The Christian Agnostic

[Cypress]

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 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".

So on the one hand you claim all knowledge can be aquired by setting up a test with the null hypothesis.


But then when presented with deep and profound ontological questions about the nature of reality that can't be answered, you shrug your shoulders and mutter 'so what?'


This is why Marcellus Gleiser is saying that atheism is a form of bad scientific practice. They don't even perceive the limitations of knowledge, don't apprehend the limitations of science, and when shown a very important limitation they just mutter 'so what.'

 

[Yakuda]

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)

Interesting idea. I think the suggestion that many agnostics are closer to belief in the "true" God than many churchgoers is suspect. I think people confuse the behavior of churchgoers with belief and conclude wrongly that church going is bad or unnecessary. The first question is does God exist. That's a yes or no question. The idea there "isnt enough evidence" is weak.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So on the one hand you claim all knowledge can be aquired by setting up a test with the null hypothesis.

oh God no! I never said that. In fact I explicitly stated the obvious. No knowledge can be perfectly acquired, specifically "all knowledge". I thought that was clear from the explanation.

But then when presented with deep and profound ontological questions about the nature of reality that can't be answered, you shrug your shoulders and mutter 'so what?'

Because they are meaningless. Even Hawking felt the question "what happened before the big bang" was a meaningless question. No one knows. Which is fine. It doesn't "open the door" to some supernatural entities or concepts. It is simply an unknown.

The problem with religious thought is that "unknown" is problematic. It is unsatisfying which is why we make up gods and supernatural things.

This is why Marcellus Gleiser is saying that atheism is a form of bad scientific practice. They don't even perceive the limitations of knowledge, don't apprehend the limitations of science, and when shown a very important limitation they just mutter 'so what.'

And I believe I've explained how it EXACTLY PERCEIVES THE LIMITATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE. In fact it is FAR BETTER at it than some ex cathedra religious claim which is usually just made up stuff.

 

[Cypress]

Interesting idea. I think the suggestion that many agnostics are closer to belief in the "true" God than many churchgoers is suspect. I think people confuse the behavior of churchgoers with belief and conclude wrongly that church going is bad or unnecessary. The first question is does God exist. That's a yes or no question. The idea there "isnt enough evidence" is weak.

I think a lot of polls on religious belief should trends in the increase of the unaffiliated - people who don't want to belong to a church tradition, but haven't exactly signed up with a strictly materialistic and reductionist view of life and the universe.


A lot of holy rollers accuse me of being atheist, while a lot of atheists accuse me of being a bible thumper.

 

[BidenPresident]

I think a lot of polls on religious belief should trends in the increase of the unaffiliated - people who don't want to belong to a church tradition, but haven't exactly signed up with a strictly materialistic and reductionist view of life and the universe.


A lot of holy rollers accuse me of being atheist, while a lot of atheists accuse me of being a bible thumper.

Mostly, though, you are obsessed with yourself.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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)

All good points. The same can be said of Buddhism; one can see Buddhist principles as a way of life and drop the theological aspects of Theravada or Tibetan Buddhism.

The similarities of major religions is a key factor, IMO: Don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't harm others, etc.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Mostly, though, you are obsessed with yourself.

^^^
The woman who labels others trolls.

 

[BidenPresident]

Doc Dutch=Stalker

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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/

Atheism, like Theism, is a belief; they both believe something to be true which cannot ever be proven true.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Do you apply it across the board in your daily life?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I think a lot of polls on religious belief should trends in the increase of the unaffiliated - people who don't want to belong to a church tradition, but haven't exactly signed up with a strictly materialistic and reductionist view of life and the universe.


A lot of holy rollers accuse me of being atheist, while a lot of atheists accuse me of being a bible thumper.

In once interacted with an agnostic who blew his lid when I attempted to point out the theologically difficult (upleasant) aspects of the Old Testament version of God. They also espoused Christ as a moral teacher while apparently considering one of Christ's central messages a joke apparently.

It's easy enough for people to label themselves one way while not really necessarily thinking their position through all the way. This leads to some degree of question about what a person's actual position is.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Doc Dutch=Stalker

You call everyone who disagrees with you a stalker, dear, yet you're the one constantly trolling others with bullshit. I've yet to see you post a single, detailed intellectual post. These are your last ten posts today:

Serendipity=Troll

Yakuda=Stalker

Yes, poor tree!

