Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

The Bible and abortion

Rick Lowry, PHd, has published an article on the biblical references to abortion.

And it surprised me.

In Genesis, life starts when the person starts to breathe.
Exodus 21 verses 22 - 25 talk about a pregnant woman stepping in to a fight. Her life is considered life, but that of her baby in the womb is treated as property, not life.


I wondered what people thought of this?
gone

Interesting, but I am sure the anti-abortion lobby will explain what it really means!
Humph Warden Bennett

Re: The Bible and abortion

Lexilogio wrote:
Rick Lowry, PHd, has published an article on the biblical references to abortion.

And it surprised me.

In Genesis, life starts when the person starts to breathe.
Exodus 21 verses 22 - 25 talk about a pregnant woman stepping in to a fight. Her life is considered life, but that of her baby in the womb is treated as property, not life.


I wondered what people thought of this?


In Genesis, God breathed life into Adam after he was created, Adam was never in the womb. As for Exodus, those verses teach that to cause a miscarriage is wrong, punishable by a fine, they do not teach that it is not a problem.

However, no reason why the pro abortion lobby should not pick and choose, they will not be the first.
Farmer Geddon

To give "Christians" a platform here -  I'm going to respond with:

"Blah, blah blah, WTF"

I'm sure they will find some sort of basely thyeo0logical; meaning that will fit their mindset....

I await their response with bated-breath...
cyberman

So, when it suits them, our detractors say we should ignore the Bible and take notice of science. When it suits them, they say we should do the opposite.

But, bearing in mind HWB's observations, how do the bits Lexi has quoted contradict my view that abortion is wrong?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
how do the bits Lexi has quoted contradict my view that abortion is wrong?

The second one seems to:

Quote:
Exodus 21 verses 22 - 25 talk about a pregnant woman stepping in to a fight. Her life is considered life, but that of her baby in the womb is treated as property, not life.


You can do as you please with your own property, therefore, on this view, no problem with abortion, presumably.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
how do the bits Lexi has quoted contradict my view that abortion is wrong?

The second one seems to:

Quote:
Exodus 21 verses 22 - 25 talk about a pregnant woman stepping in to a fight. Her life is considered life, but that of her baby in the womb is treated as property, not life.


You can do as you please with your own property, therefore, on this view, no problem with abortion, presumably.


Does it say you can do as you please? Or does it say you shouldn't deliberately cause a miscarriage?

Are you of the opinion that Christians ought to ignore science? Why do you think that? I am surprised if you now believe that Biblical fundamentalism would be a good idea!
Honey 56

Psalm 139

13For you created my inmost being;

you knit me together in my motherís womb.

14I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

your works are wonderful,

I know that full well.

15My frame was not hidden from you

when I was made in the secret place.

When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16your eyes saw my unformed body.

All the days ordained for me

were written in your book

before one of them came to be.


From a Christian POV God has always known us, even before conception, so who are we to deliberately destroy what God has given life to?

Honey
gone

The deity wasn't too fussed about slaughtering children who had been already born when it was having a 'hissy fit' if the Bible is to be believed, so has no moral highground at all!
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
how do the bits Lexi has quoted contradict my view that abortion is wrong?

The second one seems to:

Quote:
Exodus 21 verses 22 - 25 talk about a pregnant woman stepping in to a fight. Her life is considered life, but that of her baby in the womb is treated as property, not life.


You can do as you please with your own property, therefore, on this view, no problem with abortion, presumably.


Does it say you can do as you please?

It says nothing against it apart from the fact if you cause a woman to have a miscarriage but she's all right otherwise, then you're liable to pay her husband a fine. Because, like, kinda, I guess, she's just a dumb appendage and chattel of the chappy, right?

Quote:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine


You would think that something rather more full-blooded might be quite important if the Creator of All That Is has such a downer on abortion as so many religios would have us believe. The relevant verse has all the force of a small fine for a minor parking violation. Hardly the stuff of the murder of doctors and the bombing of clinics, do you think?

Not that any of this matters, since no sane, rational, responsible individual looks to this ghastly concatenation of cobblers for moral guidance anyway.

Quote:
Or does it say you shouldn't deliberately cause a miscarriage?

See above. It doesn't matter what the Bible says in any case on any issue.

Quote:
Are you of the opinion that Christians ought to ignore science? Why do you think that? I am surprised if you now believe that Biblical fundamentalism would be a good idea!

