So, the word is material? Or is the Gospel is material?

I guess there was some unspoken logical entailment in your post, but I didn't follow it.

Michael Behe? He wrote a book on irreducible complexity, and though I haven't gotten the chance to read it, I have heard that he presents scientific evidence to back up his claims. You may disagree with or think you can disprove the conclusions he drew from those claims, but there was still evidence to back him up.

And besides, there has also not been any evidence presented proving conclusively that a human can evolve from an ape. Sure, there are remarkable similarities between ape and human DNA and body structure. But that could mean a number of things (including that humans and apes had a common CREATOR, instead of a common ancestor).

Suppose a criminal is on trial after being accused of burglary. Muddy shoeprints are found on the carpet of the victim's house. This is evidence--of something. That "something" is the conclusion that must be agreed upon, and eventually this conclusion will be made BECAUSE there is evidence to support it. The shoeprints are a fact; they can only prove something if that "something" (a conclusion) is proposed. Evidence does not prove anything on its own. It is first found, and THEN a conclusion is drawn.

The point is, you can't say that someone's evidence-based conclusion is invalid simply because they never had any evidence in the first place. If they cited empirical scientific findings, then they have evidence. The evidence may be good or bad, and the conclusion might be faulty, but both of these would be up for debate. The fact would still remain that evidence existed.

The terminology you use ("absolute morons") is strong, but it does come close to describing the situation. Humans were imperfect from the beginning. (You can't claim that humans don't make mistakes now.) This imperfection came through when Adam and Eve made the mistaken decision to disobey God. They let their desires (which, incidentally, they thought were good) get in the way of their obligation to God.

It doesn't logically make sense--but Genesis doesn't say that it was a logical decision, either.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you're not completely materialist (I hadn't understood that yet). You believe that things like thoughts and emotions are not comprised entirely of matter and/or energy. I'm not against that--I'm not a materialist either.

Although, I would feel the necessity to go on to ask whether you're concluding this about thoughts and emotions because you have evidence (which you demand for IC and most other topics) to support that such things are indeed (partially) immaterial. It's hard to have material evidence to support the existence of immaterial things. (I know this sounds like your argument against the existence of God, but that's not what we're discussing here. I still think there's material evidence to support his existence.)

Sorry if I made this unclear. I am NOT a materialist/naturalist. I believe that eating another human would be very wrong. The point I am making is that there is no materialist that can conclude such a thing without being completely dishonest with themself. By believing that only material things matter but then choosing to believe in immaterial moral laws, they would be picking and choosing what they want to believe (as they accuse the "religious" of doing). The empirical evidence they demand for everything else is not there to support any sort of moral law.

If anything is holy, all things are holy.

As far as the Bible as a book, it's a great book, filled with the wisdom of many different authors.

One of the better authors, IMO, suggests we use discernment, he also cautions against too much reliance on the written word and advises to let no man tell you that he knows, cause he can't.
Of course, that seems to get left out of the message by those who know.

Very true. A great collection of books. To read it well is so see not the book but life itself as holy.....just my opinion...

Very true. A great collection of books. To read it well is so see not the book but life itself as holy.....just my opinion...

If anything is holy, all things are holy.

What would it mean to see life as holy?

holy O.E. halig "holy," from P.Gmc. *khailagas (cf. O.N. heilagr, Ger. heilig, Goth. hailags "holy"), adopted at conversion for L. sanctus. Primary (pre-Christian) meaning is not impossible to determine, but it was probably "that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated," and connected with O.E. hal (see health) and O.H.G. heil "health, happiness, good luck" (source of the Ger. salutation heil).

The English word holy dates back to at least the 11th Century with the Old English word hālig, an adjective derived from hāl meaning whole and used to mean 'uninjured, sound, healthy, entire, complete'. The Scottish 'hale' (health, happiness and wholeness.) is the most complete modern form of this Old English root. The modern word 'health' is also derived from the Old English hal. As "wholeness", holiness may be taken to indicate a state of religious completeness or perfection. The word holy in its modern form appears in Wyclif's Bible of 1382.

Care to explain what you mean by this?

The most basic description would be that either God is everything or he is nothing. All of his creation is holy, and should be revered as such.
Take one thing from this world and this world ceases to be.

Yes I am familiar with his work. I say that his claims are off base. The reason he has created these errors in reasoning is because he is doing the typical backward approach. He is trying to start from the conclusion and work backwards to find ways to support the conclusion. We all know that you will always have errors if you attempt to work this way. His errors have been well documented and discussed. Every example that Behe has used to explain IC has been refuted. There is not a single case that supports his claims accurately and reliably.

That is true, there is nothing substantial, but that is why it is a theory. However I should remind you that there is also a plausable case that god created evolution as the tool in which to derive humans and intended for humans be a product branched from apes. Yet there are so few theists who accept that argument because they give more credit to the biblical creation story than they do for scientific findings. If humans were just sprung out of the dirt (clay) then why do we have DNA for things like tails? Or scales? Seems a little silly that god would include these bits of information in the human make up only to switch them off.

Obligation? You mean because god created them, they were obligated to obey god's every command? This is something in which I have a problem with. It implies slavery or indentured service. Why must a being be obligated to serve simply for being created? Did god ask them if they wanted to be created? No, so why should they be forced into obeying?

I think you are the first theist to actually admit this. I give you credit for acknowledging it as a possibility. If it is not a logical decision then it could be said to be faulty. Are we sure we want to go down this path?

Well the thoughts themselves may not be material but they have materialism as their basis. If these chemicals do not interact then you won't have certain thoughts or feelings. So they are a byproduct of materialism. Thoughts and feelings don't just spontaneously arise for no reason. Which is why I think if there was an after life and you had some kind of soul, it stands to reason you wouldn't have any thoughts or emotions either because the things for which these thoughts and feelings arise wouldn't be present. If you could have thoughts and feelings without the material aspect, then why don't we have them now?