I get 10 notifications from him every day for the past 3 years.

Pointless to debate the Trump is Messiah crowd.

Mostly, though, you are obsessed with yourself.

GOP will always be around. They are the oligarchy.

Weak in what way? It's weak to be a law abiding nation?!

I am good with putting him on the cross like Jesus.

Doc Dutch=Stalker

 

[Cypress]

oh God no! I never said that. In fact I explicitly stated the obvious. No knowledge can be perfectly acquired, specifically "all knowledge". I thought that was clear from the explanation.



Because they are meaningless. Even Hawking felt the question "what happened before the big bang" was a meaningless question. No one knows. Which is fine. It doesn't "open the door" to some supernatural entities or concepts. It is simply an unknown.

The problem with religious thought is that "unknown" is problematic. It is unsatisfying which is why we make up gods and supernatural things.



And I believe I've explained how it EXACTLY PERCEIVES THE LIMITATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE. In fact it is FAR BETTER at it than some ex cathedra religious claim which is usually just made up stuff.

Asking why the big bang happened, or why the universe seems finely tuned and predictably ordered are not meaningless questions.


They just aren't scientific questions, as best we can ascertain.


Talking about testing these questions against the null hypothesis is what is actually meaningless.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Asking why the big bang happened, or why the universe seems finely tuned and predictably ordered are not meaningless questions.

But just because one doesn't know the answer (and one may NEVER know the answer) it doesn't mean there's a potential role for any thing supernatural. My point being that just because something is unknown or unknowable doesn't mean it opens the door to anyone's favorite imagination.

They just aren't scientific questions, as best we can ascertain.

Who is this "we"? Seems like they could very much be valid scientific questions.

Talking about testing these questions against the null hypothesis is what is actually meaningless.

Not at all. The application of the null hypothesis is simply scientific discipline. ALL QUESTIONS can be approached scientifically. If they can't then there's no reason to believe the question has any value.

 

[Cypress]

All good points. The same can be said of Buddhism; one can see Buddhist principles as a way of life and drop the theological aspects of Theravada or Tibetan Buddhism.

The similarities of major religions is a key factor, IMO: Don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't harm others, etc.

I think there's a cultural context that comes into play. In western traditions, we just tend to be more aware and in tune with the tapestry of the New Testament and it's concepts of the ethical life and moral imperatives.

Somebody who grew up in Southeast Asia might not be a practicing Buddhist, but they could have a cultural affinity for the Mahayana tradition

 

[Cypress]

But just because one doesn't know the answer (and one may NEVER know the answer) it doesn't mean there's a potential role for any thing supernatural. My point being that just because something is unknown or unknowable doesn't mean it opens the door to anyone's favorite imagination.



Who is this "we"? Seems like they could very much be valid scientific questions.



Not at all. The application of the null hypothesis is simply scientific discipline. ALL QUESTIONS can be approached scientifically. If they can't then there's no reason to believe the question has any value.

I never wrote, or even suggested that unattainable knowledge we cannot acquire proves anything about the transcendant.

I am agnostic about it.

It's atheists and holy rollers who leap to conclusions.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It's atheists and holy rollers who leap to conclusions.

But you aren't agnostic about other unanswered questions in your life. I know this for a fact.

There MIGHT be an invisible wall built across the sidewalk you are walking on. You don't know for sure there isn't...it's invisible. Do you still walk apace without worry? It's NOT because you are 100% certain there is no invisible wall across the sidewalk, but you estimate the likelihood as being very near zero and you keep walking quickly without worry.

All you've done in terms of the "big questions" is simply erect a special case where you don't allow yourself to treat the questions the way you do all other questions in your daily life.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I think there's a cultural context that comes into play. In western traditions, we just tend to be more aware and in tune with the tapestry of the New Testament and it's concepts of the ethical life and moral imperatives.

I disagree. Even those who think Jesus was a "moral teacher" can't seem to grasp the message and often violate it in the most overt manner.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Who all believes this is god? Be honest!

 

[Yakuda]

Who all believes this is god? Be honest!

You