The Christian Agnostic

C

Cypress

"Cypress you motherfucking whore!"
Weatherhead's premise for writing the book is that there are a significant number of people who are strongly drawn to the basic teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, but aren't willing to sign on the dotted line to all the details of the theological constructs and rituals of the established churches.

"The Christian Agnostic"
by Leslie B. Weatherhead, Methodist Bishop of London

Quoted from the back cover of book: " 'I believe passionately that Christianity is a way of life, not a theological system with which one must be in intellectual agreement.' Dr. Weatherhead contends that the theological demands of Christianity are a barrier to an honest participation by a great number of people and that many agnostics are much closer to belief in the true God than many churchgoers. It is from this viewpoint that he writes in this unconventional book. He makes a strong case for his contention that loyalty to Christ and to his spirit can go hand in hand with the rejection of unlikely theological dogma and creed. Traditionalists may be shocked by the opinions expressed here; others will welcome them.


https://impression-books.com/products/the-christian-agnostic-paperback-leslie-d-weatherhead-1
Click to expand...


Leslie Dixon Weatherhead (14 October 1893 – 5 January 1976) was an English Christian theologian in the liberal Protestant tradition. Weatherhead was noted for his preaching ministry at City Temple in London and for his book The Christian Agnostic (Wikipedia)
 
Cypress said:
Weatherhead's premise for writing the book is that there is a significant number of people who are strongly drawn to the basic teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, but aren't willing to sign on the dotted line to all the details of the theological constructs and rituals of the established churches.
Click to expand...

So what do you consider yourself? Given your vast reading on moral teachings, how does Christ line up for you in that department?

As an atheist I can understand this position. I see a lot of value in many aspects of Christ's teachings but I am not a believer in the supernatural aspects. And it was the millieu I was raised in so it feels comfortable culturally.
 
Telocollinite said:
So what do you consider yourself? Given your vast reading on moral teachings, how does Christ line up for you in that department?

As an atheist I can understand this position. I see a lot of value in many aspects of Christ's teachings but I am not a believer in the supernatural aspects. And it was the millieu I was raised in so it feels comfortable culturally.
Click to expand...

I am currently agnostic.
 
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Its past recipients include scientific luminaries such as Sir Martin Rees and Freeman Dyson, as well as religious or political leaders such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

Across his 35-year scientific career, Gleiser’s research has covered a wide breadth of topics, ranging from the properties of the early universe to the behavior of fundamental particles and the origins of life. But in awarding him its most prestigious honor, the Templeton Foundation chiefly cited his status as a leading public intellectual revealing “the historical, philosophical and cultural links between science, the humanities and spirituality.” He is also the first Latin American to receive the prize.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/
 
Cypress said:
Weatherhead's premise for writing the book is that there are a significant number of people who are strongly drawn to the basic teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, but aren't willing to sign on the dotted line to all the details of the theological constructs and rituals of the established churches.




Leslie Dixon Weatherhead (14 October 1893 – 5 January 1976) was an English Christian theologian in the liberal Protestant tradition. Weatherhead was noted for his preaching ministry at City Temple in London and for his book The Christian Agnostic (Wikipedia)
Click to expand...

So, believe whatever you want. What is the controversy?
 
Cypress said:
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Its past recipients include scientific luminaries such as Sir Martin Rees and Freeman Dyson, as well as religious or political leaders such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

Across his 35-year scientific career, Gleiser’s research has covered a wide breadth of topics, ranging from the properties of the early universe to the behavior of fundamental particles and the origins of life. But in awarding him its most prestigious honor, the Templeton Foundation chiefly cited his status as a leading public intellectual revealing “the historical, philosophical and cultural links between science, the humanities and spirituality.” He is also the first Latin American to receive the prize.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/
Click to expand...

Templeton is a pro-Christian organization out to promote religion.
 