In the interests of consistency, yes. The supernaturalism of Christianity and the methodological naturalism of science are incompatible and irreconcilable, so to that extent supernaturalists certainly ignore science as long as they're entertaining supernatural ideas in their brains. That doesn't mean to say you can't do both at different times - plenty do, bizarrely -, but this weird behaviour is achieved at the expense of flip-flopping back and forth, back and forth, back and forth between naturalism and supernaturalism when it suits. Either position alone is consistent (even thoroughgoing supernaturalism is consistent - consistently mad), but to switch backward and forwards from one to the other between weekday work in the lab and church on a Sunday morning is just barmy.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
how do the bits Lexi has quoted contradict my view that abortion is wrong?

The second one seems to:

Quote:
Exodus 21 verses 22 - 25 talk about a pregnant woman stepping in to a fight. Her life is considered life, but that of her baby in the womb is treated as property, not life.


You can do as you please with your own property, therefore, on this view, no problem with abortion, presumably.


Does it say you can do as you please?

It says absolutely nothing either way. It certainly says nothing against it, which you would think might be quite important if the Creator of All That Is has such a downer on abortion as so many religios would have us believe. In any case I was responding to what Lexi wrote, and according to what Lexi wrote Ex. 21:22-25 states that a foetus is the property of the host, if you will. Disposing of your own property as you please is hardly an unusual or controversial position.

Quote:
Or does it say you shouldn't deliberately cause a miscarriage?

See above. It doesn't matter what the Bible says in any case on any issue.

Quote:
Are you of the opinion that Christians ought to ignore science? Why do you think that? I am surprised if you now believe that Biblical fundamentalism would be a good idea!

In the interests of consistency, yes. The supernaturalism of Christianity and the methodological naturalism of science are incompatible and irreconcilable, so to that extent supernaturalists certainly ignore science as long as they're entertaining supernatural ideas in their brains. That doesn't mean to say you can't do both at different times - plenty do, bizarrely -, but this weird behaviour is achieved at the expense of flip-flopping back and forth, back and forth, back and forth between naturalism and supernaturalism when it suits. Either position alone is consistent (even thoroughgoing supernaturalism is consistent - consistently mad), but to switch backward and forwards from one to the other between weekday work in the lab and church on a Sunday morning is just barmy.


No, I do not flip-flop at all!

You know as well as I do that most Christians are not fundamentalists, and there has never been a time when this was not the case.
I see that you are irked that Christians do not in fact conform to your cartoonish parody of a Christian, but I'm afraid that's how it is.
Shaker

Quote:
You know as well as I do that most Christians are not fundamentalists, and there has never been a time when this was not the case.
I see that you are irked that Christians do not in fact conform to your cartoonish parody of a Christian, but I'm afraid that's how it is.

All you're saying here is that supernaturalists are inconsistent in switching back and forth between supernaturalism and naturalism when it suits them, using the benefits of science and the methodological naturalism which undergirds it when it's in their favour but with a whole skipload of supernatural garbage bolted onto the side because it gives them the warm and fuzzies emotionally.

Which, lamentably, is no surprise to anybody.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
All you're saying here is that supernaturalists are inconsistent in switching back and forth between supernaturalism and naturalism when it suits them, using the benefits of science and the methodological naturalism which undergirds it when it's in their favour but with a whole skipload of supernatural garbage bolted onto the side because it gives them the warm and fuzzies emotionally.


That is in no way a paraphrase of what I am saying.

I have noticed form other posters on this forum a tendency to say "So what you're saying is...." and then make something up. Usually less intelligent ones like Shrub Dweller and powwow. I am surprised to find you falling into this habit, Shaker.

Can you tell me what I have posted, on any forum at any time in my life, which backs up your strange remarks about "warm and fuzzies".

Can you also tell me how my belief in, say, big bang, conflicts with my belief in, say, God. Where is the contradiction?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Can you also tell me how my belief in, say, big bang, conflicts with my belief in, say, God. Where is the contradiction?

The Big Bang has a clear, coherent, shared and shareable definition that all scientific authorities agree upon. It means something - when you say 'Big Bang' all scientists knw precisely what is meant by the term. Furthermore, and most importantly of all, it is supported by an absolute ton of testable, shareable, defeasible empirical evidence.

Now, this 'God' thing ...
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Can you also tell me how my belief in, say, big bang, conflicts with my belief in, say, God. Where is the contradiction?

