David Berlinski Skeptic/Agnostic on science and religion.

[RegularJoe]

The first thing I would look into is "Proving the negative", which is the first thing the author wants to do when he says "They can't prove God DOESN'T exist". Here's some things that should provide good reading:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

Thank you.

 

[ambush80]

Please consider the following a non-fake-news news report, NOT an 'opinion editorial.'

i am not saying that you would actually wish to try the following
(it will only be perceived thru your senses - yet all **rational thought is perceived thru senses, as well);
however, i KNOW it has provided personal revelation* for some folks who have tried it.
(& i am not saying it applies to me, bro) ......
John 7:17 - [a quote from Jesus Christ]
"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."
What said folks decided was that, for them, it was worth a try (one commented, 'Didn't cost me much to try, just a little time, a few days) .... and for them, something happened that they say 'stuck.'

You have to be more specific with what you mean by "doing God's will". That could mean all kinds of things. I'll assume you mean "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself". Those seem to be the ones that most Christians agree on, though it gets dicey when you get into the details of what "loving your neighbor" could mean. Observe how SemperFi sees fit to love his neighbors by "not engaging trolls". I don't think I'll try that style of doing God's will. What do you think doing God's will means?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Semper Fi,

I will believe in your god or any god if you can convince me that they're real. If I need a personal revelation to believe, then I wasn't convinced by rational argument, I will have been convinced by a subjective experience.

Don't make me use this,

 

[ambush80]

Don't make me use this,

You are a bizarre example of a Christian. I must admit I'm thoroughly confused as to how you think that your belief has made you a better person.

 

[RegularJoe]

Your welcome, but it isn't my list. It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth. As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause." I ignore them for the most part. I'm
gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.

Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled
Evolutions' Achilles Heel. It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription. My kids are actually watching it again this week. I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do. It takes a honest look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws. I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.

Thanks Semper.
i look forward to it with interest.
Meanwhile ..... so far here are what my views to date have become ~
Based upon the scientific community's own self defined "Scientific Process" aka "Scientific Method" and extensive life long studies on my part on evolution related fossil information + related geological information 'macro-evolution,' aka 'speciation,' fits perfectly as a scientific hypothesis, but to grant it the status of theory is utterly inconsistent with the Scientific Process/Method.
Meanwhile, 'micro-evolution' does meet the definition of at least a scientific theory.

 

[WaltL1]

Your welcome, but it isn't my list. It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth. As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause." I ignore them for the most part. I'm
gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.

Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled
Evolutions' Achilles Heel. It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription. My kids are actually watching it again this week. I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do. It takes a honest look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws. I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.

David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth.

Is that what impresses you about him? His dedication the truth?
Or is it this? -

A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement

.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Thanks Semper.
i look forward to it with interest.
Meanwhile ..... so far here are what my views to date have become ~
Based upon the scientific community's own self defined "Scientific Process" aka "Scientific Method" and extensive life long studies on my part on evolution related fossil information + related geological information 'macro-evolution,' aka 'speciation,' fits perfectly as a scientific hypothesis, but to grant it the status of theory is utterly inconsistent with the Scientific Process/Method.
Meanwhile, 'micro-evolution' does meet the definition of at least a scientific theory.

Here's the trailer. You can rent the movie for 3.99,
I found the parts on genetics and origins of life fascinating and the segment on fossil record was also.

 

[ambush80]

Thanks Semper.
i look forward to it with interest.
Meanwhile ..... so far here are what my views to date have become ~
Based upon the scientific community's own self defined "Scientific Process" aka "Scientific Method" and extensive life long studies on my part on evolution related fossil information + related geological information 'macro-evolution,' aka 'speciation,' fits perfectly as a scientific hypothesis, but to grant it the status of theory is utterly inconsistent with the Scientific Process/Method.
Meanwhile, 'micro-evolution' does meet the definition of at least a scientific theory.

How much "guessing" are you willing to accept?

Given that the best that science can do is offer a best guess about anything at any given time, which guesses are you willing to accept? How about the part that helped create cellphones? At the quantum level we don't REALLY know how that part of cell phone works but we call what we understand about it a theory (in the scientific sense) and use it to predict and innovate. I feel that the same amount and same type of "guessing" is involved with the Theory of Evolution and it's equally useful for its explanatory and predictive properties.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Is that what impresses you about him? His dedication the truth?
Or is it this? -
.

 

[RegularJoe]

You have to be more specific with what you mean by "doing God's will". That could mean all kinds of things. I'll assume you mean "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself". Those seem to be the ones that most Christians agree on, though it gets dicey when you get into the details of what "loving your neighbor" could mean ..... What do you think doing God's will means?