Cypress said:
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Its past recipients include scientific luminaries such as Sir Martin Rees and Freeman Dyson, as well as religious or political leaders such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

Across his 35-year scientific career, Gleiser’s research has covered a wide breadth of topics, ranging from the properties of the early universe to the behavior of fundamental particles and the origins of life. But in awarding him its most prestigious honor, the Templeton Foundation chiefly cited his status as a leading public intellectual revealing “the historical, philosophical and cultural links between science, the humanities and spirituality.” He is also the first Latin American to receive the prize.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/
Click to expand...

He's incorrect. Atheism follows the scientific method quite well.

You ALWAYS start with the "null hypothesis" (in this case "There is no God") and you test against that. Many of us who are atheists did that very thing. We observed the world as best we knew how and accepting that we are inherently flawed observers we simply made the most likely choice that we are unable to reject the null hypothesis with some degree of uncertainty.

That's literally the ONLY THING anyone can do with regards to God.

The agnostic feels the question can never be answered so they cannot commit to any side, but the atheist understands that there's almost NO QUESTION IN THE UNIVERSE that can be answered with perfect 100% knowledge. So EVERY choice we make is predicated on the "likelihood" of not being incorrect.

You will note that as an atheist I NEVER say "There is no God". I simply fail to see evidence that there is.

That's 100% science.
 
BidenPresident said:
Templeton is a pro-Christian organization out to promote religion.
Click to expand...

The atheist scientists who have won the Templeton award do not agree with you.

Atheist scientists Richard Dawkins,[12] Harry Kroto[13] and Jerry Coyne have criticized the prize as "blurring [religion's] well-demarcated border with science" and being awarded "to scientists who are either religious themselves or say nice things about religion",[14] a criticism rejected by 2011 laureate Martin Rees, who pointed to his own and other laureates' atheism and that their research in fields such as psychology, evolutionary biology, and economy can hardly be classified as the "promotion of religion".[14]

Wikipedia
 
Cypress said:
The atheist scientists who have won the Templeton award do not agree with you.

Atheist scientists Richard Dawkins,[12] Harry Kroto[13] and Jerry Coyne have criticized the prize as "blurring [religion's] well-demarcated border with science" and being awarded "to scientists who are either religious themselves or say nice things about religion",[14] a criticism rejected by 2011 laureate Martin Rees, who pointed to his own and other laureates' atheism and that their research in fields such as psychology, evolutionary biology, and economy can hardly be classified as the "promotion of religion".[14]

Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I don't care about those people. And wiki is for neophytes.
 
Cypress said:
From what I have read, Weatherhead was controversial in his day for giving credibility to an agnostic flavor of Christianity
Click to expand...

If he was talking about Huxleyan Agnosticism I'm curious how he compared that with the "Weak Atheist" position (the one I outlined in my previous post). As a scientist it is ABSOLUTELY fine to fail to reject the null hypothesis since it is implicit that there is possibility of doubt or error.

The Huxleyan Agnostic, on the other hand, as I understand it, simply feels that there is NO WAY to answer the question. I suspect it is a sense of no way to answer the question with perfect knowledge. But then one can't usually support a universal negative claim.

We all assume "there are no unicorns" but, indeed, there MIGHT be unicorns. The scientist would say "I fail to reject the null hypothesis that there are no unicorns" with the assumption that maybe somewhere hidden away is a unicorn but as of now there is no evidence for said unicorn and it is quite logically robust to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Everyone does it every single day.
 
Telocollinite said:
He's incorrect. Atheism follows the scientific method quite well.

You ALWAYS start with the "null hypothesis" (in this case "There is no God") and you test against that. Many of us who are atheists did that very thing. We observed the world as best we knew how and accepting that we are inherently flawed observers we simply made the most likely choice that we are unable to reject the null hypothesis with some degree of uncertainty.

That's literally the ONLY THING anyone can do with regards to God.

The agnostic feels the question can never be answered so they cannot commit to any side, but the atheist understands that there's almost NO QUESTION IN THE UNIVERSE that can be answered with perfect 100% knowledge. So EVERY choice we make is predicated on the "likelihood" of not being incorrect.