The Big Bang has a clear, coherent, shared and shareable definition that all scientific authorities agree upon. It means something - when you say 'Big Bang' all scientists knw precisely what is meant by the term. Furthermore, and most importantly of all, it is supported by an absolute ton of testable, shareable, defeasible empirical evidence.

Now, this 'God' thing ...


Yes, I get how they are completely different. That is not what I asked.

Try again.

(Or is this when you start pretending you have answered the question, and you are now too busy...?)
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Can you also tell me how my belief in, say, big bang, conflicts with my belief in, say, God. Where is the contradiction?

The Big Bang has a clear, coherent, shared and shareable definition that all scientific authorities agree upon. It means something - when you say 'Big Bang' all scientists knw precisely what is meant by the term. Furthermore, and most importantly of all, it is supported by an absolute ton of testable, shareable, defeasible empirical evidence.

Now, this 'God' thing ...


Yes, I get how they are completely different. That is not what I asked.

Try again.

(Or is this when you start pretending you have answered the question, and you are now too busy...?)

No, it's when I point out that you asked where's the contradiction, and I remind that I've already shown you where not just but twice on this thread alone, never mind all the others where this has come up.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Can you also tell me how my belief in, say, big bang, conflicts with my belief in, say, God. Where is the contradiction?

The Big Bang has a clear, coherent, shared and shareable definition that all scientific authorities agree upon. It means something - when you say 'Big Bang' all scientists knw precisely what is meant by the term. Furthermore, and most importantly of all, it is supported by an absolute ton of testable, shareable, defeasible empirical evidence.

Now, this 'God' thing ...


Yes, I get how they are completely different. That is not what I asked.

Try again.

(Or is this when you start pretending you have answered the question, and you are now too busy...?)

No, it's when I point out that you asked where's the contradiction, and I remind that I've already shown you where not just but twice on this thread alone, never mind all the others where this has come up.


But you have not shown why you think I need to flip flop in order to believe in both God and the Big Bang at the same time. they are different, but not incompatible.
Shaker

They are utterly incompatible. One is a matter of acceptance of a well-defined scientific concept based on the mass of rigorously gathered and tested empirical evidence - mathematical models tested against observed data, all the usual stuff, yadda yadda yadda.

The other one doesn't even have a coherent definition that everyone can agree on, never mind about evidence for the same. Asking for somebody to define this god thing is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. (But then, maybe you can succeed where everybody else has failed - I'm always open to surprises). Furthermore, aren't these religios - certainly a goodly number of them anyway - always saying that evidence counts for nought and that it's supposed to be all about faith? Though that's a second can of worms right there, as asking religious people - those who are supposed to possess and/or exercise this concept, presumably - to define faith is as pointless as asking them to define the very thing they reckon they have faith in. it would be laughable were it not, ultimately, so sad, and I don't mean that in a positive, warm and benign glow sense.

That's why they're incompatible and irreconcilable, always have been, always will be. Holding both of these things in your head simultaneously (in actual fact it's not quite simultaneously: as I've already said, it in point of fact involves swapping backwards and forwards from one mental mode to another - if you don't believe me, read, if you can stand to, The Language of God by Francis Collins and similar crimes against trees) is to wear these wretched things all the time:



And we all know how naff they are.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:

That's why they're incompatible and irreconcilable, always have been, always will be.


No it isn't. It just isn't. You simply keep describing over and over again how different they are from each other. Completely different, not using the same types of methods at all. I get that. But that doesn't mean that the two are incompatible. It just means they are different. Incompatible means that I cannot hold both ideas in my head at once, that to believe in both requires a logical impossibility, and that simply isn't the case.

There is no logical impossibility in holding both of the following propositions to be true:

(a) A supernatural thing caused all of the natural observable stuff to exist.
(b) The processes which govern the behaviour of all this stuff seem to have begun with a 'big bang' 15 billion years (or whatever) ago.

I get that you find it odd, but it is not logically impossible.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Incompatible means that I cannot hold both ideas in my head at once

If you mean literally simultaneously, then yes, that's exactly what it means.

Quote:
that to believe in both requires a logical impossibility, and that simply isn't the case.

I haven't said that. I have said that to hold the two simultaneously is a logical impossibility: to hold the two - not simultaneously - you have to flip-flop back and forth from one to the other as suits. In a normal domestic setup it is not logically impossible that I can be either in bed or in the bath, but I can't be in both at exactly the same time - I have to nip from one to t'other.

