RE: Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy
April 22, 2013 at 3:29 am
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2013 at 5:08 am by Love.)
(April 22, 2013 at 2:33 am)Aractus Wrote: Tell me - why should I, an Anglican, not think of you as a heretic?
In this thread, I have already stated on several occasions that I consider myself to be a heretic.
(April 22, 2013 at 2:33 am)Aractus Wrote: If Christ's crucifixion doesn't represent a redemptive sacrifice - then what was its purpose, and furthermore, what is its significance to a Christian?
Well, I view the crucifixion from a historical perspective. The Roman Empire used this method of execution regularly during the period in which Jesus was tortured. Its significance to orthodox Christians is due to its theological interpretation, to which most Christians subscribe because of The Bible. Also, have you never asked yourself the following question? What kind of an omnibenevolent God would use horrendous sacrifice and torture in order to redeem the human situation? There is no getting around it, this would be an extremely "evil" God. Redemptive sacrifice is just an absolutely ridiculous and hideous concept to me.
(April 22, 2013 at 2:33 am)Aractus Wrote: The resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Gospels, in Acts, and Paul also talks about it. The risen Christ also meets people and talks to people, including Paul. This would be impossible if Jesus truly died at the cross and was not resurrected. You are therefore lead to the conclusion that the Bible is not accurate, at least inasmuch as the details of Christ's death is concerned.
I just do not count The Bible as valid historical evidence. The Bible is a collection of what I consider to be mythical narratives; The Bible is theological and cannot be counted as historical evidence. I am far more interested in Jesus as a human person, his consciousness and the impact he had on people's lives around him from a historical perspective. John Shelby Spong works very closely with PhD historians who have studied Jesus of Nazareth, and he, like myself, believes that Jesus was a "one off" and really did have a very special type of consciousness and charisma that had the capacity to transform the lives of those around him. That's why his followers believed that they experienced "all that God is" whilst in his presence.
(April 22, 2013 at 2:33 am)Aractus Wrote: Physics is an invention of humanity, as is mathematics. Anything invented by humans can be understood by humans, and quantum mechanics is no different. It is almost embarrassingly easy to understand, the difficulty it has is in the fact that it (GASP) represents an invented model of the substructure of the universe, so obviously you cannot actually explain everything in the universe by it. The notion that "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory" is nonsense, QM is far, far, far, far easier to understand than General Relativity - because for the most part QM mimics what we see at the scale of classic mechanics, for the most part it follows the standard Newtonian model. There is nothing special, nothing "beyond comprehension" about a mathematical model invented by humans, nothing whatsoever.
Physics is not an invention of humanity, and whether or not mathematics was invented is still an ongoing discussion in the philosophy of mathematics. Physics, once termed "natural philosophy", is a field of study used by human beings to understand the fundamental laws of nature. Fundamental to the scientific method, physicists not only use mathematics, they also formulate hypotheses, make predictions and test whether or not the real world reflects the predictions made in the hypothesis. In essence, the real goal in contemporary science is to try and disprove a theory; if it cannot be disproved, this strengthens the validity of the current theory. For example, biologists have tried to disprove evolution by natural selection hundreds of times, but every attempt has failed thus far.
I think you need to display some humility. It is rather arrogant and pretentious to state that quantum mechanics is "embarrassingly easy to understand", unless, of course, you're an absolute genius in the fields of mathematics and theoretical physics. Quantum mechanics is notoriously difficult to understand, even to Nobel laureates who have/had worked in the field all of their lives, like Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, for example. Are you claiming that you find quantum mechanics easier to understand than these individuals? If so, I think you are delusional.
