jesus Christ. JC being the organic part of the equation. (Let's see. Is there anything else obvious that I can point out?)

Is christianity the only abrahamistic religion that considers the idea that God is part of us all? Or is it JC that is part of us all? Or is JC God himself? Oh no! I have too many questions that I should know the answers to before diving any deeper into these thoughts. Bye now.

(And besides, is JC not a clothing reseller business?)

---

What I meant to say is that I think the organic analogy is interesting because it suggests (to me) that we are all permeated with the divine essence. Much like the zoroastrian view. Unlike the zoroastrian view however, christianity seem to have a very fixed idea about what it means and what we're supposed to do with it. (Accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, let the word of God - as depicted in the OT and NT - be your law and ask forgiveness for your sins. Then you will be saved.)

I may be unfair now, but I understand christianity as a religion that is meant to control how people lead their lifes and what they are supposed to think and believe. Which brings me back to the organic analogy. It is in direct conflict with the idea that God is within us all, if we come to different conclusions than the prophets in the bible. If we seek we shall find. Because if God is within us all, and we seek and we find... that it is not the way our prophets has it, then we are not accepting christ and we will therefore not be saved.

An organic analogy (again in my understanding) should allow for organic behaviour. Any organic material reacts to its surroundings and evolves accordingly. If God is part of us all, then he must also change as we change (or vice versa). He cannot be a constant if he's part of us all. So, we are bound to disagree with parts of the bible, because our lifes are very different today and our values gradually change. I, personally, involve all living things that I know of when I consider our place in the universe. I do this based on what I understand about my surroundings. I do this because I feel inside that it is the right thing to do. Yet, there's nothing in the christian view that says an animal like a snake is equal to man (we all know how profound the snake is according to the bible - a certain apple comes to mind).

So, even though I seek within me the answers and I find something there that I feel is righteous (and good), it is in conflict with the bible and therefore I cannot be saved. But if it's really true that God is within us all, and I find this within me, then either the bible is wrong or God has changed his mind (or I'm possessed by Lucifer who is not as powerful as God himself, but still powerful enough to destroy his creation). ???

---

No, what I really wanted to say is: The organic analogy, when centered around humans (as in christianity), is flawed by its very nature. We all come to slightly (sometimes completely) different conclusions when we look within ourselfs and ask what is the right thing to do in any given situation.

---

Am I completely wrong here, or do I have a point? :

Please understand I'm merely seeing it from my point of view, which has been proven to be limited on numerous occasions. I may have misunderstood this "organic" analogy completely.

Originally posted by Halitose
Oh, I think you got me wrong. I don't deny the incarnation of Christ by any means -- I was merely asserting that this would be the exception rather than the rule.

Yes. The spirit of God lives within us, but that is not a tangible exhibition of God, is it now?

I am just thinking out loud on this, and nothing more.... The incarnation as a one-time event, only in-as Jesus, rather than Jesus as the Christ being a (sacramental?) archetype of God’s pre-existing logos incarnate in the world, including in humanity, is certainly the mainstream Christian view. But it does not seem to be the only one, so I just want to spin some thoughts—

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395 C.E., a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church anyway) seems to push the boundaries of the conventional/historical view, without quite crossing them, when he wrote:

“That God should have clothed himself with our nature is a fact that should not seem strange or extravagant to minds that do not form too paltry an idea of reality. Who, looking at the universe, would be so feeble-minded as not to believe that God is all-in-all; that he clothes himself with the universe, and at the same time contains it and dwells in it? What exists depends on Him who exists, and nothing can exist except in the bosom of Him who is.

“If then all is in him and he is in all, why blush for the faith that teaches us that one day God was born in the human condition, God who still today exists in humanity?

“Indeed, if the presence of God in us does not take the same form now as it did then, we can at least agree in recognizing that he is in us to day no less than he was then.”

Commenting on this, Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement says: “Everything in effect exists in an immense movement of incarnation which tends toward Christ and is fulfilled in him;” and refers to “...the great synthesis, in Christ, of the human, the divine and the cosmic.”

Later in his book (all these quotes are from his The Roots of Christian Mysticism; all bolds are mine), Clement pushes the envelope a bit further when he says: “The world is a vast incarnation which the fall of the human races tries to contradict.”

Meister Eckhart seems to fuse the orthodox concept of theosis with a more Western theological perspective, when he writes:

“The seed of God is in us.

Now, the seed of a pear tree
grows into a pear tree,
and a hazel seed
grows into a hazel tree—

A seed of God
grows into God.”

______________________________________________________

Turning, perhaps artificially from Christology to pneumatology, I’d like to probe a bit your statement: “The spirit of God lives within us, but that is not a tangible exhibition of God, is it now?”

Is it? Isn’t it? What do you mean by “tangible” here? As opposed to Eckhart’s seed analogy quoted above, I don’t think the spirit comes in “pieces” or “seeds.” From a wholly Trinitarian viewpoint (as well as a more monistic one), the spirit of God is God.

The phrase “holy spirit” only occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures three times: Psalm 51:11 (“take not your holy spirit from me” ), and Isaiah 53:10 and 11. The word “spirit” (ruach), referring to God’s spirit, first appears in Genesis 6:3—Then YHVH said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." Interestingly, ruach can mean spirit, wind, breath or even mind; with a different vowel-insertion, you get reah, which means scent, fragrance or aroma, and ruach itself may derive originally from this root, according to my morphology.

In any event, the implication is that God’s spirit is, to put it somewhat poetically, the very spirit and fragrance of aliveness within us, without which we die. As such, I might argue that it is a tangible exhibition of God—a theophany within incarnation, so to speak (again, from either a Trinitarian or a monistic understanding of God—or some combination?).

Again, I’m really just thinking “out loud” here, and I want to let it all percolate in my mind some more... Comments and arguments are welcome as I do that.

Originally posted by stocken
I hope I haven't completely missunderstood the word; anthropocentric. Human-centered universe. Right? I find the idea that God permeats everything that has life (including life not as we know it), and thereby that humans are not the most exceptional living things in the universe, much easier to accept, than the anthropocentric view.

The inca d on numerous occasions. I may have misunderstood this "organic" analogy completely.

What I meant to say is that I think the organic analogy is interesting because it suggests (to me) that we are all permeated with the divine essence.

This is suggested, in different forms, by all the streams of “the perennial philosophy” in all the religions, including the Abrahamic ones (and I am in that stream)—though some may consider it “heretical”. So Christianity, per se, is not opposed to the idea that “God is within us all” (see my post above to Hal), though there may be plenty of disagreement among Christians about what that means.

I, too, find a purely anthropocentric (and maybe I should have said “anthropomorphic” as well) limitation to be—well, limiting. But even in that limited form, Christianity provides an “organic” analogy, and it was the first one that came to my mind. I’ll try to think of a better one.

An organic analogy (again in my understanding) should allow for organic behaviour. Any organic material reacts to its surroundings and evolves accordingly. If God is part of us all, then he must also change as we change (or vice versa). He cannot be a constant if he's part of us all. So, we are bound to disagree with parts of the bible, because our lifes are very different today and our values gradually change.

This reflects a school of thought called “process theology,” with which I have little familiarity (I did read one book on it some years ago). I think it has merit. With that said, I would rather say that we disagree with how certain parts of the Bible can be understood—and our hermeneutics evolve as well. But that is a very broad issue. With the admission that certainly there is history in the Bible, I tend not to read it from any historicistic/literalistic stance.

Note: I was using the term “organic” very broadly, and did not intend (I don’t think) to mean simply “biologic.” From the point-of-view of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the whole universe is permeated by the “energies” of God, and that is called charis, “grace.”

EDIT: Let me change "I'll try to think of a better one" to "I'll try to think of a broader one," just to avoid misunderstandings.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am just thinking out loud on this, and nothing more.... The incarnation as a one-time event, only in-as Jesus, rather than Jesus as the Christ being a (sacramental?) archetype of God’s pre-existing logos incarnate in the world, including in humanity, is certainly the mainstream Christian view. But it does not seem to be the only one, so I just wan ...[text shortened]... let it all percolate in my mind some more... Comments and arguments are welcome as I do that.

Some pertinent points raised. I'll need to stew over this for a while.

Originally posted by Halitose
Some pertinent points raised. I'll need to stew over this for a while.

That's really what I'm doing too.

Originally posted by vistesd
Note: I was using the term “organic” very broadly, and did not intend (I don’t think) to mean simply “biologic.” From the point-of-view of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the whole universe is permeated by the “energies” of God, and that is called charis, “grace.”

By the grace of God... That one (as so many things) was new to me... 🙂

As I'm beginning to realize, your posts has something new to teach me every time. I will read more about "process theology" because it has peaked my interest.

Thank you.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am not saying that you would not be happy. I am sure that there are plenty of fleeting pleasures to enjoy. And as soon as the guilt feeling comes back you have to do some more. This type of 'happiness' does not bring lasting satisfaction. I was refering to lasting happiness which can only be found in God.

I can assure you that lasting happiness can be found without god. I know some very devout and pious people; some of them are content and at ease with the world and some are the most miserable small minded snivelling maggots I've ever had the misfortune to meet.

As for fleeting pleasure, you're a young man, make sure you get your share of fleeting pleasure, you'll be dead soon enough so live life to the full

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am not saying that you would not be happy. I am sure that there are plenty of fleeting pleasures to enjoy. And as soon as the guilt feeling comes back you have to do some more. This type of 'happiness' does not bring lasting satisfaction. I was refering to lasting happiness which can only be found in God.

Are you trying to say that everything besides religion which brings us pleasure also is something to feel guilty for? Or if that's not what you are trying to say, what are you trying to say?

In my work with disabled children, I have experienced a lot of wonderful moments which, while fleeting, make a long-lasting impact and are very fulfilling. And they sure don't bring on a feeling of guilt.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am not saying that you would not be happy. I am sure that there are plenty of fleeting pleasures to enjoy. And as soon as the guilt feeling comes back you have to do some more. This type of 'happiness' does not bring lasting satisfaction. I was refering to lasting happiness which can only be found in God.

Don't assume too many things about others or you will be completely wrong in the end. Ask first, then draw conclusions. You're assuming I have attacks of guilt from time to time, and to drown those feelings I engage myself in more "sins". This is not so. I haven't felt guilty about anything in a very long time. I've done plenty that I know you christians think I should feel guilty about, but as long as I don't hurt other animals purposely (and I don't) I feel fine.

On occasions I've done things that has inadvertently hurt another animal. If so, I may experience regret and a desire to make up for it. Still, no need to accept a saviour to get by. Nope. I'm fine the way things are, thank you.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
The funny thing about evidence, it has to be looked for before it can be found.
Miracles, generally speaking, are events the break the laws of nature as we know them. Example, a little boy gets an ear infection that eats those little bones in his ear as well as his ear drum. Doctors say he'll be deaf in that ear for life. Then, poof, the bones are rest used by God, then the evidence will never point towards Him. And that's not science.

DF

If one concludes, before the evidence is found, that nothing can be caused by God, then the evidence will never point towards Him. And that's not science.

I agree. Good science does not a priori reject the possibility of supernatural explanations. But it does lean toward a regimen of contingent naturalism. This is warranted since natural explanations have a tremendously good track record, and a strong inductive argument can be made for that which is natural. For those phenomena which we cannot explain naturally, I guess we will just have to make a wild guess as to whether it is proof for your God, or magical elves, or Glinda the Good Witch, or my neighbor Mark's God, or Sasquatch, or Nessie, or the Abominable Snowman, or Muffy, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or fairies, or The Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc., etc., on down the supernatural laundry list of possibilities.

In response to the ear drum healing: rather than declaring it as evidence for the existence of DragonFriend's God, I think it is much more accurate to simply say that it is (like many things) compatible with the existence of DragonFriend's God. Unfortunately, I think it is also perfectly compatible with the nonexistence of DragonFriend's God too. In particular, I have heard that magical invisible elves are very keen on healing damaged ear drums. How can we be sure that it was the work of your God and not the elvish?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If one concludes, before the evidence is found, that nothing can be caused by God, then the evidence will never point towards Him. And that's not science.

I agree. Good science does not a priori reject the possibility of supernatural explanations. But it does lean toward a regimen of contingent naturalism. This is warranted since natur ...[text shortened]... damaged ear drums. How can we be sure that it was the work of your God and not the elvish?[/b]

How can we be sure that it was the work of your God and not the elvish?

The elvish are more elusive -- and constitute a minority in the supernatural market.

Originally posted by Halitose
The elvish are more elusive -- and constitute a minority in the supernatural market.

That's no reason to discriminate against them. 😉