Quote:
There is no logical impossibility in holding both of the following propositions to be true:

(a) A supernatural thing caused all of the natural observable stuff to exist.
(b) The processes which govern the behaviour of all this stuff seem to have begun with a 'big bang' 15 billion years (or whatever) ago.

I get that you find it odd, but it is not logically impossible.

They contradict each other, however, and are incompatible. Moreover, one of those two things listed above has proven and every day continues to prove itself as a sound, valid, self-correcting, self-criticising means of acquiring consistently reliable knowledge time after time after time.

The other one hasn't. It never has, and it doesn't. It just doesn't. Therefore you have to leave behind (b) to accept as true (a), and vice versa.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
They contradict each other, however, and are incompatible.... you have to leave behind (b) to accept as true (a), and vice versa.


They absolutely do not contradict each other at all. You keep on stating this, but when asked to demonstrate this, you just keep describing how they are completely different form each other.

Why do I have to 'leave behind' my belief in God to believe in the Bg Bang?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
They contradict each other, however, and are incompatible.... you have to leave behind (b) to accept as true (a), and vice versa.


They absolutely do not contradict each other at all. You keep on stating this, but when asked to demonstrate this, you just keep describing how they are completely different form each other.

Why do I have to 'leave behind' my belief in God to believe in the Bg Bang?


Firstly, I would be extremely surprised if you could give as cogent and coherent a definition of what this God thing is supposed to be as opposed to the Big Bang.

Secondly, I assume (hope ...) that you accept that (subject to all the usual caveats, terms and conditions of science such as provisional knowledge, the possibility however infinitesimal of being wrong, etc.) the Big Bang is an accurate representation of reality on the basis of understanding (a) what the term means and (b) once clearly defined, the evidence adduced for it. Can you say the same for this as-yet undefined God? You're using two entirely different mental modes or approaches (I'm searching for a word here to describe what I mean but not yet finding one: modes is perhaps the closest and will have to do for now), modes which contradict and cancel each other out.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
In the interests of consistency, yes. The supernaturalism of Christianity and the methodological naturalism of science are incompatible and irreconcilable, so to that extent supernaturalists certainly ignore science as long as they're entertaining supernatural ideas in their brains. That doesn't mean to say you can't do both at different times - plenty do, bizarrely -, but this weird behaviour is achieved at the expense of flip-flopping back and forth, back and forth, back and forth between naturalism and supernaturalism when it suits. Either position alone is consistent (even thoroughgoing supernaturalism is consistent - consistently mad), but to switch backward and forwards from one to the other between weekday work in the lab and church on a Sunday morning is just barmy.


What's 'supernaturalism' Shaker?

What's a 'supernaturalist'?

Is it a really great version of David Attenborough?
Shaker

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=supernaturalism
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=supernaturalism


So, for the purposes of this discussion, we're free to pick whichever of those many definitions of 'supernaturalism' that suits us.

Good-oh!
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
modes which contradict and cancel each other out.


They simply don't. You keep repeating and repeating how different they are from one another, with which I entirely agree, so please don't repeat it again. It doesn't get us any closer to understanding why you think I have to "leave behind" belief in God in order to believe in the Big Bang.

I mean, if we were talking Adam and Eve vs Evolution, I would agree with you. there is a direct conflict between the two. But here there isn't.

(a) A supernatural non-measurable thing created the natural measurable stuff.

(b) The stuff went bang.

Where is the contradiction? (Not the difference - for pity's sake don't waffle on about the difference again - we all got that at the outset).
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
modes which contradict and cancel each other out.


They simply don't. You keep repeating and repeating how different they are from one another, with which I entirely agree, so please don't repeat it again. It doesn't get us any closer to understanding why you think I have to "leave behind" belief in God in order to believe in the Big Bang.

Because presumably the 'belief' with which you 'believe' in the Big Bang is not of the same order or kind as the belief with which you believe in God - whatever that's supposed to be. As I've said (yet again ...) the Big Bang has a clear definition and is accepted (not believed in) on the basis of that definition, its capacity to generate testable predictions and the fact that it has been demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence. 'God' has no definition (hey, surprise me ...) generates no testable predictions and has no evidence.

Quote:
I mean, if we were talking Adam and Eve vs Evolution, I would agree with you. there is a direct conflict between the two. But here there isn't.

(a) A supernatural non-measurable thing created the natural measurable stuff.


