Hello
Due to some technological problem, I never did see my post show up on
TIPS, as well as any responses. After doing some tracking, it appears it did
appear, and there were two responses.
Your response was well thought out, and as always, I feel like I have to put
gigantic gloves (intellectually speaking) when we intersect...
Given that you chose to respond to the list, I will do the same, although
it is likely most will view it as irrelevant to the purposes of the list. Please
delete as you see fit.
For non-religious types, I would argue that the psychology behind people
who believe in something that apparently has no logic or evidence must be
an important topic of inquiry.
> Jim wrote:
>
> > >Rick Adams wrote:
> > >There's a major element that everyone seems to be missing in
> > this attitude
> > >toward such degrees--religion!
> >
> > Yer ole nemesis, eh?
>
> No--a statement of fact.
As I said, maybe it's my ethnocentrism, but I've not seen astrology
viewed as a religion per se.
> In many religions, including several flavors of Hindu religion and Tibetan
> Buddhism, astrology is regarded as a way of understanding the mind of
> Brahman (essentially treating it as a Roman Catholic might view a study of
> the Trinity). To assume that it is valid to teach divinity in the Western
> sense, but ignore an equally important aspect of major Eastern religions is
> pure ethnocentrism and religious bigotry, not science.
You're arguing astrology as a legitimate technique, as it is perceived by
some, which is not the same argument as astrology as a religion.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs with that, because I see you constructing a larger
argument than this.
> Again, if it is valid to study divinity or other religious topics related
> to Christianity and to award degrees in those areas, it is EQUALLY valid to
> do so with topics related to Eastern religions instead. I'm not attacking
> religion--I'm attacking the idiotic idea that only Christian beliefs are
> worthy of academic study; that isn't science it's superstitious prejudice.
As you have argued before, if you're gonna let in one, then why not let in
others.
You actually have support from *some* of the religious community here.
Prayer in public schools is a good example -- not all Christian desire this,
because we don't want a public institution dictating a religious practice.
> > >How many people who think the idea of a degree in "astrology" is stupid
> > >simultaneously support the concept of one in "divinity," "theology," or
> > >"Christian Philosophy?"
> >
> > Are we raising our hands? Mine’s up.
>
> Then you clearly demonstrate intolerance for the religions of others, an
> attribute totally inappropriate to academia.
I support the secular institution teaching various types of Christian
philosophy and teachings, partly because so many in this country believe in
them.
Do you think otherwise?
Don't confuse me arguing promoting religion with promoting a better
understanding of it.
I might also argue, based on recent events, that world religions classes are a
good thing. I bet Islam is going to get more attention now because of so
many misunderstandings around it.
There are many people calling it a religion of violence. The university is a
good setting to examine these criticisms -- to educate Christian and other-
religion and non-religious students as to what Islam really teaches.
What is wrong with that?
Would we not eliminate some prejudice, fears, intolerance?
> > So, are you suggesting we not study whatever you mean by “Christian
> > philosophy” (sounds like an oxymoron) simply because it cannot be
> > verified scientifically? A religious ideology that many people
> > believe in, find use in, and might benefit from a more adequate
> > academic analysis thereof.
>
> Replace "Christian philosophy" with "astrology" in the above paragraph, and
> ask yourself the same question. I'll go along with either answer you
> provide, since my only argument is that either ALL major religious beliefs
> (including, btw, those of pagans and other unpopular religions) be included
> in the definition of "academically valid" studies--or that NONE of them are.
See above.
I realize I'm waffling a bit, by teaching selective topics. But again, that is
based on what the populace tends to believe. If I lived in a Muslim country,
where no Christians lived, I couldn't expect them to teach Christianity. I
might not even want them to do it -- since they could not do so objectively.
> > Well, one difference I see between astrology and Christian
> > religion is that you can scientifically debunk astrology,
> > because its basic premises are flawed. If I remember my
> > occultic knowledge, is not astrology seriously flawed because
> > it adheres to the old myth of geocentrism?
>
> And Christianity ISN'T flawed?
>
> Let's see:
>
> 1. According to Genesis, the order of creation is: 1:1-heaven and earth;
> 1:3-light; 1:6-firmament (which later is converted into heaven); 1:9-earth &
> seas (at the same time); 1:11-plants; 1:14-the sun, the moon, the stars;
> 1-20-animals; 1-26-humans (made out of soil, btw, according to 2:7).
