An endless feud?

[kowalskil]

God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Such a position, put forward by the evolutionary biologist S. J. Gould, is known as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). Many theologians who are also scientists, and many scientists who are also theologians, accept NOMA. Such experts are usually tolerant and respectful toward each other. Feuds about God's existence would probably disappear if NOMA became a norm among all educators.

But how to stop arrogant "wee are better than you" arguments?
.

[Doctor X]

First.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

The Good[(Sic)--Ed.] Doctor's Prodigiously Pretentiously Pomposely Pespicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Proof

Science involves the explanation of observations. Theory produces predictions that must hold else the theory proves incorrect or incomplete. If a rock is dropped from a building aimed at John Kerry's head yet stops 13.27 inches above it, a physicist would have to explain this in light of the current theory of gravity. Perchance all of the hot air eminating [Stop that!--Ed.].

Right. Nothing like a real observation. So here is a real observation that requires explanation. Children and adolescents develop a rather nasty tumor of the brain stem, particularly the metencephalon, or pons. It is infiltrative and not amenable to surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. The latter two therapies merely prolong the decline.

The decline? As with real estate, the watchword for the central nervous system is "location!" The tumor destroys the descending voluntary pathways and centers for the cranial nerves which enervate facial musculature whilst preserving the sensory pathways. The child progressively losses control of her body up to her eye muscles which allows some rudimentary communication. Since the trigger for consciousness is located in the more rostral ventral midbrain or mesencephalon, she remains conscious throughout the months of decline. During this deterioration, she retains sensation and consciousness. She feels every ulcer, every pain; she remains completely aware of her condition and decline.

Eventually, on a tracheostomy, she will succumb usually to an infection.

This is not only a real case, it is all too frequent.

In fact, here is a quote given to me from a parent left on a webpage in which the parent describes the condition:

"Today, thanks to God's mercy he still with us. He can no longer walk on his own, the weakness on the left side of his body has increased, his speech is slurred and I am watching how the spark of life is slowly but surely dimming. His little body, swollen by the steroids, is slowly giving way to an end. I do not have an idea of how much time I will have with him."

I am not sure “mercy” is a word that applies.

This is a case of Unjustified Suffering unless you or anyone else can find some manner in which to justify it. Notice that I do not attack the death--people die. Perhaps she was destined to be the next Celine Dion. . . . It is the extent and severity of the suffering that renders it Unjustified Suffering. What did the child do to deserve it? Consider then why Josef Mengele passed easily from a stroke while swimming. Why did he apparently deserve a far easier passage?

Perhaps imagine a Heaven and a Hell--dream up a reward and punishment that will somehow magically balance the books, so to write? The problem remains the extent and severity of the suffering. If die she must, far quicker and less-severe methods do end a tyke's existence. Forced listening of country-western music, for example. Children do, unfortunately, ask what the did wrong to be punished by such a condition. What "reward" balances it? Is it greater than that obtained by children who die of leukemia, car accidents, and falling masonry? Why? Furthermore, that one imagines a Mengele horribly tortured throughout eternity--something involving fish hooks and Patsy Cline--does not justify the extensive and severe suffering of the child. Finally, if some grand argumentum ad ignorantiam of a "reward" exists, why do not the children who die of the less-horrible leukemia and steam rollers deserve it?

Since No Alleviation of her suffering occurred, we are left with Five Possible Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] regarding deities:

• 1. No Deity Exists
  2. A Deity Exists and He is Evil
  3. A Deity Exists and He is Incompetent
  4. A Deity Exists and He is Irrelevant
  5. A Deity Exists and He is Some Combination of 2-4

you are, of course, free to choose from any one of the Five.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

I believe that there is a greater spirit, we all have a soul and, there is life after death. What else do you need to know? ... besides maybe being nice to each other.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I believe that there is a greater spirit, we all have a soul and, there is life after death. What else do you need to know? ... besides maybe being nice to each other.

Do you 'Know' or do you 'Believe' there is a difference.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do you 'Know' or do you 'Believe' there is a difference.

From the standpoint of my own personal experience, without having to ask anyone else about it, yes, this is the bottom line. Although ultimately I think it hinges on our understanding of ethics and how we relate to one another.

[davidm]

1. Isn't this thread virtually identical to the one that you already started?

2. For a literary explication of Doctor X's excellent post, see the chapter just before the Grand Inquisitor scene in the Brothers Karamazov, in which Ivan Karamazov talks about the suffering of innocent children and declares that even if God exists, he, Ivan "returns the ticket" to heaven; he wants no part of this clockwork of evil that no amount of heaven can justify.

3. What spiritual realm? How do you know that such a realm even exists? Science studies objects and phenomena that we know exist; what reason can you give us to believe that this unobserved and unevidenced spirtual realm exists at all?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

1. Isn't this thread virtually identical to the one that you already started?

Hence the NBG.

"Give me that ol' time religion!"

--J.D.

[Stephen Maturin]

Mercy sakes alive, it looks like we got us another coberst!

[Kyuss Apollo]

Yeah but, this one's on Wikipedia!


(says so, right there in the signature)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

But how to stop arrogant "wee are better than you" arguments?

Well for starters the religious could stop claiming they are better than everyone that does not share their religion.

That one thing alone would be a very good start, but it would be the downfall of that religion. In order to convert people to their religion they have to get people to believe that their religion is better.

Are you Ludwik Kowalski?

[naturalist.atheist]

kowalskil, if you are Ludwik Kowalski your surprise at religious conflict would be expected.

If you grew up behind the iron curtain you probably saw religion as a savior from the completely corrupt and brutal soviet regime. It probably never occurred to you that the abuses of communism say more about human nature than it says about the need for god to make man good. In the west religion has not been restricted and many have experienced abuses made in the name of god. So it must be a shock for someone who grew up under communism and used religion as a way to withstand the abuses of that regime to see conflict in a so-called religious society.

It's got nothing to do with god, we are in the world of men and if you want to understand what is going on then you must study men. There are no gods to study.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well for starters the religious could stop claiming they are better than everyone that does not share their religion.

That one thing alone would be a very good start, but it would be the downfall of that religion. In order to convert people to their religion they have to get people to believe that their religion is better.

Are you Ludwik Kowalski?

Yes, this one (is it GOD?) is better, because it has owls. Plus some sort of big kittehs. And bewbies.

[naturalist.atheist]

I don't care for the feet though. Not her most attractive feature.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

kowalskil, if you are Ludwik Kowalski your surprise at religious conflict would be expected.

If you grew up behind the iron curtain you probably saw religion as a savior from the completely corrupt and brutal soviet regime. It probably never occurred to you that the abuses of communism say more about human nature than it says about the need for god to make man good. In the west religion has not been restricted and many have experienced abuses made in the name of god. So it must be a shock for someone who grew up under communism and used religion as a way to withstand the abuses of that regime to see conflict in a so-called religious society.

It's got nothing to do with god, we are in the world of men and if you want to understand what is going on then you must study men. There are no gods to study.

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God.

Which god? Funny you cannot answer that question.

I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

Which does not exist of course.

Or do you believe in and worship Evil?

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Which god? Funny you cannot answer that question.

Even the native Americans bore tribute to the great Sky Father.

Which does not exist of course.

Why do you say that? It's obvious you prefer not to believe but, how does that differ from wishful thinking?

Or do you believe in and worship Evil?

--J.D.

Okay, what is evil? Would it be fair to say evil is born out of ignorance? If so, how does one attribute evil to a "God" which is purportedly all-knowing?

Obviously then, the evil/ignorance must be our very own.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

The spirit world is a man made world.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

How do you know that there is a spiritual world, or a God?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

How do you know that there is a spiritual world, or a God?

Because they are Self-Evident [Tm.--Ed.].




Silly.

--J.D.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How do you know that there is a spiritual world, or a God?

This is a theological axiom, like in mathematics. Axioms do not have to be proved; they are accepted as starting points.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well for starters the religious could stop claiming they are better than everyone that does not share their religion.

That one thing alone would be a very good start, but it would be the downfall of that religion. In order to convert people to their religion they have to get people to believe that their religion is better.

Are you Ludwik Kowalski?

It is quite possible, though maybe not common, for one to believe that one's religion is better than all others without also believing that one is better because one believes in that religion.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is quite possible, though maybe not common, for one to believe that one's religion is better than all others without also believing that one is better because one believes in that religion.

So how does that work exactly. "My religion is the best but it doesn't do much for me than any other religion?" How does that make it the best? The best at being the same?

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is quite possible, though maybe not common, for one to believe that one's religion is better than all others without also believing that one is better because one believes in that religion.

I already explained, several minutes ago, why using the term "thology" is more appropriate in this thread than the word "religion."