Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

  photo genetics-at-work2_zps99d2db59.jpg


Colin Blakemore (Neuroscience, Oxford) argues that Science is just one gene away from defeating religion.[1] Despite his great advancement in that scientific field he demonstrates a very callow understanding of religion. Thus we must once again assume that is just another case of the golden ghetto. Or perhaps the ivory ghetto. A very advanced person in a scientific field is not necessarily qualified to apply scinece to religion. This post modern age reveals more and more the tower similarities between culture and the tower of Babel story.

Blakemore reveals in his opening paragraph that he says the relationship bewteen religion and science as "a ches match." It's adversarial, it's a combat. Thus advances in science are automatically viewed as detraction for religion. He intimates this when he says that the discoveries of Watson and Crick were a defeat for religion because previously life was a mystery that implied spiritual magic. So this guy is not on bard with understanding religion in modern terms. He wants to see it as some long ago thing that scinece is beating up on. This is obviously ideological. Just the frame in which he views the topic is an ideological framework.

 What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was certainly a vital move in that chess game - if not checkmate. In an interview for God and the Scientists, to be broadcast tonight in Channel 4's series on Christianity, Richard Dawkins declares: "Darwin removed the main argument for God's existence."[2]
 Of course it's Dawkins that prompted him to think this way. He admits that wasn't Darwin's intention. He's probably thinking religion means fundamentalism, inerrancy, conservative views.

 Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation, provoking denial or surrender from the church. Christian leaders, even the Catholic church, have reluctantly accommodated the discoveries of scientists, with the odd burning at the stake and excommunication along the way.[3]
 He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not. He barely hides his utter contempt for relgion:

The process of Christian accommodation is a bit like the fate of fieldmice confronted by a combine harvester, continuously retreating into the shrinking patch of uncut wheat.
Ten days ago, on Darwin's birthday, Richard Dawkins, Archbishop of Atheism, and Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford, conducted a public conversation in the Oxford University Museum, where Bishop Sam Wilberforce and Darwin's champion, Thomas Henry Huxley, had debated Darwin's ideas in 1860. The two Richards were more civilised. But inevitably, Richard H claimed for religion a territory that science can never invade, a totally safe sanctuary for Christian fieldmice. Science is brilliant at questions that start "how", but religion is the only approach to questions that start "why". Throughout history, human beings have asked those difficult "why" questions.[4]
I am sure the Christian filed mice are snug in their pretend sanctuary where they refuse to worship scinece as he does. Does he ever actually get down to business about the genetic thing? His segway is that he tires to connect the universality of religion to the universality of language. Language is genetic and universe. so therefore the universal nature of religion must also be due to genetics.[5] That does not follow logically, it's a argument from sign. It doesn't follow scientifically either but we will check in on that in a minute. The problem with the argument he's setting up is that it's a straight assumption that God can't work through genetics. Any religion gene is a disproof of God becuase it removes the only reasons to believe in God, which according to him seems to be unexplained naturalistic phenomena. The only kind of God he can figure out people believe in is the God of the gaps. In other words he's never read a major theologian and he has no sophistication in dealing with religion.

Now he recognizes the obvious answer as being that God can use genes. Yet he has an answer for this. We are social animals. We feel that we are in charge of our actions but more and more those who study the brain are coming to believe that we are not. Which in fact is a Non sequiturbecause it doesn't answer the issue of genes as a disproof of God or arguemnt from sign. But Blakemore's reticense is incapsulated in the final paragraph of his article:
I'm dubious about those "why" questions: why are we here? Why do we have a sense of right and wrong? Either they make no sense or they can be recast as the kind of "how" questions that science answers so well.
When we understand how our brains generate religious ideas, and what the Darwinian adaptive value of such brain processes is, what will be left for religion?[6]
So He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs? The basic argument appears to be that if there's a gene for religion then our religious ideas are coming from genes, we have choice in thinking of them, that's supposed to disprove God. Actually I think it proves a Calvinistic God pretty well. With Calvin we are predestined. That would fit the bit about we don't think up our own ideas. Again the atheist/scientism agenda fails to offer real disproof. All if offers is another stab at deflating the fundamentalist view of God.

Science reporter Nicholas Wade offers insight into the real arguments for genetically based religion. The basic argument is the evolutionary nature of religion. Religion begins in the preparative states of humanity and grows up with the species become more sophisticated and various junctures from simple agricultural dances and decoration sophisticated astronomical observations.[7] So the advocates of the gentic basis for religion are making ideological assumptions about the nature of social evolution. They are assuming that all behavior is genetic and anything that becomes more complex with man must be the result of genes. That's still arguemnt from sign. No real proof exists for that view it's only tenable if you are a determinist. Moreover it's not really a disproof of God in any way.

Isn't there some science magic that you work in a laboratory wearing a white coat and you look into a test tube and it turns blue and you "yes it's evil reilgion gene alright." No that is not. It's far too complex to do that. It's all about theorizing and the theories for religious gene are largely concocted by people who want to destroy religion, such evolutionary psychology adherents.Dean Hamer tries to make an argument for God gene identifying a specific gene, VMAT2;[8]  There has been stiff scientific criticism of this claim even from people who one would think would support it. Atheist guru P.Z. Myers (who is a big named biologist) rejects it on the grounds that VMAT2 is just  "...a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.[9]

There are two basic counter arguments that take care of this assumption about a religion gene:



1: no basis for religious gene

Blakmore himself tells us that our brains "light up" (respond by beginning to work more) when we hear God talk. That's really the basic idea, along with the universality issue, of proving a God gene. But that is not proof of a gene.

There are plenty of scientists who do not think that religion is an adaptation. The adaptations it view is one school, it is not a done deal. The counter argument among evolutionary theorists is that religion is a “spandrel” or a side effect of genetic structure but not produced by a gene for that behavior. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the data on the “God pod” and don’t believe that there is a “God module” or that religious behavior is inherited through a specific gene or a part of the brain. Lee A Kirkpatrick, director of graduate studies in psychology at William and Mary, tells us:

In sum, the moderate habitability of religion, like the identification of a particular brain region, associated with religious experience, tells us virtually nothing about weather religion is the result of an adaptive evolved mechanism designed to produce it. In particular neither should be construed as evidence for an adaptive religion mechanism or system.[10]

According to Kirkpatrick it's way too early to claim there's a God Gene. There's no way to sort out that it's a real gene or just a combination of other genetic traits. Even if there is such a gene that is not a defeat for religion.
One of the main problems with arguing for a God gene is that the kinds of explanations often used to justify it are piecemeal and don't work in terms of genetic theory. For example a common one is cooperation. Religion makes people  more cooperative. So people cooperate and that is why they adapt becuase it's an advantage. Or gives hope it gets them through the winter.
 Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation.[11]
 That sort of makes one think of genes as little guys holding committee meetings in your head and planning strategy. If it's that cut and dried why not just make a gene for cooperation and cut out the religious mumbo jumo? If it's just an alteration of existing function, then individual conscious decisions may be involved after all. Or, were we provided those functions that we might discover God? The kinds of explainations that require a purpose are counter to the nature of adaptation anyway. As Kirkpatrick explains: "Natural selection is blind to purely psychological effects because being happy in itself does not cause more copies of happiness causing genes to dominate subsequent generations."[12] They can't show adaptability because they can't show it enhances gene frequency. After all some aspects of religion counter to gene frequency such as celibacy?

 2: Religious Gene is good argument for God

Nicholas Wade tells us neither side is threatened by a God gene:

But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods. For believers, if one accepts that evolution has shaped the human body, why not the mind too? What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned.[13]
So the explainations fall apart, the big coincidence is looming: the thing the atheists and evolutionary psychologists hate the most and seek to destroy with their worship of science is the one best answer to why there would be a gene for God: God put it there. It's counter to the nature of adaptation. Genes can't contrive to plan how to make us more cooperative or give us warm fuzzies to get us through the winter. The nature of adaptation is not a committee of homunculi that seeks to make human life happier and more efficient. Nor can genes understand concepts. We are not born with innate knowledge, that has been considered a primitive and false concept since the seventeenth century. We are born with instincts but that is not the same as innate knowledge. Evolution cannot plant ideas in our minds. So our brains reacting to God talk as they do is totally unexplained and constitutes a good reason to take as a hint the basic idea of a God designed aspect of human nature.

 Andrew Newberg, one of the pioneers in researching neural activity of religious experience and God talk tells us that none of the research disproves God, in fact it can't.


…Tracing spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways. Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is mystical by default.[14]


This article is a good indication of how ideologically laden the internet is with ideological babble from a social movement that seeks to destroy all forms of knowledge that it does not control. There is no basis for the assertion that neuroscience is destroying religion and yet scientism proclaims itself victorious over all religion merely becuase it exists. At the same time sound reasons exists in the same material assumed to destroy religion which supports beilef in God yet that possibility is totally ignored.




Sources

 [1] Colin Blackemore, "Science is Just One Gene Away from Defeating Religion." The Guardian.  Originally from the Observer. 21st of Febuary, 2009. On Line:
accessed 10/29/13.
 Colin Blakemore is Professor of Neuroscience at the Universities of Oxford and Warwick. He is a member of the UK Drugs Policy Commission, but the views expressed here are his own.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nicholas Wade, "The Evolution of the God Gene," New York Times: Week in Review. Nov 14 (2009). On line http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1&
accessed 10/29/13
Nicholas Wade is a science reporter who writes about genetics.

[8] Dean Hamer, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes. New York:Anchor Books Edition, 2004, 56-119.

[9] P.Z. Myers,  "No god, and no 'god gene', either". Pharyngula.(2005-02-13) Retrieved 2012-01-29.


[10]Lee A Kirckpatrick, “Religion is Not An Adaptation,” in Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion Vol I: Evolution, Genes, and Religious Brainm .Patrick McNamara (ed). London, Westport Connecticut: Praeger. 2006. 159-180, 164.
Kirckpatrick is associate professor of psychology at William and Mary.

[11] Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, "The Origins of  Religion: Evolved Adaption or by Product." Science Direct: Trends in Cognitive Science, Volume 14, Issue 3, (March 2010), 104-109.

[12]Kirckpatric Op cit, 167.

[13] Wade, Op Cit.


[14] Andrew NewbergWhy God Won’t God AwayBrain Science and the Biology of Belief. (New York, Ballentine Books), 2001, 37,

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: Blakemore reveals in his opening paragraph that he says the relationship bewteen religion and science as "a ches match." It's adversarial, it's a combat. Thus advances in science are automatically viewed as detraction for religion. He intimates this when he says that the discoveries of Watson and Crick were a defeat for religion because previously life was a mystery that implied spiritual magic. So this guy is not on bard with understanding religion in modern terms. He wants to see it as some long ago thing that scinece is beating up on. This is obviously ideological. Just the frame in which he views the topic is an ideological framework.

When you say "religion in modern terms", what you mean is religion as Joe Hinman understands it (compare to, say, how a creationist understands religion - two very different things). Furthermore, I would suggest that that is the product of what Blakemore is describing. Your understanding of religion is necessarily a post- Watson and Crick understanding; it is religion that has been shaped by that defeat.

Joe: What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:
...
Of course it's Dawkins that prompted him to think this way. He admits that wasn't Darwin's intention. He's probably thinking religion means fundamentalism, inerrancy, conservative views.


Do you think Blakemore is wrong? Or merely amateurish? You present no counter argument, so I assume the latter.

Joe: He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

Not in anything you quoted.

Joe: So He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs?

The article title makes clear we do not yet understand the basis for religious thinking. And in fact the article offers no certainty that we ever will. As Blakemore says:

Perhaps we humans come with a false model of ourselves, which works well as a means of predicting the behaviour of other people - a belief that actions are the result of conscious intentions. Then could the pervasive human belief in supernatural forces and spiritual agents, controlling the physical world, and influencing our moral judgments, be an extension of that false logic, a misconception no more significant than a visual illusion?

It is a hypothesis, something that might be true. I imagine Blakemore is of the opinion that it is, but he offers it tentatively.

The problem is that in many ways Blakemore is right. There is a battle between religion and science, and you feel your position is under siege. Thus you must counter any attack on your world view, and hence this blog post.
im-skeptical said…
What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God: ... Of course it's Dawkins that prompted him to think this way. He admits that wasn't Darwin's intention. He's probably thinking religion means fundamentalism, inerrancy, conservative views.
- Darwin didn't intend to destroy belief in God. The scientific evidence did that for him. And Dawkins merely popularized what most scientists already understood.
JBsptfn said…
IMS: Darwin didn't intend to destroy belief in God. The scientific evidence did that for him.

Hogwash:

Science Against Evolution: Scientific American's Evolution Issue

Science Against Evolution: Scientific American's Evolution Issue 2
Joe Hinman said…
When you say "religion in modern terms", what you mean is religion as Joe Hinman understands it (compare to, say, how a creationist understands religion - two very different things). Furthermore, I would suggest that that is the product of what Blakemore is describing. Your understanding of religion is necessarily a post- Watson and Crick understanding; it is religion that has been shaped by that defeat.

First of all my view is the cutting edge liberal protestant theology that I learned in seminary. Again the little childish notion that I must be all alone, because you don't hear about liberal theology unless you go out of your way to look for it,so it must something I alone thought of,that's pretty stupid.

Secondly, the ego that must understate itself beating Opposition and defeat in some counterpoising view is really a child's ego.You have no monopoly on scientific education. there is noting in the nature of Christian theology that marks it as an enemy of science,The enemy is ignorance, so why would you make coming into the light knowledge a so source of shame and subjection for the ignorant? that's childish and counter productive and marks you as anti-intellectual.



Joe Hinman said…
Joe: What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:
...
Of course it's Dawkins that prompted him to think this way. He admits that wasn't Darwin's intention. He's probably thinking religion means fundamentalism, inerrancy, conservative views.

I thought of that and it is a good point but he doesn't distinguish,

Do you think Blakemore is wrong? Or merely amateurish? You present no counter argument, so I assume the latter.


what do you mean no counter argument? It;s pretty obvious I'm saying that the idea of religion vs science is childish the more intellectual approach is to argue the findings,I think that come across.

Joe: He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

Not in anything you quoted.

Yes, because he never gives a reason as to why science beats religion. He never says "see religion denies evolution or whatever,it's his argument so it's his burden to prove

Joe: So He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs?


7/09/2018 01:23:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
The article title makes clear we do not yet understand the basis for religious thinking. And in fact the article offers no certainty that we ever will. As Blakemore says:

Perhaps we humans come with a false model of ourselves, which works well as a means of predicting the behaviour of other people - a belief that actions are the result of conscious intentions. Then could the pervasive human belief in supernatural forces and spiritual agents, controlling the physical world, and influencing our moral judgments, be an extension of that false logic, a misconception no more significant than a visual illusion?

pretty chaotic thinking, religious people are wrong for being deterministic but only because they don't have the right kind of determinism.

It is a hypothesis, something that might be true. I imagine Blakemore is of the opinion that it is, but he offers it tentatively.

I demonstrate conclusively that there is no basis in science for understanding religion as a side show of genetic determinism,that casts doubt upon the world view he offers,

The problem is that in many ways Blakemore is right. There is a battle between religion and science, and you feel your position is under siege. Thus you must counter any attack on your world view, and hence this blog post.


that whole mentality causes me to lose respect for scientific types, It shows they are nothing more fundamentalists with fancy toys,

Fortunately I once had a it of an email correspondence with Alan Sokal so I know all scientists don't think that way.

Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God: ... Of course it's Dawkins that prompted him to think this way. He admits that wasn't Darwin's intention. He's probably thinking religion means fundamentalism, inerrancy, conservative views.
- Darwin didn't intend to destroy belief in God. The scientific evidence did that for him. And Dawkins merely popularized what most scientists already understood.

how so skep? If the reason for belief in God is not the need to explain how how develop then how cooed evolution destroy the reason to believe?

do you seriously think evolution disproves God?
im-skeptical said…
how so skep? If the reason for belief in God is not the need to explain how how develop then how cooed evolution destroy the reason to believe?