What's the problem here?
> 2. According to Joshua, Chapter 6, the walls of Jerico were knocked down by
> the sound of trumpets and voices.
That is clearly a fantastic belief, I understand, but it cannot be disproven.
> 3. According to Exodus, Moses was able to work real (versus stage) magic in
> which he caused plagues of locusts, staffs to turn into serpents, and the
> Red Sea to part so he could walk between the walls of water.
The use of the word "magic" is a bit offensive, but I'll let it go.
Again, this is another example where the bible suggests an extra-ordinary
series of events took place. So? You cannot disprove that these things
occurred.
You cannot prove that this is a "flawed" teaching unless you can prove it
never happened, which you cannot do.
Now, you clearly can teach that this is contrary to the laws of nature. No
argument there.
And that is a basic tenet of religion -- that for such a "miracle" to occur there
must be a supreme being that creates laws that he is above.
> 4. Let's not forget Noah and his ark on which two of every animal alive
> today were transported (try that with a MODERN supertanker!), Jonah who
> lived comfortably inside the stomach of a whale (think "digestion"), turning
> water into wine, and other similar events chronicled as the absolute truth.
So what's that up on Ararat? A life preserver?
What do you say about geological evidence that supports a one-time major
flood?
As far as Jonah, I know of at least one modern account where such a man
lived in a whale and survived. Not that matters -- it doesn't prove or disprove that
such a thing did occur.
> Sounds a "bit" flawed by modern scientific principles to me!
Based on what? Do they concur with scientific principles? No.
Can they be disproven, to show they never occurred? No.
>Off hand, I
> have a LOT less trouble believing that the tidal influence of the moon at
> the time of conception could have an ultimate influence on the adult than I
> have in believing that plants came into existence before the Sun--don't you?
So, I stick something in the ground, then I turn the light on, and it starts to
grow. What's the problem here?
Maybe there's another cogent exegtical explanation here -- there are at least
five religious scholars have derived in order to reconcile creation accounts
with modern science.
If this is just a bunch of bunk, why do you think it persisted? The bible
writer would have had to be a complete moron to argue things that he clearly
would have seen as contrary to nature. Remember, we're talking about an
agrarian society, one that had at least some rudimentary knowledge of
plants.
C.S. Lewis once argued that modern atheists have attempted to knock the
teaching of miracles on the basis that biblical simpletons did not have a
proper understanding of the laws of nature. Had they possessed this
knowledge, they would not have made such ridiculous claims. Lewis
argues then that IF these simpletons were too uninformed to know the laws
of nature, why would they call them miracles then? They would not have
seen them as miracles, they would have seen them as ORDINARY EVENTS.
Another theologian uses the passages of Christ sleeping in the boat to make
the same argument. When Jesus is roused by his fretful disciples, He
stands up and calms the storm. A tremendous metereological event. Now,
if these men made this story up, you'd think it would have been transmitted
with some degree of security. They would have claimed Christ claimed the
storm to give their beliefs more credence. Clever, eh? No one else on the
boat but them, so they could make it up and no one could debunk them.
But in the scripture we see that after Christ calms the storm, the disciples
are worse off than they were before, in a manner of speaking. They freak out
and become afraid of Jesus, not knowing what the heck is going on.
> Please, no rhetoric about the Bible being symbolic
Why not? Do you think that Christians believe that everything written is
absolutely true?
When Jesus said cut your right hand off because it causes you to sin, do
you see a bunch of Christians walking around without one?
--either it's absolutely
> true, and thus accurately depicts the relationship of humans to the Universe
> (in which case science is completely wrong) or it is untrue and represents a
> combination of folklore, mythology, and Jewish history (in which case
> Christianity is based on false premises: that the Christian God exists in
> the first place and that the Bible represents truth).
This seems like a bit of a false dichtomomy.
True or untrue
Scientific or not
Literal or symbolic
I don't see these either-or distinctions here.
Do I believe the bible is the inspired word of God? yes
Do I believe everything in it is true? yes
Do I believe that everything is literal? no
Do I believe that a historic event may actually be
symbolic, figurative? it's possible
I tend to approach literal first, and when exegetical problems, arise,
abandon literal and look for a literal truth taught with figurative language.
Example: the Catholic church used to teach that the sun revolved around
the earth. Where was that from? Well, in the bible the sun does go up and
down, so a literal translation would suggest the sun is moving around the
earth. In fact, in Joshua, there is an extraordinary teaching that God caused
the sun to stop moving. So, the church figured the sun had to be revolving,
not the earth.
Galileo got in big trouble when he pointed his telescope heavenward and saw
the problem with that belief. Instead of the church saying "Hmmm...maybe
we were being too literal," they forced him to recant (modern revisions of
Catholicism have tried to dance around this, by the way). Galileo's defense
was brilliant -- he said that the bible taught us how to go to heaven, not how
the heavens go.
> > I'm not sure how you're tying astrology to religion. I’ve never
> > met a single individual who held to it as a religion, but as a
> > science. How does astrology qualify as a religion? What are
> > its moral teachings? What is its concept of a god or salvation
> > or anything else generally associated with religious teachings?
>
> What on earth do those have to do with it's validity as a subject of study?
That wasn't my point. You called it a religion. I asked for its religious
teachings.
Now, if you're arguing astrology and religion on a broader plane, that
restricting both should be done because they are non-scientific than that's a
different argument.
> PRAYER isn't a "religion," it's a religious practice--yet studies of the
> effect of prayer on medical treatment, etc. are routinely accepted as valid
> science!
Sigh. Different subject, but perhaps one could discuss in a different
conversation.
I think that some studies have shown a statistically significant difference
between prayer and non-prayer groups? The interpretations are problematic,
and not necessarily convincing of any one answer.
What's the problem here?
> I never claimed that astrology was a religion--I stated it was a religious
> PRACTICE that is part of Eastern religions. Sorry if you haven't met anyone
> with that view yet--perhaps the next time the Dalai Lama speaks in your area
> you can take the time to meet some Tibetan Buddhist scholars--they ALL view
> astrology as a part of their religion, in the same way prayer is part of
> your own. The world has more religions than Christianity--simply because
> Christians don't view something as religious does NOT make it secular.
I stand corrected then. You said religion was the common element, I
assumed you meant astrology was a religion.
By the time you have gotten to this point, I hope I have clarified myself.
> > One day I’d be curious to hear from the atheists on their
> > personal theories of how everything came to be.
>
> Two words:
>
> BIG BANG.
>
> Or, if you prefer Quantum Mechanics:
>
> PROBABILITY WAVES
So an explosion created everything?
Don't explosions usually destroy things? Isn't an explosion creation outside
the bounds of scientific principles???
> > If not God, then what?
>
> Physics.
And I'd argue God is the author of. We'll obviously never agree on that.
C.S. Lewis once argued that science is a good thing for religion. If your
beliefs are easily shaken by contradictory scientific evidence, maybe your
faith wasn't much to start with and would've been knocked over sooner or
later. If your faith was strong, your knowledge of the immense complexity
of creation might cause to appreciate God even more.
I know I can't prove my beliefs, but I'm still confused. You say physics.
Okay. Where did the physics come from? Where did all of this immense
complexity of our world come from? Is there not something behind it?
Familiar with Thomas Aquinas' "uncaused cause?"
> > As always, you make a good point. The religious individual needs to
> > accept that opening the door to his beliefs cannot allow slamming it shut
> > on others, whether he likes it or not.
>
> Here we agree. I'm perfectly comfortable with religious topics being taught
> in our colleges PROVIDED they are identified as such instead of as
> "scientific" subjects. In that vein, neither Christian beliefs (including,
> of course, creationism) nor Eastern ones (such as astrology) should be
> taught as anything but "religious studies."
I see your point. And you've cogently argued this before.
I guess I thought to some extent you were attacking religion, but you're really
saying anything like religion, which cannot be scientifically verified, ought not
to be given the rubric of science.
Okay. What do you think of science that examines, for example, the
efficacy of religious interventions in psychotherapy compared to other types
of interventions? Would you argue fer it or agin it?
> > I do applaud you for your sense of fairness.
>
> Thank you.
> > By the way, I am curious how easily you see Christianity being debunked,
> > given that much of it cannot be scientifically validated.
>
> Take a very close look at the items I listed above re: Biblical teachings.
> It's pretty easy to demonstrate scientifically that such things as the order
> of creation given in the Bible, Jonah's experience, etc., are simply
> impossible.
Impossible? Nay.
Improbable? Most definitely. No argument.
> But, because the entire Christian religion is based on the
> fundamental claim that the Bible is accurate (if it isn't there is NO
> legitimate reason anyone should accept its claims about the existence or
> nature of a God)
good point
> if those points (and, of course, many others) can be
> demonstrated to be unsound
depends on your definition of unsound
don't conflate unsound with unlikely
> it logically follows that the Bible is an
> unreliable source of information
depends on what you're using it for
> and simple scientific principles would
> require that it be excluded as "proof" of anything.
Don't overextent the "proof" argument. In reality what can we really prove?
There is no scientific "proof" of a big bang. That is why honest
scientists call it a theory. And yet even if it is true, which I would have no
problem with, there would still be much to explain.
Kinda like gravity. We all know it's there, and we know how it works.
So why is it there? WHat or who put it there?
Science is much better at explaining "what" than they are "why."
> Yet without it, there is
> no basis for Christian belief at all, and thus by disproving the accuracy of
> the Bible, the entire basis of the religion is demonstrated to be invalid.
At the risk of sounding contentious, you must think religious folk like me
are morons. What do you think we do when we look at the world
and the bible? Stick our heads in it like the proverbial ostriches we are?
> > Doesn’t seem like
> > much debunking or bunking is possible.
>
> Sure it is. Ask any physical anthropologist, geographer, physicist, or
> ethnographer and you'll have plenty of evidence of fallibility in the
> religion. All that remains is personal belief, unsupported by any form of
> evidence at all and contradicted by a vast range of scientific literature.
> If it were any subject other than religion, you would be among the first to
> agree that such a dichotomy could only be resolved by accepting the
> scientific evidence that discredits the beliefs.
I'm aware that there is little scientific evidence for many biblical claims. But
we cannot go back and observe what occurred, so we cannot debunk them.
Let's say I claim I once lived in a house in Illinois (which I did, by the way).
Going back to my neighborhood, we find no such house. Does this mean I
never lived there?
> > By the way, did you know that in the book of Isaiah he describes God as
> > sitting above the circle that is the earth? Can you imagine this
> > religious nut teaching something like that? He claimed his knowledge
> > came from God. Now we all know that in 500BC the world was flat...
>
> It doesn't say "sphere" it says "circle."
>
> Go to the seashore or to any area where the landscape is flat all the way
> to the horizon. Look out. Does the world seem square or circular?
>
> Is it tremendously surprising that someone viewing the world from such a
> perspective (believe it or not, early peoples climbed mountains and saw the
> horizon for quite some distance--and they were clearly able to view the
> curvature) would perceive it to be a circle? Remember, also, that the
> Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for some time--and that the circle was
> considered the "perfect" form in that culture. Wouldn't a person
> automatically assume his/her world was "created" in a perfect form?
To suggest that the Hebrews would adopt Egyptian teachings and
incorporate them into their scriptures is enormously problematic.
If you are correct, that this verse proves no divine knowledge,
you fail to acknowledge that it clearly violated the "scientific" consensus
of the world.
> > Not to mention “Job” – another religious nut. One thousand years before
> > Isaiah was written the author of this book had the nerve to claim
> > that the earth was suspended into space by nothing at all.
> > Must’ve really irritated the scientific elite from the East who knew full
> > well the earth was riding on a turtle.
>
> It probably irritated them as much as the scientists who demonstrate
> evolution irritate the creationists today, actually.
Again, you're sidestepping. That doesn't surprise me -- people believe what
they want to believe, be they religious or non-religious.
The Pharisees had God in the flesh standing right in front of them, and they
hooted and hollered. Poor Jesus just didn't fit into their manmade
conception of what the Messiah would be like.
> > "Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its
> > essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
> > -- William Hazlitt
>
> And, therefore, all forms of Christianity currently practiced in the world
> are perversion?
What you read in the book, and what you see in person are not necessarily
the same thing. Don't judge the book by its converts!
Right now there's a lot of concerned Muslims in our country making the
same argument. God bless 'em.
Jim
P.S. I wonder how you and other atheists have reacted to "God Bless
America." Does it offend you? Do you think we're just being foolish? This is
not to sound contentious -- I am really curious what you think of all this
religious talk going on, especially in our nation's leadership.
If all you have argued is true, we are in serious trouble, because we are
singing about and praying to absolutely nothing.
************************************************************************
Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor
President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA
(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax)
"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its
essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt
**************************************************************************