Is that a belief, or knowledge justified by empirical evidence?

Quote:
(b) The stuff went bang.


Is that a belief, or knowledge justified by empirical evidence?

Quote:
Where is the contradiction?


If you answer the questions you might, just might, see why it is absolutely clearly and blatantly contradictory to have the two aforementioned things in one's head at the same time, for the reasons already outlined.

But I'm not holding out much hope.
cyberman

Yup, I get all that. My belief in the Big Bang is empircal, based upon evidence. My belief in God is not. It is a different order, or whatever you call it, of belief.

So they are entirrely different.

Thanks for pointing that out. Again.

But they are not contradictory.
Shaker

You don't see them as blatantly contradictory and I do. I dare say we'll just have to leave it at that.
Lexilogio

Funny - my daughter was asked to fill in a questionnaire about belief in school today.

Q1. How do you believe the Universe was created?
a. God
b. The Big Bang


She ticked both.
cyberman

Lexilogio wrote:
Funny - my daughter was asked to fill in a questionnaire about belief in school today.

Q1. How do you believe the Universe was created?
a. God
b. The Big Bang


She ticked both.


This is how secularists try to spread panic. If children are faced with this choice, many of them will tick one when in fact they believe both.

Some clown (perhaps the same clown who designed the questionnaire) will then count up all the ones that ticked "God" and announce "X% of pupils don't believe in the Big Bang! Religion is destroying science! Doomed! We're all DOOMED!!" and so on...
The Boyg

Lexilogio wrote:
Funny - my daughter was asked to fill in a questionnaire about belief in school today.

Q1. How do you believe the Universe was created?
a. God
b. The Big Bang


She ticked both.


Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
Funny - my daughter was asked to fill in a questionnaire about belief in school today.

Q1. How do you believe the Universe was created?
a. God
b. The Big Bang


She ticked both.


Dear oh dear
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Funny - my daughter was asked to fill in a questionnaire about belief in school today.

Q1. How do you believe the Universe was created?
a. God
b. The Big Bang


She ticked both.


This is how secularists try to spread panic. If children are faced with this choice, many of them will tick one when in fact they believe both.

As long as they tick the correct one, i.e. (b), i.e. the one actually based on evidence.
Honey 56

Lexilogio wrote:
Funny - my daughter was asked to fill in a questionnaire about belief in school today.

Q1. How do you believe the Universe was created?
a. God
b. The Big Bang


She ticked both.


I hope you gave her a big    because she is a crdeit to you. So often these questions are loaded and many youngsters would not have the courage to say what they truly believe.
She is a proper little soldier, bless her.

Honey  
Shaker

Well well well, look at the usual suspects queuing up to congratulate the utterly dismal and depressing scenario of a child in school (i.e. usually regarded an establishment for the acquisition of an education based on knowledge) stating belief in an undefined, unevidenced, unproven ancient near-Eastern myth alongside hard science.

The future is fucked - we're fucked as a species - if this sort of thing is prevalent.
Honey 56

Shaker wrote:
Well well well, look at the usual suspects queuing up to congratulate the utterly dismal and depressing scenario of a child in school (i.e. usually regarded an establishment for the acquisition of an education based on knowledge) stating belief in an undefined, unevidenced, unproven ancient near-Eastern myth alongside hard science.

The future is fucked - we're fucked as a species - if this sort of thing is prevalent.


DOOMED WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!!

Never mind Shaker, we have the answer to that too, keep watching this space.

Honey †
trentvoyager

Quote:
Never mind Shaker, we have the answer to that too, keep watching this space.



And is it 42 by any chance ?
Honey 56

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
Never mind Shaker, we have the answer to that too, keep watching this space.



And is it 42 by any chance ?


Hi Trent Voyager,
In answer to your question...
No, it isn't 42, it's jesus.

honey †
Shaker

If the answer is Jesus the mind boggles at what the question must be ...
SusanDoris

[quote="Shaker:78371"]
cyberman wrote:

As long as they tick the correct one, i.e. (b), i.e. the one actually based on evidence.

I'm quite surprised the question was asked, but I suppose that depends on the age of the students. Even then, I'd object unless clear reasons for the question were shown.
cyberman

SusanDoris wrote:
Shaker wrote:
 As long as they tick the correct one, i.e. (b), i.e. the one actually based on evidence.

I'm quite surprised the question was asked, but I suppose that depends on the age of the students. Even then, I'd object unless clear reasons for the question were shown.