- I'm disappointed that you didn't read the article. It's quite good. It gives Darwin's thoughts on how his observations came to affect his belief in God.
Joe Hinman said…
- I'm disappointed that you didn't read the article. It's quite good. It gives Darwin's thoughts on how his observations came to affect his belief in God.

I've read it before,I wrote this thing years ago. But Darwin never thought he disproved God you are dodging the fact that you have no answer,
im-skeptical said…
But Darwin never thought he disproved God you are dodging the fact that you have no answer

- Nobody's talking about proving or disproving anything except you. The article (that I linked to) talks about his reasons for nor believing. And it's not because of Dawkins.
The Pixie said…
Joe: First of all my view is the cutting edge liberal protestant theology that I learned in seminary. Again the little childish notion that I must be all alone, because you don't hear about liberal theology unless you go out of your way to look for it,so it must something I alone thought of,that's pretty stupid.

Nevertheless, your understanding of religion is a long way from mainstream Christianity's understanding of religion, and furthermore, your understanding of religion was shaped by the numerous defeats that religion had already suffered.

Joe: Secondly, the ego that must understate itself beating Opposition and defeat in some counterpoising view is really a child's ego.You have no monopoly on scientific education. there is noting in the nature of Christian theology that marks it as an enemy of science,The enemy is ignorance, so why would you make coming into the light knowledge a so source of shame and subjection for the ignorant? that's childish and counter productive and marks you as anti-intellectual.

That is fine in theory... Then we look at the post just above yours where JBsptfn is posting links that claim evolution "is desperately fighting to survive".

Claims like that are very much anti-science, they must much highlight that Christianity really is anti-intellectual, it really is an enemy of science (at least in part).

I am sure far more Christians agree with JBsptfn than share your understanding of religion.

Joe: what do you mean no counter argument? It;s pretty obvious I'm saying that the idea of religion vs science is childish the more intellectual approach is to argue the findings,I think that come across.

I was responding to this:

"What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:"

You never say whether you think Blakemore is right or wrong with regards to Darwin destroying the reason to believe in God (and I wonder if you actually understand what that means).

Joe: He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

Pix: Not in anything you quoted.

Joe: Yes, because he never gives a reason as to why science beats religion. He never says "see religion denies evolution or whatever,it's his argument so it's his burden to prove

You are claiming that he made that definition, therefore the burden of proof is on you to support the claim that he made the defintion. You have failed to do that.

Joe: I demonstrate conclusively that there is no basis in science for understanding religion as a side show of genetic determinism,that casts doubt upon the world view he offers,

Only in your head, Joe. And only because you desperately want it to be true because your faith is under siege from religion.

Joe: that whole mentality causes me to lose respect for scientific types, It shows they are nothing more fundamentalists with fancy toys,
Fortunately I once had a it of an email correspondence with Alan Sokal so I know all scientists don't think that way.


The vast majority of scientists do not care. And are probably religious anyway! This is why the fieldmice analogy is perhaps more apt. The combine harvester of science keeps trundling on inexorably, without even acknowledging the presence of the fieldmice.
Joe Hinman said…
MeBut Darwin never thought he disproved God you are dodging the fact that you have no answer

Skepie- Nobody's talking about proving or disproving anything except you. The article (that I linked to) talks about his reasons for nor believing. And it's not because of Dawkins.


so skepie wants u to think this is just Blackmore;s little private musings about why he doesn't believe it has nothing to do disproving for beating or defeating,that's real believable until I read the title. Is that why he used the word "defeating?" science is going to defeat religion but its just my little private musimg?

this: "Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation, provoking denial or surrender from the church. Christian leaders, even the Catholic church, have reluctantly accommodated the discoveries of scientists, with the odd burning at the stake and excommunication along the way."

the constant use of militaristic imagery and beating and wining makes it so believable that he's not concerned with that.If Skepie thought belief that grass is pink and pigs have wings would help atheism he would convince himself it was really true he would really believe it.,
Joe Hinman said…
I will bet tp Pix's post after lunch
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: First of all my view is the cutting edge liberal protestant theology that I learned in seminary. Again the little childish notion that I must be all alone, because you don't hear about liberal theology unless you go out of your way to look for it,so it must something I alone thought of,that's pretty stupid.

PX: Nevertheless, your understanding of religion is a long way from mainstream Christianity's understanding of religion, and furthermore, your understanding of religion was shaped by the numerous defeats that religion had already suffered.


Do you want to be a mainstream Christian or do you want to know God?

Joe: Secondly, the ego that must understate itself beating Opposition and defeat in some counterpoising view is really a child's ego.You have no monopoly on scientific education. there is noting in the nature of Christian theology that marks it as an enemy of science,The enemy is ignorance, so why would you make coming into the light knowledge a so source of shame and subjection for the ignorant? that's childish and counter productive and marks you as anti-intellectual.

PX: That is fine in theory... Then we look at the post just above yours where JBsptfn is posting links that claim evolution "is desperately fighting to survive".

Claims like that are very much anti-science, they must much highlight that Christianity really is anti-intellectual, it really is an enemy of science (at least in part).

Yes I saw that. what did I just say? I do not propose that you become a main stream Christian,I propose that you seek Jesus.



I am sure far more Christians agree with JBsptfn than share your understanding of religion.


I doubt it. I've seen a lot of research that indicates the majority of Christians accept volition.



Joe Hinman said…
Joe: what do you mean no counter argument? It;s pretty obvious I'm saying that the idea of religion vs science is childish the more intellectual approach is to argue the findings,I think that come across.

I was responding to this:

"What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:"

You never say whether you think Blakemore is right or wrong with regards to Darwin destroying the reason to believe in God (and I wonder if you actually understand what that means).

Because I thought it was obvious that the reason to believe in God has nothing to do with how life evolved on Earth. God created the universe and Darwin had nothing to say about that,

Joe: He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

Pix: Not in anything you quoted.

clearly. One of the first things I quoted from him:"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was certainly a vital move in that chess game - if not checkmate." I would say checkmate is victory. what is it about atheism that flaws one;s reading comprehension?

Joe: Yes, because he never gives a reason as to why science beats religion. He never says "see religion denies evolution or whatever,it's his argument so it's his burden to prove

You are claiming that he made that definition, therefore the burden of proof is on you to support the claim that he made the defintion. You have failed to do that.

see the checkmate quote

Joe: I demonstrate conclusively that there is no basis in science for understanding religion as a side show of genetic determinism,that casts doubt upon the world view he offers,

Only in your head, Joe. And only because you desperately want it to be true because your faith is under siege from religion.


will you make up your mind? half the time you deny that Blackmore takes a triumphal attitude the other half you are echo that same attitude,

Joe: that whole mentality causes me to lose respect for scientific types, It shows they are nothing more fundamentalists with fancy toys,
Fortunately I once had a it of an email correspondence with Alan Sokal so I know all scientists don't think that way.

The vast majority of scientists do not care. And are probably religious anyway! This is why the fieldmice analogy is perhaps more apt. The combine harvester of science keeps trundling on inexorably, without even acknowledging the presence of the fieldmice.


that's your third attitude, you can't understand the article nor can you take a consistent approach,

7/09/2018 11:59:00 PM Delete
im-skeptical said…
so skepie wants u to think this is just Blackmore;s little private musings about why he doesn't believe it has nothing to do disproving for beating or defeating,that's real believable until I read the title. Is that why he used the word "defeating?" science is going to defeat religion but its just my little private musimg? ...the constant use of militaristic imagery and beating and wining makes it so believable that he's not concerned with that.If Skepie thought belief that grass is pink and pigs have wings would help atheism he would convince himself it was really true he would really believe it.

Hold on. All I said was that he's not trying to "prove" the non-existence of God, and I stand by that, because he never said any such thing. I wasn't signing on to to your tribalistic warfare. But it sure does sound like you are loaded for bear. In fairness, Blakemore uses the word "defeating" exactly one time, and the word "rampaged" exactly one time. I hardly think that qualifies as "constant use of militaristic imagery". And I didn't hear anything at all that sounded like "b[l]eating and wining". If he sounds triumphal, it is about the triumph of the intellect. That's something everybody ought to be able to take pleasure in - even in the face of those who have already claimed victory in the battle of ideas before the first argument is made. As the pope said, "If, however, reason ... becomes deaf to the great message that comes from the Christian faith and its wisdom, it will wither like a tree whose roots no longer reach the waters that give it life." It is the religionist's contention that reason cannot live without ceding to religion. But you don't have any problem with that.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Do you want to be a mainstream Christian or do you want to know God?

Me? I want to know what is true.

However, the point here is that your understanding of religion is one that has been shaped by the defeats that Christianity has already suffered. Your fieldmice have abandoned the field altogether, and are now living under the hedge where the combine harvester never goes.

Joe: Yes I saw that. what did I just say? I do not propose that you become a main stream Christian,I propose that you seek Jesus.

Okay, but even so there is nevertheless an anti-science aspect of Christianity.

And to be honest, we see that with you too Joe. You may accept evolution, but you are very much against any science that threatens your religious view. The recent post about the soul/spirit would be a good example. In fact any post that mentions the "scientism" bogieman.

Joe: I doubt it. I've seen a lot of research that indicates the majority of Christians accept volition.

What?

According to here around a half of Christians reject evolution. I suspect the number who understand God to be the ground of being to be a couple of percent at best.

Joe: Because I thought it was obvious that the reason to believe in God has nothing to do with how life evolved on Earth. God created the universe and Darwin had nothing to say about that,

Before Darwin, life on Earth could only be explained by religion, which was a very good reason to believe in God. Darwin took that reason away.

We live in a world where that is history, and so of course you do not see that as a reason to believe God. The origin of the universe is a reason, but it is not a particular good reason, and it is another area that that combine harvester is rapidly approaching.

Joe: He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

Pix: Not in anything you quoted.

Joe: clearly. One of the first things I quoted from him:"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was certainly a vital move in that chess game - if not checkmate." I would say checkmate is victory. what is it about atheism that flaws one;s reading comprehension?

So he said ONE scientific advancement was a victory over religion, and you have taken that to mean ALL of them are.

It is not my reading comprehension that is the issue here, Joe.

Joe: will you make up your mind? half the time you deny that Blackmore takes a triumphal attitude...

When did I say that?

Joe: that's your third attitude, you can't understand the article nor can you take a consistent approach,

No, Joe, I never said it was my attitude.
Joe Hinman said…
7/09/2018 11:59:00 PM Delete

7/10/2018 01:12:00 PM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
so skepie wants u to think this is just Blackmore;s little private musings about why he doesn't believe it has nothing to do disproving for beating or defeating,that's real believable until I read the title. Is that why he used the word "defeating?" science is going to defeat religion but its just my little private musimg? ...the constant use of militaristic imagery and beating and wining makes it so believable that he's not concerned with that.If Skepie thought belief that grass is pink and pigs have wings would help atheism he would convince himself it was really true he would really believe it.

Hold on. All I said was that he's not trying to "prove" the non-existence of God, and I stand by that, because he never said any such thing. I wasn't signing on to to your tribalistic warfare. But it sure does sound like you are loaded for bear.


I am not going to apologize for being good at what I do.


In fairness, Blakemore uses the word "defeating" exactly one time, and the word "rampaged" exactly one time. I hardly think that qualifies as "constant use of militaristic imagery".


the title is pretty central to meaning, if he is any kind of writer

And I didn't hear anything at all that sounded like "b[l]eating and wining".

you don't play chess? you don;t know what check,mate means?


If he sounds triumphal, it is about the triumph of the intellect. That's something everybody ought to be able to take pleasure in - even in the face of those who have already claimed victory in the battle of ideas before the first argument is made. As the pope said, "If, however, reason ...


you are so full of shit! you know you are! I dig the distinction between disproving God exists and disproving the value of believing the Christian narrative, I don't care, the Christian narrative is worthy believing,


becomes deaf to the great message that comes from the Christian faith and its wisdom, it will wither like a tree whose roots no longer reach the waters that give it life." It is the religionist's contention that reason cannot live without ceding to religion. But you don't have any problem with that.

New atheism dying, the atheist woodstock was huge failure,worse Trump's inauguration. there is no shortage of Christians who understand science,
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: Do you want to be a mainstream Christian or do you want to know God?

Me? I want to know what is true.

However, the point here is that your understanding of religion is one that has been shaped by the defeats that Christianity has already suffered. Your fieldmice have abandoned the field altogether, and are now living under the hedge where the combine harvester never goes.

religion has never suffered a defeat because of science, The two are not competing. no way science can defeat religion, When ignorant people learn that is not a defeat for other kinds of knowledge,when people learn it's a victory for all knowledge,

Joe: Yes I saw that. what did I just say? I do not propose that you become a main stream Christian,I propose that you seek Jesus.

Okay, but even so there is nevertheless an anti-science aspect of Christianity.


yes but only because they are discouraged from learning by ignorant people. There are lengthened Christians who are teaching they will learn. There are ignorant science people who are bigoted against religion, that doesn't make science into bigotry, it doesn't make science anti religious

And to be honest, we see that with you too Joe. You may accept evolution, but you are very much against any science that threatens your religious view. The recent post about the soul/spirit would be a good example. In fact any post that mentions the "scientism" bogieman.

that is a matter of you confusing science with ideology, you think you have to accept anti humanist views of science in order to be scientific. Because you have been brainwashed to accept ideology as science, you think scientiism is science,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: I doubt it. I've seen a lot of research that indicates the majority of Christians accept volition.

What?

auto correct screws me again, should say "evolution"

According to here around a half of Christians reject evolution. I suspect the number who understand God to be the ground of being to be a couple of percent at best.

Paul Tillich pretty popular and it's in Vatican II probably more than that. I would bet like 90% of people accept goal warming and evolution don't know the difference in truth and verisimilitude, have never heard of Carl Popper and don't understand the mechanism of natural selection. Most people are not thinkers. A lot more people accept science than know much about it ,

Joe: Because I thought it was obvious that the reason to believe in God has nothing to do with how life evolved on Earth. God created the universe and Darwin had nothing to say about that,

Before Darwin, life on Earth could only be explained by religion, which was a very good reason to believe in God. Darwin took that reason away.

that doesn't reflect negatively upon religion it just means we need to get our facts straight, and to sort out what kinds of questions we are asking.

We live in a world where that is history, and so of course you do not see that as a reason to believe God. The origin of the universe is a reason, but it is not a particular good reason, and it is another area that that combine harvester is rapidly approaching.

It's a fine reason, I kicked your ass on he discussion about my TS argent,

Joe: He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

Pix: Not in anything you quoted.

what do you think checkmate means?

Joe: clearly. One of the first things I quoted from him:"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was certainly a vital move in that chess game - if not checkmate." I would say checkmate is victory. what is it about atheism that flaws one;s reading comprehension?

So he said ONE scientific advancement was a victory over religion, and you have taken that to mean ALL of them are.

you really don't play chess, you say checkmate when the game is over,he's saying volition beats region period.

im-skeptical said…
im-skeptical: But it sure does sound like you are loaded for bear.
Joe: I am not going to apologize for being good at what I do. ... the title is pretty central to meaning, if he is any kind of writer

- Well, given your own militant attitude, it seems a bit hypocritical to be so harsh on Blackmore because he used the word "defeating".

you don't play chess? you don;t know what check,mate means?
- Of course I know what check-mate means. It's not what I would call bleating and whining.

you are so full of shit! you know you are! I dig the distinction between disproving God exists and disproving the value of believing the Christian narrative, I don't care, the Christian narrative is worthy believing
- Believing and proving are two different things. He's not talking about proving. I'm not talking about proving. You are the only one who is. And of course, you know it's a straw man, because I've heard you bleating about lack of proof too many times.

im-skeptical: It is the religionist's contention that reason cannot live without ceding to religion. But you don't have any problem with that.
Joe: New atheism dying, the atheist woodstock was huge failure,worse Trump's inauguration. there is no shortage of Christians who understand science

- Nice diversion, Trump, but you didn't answer the objection. Religionism makes reason subordinate to faith. It says so right in the catechism.


Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
oe Hinman said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
im-skeptical: But it sure does sound like you are loaded for bear.
Joe: I am not going to apologize for being good at what I do. ... the title is pretty central to meaning, if he is any kind of writer
- Well, given your own militant attitude, it seems a bit hypocritical to be so harsh on Blackmore because he used the word "defeating".

what the hell are you talking about?

you don't play chess? you don;t know what check,mate means?
- Of course I know what check-mate means. It's not what I would call bleating and whining.

what the hell are you talking about?

you are so full of shit! you know you are! I dig the distinction between disproving God exists and disproving the value of believing the Christian narrative, I don't care, the Christian narrative is worthy believing

- Believing and proving are two different things. He's not talking about proving. I'm not talking about proving. You are the only one who is. And of course, you know it's a straw man, because I've heard you bleating about lack of proof too many times.

I said beating and winning not bleating and whining, unless auto correct did it again. It makes do difference that he is not saying he disproves God he clearly is saying that science detracts from religion it does not. He clear thinks the more legit is science the less so religion is that is stupid,

im-skeptical: It is the religionist's contention that reason cannot live without ceding to religion. But you don't have any problem with that.

Using words like "religionist" marks you as a flake and a pretentious little crack pot. That promptme to cal yo "dereligionizer" and God hater.

Joe: New atheism dying, the atheist woodstock was huge failure,worse Trump's inauguration. there is no shortage of Christians who understand science
im-skeptical said…
im-skeptical: Well, given your own militant attitude, it seems a bit hypocritical to be so harsh on Blackmore because he used the word "defeating".
Joe: what the hell are you talking about?

- Your hateful attitude is more than obvious, Joe. Not to mention hypocritical.

im-skeptical: Of course I know what check-mate means. It's not what I would call bleating and whining.
Joe: what the hell are you talking about? ... I said beating and winning not bleating and whining, unless auto correct did it again.

- Evidently I mis-translated your atrocious spelling (and it was mis-spelled). You accused Blakemore of using "militaristic" language, but in fact, neither "beat" nor "win" ever appears in his article. So I have to ask you: What the hell are YOU talking about?

Please Don't blame your own mistakes on auto-correct. Perhaps you use a feature that presents word choices, which often selects the wrong word, and you don't bother to tell it the word you actually intended to use, so that accounts for why we see things like "volition" instead of "evolution". But an auto-correcting spell-checker feature would not insert mis-spelled words. Your own failure to clean up your spelling mistakes makes your comments very difficult to understand.

It makes do difference that he is not saying he disproves God he clearly is saying that science detracts from religion it does not. He clear thinks the more legit is science the less so religion is that is stupid
- I wouldn't say that "detracts" from religion. Science provides a superior way of understanding things in our world that used to be attributed to God. It is the triumph of the intellect. I know you see this as a threat, and that's why you are so outraged at what Blakemore writes, but you really need to get a grip. He is not being militant. You are.

Using words like "religionist" marks you as a flake and a pretentious little crack pot. That promptme to cal yo "dereligionizer" and God hater.
- If you used that kind of terminology when referring to me, it would be a big step up from the childish epithets that you usually employ.
Joe Hinman said…
lease Don't blame your own mistakes on auto-correct. Perhaps you use a feature that presents word choices, which often selects the wrong word, and you don't bother to tell it the word you actually intended to use, so that accounts for why we see things like "volition" instead of "evolution". But an auto-correcting spell-checker feature would not insert mis-spelled words. Your own failure to clean up your spelling mistakes makes your comments very difficult to understand.

Now you are being disingenuous and just venting hostility


I wouldn't say that "detracts" from religion. Science provides a superior way of understanding things in our world that used to be attributed to God. It is the triumph of the intellect.

only the working of the physical world not anything else, science cant save your soul or show you how to treat people.

I know you see this as a threat, and that's why you are so outraged at what Blakemore writes, but you really need to get a grip. He is not being militant. You are.

so very stupid, this is why I don;t respect you as a thinker,all you did here was rial about petty stuff trying to undermine my ideas,instead of dealing with them.

this is closed.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
"Given that many dyslexics have difficulty hearing the individual sounds in our language—a skill that underlies spelling—many dyslexics have difficulty learning to spell. ... This makes learning to spell in English more difficult than in other alphabetic orthographies where one sound is represented by only one letter."
"How should spelling be taught? | Dyslexia Help at the University of"

Link



im-skeptical said…
You are aware that many people have difficulty trying to decipher what you write. Your articles are generally better than your comments, probably because you put some effort into correcting your mistakes.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
see bozo the reason I don't edit because there is no edit button,

atheism and low self esteem

We all want to be accepted and loved. That is the crux of being human. Many of us translate that into being thought brilliant,smart or a fine thinker. I think it is primarily those who are of higher than average intelligence who do this; those of us who feel that we have not gotten our due in life and are not given the credit we deserve as thinkers. Thus, we tend to make that equation.

You are I are alike in that we both feel that way. We are in a sense competing for the same niche. We don't sympathize with each other because we can't afford to. So we hate each other deeply. But hating is contrary to being a Christian. So I try to extend olive branches but of course you can't accept that because it would be like giving up.

Atheists tend to be people who have self image problems.You crave acceptance as a thinker but your self hatred has led you to hate your creator. You have learned to mock and ridicule Christians and that gives you a sense of accomplishment and validation so stopping that process would be renouncing self validation.

Pop psychology ala Joe I am also available for children's parties.

you need to base your self esteem in something other than feeling superior to Christians,

The Pixie said…
Joe: only the working of the physical world not anything else, science cant save your soul or show you how to treat people.

Can religion? And how do you know?

All religion can offer is opinion, and lots of them. It gives us no assurance those opinions are accurate at all.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said…
Joe: only the working of the physical world not anything else, science cant save your soul or show you how to treat people.

Can religion? And how do you know?
yes because the NT is full of Jesus' teachings and they are all about how to treat people.

All religion can offer is opinion, and lots of them. It gives us no assurance those opinions are accurate at all.

wrong, I;ve already documented the effect of religious experience how it transforms life across the board,you have no atention span at all can't you remember that?
Joe Hinman said…
B. Empirical Studies show Long-Term Positive Effects of Mystical Experience

Research Summary

From Council on Spiritual Practices Website

"States of Univtive Consciousness"

Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:

(1) Studies Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.

Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.

Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.

Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

(2)Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

(3) Trend toward positive view among psychologists. Spiriutal Emergency MYSTICAL OR UNITIVE EXPERIENCE "Offsetting the clinical literature that views mystical experiences as pathological, many theorists (Bucke, 1961; Hood, 1974, 1976; James, 1961; Jung, 1973; Laski, 1968; Maslow, 1962, 1971; Stace, 1960; Underhill, 1955) have viewed mystical experiences as a sign of health and a powerful agent of transformation." (4) Most clinicians and clinical studies see postive. (Ibid) "Results of a recent survey (Allman, et al,. 1992) suggest that most clinicians do not view mystical experiences as pathological. Also, studies by several researchers have found that people reporting mystical experiences scored lower on psychopathology scales and higher on measures of psychological well-being than controls (Caird, 1987; Hood, 1976, 1977, 1979; Spanos and Moretti, 1988)".

Page 2
im-skeptical said…
You are I are alike in that we both feel that way. We are in a sense competing for the same niche. We don't sympathize with each other because we can't afford to. So we hate each other deeply. But hating is contrary to being a Christian. So I try to extend olive branches but of course you can't accept that because it would be like giving up.
- You are totally mistaken about me. You think I hate you. I don't. You think I'm always engaged in a battle, and out to win at all costs. I'm not. I don't feel the way you do, and I am not trying to fight with you. That is purely your own assumption, and you are wrong. If only YOU were interested in having a civil discussion with me, then we could do that. I have tried to tell you many times that I would prefer to discuss issues in a civilized way than to engage in a battle. And every time I try, you turn it into a personal conflict, with name-calling and accusations of stupidity, lack of education, etc. Please note that it isn't me who keeps doing this - it's you. Not long ago, I thought we had finally come to terms on all this, and that we could then proceed to have normal conversations about the topic matter. But evidently I was mistaken.