You will note that as an atheist I NEVER say "There is no God". I simply fail to see evidence that there is.

That's 100% science.
Click to expand...

The null hypothesis is only relevant in cases of testable hypothesis. It's applicable to data and observations conducive to empirical inquiry.

A transcendent ultimate reality some call god, some call Brahman, some call the Tao is not a testable hypothesis.
 
Cypress said:
The null hypothesis is only relevant in cases of testable hypothesis.
Click to expand...

If God is real then he's a testable hypothesis.

A transcendent ultimate reality some call god, some call Brahman, some call the Tao is not a testable hypothesis.
Click to expand...

That's just special pleading. If God is real or has a component that exists in the real world then he is a testable hypothesis. If he is unfalsifiable then he is of no value or use to anyone.

Furthermore: if someone claims knowledge of God's reality then they clearly feel they have sufficient evidence for him. I have never seen any such evidence which is compelling.
 
Telocollinite said:
If God is real then he's a testable hypothesis.



That's just special pleading. If God is real or has a component that exists in the real world then he is a testable hypothesis. If he is unfalsifiable then he is of no value or use to anyone.

Furthermore: if someone claims knowledge of God's reality then they clearly feel they have sufficient evidence for him. I have never seen any such evidence which is compelling.
Click to expand...

We've already established in other threads that there are more kinds of knowledge than scientific knowledge.

The intelligent and thoughtful person also realizes there is most likely knowledge we will never know or fathom. Either because our souped up chimpanzee brains don't know how to ask the right questions, or we wouldn't understand the answers if they were handed to us.


I believe Marcelo Gleiser is recognizing there are limits to science and it's hubris to believe we can achieve omniscience.
 
Cypress said:
We've already established in other threads that there are more kinds of knowledge than scientific knowledge.

The intelligent and thoughtful person also realizes there is most likely knowledge we will never know or fathom. Either because our souped up chimpanzee brains don't know how to ask the right questions, or we wouldn't understand the answers if they were handed to us.


I believe Marcelo Gleiser is recognizing there are limits to science and it's hubris to believe we can achieve omniscience.
Click to expand...

If you read my post you'd see that I EXPLICITLY agreed that there can be limits to knowledge. But I also showed how most people function with that kind of knowledge limitation.

That's the beauty of science: it explicitly acknowledges the limitations but it can still function to make decisions predicated on likelihood.

I am genuinely curious why this part of the scientific process is so controversial for some.
 
Telocollinite said:
If you read my post you'd see that I EXPLICITLY agreed that there can be limits to knowledge. But I also showed how most people function with that kind of knowledge limitation.

That's the beauty of science: it explicitly acknowledges the limitations but it can still function to make decisions predicated on likelihood.

I am genuinely curious why this part of the scientific process is so controversial for some.
Click to expand...

There is no science currently, and none anywhere in the foreseeable future that can explain and give us knowledge on why the big bang happened, why physical reality is hung on a mathematical scaffolding, why there are physical constants, and why the cosmos seems finely tuned to allow for matter, predictable order, and life.

That's the kind of thing that breeds humility in sentient people who don't believe in scientism.
 
Cypress said:
There is no science currently, and none anywhere in the foreseeable future that can explain and give us knowledge on why the big bang happened, why physical reality is hung on a mathematical scaffolding, why there are physical constants, and why the cosmos seems finely tuned to allow for matter, predictable order, and life.
Click to expand...

And the obvious question is: So What? Doesn't make anything supernatural any more or less likely and certainly NO HUMAN has any knowledge that can explain any of those things. If they did it could be TESTED and fall into the field of science.


That's the kind of thing that breeds humility in sentient people who don't believe in scientism.
Click to expand...

That isn't humility. Science is the real humility in that it explicitly states there is the possibility of error. Usually those espousing a religious point of view brook NO ERROR. Why should they? They think they have a bead on the "ultimate truth" but of course cannot convince anyone else because it's "untestable".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top