You'd object to them being asked about the Big Bang? Why?
SusanDoris

No. I would object to them being offered as, apparently, equally valid questions.
cyberman

SusanDoris wrote:
No. I would object to them being offered as, apparently, equally valid questions.


They are equally valid questions.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
SusanDoris wrote:
No. I would object to them being offered as, apparently, equally valid questions.


They are equally valid questions.


No. As SusanDoris has said, mentioning them in the same question implies that there's some kind of parity between them, which most of us know full well there is not. There is no more equal validity between the two options than if the questions had run to the following three options: "How do you believe the Universe began?"

(a) The Big Bang;
(b) God;
(c) It was created by a giant invisible magical lobster called Colin.


What people believe about the origin of the Universe (indeed, if it even had an origin at all, which we don't know) is in a profound sense utterly irrelevant: you can believe whatever wish-fulfilling cosy twaddle you like but there's only one real answer which is based on hard, testable, shareable evidence, and that one doesn't require belief, only an understanding at some level of exactly what that evidence is, how it was worked out mathematically first and how the empirical proof of it was arrived at.

You can of course take the ever-depressing cop-out of accepting all the hard science of the Big Bang while at the same time as saying that some 'God' - whatever that's supposed to be - kick-started it, but of course that kind of eating-your-cake-and-having-it-too specious jesuitism is neatly disposed of by Occam's Razor.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:


No. As SusanDoris has said, mentioning them in the same question implies that there's some kind of parity between them


Well, I think that is more your words than hers, but OKÖ


Shaker wrote:


most of us know full well there is not


Most of us? What do you mean? Do you claim here that most people are not interested in questions about God?


Shaker wrote:
 

you can believe whatever wish-fulfilling cosy twaddle you like but there's only one answer which is based on hard, testable, shareable evidence, and that one doesn't require belief,


But the fact that the answers donít have parity does not mean that ďDo you believe in GodĒ (or whatever it was) is not in itself a valid question.

I see how secularists try to cook the books! Questions which will give an answer indicating religious belief are verboten Ė the belief is untestable so the question is invalid. So the answers will therefore produce results which suggest that no-one has religious belief.

Honestly, whaqt kind of demented book-burner would object to even asking the question. Donít be so insecure guys. Itís OK if people think different things from you.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Most of us? What do you mean? Do you claim here that most people are not interested in questions about God?

No, I meant that I would hope that most people (people generally, not just on this forum alone) would recognise that there's no parity of any kind between a belief unsupported by evidence (and barely even coherently defined come to that) and an acceptance of something clearly defined and based on rigorously tested empirical data. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic: I do try (occasionally ...) to think the best of people, but really, given the high levels of utter stupidity amongst the populace at large that in itself would be an act of faith, and as I may have mentioned once before, I don't do faith.

Quote:
I see how secularists try to cook the books! Questions which will give an answer indicating religious belief are verboten Ė the belief is untestable so the question is invalid.


That's the way science works - an indefeasible, untestable hypothesis is nothing. I can't help it if you don't like it. And to forestall the inevitable objection, since we're talking about the Big Bang we are indeed talking about science now. If you're on science's turf, you have to play by science's rules.

Your definition or understanding of secularism also seems to be somewhat awry, but no doubt that's for another discussion.

Quote:
Itís OK if people think different things from you.

I've never suggested otherwise - people are entirely free to believe whatever they want to believe. It's one of the most basic human rights in any secular liberal democracy. It is however the case that people with ridiculous beliefs shouldn't act surprised if they're ridiculed for them: very often people with irrational fringe beliefs act surprised and pull the offence card when those beliefs are questioned, queried, scrutinised and criticised, and sometimes give every appearance of seeming to believe that their beliefs, simply by virtue of being 'firmly-held' or 'a matter of deep personal conviction' are somehow above criticism or even examination.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:

That's the way science works - an indefeasible, untestable hypothesis is nothing. .


And what branch of science is involved in asking people whether they believe in God? None at all?  So what is the relevance of your 'point'?

I doubt that you really believe that you should never ask any question which doesn't have a scientific answer - I wonder why you are pretending that you do.

It is a fact that belief in God exists. To forbid discussion of that fact is not scientific.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
And what branch of science is involved in asking people whether they believe in God?

Psychology. Anthropology.

Quote:
I doubt that you really believe that you should never ask any question which doesn't have a scientific answer - I wonder why you are pretending that you do.


Because that's the case in science. As soon as the Big Bang came into the discussion, we're on science's turf.

Quote:
It is a fact that belief in God exists. To forbid discussion of that fact is not scientific.

Who mentioned forbidding it? It is however a fact that it is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Who mentioned forbidding it? It is however a fact that it is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.


What? Discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is tacitly forbidden by scientific methodology?

Shaker, you have lost your mind.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Who mentioned forbidding it? It is however a fact that it is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.


What? Discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is tacitly forbidden by scientific methodology?

No - I thought I'd already said that was a fit area for study by things such as psychology and anthropology.

Perhaps you missed that bit.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Who mentioned forbidding it? It is however a fact that it is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.


What? Discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is tacitly forbidden by scientific methodology?

No - I thought I'd already said that was a fit area for study by things such as psychology and anthropology.

Perhaps you missed that bit.


I did not miss that bit. Which is why I was all the more surprised when you then went on to write that it is forbidden by scientific method. But there you go, you said it anyway. Not even consistent with yourself within one post.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Who mentioned forbidding it? It is however a fact that it is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.


What? Discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is tacitly forbidden by scientific methodology?

No - I thought I'd already said that was a fit area for study by things such as psychology and anthropology.

Perhaps you missed that bit.


I did not miss that bit. Which is why I was all the more surprised when you wrote that it is forbidden by scientific method. But there you go, you said it anyway. Not even consistent with yourself within one post.


Belief in God is for all practical intents and purposes forbidden by the scientific method when you're actually doing science - that's what methodological naturalism means: you don't multiply entities beyond necessity (Occam's Razor again) and you most certainly don't draft in undefined, unevidenced, untested and untestable entities/concepts that, far from helping to explain something under investigation, themselves stand in need of explanation. If you have any pretensions at all to be doing proper science you don't draft in gods because they lack a coherent definition, wouldn't explain anything even if they did have a coherent definition, can't be tested for and need explaining themselves.

This is Science 101 as the colonials are wont to say - you shouldn't need anything this fundamental to science explaining to you.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:

Belief in God is for all practical intents and purposes forbidden by the scientific method


But that is not what we are discussing is it?

You have said that discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is forbidden by scientific method.

Do you see how this is different from saying belief in God itself is forbidden by scientific method?

Of course you do. So let's not waste any more time pretending you don't.

Can we return now to your expressed belief that discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is forbideen by scientific methodology?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:

Belief in God is for all practical intents and purposes forbidden by the scientific method


But that is not what we are discussing is it?

You have said that discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is forbidden by scientific method.

No, that's not what I've said at all.

Quote:
Do you see how this is different from saying belief in God itself is forbidden by scientific method?

It's entirely different. But your prior attribution is still not something I've ever said.

Quote:
Can we return now to your expressed belief that discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is forbideen by scientific methodology?

That isn't my belief and I haven't expressed it. I have expressly said that why people believe in gods is a fit subject for scientific areas such as psychology and anthropology. Belief in God - at least, as an actual causal agent interfering in the operation of the universe - is effectively forbidden by the methodological naturalism of science while actually doing science. Those are two different things - I can only assume that you've misunderstood one or more posts along the way and that you've gathered the impression I've said something I haven't and entertain a stance I do not in fact hold.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Can we return now to your expressed belief that discussion of the fact that there are people who believe in God is forbideen by scientific methodology?

That isn't my belief and I haven't expressed it.


Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
It is a fact that belief in God exists. To forbid discussion of that fact is not scientific.

Who mentioned forbidding it? It is however a fact that it is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.


You have explicitly said that discussion of the fact that belief in God exists is forbidden by scientific method. I cannot understand why you are denying it.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
You have explicitly said that discussion of the fact that belief in God exists is forbidden by scientific method. I cannot understand why you are denying it.


Because that's not what I said. Belief in God (not "a discussion about belief in God") is, practically and methodologically speaking, forbidden when doing science. Not a discussion about belief, the belief itself. In using a word such as 'forbidden' I was referring to

Quote:
belief in God exists


and not

Quote:
discussion of that fact
SusanDoris

cyberman wrote:

Well, I think that is more your words than hers, but OKÖ

With which I agree, as they are better expressed and, as always, precise and clear.
Quote:
But the fact that the answers donít have parity does not mean that ďDo you believe in GodĒ (or whatever it was) is not in itself a valid question.

If it had been asked on its own and a description of which God was being referred to and why, or perhaps a question phrased on the lines of, 'Do you think it is a .... ' No, I can't think of a right way to ask that question of children in school of whatever age; it could be an invasion of privacy. Perhaps it should be something like, 'Do you believe in the Abrahamic God or the Devil, or both, or neither, or the god/s of another religion?'
Quote:
I see how secularists try to cook the books!

On the contrary, it's the religions who try to limit the choices and coerce people into putting up barriers against non-belief.
Quote:
Honestly, what kind of demented book-burner would object to even asking the question.

If you want to ask the question, ask an over-18.
Quote:
Donít be so insecure guys. Itís OK if people think different things from you.

Well, the one thing I absolutely guarantee that Shaker and I share is a total lack of insecurity on this subject!
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
I said. Belief in God (not "a discussion about belief in God") is, practically and methodologically speaking, forbidden when doing science. Not a discussion about belief, the belief itself. In using a word such as 'forbidden' I was referring to

Quote:
belief in God exists


and not

Quote:
discussion of that fact


Shaker, that simply is not what was said.

Look back at the thread.

I wrote "It is a fact that belief in God exists. To forbid discussion of that fact is not scientific."

You replied "is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method."

We were clearly talking about "discussion of that fact" being forbidden. "That fact" being the "fact that belief in God exists". Belief in God exists. That is a fact. You did (although you now wish you didn't!) you did say that discussion of that fact is forbidden.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker, that simply is not what was said.

Not according to you, doubtless.

Quote:
Look back at the thread.

I wrote "It is a fact that belief in God exists. To forbid discussion of that fact is not scientific."

You replied "is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method."

Yes, that's right - it's the belief that's tacitly forbidden (by methodological naturalism, once you know what methodological naturalism entails), not a discussion of the belief. Science already does discuss religious belief; in fact I was the one who suggested two areas of scientific endeavour where it's an entirely natural and proper discussion to be had.

Quote:
We were clearly talking about "discussion of that fact" being forbidden.


No; that's clearly what you thought was being talked about.

Quote:
You did (although you now wish you didn't!) you did say that discussion of that fact is forbidden.

No, I didn't.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:

You did (although you now wish you didn't!) you did say that discussion of that fact is forbidden.

No, I didn't.


You replied to
cyberman wrote:

It is a fact that belief in God exists. To forbid discussion of that fact is not scientific.


...with..

Shaker wrote:
Who mentioned forbidding it? It is however a fact that it is tacitly forbidden by the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.


This isn't a matter of opinion, Shaker, it is there in black and white.
Shaker

But it is a matter of opinion, and your opinion, that I was referring to a discussion about belief in God rather than the belief itself being laid aside according to the demands of methodological naturalism when doing science. Somebody who thought that a discussion of such a belief was off limits to science - as you reckon, wrongly, I believe - would not go on to name two areas of scientific endeavour in which such a belief can be examined, investigated and discussed. Correct?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
But it is a matter of opinion, and your opinion, that I was referring to a discussion about belief in God rather than the belief itself being laid aside according to the demands of methodological naturalism when doing science. Somebody who thought that a discussion of such a belief was off limits to science - as you reckon, wrongly, I believe - would not go on to name two areas of scientific endeavour in which such a belief can be examined, investigated and discussed. Correct?


Yes correct - that is why, as I said, I was surprised that you contradicted yourself.

Look at the comment where I say that to forbid discussion is unscientific. Then in your reply you use the pronoun 'it'. There was nothing intervening which has been omitted. What would any English speaker see that you meant by the pronoun 'it' in that context? <It is unscientific to forbid discussion> <Who said anything about forbidding it? However, it is forbidden>
Humph Warden Bennett

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
how do the bits Lexi has quoted contradict my view that abortion is wrong?

The second one seems to:

Quote:
Exodus 21 verses 22 - 25 talk about a pregnant woman stepping in to a fight. Her life is considered life, but that of her baby in the womb is treated as property, not life.


You can do as you please with your own property, therefore, on this view, no problem with abortion, presumably.


I appreciate that this discussion has moved on since I was last here, but FTR current English Law does not award what is harshly considered to be "sentimental damage". A careless driver who kills a young child will pay less in compensation than if s/he had killed the child's father, who was the family's main earner. It is not a question of "ones own property", but of practicalities.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum