The God Awful Truth

[Immortal4life]

Here is an interesting short film about Christianty, entitled "The God Awful Truth"

The God Awful Truth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7395603301662416443#

Edited January 18, 2013 by Immortal4life

[Vmarco]

[Immortal4life]

[Protector]

PAAAAAAAAAAAUL *shakes fist*

[Aetherous]

It is truly important to acknowledge that Paul had never met Jesus, so a few New Testament books are questionable already because of that. But at the same time, I like some of his writings. Just some.

[Vmarco]

But at the same time, I like some of his writings. Just some.

 

 

I like Corinthians:

 

Christian love or agape is often considered the highest love, but even a simple look suggests that it is merely a conditional love. To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; for example, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs.

 

Most Christians believe the God they invoke while spreading their faith, is love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that their God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. In fact, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

 

VMarco

[JustARandomPanda]

I have been thinking recently about some of these things. I know the OP was about Christianity but Christianity's hold on power directly led to it's being challenged. And challenging Christianity has directly led to the current most popular secular view today - Materialism.

 

One thing I've been really curious about is how in the world did Materialism - and especially Scientific Materialism - ever come to be the dominant worldview among so many Westerners. I, myself used to be someone along these lines yet I can't ever pinpoint a time when I was first introduced to it. It just seemed to be that everyone else around me believed it and so I kind of picked it up via osmosis too. Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett are 3 people who really push the scientific materialism worldview hardcore. It's like they're trying to raise it to the level of Ultimate Truth and anyone who can't see that it's Truth is an ignoramus. It's always surprised me that they don't see the holes in their own position.

 

Anyway...

 

It got me thinking about opinions, points of view, what is or is not qualify as "scientific", etc and why and how did Scientific Materialism ever get raised to the status of Universal Truth?

 

I found some interesting quotes tonight while searching on this topic:

 

 

 

The distinction between empirical science and pseudoscience

 

Empirical scientific theories are concerned with repeatable observations. Scientists can learn something of the daily repeatable functions of natural physical laws (whereby God at his pleasure upholds His Creation) through the empirical testing of such theories. But, of course, they can learn nothing about origins hypotheses from experimental testing (despite Comte's assertion to the contrary) because such hypotheses concern unrepeatable events which cannot be put to the test.

 

It's not that this hasn't been a traditional view of science. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) stressed the importance of experimentation (which isn't possible if an hypothesis proposes to describe some event or series of events that are unrepeatable). Isaac Newton also engaged in constant polemic against what he called 'hypotheses', by which he understood any or all affirmations not derived from sensible phenomena and supported by carefully conducted experiments.²⁹

 

Philosopher Karl Popper recognized the non-scientific nature of untestable hypotheses which, ipso facto, are also unfalsifiable. In his autobiography he stated: 'I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme'.³⁰

 

Other non-creationists in recent years have also affirmed this distinction between genuine natural science and the pseudoscientific theory of Darwinism. Biology professors, Paul Ehrlich (Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Sydney University), stated that evolution was 'outside of empirical science but not necessarily false' and that 'no one could think of ways to test it'.³¹ Dr Colin Patterson, who before his death in 1994 was a leading paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, stated that in asking ourselves whether evolution is a scientific theory or pseudoscience, it should be noted that it is purported to be a single process of species splitting and progress. This part of the theory, he said, was about unique historical events, like the history of England, and unique events are not part of science because they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.³²

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with the above that evolution is 'pseudoscience' but on the other hand they do have a point. Evolution is filled with non-repeatable results (ie..species). And if it's unique in time it can't be tested. If it can't be tested why does anyone say it's scientific? Yet Dawkins for example, would never be caught dead saying Evolution has untestable propositions. How is this any less an example of 'believing by faith' than Christians in Jesus?

 

 

 

 

 

Here's some other stuff I dug up on Materialism that had me pondering:

 

 

 

 

Popular Materialism. Most of all the prominence of science led to a sort of social scientistic Materialism, is largely a recent (mostly 20th century ) Western phenomenon, basically irrational, that has come about through substituting one dogma ( religion) for another dogma, Physicalism. Because this latter is more sophisticated then the earlier forms, and claims authority from the discoveries of Western science (although science neither affirms nor denies non-physical realities), it is often presented as an alternative to religion. The word "scientistic" can be used instead of "scientific", because this form of materialism is not necessarily more scientific (in its reliance on scientific method, falsification, etc) than any other religion or philosophy. Scientistic Materialism is usually associated with rationalism.

 

 

 

 

So I did some more digging and found the following 2 books at Amazon. I'm hoping I can get them from my library as they both sound really good. Anyone interested in the topic should especially check out the 2nd book's Amazon excerpt view.

 

 

 

 

The Origins of Materialism: The Evolution of a Scientific View of the World

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tautological Oxymorons: Deconstructing Scientific Materialism: An Ontotheological Approach

 

 

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. Vmarco wants to talk about Paul and Serene wants to talk about materialism.

 

I wrote a paper once suggesting that when Nietzsche said "God is dead" he was stating that Paul had killed the original Jewish concept of God.

 

No, there are no gods in my materialistic philosophy. There are no supreme leaders either. I have never read any of the people referred to regarding materialism. My choices have always been based on my own observations of the workings of the universe.

[Birch]

I reckon if you allow evolution as a science then you allow specialsts of said science authority over domains covered by that science. Which at present seems to be anything and everything.

If you don't allow it as a science, or suggest scaling it back to the few domains it can be empirically proven in, I wonder what would happen.

[JustARandomPanda]

No, there are no gods in my materialistic philosophy. There are no supreme leaders either. I have never read any of the people referred to regarding materialism. My choices have always been based on my own observations of the workings of the universe.

 

Ah. But Marble...you are not like the Materialists I have been puzzled over. In an odd sort of way I kinda see myself as similar to you in some ways. You do hold that science has discovered many valid things about the universe but unlike the diehard Scientistic Materialists you admit you don't have complete knowledge and that 'yo' includes things which might possibly be forever beyond the reach of science to examine, test or discover but nevertheless might still have an effect on people.

 

I disagree on some things with you on your interpretation of the Tao te Ching but on the other hand...I gotta hand it to you...the way you interpret it sure does seem to lead to a very happy and joy filled life! I see you as a Taoist who puts special emphasis on practicing the Virtue part of the Tao. And I predict someday - the atoms/mindstream that make up Marblehead - will someday Realize the Tao and be a Sage inspite/despite himself.

 

 

I reckon if you allow evolution as a science then you allow specialsts of said science authority over domains covered by that science. Which at present seems to be anything and everything.

If you don't allow it as a science, or suggest scaling it back to the few domains it can be empirically proven in, I wonder what would happen.

 

Good question. Daniel C. Dennett likes to 'explain consciousness' a lot. Except he always ignores the Elephant in the Room. How did all our consciousnesses arise in a universe that was supposedly devoid of it prior to Humans arising? Ask him that...and get only crickets chirping back in reply.

 

Yet criticizing such 'untestability' of some of these hypotheses is tantamount to being Anti-Science.

 

Richard Dawkins was once asked to answer this question by Edge.org (and subsequently published in a book) "what do you believe but can not prove". You know what he said? He believes that the entire universe evolved via a Natural Selection algorithm. So even Dawkins is aware he has un-provable beliefs. But then gets upset at Theists/Deists believing something equally unprovable. Really weird.

[Marblehead]

Ah. But Marble...you are not like the Materialists I have been puzzled over. In an odd sort of way I kinda see myself as similar to you in some ways. You do hold that science has discovered many valid things about the universe but unlike the diehard Scientistic Materialists you admit you don't have complete knowledge and that 'yo' includes things which might possibly be forever beyond the reach of science to examine, test or discover but nevertheless might still have an effect on people.

 

I disagree on some things with you on your interpretation of the Tao te Ching but on the other hand...I gotta hand it to you...the way you interpret it sure does seem to lead to a very happy and joy filled life! I see you as a Taoist who puts special emphasis on practicing the Virtue part of the Tao. And I predict someday - the atoms/mindstream that make up Marblehead - will someday Realize the Tao and be a Sage inspite/despite himself.

Hehehe. Thanks, I think.

 

Yes, I believe that science will never "know" everything. But they can still make their best guess. And we should understand that oftentimes what we hear from them is their "best guess" because they do not have sufficient 'proof'.

 

I must remain humble (something I rarely do) and not speak to your second paragraph.