One aspect of my career deals with psychology of environmental chemical exposure. I have studied this field quite extensively because it was required to understand these things for the type of work that I do. I shouldn't profess that it dictates that my knowledge is correct though, but instead I have experienced cases where subjects were drastically altered from a "base" mental state to an "exaggerated" one purely by altering simple chemical functions. You can actually influence certain thought pasterns through the use of certain external stimuli without the subject even being aware that you were doing it. In fact illusionists do it all the time in their acts. You can actually influence someone to think something in which they would not normally do under other conditions.

I remember seeing a true story about a UN peace negotiator who was stationed in Somalia. His guide was a Muslim who was debriefing him on what to expect from the people and how to interact with the people so as not to create unnecessary disruption and gain the most possible acceptance with the local people. So they were talking about how some of the rebel gang leaders believe that eating your enemy is actually a custom for them. He was a little off put by that and asked the guide if he had ever eaten a human before. The guild said that he had. So he jokingly added, "So I hear it tastes like pork." The guide looked at him and said, "I wouldn't know, pork is forbidden to eat."

This sounds alot like pantheism.

The most basic description would be that either God is everything or he is nothing. All of his creation is holy, and should be revered as such.
Take one thing from this world and this world ceases to be.

Yes, it is similar, but I think we should stop short of defining God.
God remains outside of our human understanding and cannot be defined.
The creation in which we live is of God, and part of God, but is not all of God.

Damn, that's my view! If you reduce "God" to a concept or a ritual or an ethic, you have introduced "sin", "error", "imperfection" into something that ultimately is greater than any particular system of concepts. This also ties into Hegel, whose earlier work is much more direct than folks suppose.

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 11:29 PM ----------



Right! Because to define is to delimit. To reduce. Concepts shrink God. Even the concept God is already a reduction, which encourages us to forget the passionate and sensual aspects of Life.

People seem to have a hard time with this, we like to have something tangible to hang on to. I think this view tends to feel a bit like freefall, but you get used to it after awhile.
It leaves more room for what I think is real faith.

Yes, real faith is the opposite of belief, in my opinion. Real faith is fearlessness, a trust in the nature of things, an acceptance of death that doesn't dwell on death. An ability to enjoy the here and now.

Exactly, faith is fearlessness, much more to it than just believing something.
You are one of the very few I have met who understands this.
Solomon said he met one man in a thousand.

I find it pleasant and eerie that we click on this. I have felt trapped between two camps....till now. If you also like mathematics, I'm really going to lose it. Happily, of course.

It would indeed be a fascinating thing if God used evolution to intelligently create life. The main problem I have with that, though, is WHY he would do it that way. If he can create the universe in a trillionth of a second, then why would he want to take billions of years to create humans?

I know this is once more quibbling over God's intentions, but I personally see it as even less plausible to combine creationism and evolutionism than to believe in one or the other. Neither have been proven with absolute, undeniable evidence, and it seems that combining them would require even more proof.

The obligation would technically originate from both sides. Consider this (and please hear me out): You're Adam, and you've been created by God. This God is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. He's put you in paradise, and gifted you with not only an incredible body but also the opportunity to enjoy sights, sounds, smells, and all the other animals that live in harmony with you. He's even given you a companion, with whom you can share a relationship second in value only to that which you share with God. And, supposedly, you will rejoice in all this for eternity, eventually having a family and filling the world with billions of others who will never die and will rejoice as one in the presence of God.

Wouldn't you be thankful for all this? This is before any kind of hardship entered the world. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve didn't even have to WORK for their food. Can you think of any reason not to be thankful?

Now, when I am thankful to someone even for small things, I will occasionally muster up the obligation to make them happy as they have made me happy. That way I can show my appreciation, and they'll be made happy too, not only through the favor I do for them but through knowing they've pleased me. (This is at least somewhat similar to the empathy you've described concerning the issue of cannibalism.)

Now transfer this kind of obligation to the issue of obedience to God. Because I believe in God, I don't simply (try to) obey him because he threatens me with damnation--or even, entirely, because he tells me to. A big part of it has to do with how thankful I am to him for creating the vast universe, the beauty of nature, and the vast opportunities in the realm of relationships with other people--and, of course, for creating me to be able to enjoy all of this, flawed and unworthy as I am. And I'm thankful and obligated this way even in the presence of all the hardship that has come and will continue to come for the rest of my life. If I had all this wonder to enjoy AND I lived in a perfect world as Adam and Eve did, I can't imagine the feelings I would have toward God.

So this is probably why Adam and Eve would have felt an obligation to obey God. Unfortunately, they were imperfect from the beginning, and made a terrible mistake.

Your response makes me somewhat uncertain as to whether I made my point completely clear. All I meant was that I have been known to act illogically in the past, as have others, and that it's a distinct possibility that Adam and Eve were in a similar situation.

I would suggest that perhaps some thoughts and feelings are a byproduct of material occurrences, and that some others are perhaps the cause of such occurrences. Such that, in an afterlife, we would think/feel only some of what we do now--or that we would think/feel in an entirely different way that we can't comprehend now. Again, no evidence, but I don't think there is evidence for the exact nature of the afterlife.

Sorry, but it seems almost as if you're arguing that thoughts ARE material, rather than that they're not.

Interesting. I would suggest that there is a universal moral law, but that in some cases certain parts of it have been buried/ignored throughout the course of societal development. At any rate, I fail to see how your response addresses my claim that a strict materialist cannot reasonably suggest the existence of immaterial morals.

I find it pleasant and eerie that we click on this. I have felt trapped between two camps....till now. If you also like mathematics, I'm really going to lose it. Happily, of course.