Yes, consistent with your above .... "doing God's will" is typically summarized with direct summary quotes from the Bible as:
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind & strength. + Love your neighbor as yourself/aka, do to others as you would have them do to you.
Then :- ) the question becomes .... "Okay, Mac, what is that supposed to mean?"
i am not saying i have it figured out; however, i will say that by slowly reading the Bible a page at a time over a 3 or 4 years i gained my own collective perspective (not that of some TV evangelist) .....
A way to gain one's own perspective with no Bible thumper influence is using a manageable schedule such as the type found at www.TheBible.bz, for example.
The Bible disappointed me &, i anticipate, will continue to do so in this regard ....
i expected it to answer all my questions.
It did not.
I ended up with probably lots more;
however, no religious texts or physics/chemistry/astronomy manuals or astrology books answered all my questions either.
The following is not i saying i am a Christian or a Martian or a boll weevil or an agnostic ....
i will say the Bible answered more questions for me than any other reference source(s).

 

[SemperFiDawg]

or perhaps

 

[WaltL1]

Not interested.
The ridiculousness of his points that you posted is all I need to see.

 

[ambush80]

Yes, consistent with your above .... "doing God's will" is typically summarized with direct summary quotes from the Bible as:
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind & strength. + Love your neighbor as yourself/aka, do to others as you would have them do to you.
Then :- ) the question becomes .... "Okay, Mac, what is that supposed to mean?"
i am not saying i have it figured out; however, i will say that by slowly reading the Bible a page at a time over a 3 or 4 years i gained my own collective perspective (not that of some TV evangelist) .....
A way to gain one's own perspective with no Bible thumper influence is using a manageable schedule such as the type found at www.TheBible.bz, for example.
The Bible disappointed me &, i anticipate, will continue to do so in this regard ....
i expected it to answer all my questions.
It did not.
I ended up with probably lots more;
however, no religious texts or physics/chemistry/astronomy manuals or astrology books answered all my questions either.
The following is not i saying i am a Christian or a Martian or a boll weevil or an agnostic ....
i will say the Bible answered more questions for me than any other reference source(s).

What were your questions and what were the answers?

 

[RegularJoe]

How much "guessing" are you willing to accept?
the .... of Evolution and it's equally useful for its explanatory and predictive properties.

i am fully/entirely willing to accept all that is prescribed by the scientific community within their own self defined process that they entitled "The Scientific Process, aka The Scientific Method."

 

[ky55]

The Bible disappointed me &, i anticipate, will continue to do so in this regard ....
i expected it to answer all my questions.
It did not.
I ended up with probably lots more;
however, no religious texts or physics/chemistry/astronomy manuals or astrology books answered all my questions either.

Yeah it disappointed me too.
I expected more from a book that was supposed to be the inerrant and inspired product of a divine being.
It always seemed to generate more questions, and produced no more answers than the other books you mentioned.

 

[ambush80]

i am fully/entirely willing to accept all that is prescribed by the scientific community within their own self defined process that they entitled "The Scientific Process, aka The Scientific Method."

By your use of italics it seems to me that you believe there are phenomena that the scientific method can't reveal anything about. Is that right?

 

[bullethead]

Please consider the following a non-fake-news news report, NOT an 'opinion editorial.'

i am not saying that you would actually wish to try the following
(it will only be perceived thru your senses - yet all **rational thought is perceived thru senses, as well);
however, i KNOW it has provided personal revelation* for some folks who have tried it.
(& i am not saying it applies to me, bro) ......
John 7:17 - [a quote from Jesus Christ]
"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."
What said folks decided was that, for them, it was worth a try (one commented, 'Didn't cost me much to try, just a little time, a few days) .... and for them, something happened that they say 'stuck.'

Wasn't John the last of the gospels that was written? How did that author quote Jesus?

 

[oldfella1962]

i am fully/entirely willing to accept all that is prescribed by the scientific community within their own self defined process that they entitled "The Scientific Process, aka The Scientific Method."

the scientific method can be used very effectively by everyone of all education levels and occupations and cultures in nearly every scenario we can conceive of.
In my opinion it's the cornerstone of rational thought and common sense problem solving and innovation.

That said no one major religion today has much applicable spill-over into any other major religion - or at least not enough to keep us from going to that religion's version of eternal torture for not making the grade.

 

[TripleXBullies]

That said no one major religion today has much applicable spill-over into any other major religion - or at least not enough to keep us from going to that religion's version of eternal torture for not making the grade.

When I first read this I thought you meant that religions are too dissimilar which prevents people from going back and forth between religions. Then I re-read it and it looks like you're saying the opposite. Which is it?

 

[ambush80]

Here's the trailer. You can rent the movie for 3.99,
I found the parts on genetics and origins of life fascinating and the segment on fossil record was also.

I looked into this movie a little bit. Here's Dr. Rob Carter, one of the scientists that's highlighted in the movie:



At one minute in he says that he starts with a set of assumptions. He says that every world view has to start with a set of assumptions. His assumptions are that God exists and that He speaks to us through the Bible. He then goes on to say that the assumptions underpinning the Evolutionary World View starts with the assumption that there's no God and that natural processes explain "EVERYTHING" (his emphasis). He says that evolutionists claim that "God is not active in the Universe and is therefore unnecessary".

Anybody else see anything screwy yet?