As for your spelling, I am well aware that you have a problem, and I am not unsympathetic. But many people have difficulties that they need to overcome. So they work harder to compensate for it. If the lack of an edit button is the main reason for not correcting comments that are barely readable, may I suggest that you write your comments in a text editor first? Then you can read them and make corrections before you paste them into the combox. That would be one way to show some respect for the people you are conversing with.
Anonymous said…
Joe: yes because the NT is full of Jesus' teachings and they are all about how to treat people.

But what evidence do you have that Jesus actually said them, or, if he did, that they are true? All you have is people's opinions that it is true.

Joe: wrong, I;ve already documented the effect of religious experience how it transforms life across the board,you have no attention span at all can't you remember that?

None of which tells us how to save your soul or how to treat people. You made the claim: "science cant save your soul or show you how to treat people". Presumably you think religion can. Certainly it has opinions on those subjects - lots of them - but no assurance any of them are right.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: yes because the NT is full of Jesus' teachings and they are all about how to treat people.

But what evidence do you have that Jesus actually said them, or, if he did, that they are true? All you have is people's opinions that it is true.

the canonical gospels were put in the canon because the apostles vouched for their validity.
they were known to have had connection to Jesus; early followers, So they have authority. when compared with the major non-canonical Gospels the early teachings stack up.Minus known latter Gnostic ideas.see my debate with Bowen where I established the validity of the Apostolic father's teachings and attestations,


HERE

Joe: wrong, I;ve already documented the effect of religious experience how it transforms life across the board,you have no attention span at all can't you remember that?

None of which tells us how to save your soul or how to treat people.

yes it certainly it does. Of course there is no way to prove you have eternal life without dying. But given that we are gambling on eternity any way the best indication of truth is the kind of life it gives us here and now. If there is a God and Jesus was
God incarnate then we can trust his word. We can believable that given the tranformative power that comes through finding Jesus




You made the claim: "science cant save your soul or show you how to treat people". Presumably you think religion can. Certainly it has opinions on those subjects - lots of them - but no assurance any of them are right.

a lot more assurance than anything else. It's the best evidence,more so than science.
Anonymous said…
Joe: the canonical gospels were put in the canon because the apostles vouched for their validity.
they were known to have had connection to Jesus; early followers, So they have authority. when compared with the major non-canonical Gospels the early teachings stack up.Minus known latter Gnostic ideas.see my debate with Bowen where I established the validity of the Apostolic father's teachings and attestations,


The gospels have been changed over the centuries (for example the ends of Mark and John are later additions). The authors were not witnesses to the evidence. We have no idea how reliable the witnesses were, not how reliable the authors were.

We have discussed that the earliest gospel that we have indicates there were no Jerusalem sightings of Jesus after the crucifixion, and yet all the gospels claim there were. Two gospel claim Mary was a virgin, and both also claim Jesus was a descendant of David via Joseph. These contradictions indicate the texts are not reliable.

Even if we take the gospel accounts as accurate, we still have no guarantee that what Jesus said was true.

And even if they are true, wer have the problem that what he said does not fit with modern Christianity. There is the fact claims Jesus never even mentioned the trinity, and when he claims to be god, those claims are ambiguous and notably absent from the three earlier gospels.

You really think that the claims in the NT was comparable to, say, relativity or the laws of thermodynamics?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: the canonical gospels were put in the canon because the apostles vouched for their validity.
they were known to have had connection to Jesus; early followers, So they have authority. when compared with the major non-canonical Gospels the early teachings stack up.Minus known latter Gnostic ideas.see my debate with Bowen where I established the validity of the Apostolic father's teachings and attestations,

The gospels have been changed over the centuries (for example the ends of Mark and John are later additions). The authors were not witnesses to the evidence. We have no idea how reliable the witnesses were, not how reliable the authors were.

textual criticism is advanced enough that we know those are the most significant additions. Most changes are minor do not effect meaning, the end of John i snot added years latter it;s added by the redactor within the life of the author, it;s merely an attestation to authorship.Maybe within a year of author;s death,.

We have discussed that the earliest gospel that we have indicates there were no Jerusalem sightings of Jesus after the crucifixion, and yet all the gospels claim there were. Two gospel claim Mary was a virgin, and both also claim Jesus was a descendant of David via Joseph. These contradictions indicate the texts are not reliable.

you mean you are sticking to that nonsense after I eviscerated it so? so stubborn you are not willing to think open minded about any of this,

Even if we take the gospel accounts as accurate, we still have no guarantee that what Jesus said was true.

that is total nonsense, he's not hailed as a major ethical teacher of the ages because he said a bunch of stupid things no on thought of. the ethics he lays out are agreed upon by all major thinkers,

And even if they are true, wer have the problem that what he said does not fit with modern Christianity. There is the fact claims Jesus never even mentioned the trinity, and when he claims to be god, those claims are ambiguous and notably absent from the three earlier gospels.

that is pure desperation,I don't even want to waste my time on that,I'll ask the group to suggest a basic book you can read,

You really think that the claims in the NT was comparable to, say, relativity or the laws of thermodynamics?

You really need do some very fundamental thinking about truth and reality. We are not talking about intellectual issues we talking about salvation. Salvation is open to all people, idiots and children can find Jesus and be saved. those are issue any apologist can answer,I wont waste my time. see my Trinity pages on Doxa
start with the overview,

as I said Tinkertoy of relativity can;t save your soul the greatest scientific work cannot tell you what happens when you die, True than Christianity requires trust it's all a leap in the dark, But Jesus gives us much more secure leap than any other,


Anonymous said…
Joe: textual criticism is advanced enough that we know those are the most significant additions. Most changes are minor do not effect meaning, the end of John i snot added years latter it;s added by the redactor within the life of the author, it;s merely an attestation to authorship.Maybe within a year of author;s death,.

But they are just the changes made after the gospel was written. How do we decide what additions were made to the narrative before that?

Joe: you mean you are sticking to that nonsense after I eviscerated it so? so stubborn you are not willing to think open minded about any of this,

Only in your head, Joe. And frankly, this is why religion fails - its proponents seem unable to address the real issues, because they have contrived to convince themselves they are not issues at all.

It is a fact that the earliest gospel we have indicates that after the crucifixion Jesus saw the disciples in Galilee first, and yet the later addition to that gospel, as well as Luke and John say Jesus saw the disciples in Jerusalem first. It is a fact that Luke and Matthew trace Jesus line from David via his father, and yet both also claim Mary was a virgin. These are very clear indications that some fundamental parts of the narrative were made up.

Joe: that is total nonsense, he's not hailed as a major ethical teacher of the ages because he said a bunch of stupid things no on thought of. the ethics he lays out are agreed upon by all major thinkers,

You think it is total nonsense because you have faith that Jesus is God. You have already decided your conclusion, and reject any suggestion otherwise. This is, of course, the antithesis of science.

Jesus said do not plan for tomorrow. Anyone who has a pension fund is ignoring Jesus' supposedly wonderful advice. It really was not that great (arguably it made sense in that culture, with the expectation of the apocalypse in a few years).

And seriously, do you really think being "hailed as a major ethical teacher of the ages" is good evidence he was God incarnate? Do you think Mahatma Gandhi was God incarnate?

Joe: that is pure desperation,I don't even want to waste my time on that,I'll ask the group to suggest a basic book you can read,

It is a fact that the trinity is not in the Bible. You may not like that, but that does not make it go away. Certainly there is a list of the three parts of the trinity, but it is just a list. Nothing to indicate they are all one thing in the manner of the trinity. And plenty of verses make clear that Jesus is subordinate to God.

Joe: You really need do some very fundamental thinking about truth and reality. We are not talking about intellectual issues we talking about salvation. Salvation is open to all people, idiots and children can find Jesus and be saved. those are issue any apologist can answer,I wont waste my time. see my Trinity pages on Doxa
start with the overview,


But that is just your opinion. You cannot show that your opinion is actually true, or indeed is any more likely than my opinion.

Science is not like that. Science is based on claims made tentatively, and supported by evidence.

Joe: as I said Tinkertoy of relativity can;t save your soul the greatest scientific work cannot tell you what happens when you die, True than Christianity requires trust it's all a leap in the dark, But Jesus gives us much more secure leap than any other,

I am not saying relativity can save your soul. What I am saying is science gives us reason to think its claims are true.

Jesus gave his opinion, which was then passed on to the gospel authors, who then wrote it down as they understood itdecades later, and the Christian church subsequently added its own spin. Are you saved by works or by faith? This would seem to be a fundamental issue, but Christianity is divided on the issue. How can that be if it has God providing the truth?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: textual criticism is advanced enough that we know those are the most significant additions. Most changes are minor do not effect meaning, the end of John i snot added years latter it;s added by the redactor within the life of the author, it;s merely an attestation to authorship.Maybe within a year of author;s death,.

But they are just the changes made after the gospel was written. How do we decide what additions were made to the narrative before that?

the premise of that question is that what ever it says it has to be wrong. I see no reason to make that assumption, The agreement with non canonical gospels and the fact that there is only one story, that is decisive,

Joe: you mean you are sticking to that nonsense after I eviscerated it so? so stubborn you are not willing to think open minded about any of this,

Only in your head, Joe. And frankly, this is why religion fails - its proponents seem unable to address the real issues, because they have contrived to convince themselves they are not issues at all.

you have just produced such mound of crap you have insulated yourself from any contrary facts,



I clearnd your clock every one of these,ever single time, go read it again,
Joe Hinman said…
It is a fact that the trinity is not in the Bible. You may not like that, but that does not make it go away. Certainly there is a list of the three parts of the trinity, but it is just a list. Nothing to indicate they are all one thing in the manner of the trinity. And plenty of verses make clear that Jesus is subordinate to God.

so you just refuse to read the evidence, I can point you to the evidence you are afraid to read it because you fear being wrong so nothing I can do to force you think, keep your mind closed,

Joe: You really need do some very fundamental thinking about truth and reality. We are not talking about intellectual issues we talking about salvation. Salvation is open to all people, idiots and children can find Jesus and be saved. those are issue any apologist can answer,I wont waste my time. see my Trinity pages on Doxa
start with the overview,

But that is just your opinion. You cannot show that your opinion is actually true, or indeed is any more likely than my opinion.

of course not silly no one can that's why it's called"opinion." I have shown why I hold it and I have shown good reasons to but you are afraid to check out the evidence, you must avoid thinking too deeply here

Science is not like that. Science is based on claims made tentatively, and supported by evidence.

we are not doing science here, science wont save your soul. Science and religion don't compete,

Joe: as I said Tinkertoy of relativity can;t save your soul the greatest scientific work cannot tell you what happens when you die, True than Christianity requires trust it's all a leap in the dark, But Jesus gives us much more secure leap than any other,

I am not saying relativity can save your soul. What I am saying is science gives us reason to think its claims are true.

So does Christianity it's just a different set of facts

Jesus gave his opinion, which was then passed on to the gospel authors, who then wrote it down as they understood itdecades later, and the Christian church subsequently added its own spin. Are you saved by works or by faith? This would seem to be a fundamental issue, but Christianity is divided on the issue. How can that be if it has God providing the truth?

No Christianity is not decided. We are waved by Grace through faith there is no other answer,there is no other set of Christian doctrine that differed,

Hans Kung showed that Catholic dogma on Grace is the same in essence as Protestant. In Luther's time the Church got off track but they had the essential doctrines, Everything Luther said come from the Catholics, he used pope and saints to support his arguments,

Joe Hinman said…
Despite the fact that the Doctrine was formulated by the church over several centuries, the basic elements of it can be seen clearly in the New Testament. Several verses actually dipict the there persona of the Godhead working together at the time time, in concert but distinctively.In fact, a formula of the Trinity can be seen in many passages:


Matthew 28:19
Father, Son, holy spirit

1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Spirit, Lord, God

2 Corinthians 13:14
Christ, God, holy spirit

Galatians 4:4-6
God, Son, spirit of his Son

Ephesians 4:4-6
Spirit, Lord, God

1 Peter 1:2
God, Spirit, Jesus Christ




Snapshots of the Trinity in the Gospels.

A. Mark 1: 10-11

"As Jesus was coming up out of the water he saw heaven being torn open and The Spirit decending upon him like a Dove, and a voice from Heaven saying "you are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased." [Here we see all three members of the Trinity acting in Concert. If the Spirit is merely God than why is it that God is speaking from Heaven while the Spirit takes the form of a dove and decends?]

B. Mattehw 28:19

"Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel, baptizing all nations into the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit." [This is probably an early baptismal formula. Why is the Spirit mentioned last in all of these formulamatic statements? If the Spirit is merely another word for God, why not metion the Spirit first sometimes? Why is the Formula here? And why baptize into Jesus' name as a well if he is just a secondary being? Now the JW's will argue that in no other case do we see anyone baptized into the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit. But we also are not given an actual trasnscript of what was said when they did baptize. IN other situations it is merely reported that people were baptized, but here we see what is probably an ealry formula. Be that as it may, why is it here? Why do they say it this time?] Mt 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

C. Why are both of these Associated with Baptism?



Both of these enstances are associated with baptism. Probably becasue the early baptizmal creed included this phrase. Baptism for the chruch became the initiation ceremony. This is seen in Acts 2 when Peter is asked by the crowd "what shall we do?" And he tells them "reprent, and be baptized." (Acts 2: 38) is probably there to explain the origin of Baptism as an initatiory rite. In the Jewish milieu it was a sign of repentence or a rite for pryosilaties. For the Qumran group it was a regular daily ritual, but they were unique. Now, with this initiatory rite in the infant chruch, one is baptized into the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, becasue they recognize that all three aspects of God. The include the Son in the Godhead. So when Mark depitcs Jesus' baptism he includes the three as befitting the baptismal formula. But why was this a formula? Why should one baptize into the name of all three? Because the three have a speicial relationship to each other and to the initiate who is committing his life to the faith; that faith is oriented toward all three.

Joe Hinman said…
Trinity in the Earliest Chruch Fathers.

Skeptics have been known to argue that the Trinity never existed until 325 AD when it was "made up" for the council of Neciea. Some, on discussion boards, have even gone so far as to calim that Contstantine made it up. But it is a commonplace to find anti-Trinitarians asserting that the doctirne was never in the chruch before this council. Yet all the council did was to ratify a statment, making a unified formally worded document, of a dcotrine that can be proven to have existed in Chrstiain thought as far back as the Gosples. We find this notion, or the deity of Christ, in all early Chruch fathers.

Clemet of Rome 95 AD

The First Epislte of Clement: "Jesus Chrsit the high preist of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights in heaven, in him we see mirrored God's pure and transcendent face...through him the Master has willed that we should taste importal knowlege, or 'since he reflects God's splindor he is as supiror to the Angels as his title is to theirs,'* for it is written 'he who makes the angels winds and his ministers flames of fire..." (36:2-3, Richardson and Fairweather, Early Chruch Fathers,p260). [*quoting Hebrews 1.]" "...And so the Apostles, after recieving their orders and being fully convenced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and assured by God's word, went out in the confidence of the Holy Spirit..." [Ibid,62]"


Ignatious of Antioch 110 AD


Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians states: "The Will of our Father, and of Jesus Christ, our God"[Ibid, p88]. Again he says "For Jesus Christ that life from which we can't be torn--is the Father's mind..." ( Eph. 3:2.Ibid.) [Ibid.] And again he gives a remarkable early formulation of a creedal statement: "There is only one physician --of flesh yet Spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God incarnet, ginuene life in the midst of death, Sprung from Mary as well as God, first subject to suffering than beyond it,, Jesus Chrsit our Lord..." ( Ephieans 7:2, Ibid.90). (see also Ignatius 20: 2-3).[Ibid.] "For God was revealing himself as a man...." [Ibid, 193]

Justin Martyr. 121 AD


From the First Apology of Justin, Part I The Christian History Institute http://www.gopelcom.net/chi/glimpses/justinone.html "Look at What You Give Credence to. We say the Word, the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union. We say that He, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, rose again and ascended into heaven." "When we say he was begotten of God as the Word of God in a unique manner...Jesus Christ alone was really begotten as son of God, being his Word, and First begotten, and Power, and becoming man by his will..."[in Richardson, p.257] "The Spirit and power from God Cannot rightly be thought of as anything other than the Word, who is also the first born of God...Those who prophesied were inspired by none other than the Divine Word...." [Ibid.263-264]


Anonymous said…
Joe: the premise of that question is that what ever it says it has to be wrong. I see no reason to make that assumption, The agreement with non canonical gospels and the fact that there is only one story, that is decisive,

No, the premise is that we do not know. We do not know what happened. We do not know how faithfully it was reported. That HAS to be the starting point in any half-way objective investigation.

Joe: so you just refuse to read the evidence, I can point you to the evidence you are afraid to read it because you fear being wrong so nothing I can do to force you think, keep your mind closed,

I have looked at the evidence, and the evidence indicates the trinity was a concept invented long after Jesus was crucified.

Joe: of course not silly no one can that's why it's called"opinion." I have shown why I hold it and I have shown good reasons to but you are afraid to check out the evidence, you must avoid thinking too deeply here

But religion is in the habit of presenting opinions as facts.

Joe: we are not doing science here, science wont save your soul. Science and religion don't compete,

False religions will not save your soul either. And it seems to me we have no way to determine if a religion is false or not.

Joe: So does Christianity it's just a different set of facts

No, it has opinions that are presented as facts.

Joe: No Christianity is not decided. We are waved by Grace through faith there is no other answer,there is no other set of Christian doctrine that differed,

Hans Kung showed that Catholic dogma on Grace is the same in essence as Protestant. In Luther's time the Church got off track but they had the essential doctrines, Everything Luther said come from the Catholics, he used pope and saints to support his arguments,


That is your opinion, presented as fact, as is the of religion. However, Catholics says we are saved by faith AND works. Why is the Bible not clear on what has to be the most important issue in it? Because it was written by men with different ideas at different times.

Joe: Despite the fact that the Doctrine was formulated by the church over several centuries, the basic elements of it can be seen clearly in the New Testament. Several verses actually dipict the there persona of the Godhead working together at the time time, in concert but distinctively.In fact, a formula of the Trinity can be seen in many passages:

Are you aware what the trinity is Joe? It is not that God, Jesus and the holy Spirit exist as three separate entities - as those verses indicate. It is the concept that they exist as equal parts of one thing in some manner. None of those verses come close to that.

Joe: "As Jesus was coming up out of the water he saw heaven being torn open and The Spirit decending upon him like a Dove, and a voice from Heaven saying "you are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased." [Here we see all three members of the Trinity acting in Concert. If the Spirit is merely God than why is it that God is speaking from Heaven while the Spirit takes the form of a dove and decends?]

Three separate things, Joe. Seriously, go read up on what the trinity is. I am going to skip the next few, because the same point applies. None indicate the trinity as it is understood by modern Christianity. We start to see it in your Ignatius and Martyr quotes, but at that stage it was just God and Jesus. The Holy Spirit was added later, over the next century or so when several competing theories about the nature of Jesus were competing - including one that he was an illusion! The Council of Nicaea in 325 did not invent the trinity, but did choose the trinity as presented by Athanasius as the preferred view, and it was only at that point that the trinity became mainstream Christianity, and this was the choice of Constantine (who would murder his son and wife the following year).

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
I am closing this topic now

Anonymous said...
Joe: the premise of that question is that what ever it says it has to be wrong. I see no reason to make that assumption, The agreement with non canonical gospels and the fact that there is only one story, that is decisive,

No, the premise is that we do not know. We do not know what happened. We do not know how faithfully it was reported. That HAS to be the starting point in any half-way objective investigation.


I know what god has done in my life, you can pretend it's not true but I know I will never unknow


Joe: so you just refuse to read the evidence, I can point you to the evidence you are afraid to read it because you fear being wrong so nothing I can do to force you think, keep your mind closed,

I have looked at the evidence, and the evidence indicates the trinity was a concept invented long after Jesus was crucified.

you did not examine the evidence, The Trinity shows to have been working concept of Ruchbah as early 60s AD and 90s and 121 AD. You have NO counter evidence, you are just ignoring what I posted.I proved that.



Joe: of course not silly no one can that's why it's called"opinion." I have shown why I hold it and I have shown good reasons to but you are afraid to check out the evidence, you must avoid thinking too deeply here

But religion is in the habit of presenting opinions as facts.

Joe: we are not doing science here, science wont save your soul. Science and religion don't compete,

False religions will not save your soul either. And it seems to me we have no way to determine if a religion is false or not.

bad logic and question begging will no tallow you to defeat the truth, pretend all you like I pored it, you are just unwilling to admit when you are beaten,



Joe: So does Christianity it's just a different set of facts

No, it has opinions that are presented as facts.

200 studies you have 0. that gives me the facts,you have none!



Joe: No Christianity is not decided. We are waved by Grace through faith there is no other answer,there is no other set of Christian doctrine that differed,

Hans Kung showed that Catholic dogma on Grace is the same in essence as Protestant. In Luther's time the Church got off track but they had the essential doctrines, Everything Luther said come from the Catholics, he used pope and saints to support his arguments,

That is your opinion, presented as fact, as is the of religion. However, Catholics says we are saved by faith AND works. Why is the Bible not clear on what has to be the most important issue in it? Because it was written by men with different ideas at different times.


No it not an opinion It is fact. That is exactly what Kung did, i have a masters degree in the subject you have nothing. Not even read one book Masters vs ignorance,


Are you aware what the trinity is Joe? It is not that God, Jesus and the holy Spirit exist as three separate entities - as those verses indicate. It is the concept that they exist as equal parts of one thing in some manner. None of those verses come close to that.


you do not know what the Trinity is,I just posted a page of evidence on it you can't read one quotation.coward. I showed you eight pages all thoroughly researched by me you are such a coward you wouldn't read one.You have nothing to back your Ignatius carping.


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: "As Jesus was coming up out of the water he saw heaven being torn open and The Spirit decending upon him like a Dove, and a voice from Heaven saying "you are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased." [Here we see all three members of the Trinity acting in Concert. If the Spirit is merely God than why is it that God is speaking from Heaven while the Spirit takes the form of a dove and decends?]

Three separate things, Joe. Seriously, go read up on what the trinity is.

again my know nothing friend,(out side of science) I have masters in theology you trying to tell me what the Trinity is laughable. That's as absurd as me lecturing you on Stoichiometry.


I am going to skip the next few, because the same point applies. None indicate the trinity as it is understood by modern Christianity. We start to see it in your Ignatius and Martyr quotes, but at that stage it was just God and Jesus. The Holy Spirit was added later, over the next century or so when several competing theories about the nature of Jesus were competing - including one that he was an illusion! The Council of Nicaea in 325 did not invent the trinity, but did choose the trinity as presented by Athanasius as the preferred view, and it was only at that point that the trinity became mainstream Christianity, and this was the choice of Constantine (who would murder his son and wife the following year).

that is indicative of your ignorance, you are really thinking that the doctrine must be worded like it is in the creeds or it's not even the same concept that is utterly stupid. It's shows your basic thought processes are totally ignorant of any sophistication in theology,

I don't pretend to understand chemistry, I accept you are authority in that subject. I expect you to give me the benefit of a doubt in understanding my subject,


Joe Hinman said…
I listed nine passages that show a concept of trinity and quoted several sub apostolic fathers who used it as a functional concept as early as 95 AD. you have no rebuttal accept to assert that it has to be exactly as the creeds state it you can;t show why that should be.

this is typical of how you get yiour clock cleaned every time we ague,
Anonymous said…
Joe: this is typical of how you get yiour clock cleaned every time we ague,

I.e., you declare the thread closed, then post a wall of text that fails to support your position. Congratulations.
Joe Hinman said…
I usually take it up in a new thread. If you don't to stop just say so I'll open it up again,I am not trying to be autocratic.

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition