As many will know, the thread title is obviously taken from Isaiah 1:18.

It seems fashionable to denigrate Christianity (and other faiths, I suppose) as anti-intellectual. Well and truly, the gospel is not primarily an intellectual matter and the duty of us Christians is to preach the gospel and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict.

Nevertheless, Christianity (or even faith for that matter) does not preclude the use of intellect or even require its suppression or suspension. The intellectual challenge of Christianity (and of faith I suppose) is not to prove or disprove the everyday intellectual disciplines such as science, history and the like. Rather, the intellectual challenge of Christianity (and of faith I suppose) is balancing what we believe as of faith with what we know is true in the intellectual disciplines like science etc.

An example: science says that a woman cannot get pregnant without the involvement of spermatozoa from a man: I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. To the purely intellectual minded, my belief is "daft" because science contradicts it; I say all well and good with your science which is true that spermatozoa is necessary for conception. But I believe in something greater than your science ---- something which can override your science. Now I say emphatically ---- that stance is not anti-intellectual. In fact I am even now going to coin a new term to describe that stance ---supra-intellectual ---- i.e. recognises and understands the intellectual position but yet rises above that intellectual position.

Now on this "anti-intellectualism" charge ----- even a cursory reading of the Bible and a casual knowledge and understanding of church history very easily refutes the charge that Christianity is anti-intellectual.

Acts 17:1-2

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

Acts 18:4

And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:19

And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

Acts 24:25

And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

The Anglican tradition is often seen (sometimes jokingly derisively) as one given to: Scriptures, Reason and Tradition as exemplified by this line

Scripture, informed by reason (the intellect and the experience of God) and tradition (the practices and beliefs of the historical church)

taken from this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism

For all their faults, church fathers and various theologians throughout history down to Calvin or, contemporarily, to N T Wright cannot sensibly be accused of being intellectual pigmies or "anti-intellectual".

Anyway to summarise ---- to believe in the sufficiency or authority of the Bible is not necessarily to be anti-intellectual.

Finish it with 'I believe i have convinced you and not convulsed on you, thank you'
Eh eh ha. Happy Independence Day.

Happy Independence Day, bro.

bookmarked

Simply brilliant. Thanks for this, Enigma

The OP sounds more like a submission than an invitation for discussion so I'm not sure I ought to be raining on your parade, so to speak. But I will, lol.

Many many atheist, probably most, become atheist and it is just human psychology that you should be kinda angry at yourself when your have been disillusioned or enlightened. We have a way of romanticizing that which we do not come in contact with and demonizing that which we do come with contact with. That's why you see some old Western writers talk highly of Mohammedans because they are so remote. Surely you won't think cannibals so bad if you read about them in books but if your neighbour's brain becomes some sort of caviar I'm sure your feelings would change. Point of all my banter is this: Many atheists are so angry that they become kinda stupid and obsessed with discrediting religion. I think they ought to but it is a matter of method. Religion by its very nature is of course anti-intellectual since they do not dovetail to form one coherent entity. A Christian is a heathen to a Muslim and vice versa. Replicate this classification to all the major and minor religions of the world. An atheist is anti all religions, Christianity is just another brand of delusion to him, like Pepsi is a brand of cola. He'll never take your word or the bible's that a virgin birth occurred. Many Christians don't even believe this anyway. If you showed him a virgin birth, he'd tell you there's an explanation for it and there probably is. I saw an episode of House in which something like this happened but I'm not sure if it is fable or not.

So, my point is this: Religion IS anti-intellectual. No need to sugar coat it. I believe in God but I know it makes no sense at all. I believe in God with my heart. My head does not believe there's anything beyond that which I can see and that is what is intellectual. What we can see and prove.

P.S. You suppose a lot, lol

Your conclusion is this:

Religion IS anti-intellectual.

However, the only thing I can see in the above post that can be taken as support for the conclusion is this line:

Religion by its very nature is of course anti-intellectual since they do not dovetail to form one coherent entity.

From that it seems that your one reason for saying religion is anti-intellectual is that "they do not dovetail to form one coherent entity".

From what I understand of the phrase I do not think that is a sufficient premise for holding that "religion" of necessity* is anti-intellectual.

In any event, my primary concern in the opening post is not religion as such but Christianity in particular.


* I guess I could have used the word "perforce" which seems to be the currently fashionable 'intellectual' word around here. 

PS

vescucci:
My head does not believe there's anything beyond that which I can see and that is what is intellectual. What we can see and prove.

If you read a bit of Kant you might rethink this line.

It has been discovered that birth can occur without the spermatozoa. Try find out abt "parthenogenesis"

Lol. Don't take my words apart na. I have read Kant's famous book but Kant wasn't always right anyway. The statement was generalist in nature.

I intentionally substituted religion for Christianity because I want you to appreciate what Christianity seems to a non-believer. It's the same way Islam or Hinduism seems to you perhaps. How do you not assume someone who says the world is resting on a cow which is in turn resting on a turtle anti-intellectual? There are/were many great Christian, Muslim and Hindu scientists but they were great scientists in spite of their religions not because of it.

Perforce, lol. I ineluctably deny any eminent association with the highfalutin club. Christianity is not evil or anything but let's call a spade a spade. People sit at home praying when they ought to be at the hospital or think ANYTHING bad that happens is the work of the devil.

Niyi53:

It has been discovered that birth can occur without the spermatozoa. Try find out abt "parthenogenesis"

I am aware of parthenogenesis but, from the little I know of it, Jesus' should have been born a female if it was simply parthenogenesis in Mary's case.

vescucci:

Lol. Don't take my words apart na. I have read Kant's famous book but Kant wasn't always right anyway. The statement was generalist in nature.

I intentionally substituted religion for Christianity because I want you to appreciate what Christianity seems to a non-believer. It's the same way Islam or Hinduism seems to you perhaps. How do you not assume someone who says the world is resting on a cow which is in turn resting on a turtle anti-intellectual? There are/were many great Christian, Muslim and Hindu scientists but they were great scientists in spite of their religions not because of it.

Perforce, lol. I ineluctably deny any eminent association with the highfalutin club. Christianity is not evil or anything but let's call a spade a spade. People sit at home praying when they ought to be at the hospital or think ANYTHING bad that happens is the work of the devil.

Ah, I honestly didn't mean to take your words apart and I agree Kant wasn't always right --- no one is anyway. I appreciate how Christianity may seem to a non-believer but the point remains that criticism should be grounded in facts; often, criticisms are based on the straw man approach and on caricatures of Christianity. While we can say that there were/are great scientists who are such in spite of their Christianity we should at the same time note that there were/are great scientists who are Christians in spite (some even because) of their science.

A thought: some of the world's greatest educational institutions were founded by Christians and indeed even Moslems have their own claim to support of scholarship indeed in our very Africa i.e. the historical learning centres at Timbuktu.

Enigma:

I am aware of parthenogenesis but, from the little I know of it, Jesus' should have been born a female if it was simply parthenogenesis in Mary's case.

Correct. This is from Wikipedia:

Parthenogenesis (from the Greek παρθένος parthenos, "virgin", + γένεσις genesis, "birth"[1]) is a form of asexual reproduction found in females, where growth and development of embryos occurs without fertilization by a male. In plants, parthenogenesis means development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell, and is a component process of apomixis. The offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female in species that use the XY sex-determination system, and male in those that use the ZW sex-determination system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

^^ Ah, thanks for that InesQor.

On the main topic ----- even our Lord Jesus Christ did not encourage us to be necessarily "anti-intellectual"; He taught in Mark 12:30

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength

cross referencing Deuteronomy 6:5.

Enigma:

As many will know, the thread title is obviously taken from Isaiah 1:18.

What does the rest of the verse say? I don't think it's actually about reasoning together.

Enigma:

It seems fashionable to denigrate Christianity (and other faiths, I suppose) as anti-intellectual. Well and truly, the gospel is not primarily an intellectual matter and the duty of us Christians is to preach the gospel and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict.

That's all well and good. But the clashes and denigrations tend to occur when the religious overstep their boundaries into public policy decisions.

Enigma:

Nevertheless, Christianity (or even faith for that matter) does not preclude the use of intellect or even require its suppression or suspension. The intellectual challenge of Christianity (and of faith I suppose) is not to prove or disprove the everyday intellectual disciplines such as science, history and the like. Rather, the intellectual challenge of Christianity (and of faith I suppose) is balancing what we believe as of faith with what we know is true in the intellectual disciplines like science etc.

But it does.

I think faith does preclude the use of the intellect how else can one explain an act like only praying for a diabetic child to get well who ends up dying yet the perpetrator of such an act actually thinks this was a good approach?
How do you wish to find a balance between faith and science? The way I've seen it done is by the person simply suspending the scientific method from their religious inquiries.

Enigma:

An example: science says that a woman cannot get pregnant without the involvement of spermatozoa from a man: I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. To the purely intellectual minded, my belief is "daft" because science contradicts it; I say all well and good with your science which is true that spermatozoa is necessary for conception. But I believe in something greater than your science ---- something which can override your science. Now I say emphatically ---- that stance is not anti-intellectual. In fact I am even now going to coin a new term to describe that stance ---supra-intellectual ---- i.e. recognises and understands the intellectual position but yet rises above that intellectual position.

What you've mentioned above is a very good example. How is your solution better than science? Your method of going around it which is by inventing a new field/term is simply not an intellectual solution and it is not better either.

It's just a work around you've invented for your special exception. One question is why do you believe the concept of the virgin birth? Is it because it's in a book? Or because you were told? Or that you have some other unmentioned reason to think it is possible?

Enigma:

Now on this "anti-intellectualism" charge ----- even a cursory reading of the Bible and a casual knowledge and understanding of church history very easily refutes the charge that Christianity is anti-intellectual.

Acts 17:1-2
Acts 18:4
Acts 18:19
Acts 24:25

The Anglican tradition is often seen (sometimes jokingly derisively) as one given to: Scriptures, Reason and Tradition as exemplified by this line  taken from this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism

For all their faults, church fathers and various theologians throughout history down to Calvin or, contemporarily, to N T Wright cannot sensibly be accused of being intellectual pigmies or "anti-intellectual".

Anyway to summarise ---- to believe in the sufficiency or authority of the Bible is not necessarily to be anti-intellectual.

How much of the Bible do you believe literally? Or do you think it is allegorical? Is it the entire old and New Testament that you believe? How authoritative do you think the Bible is? Should we run our government on the rules and punishment in it? How about those not in it?

For example, do you believe in speaking animals? How about plants? How about zombies? How about flying people? How about global floods? How about the origin of the rainbow?
There are simply too many questions raised by believing the Bible in any particular way you wish to choose.

@thehomer:

I think you are making a mistake. You're confusing Enigma and the understanding behind this thread with some others and the idea their ilk have.

Those have something to gain from you and so tell you not to cater for your aged parents but rather bring that cash to their coffers. Same with your diabetic - bring it to them and when the child dies, its YOUR faith that was not enough. That is the situation where you'll find suspension of "common sense". This thread and author don't subscribe to such.

Your queries make sense on the surface! But let me ask you how reasonable/sensible/intellectual you would have been suggesting 1, 000 years ago that iron cities (ships) would float and men would sit in iron and fly or I would be in Israel and see a man in Rome live on a metal contraption with a glass tube? Hey, whats glass? When you understand that, you will understand that mankind is learning and the fact that we do not know how something is possible today does not mean it is not possible.

I believe its easier to accept a virgin birth than to believe the iron used to forge a battle-axe in the 11th century would be merged together so large that 5, 000 men would climb on it and it would float half across the world. Think from the perspective of the 11th century man then fast forward your mind to 1, 000 years from now!

OTR, will reply later 2nite.

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

I think you are making a mistake. You're confusing Enigma and the understanding behind this thread with some others and the idea their ilk have.

I don't think I'm making a mistake here. The same sort of reasoning can and does lead to such outcomes.

nuclearboy:

Those have something to gain from you and so tell you not to cater for your aged parents but rather bring that cash to their coffers. Same with your diabetic - bring it to them and when the child dies, its YOUR faith that was not enough. That is the situation where you'll find suspension of "common sense". This thread and author don't subscribe to such.

Is faith to be valued more than common sense or less?

nuclearboy:

Your queries make sense on the surface! But let me ask you how reasonable/sensible/intellectual you would have been suggesting 1, 000 years ago that iron cities (ships) would float and men would sit in iron and fly or I would be in Israel and see a man in Rome live on a metal contraption with a glass tube? Hey, whats glass? When you understand that, you will understand that mankind is learning and the fact that we do not know how something is possible today does not mean it is not possible.

If it was 1,000 years ago, it would be perfectly logical then based on the knowledge and abilities available then. For this reason, an informed person cannot make such a statement now.

nuclearboy:

I believe its easier to accept a virgin birth than to believe the iron used to forge a battle-axe in the 11th century would be merged together so large that 5, 000 men would climb on it and it would float half across the world. Think from the perspective of the 11th century man then fast forward your mind to 1, 000 years from now!

There you go. Why do you believe that it is easier to accept a virgin birth? What mechanisms do you wish to propose for it to happen in humans? And you're comparing it to something that has already been done for which the principles are clear and easily understood.
Besides, we have more knowledge and information now compared to 2,000 years ago. What mechanism do you wish to give for the occurrence of this virgin birth? Or does it mean something else?

thehomer:


There you go. Why do you believe that it is easier to accept a virgin birth? What mechanisms do you wish to propose for it to happen in humans? And you're comparing it to something that has already been done for which the principles are clear and easily understood.
Besides, we have more knowledge and information now compared to 2,000 years ago. What mechanism do you wish to give for the occurrence of this virgin birth? Or does it mean something else?

?

Ok, put yourself 1, 500 years AGO and explain "parthenogenesis" or better still, explain how a man living 1, 500 years ago would have explained the concept which you now take for granted because of advancements, wikipedia and the web.

Then fast forward to 1, 500 years AHEAD and prove to me why the advancements that make you (rather than the man 1000 years ago) understand parthenogenesis today will not by that time, have explained HOW a virgin birth is possible!

No hype, no fight, no hiding - all we are saying is that we are limited on this plane and are learning. Till we know the answers, you cannot prove it impossible. Science is a developing "thingy" and has its limitations. What you are saying is tantamount to a man 500 years ago saying air travel is impossible (remember they too had science then)!

nuclearboy:

?

Ok, put yourself 1, 500 years AGO and explain "parthenogenesis" or better still, explain how a man living 1, 500 years ago would have explained the concept which you now take for granted because of advancements, wikipedia and the web.

But parthenogenesis has been pointed out to be a non-viable hypothesis in this situation.

nuclearboy:

Then fast forward to 1, 500 years AHEAD and prove to me why the advancements that make you (rather than the man 1000 years ago) understand parthenogenesis today will not by that time, have explained HOW a virgin birth is possible!

But this is about 2,000 years ahead and you're yet to explain how a virgin conception is possible.

nuclearboy:

No hype, no fight, no hiding - all we are saying is that we are limited on this plane and are learning. Till we know the answers, you cannot prove it impossible. Science is a developing "thingy" and has its limitations. What you are saying is tantamount to a man 500 years ago saying air travel is impossible (remember they too had science then)!

At the very least, we know from science that even if some technology was available to do it, it is obvious that those in the past would not have it to use.

What I'm saying cannot be compared to flight because we're talking about the regular functioning of the human body and not technological advancement. While it is true that we are learning, at the very least, the current knowledge about the functioning of the human body simply has no place for conception without some sort of fertilization.

Besides, will you be willing to accept that someone (other than a character in your particular religious text) conceived while being a virgin, without asking questions?

^^^ I know you understand the above posers I put before you.

[1] I am using parthenogenesis as a poster child for "impossibility" or whatever you wish to say is not possible. Based on that,
[2] 1000 years ago, parthenogenesis was a lie. Yet there was science
[3] Today it is true because science has advanced
[4] Tomorrow, we assume science will keep advancing
[5] 1000 years from now, prove that "science" would not have advanced to the point where it "understands" the virgin birth.

I ask [5] of you on the premise that the same science that discounts the "virgin" birth today as a lie also refused to accept planes could fly or ships would sail or parthenogenesis 1000 years ago based on the information science had then. We have thus shown/seen that science "then" has become a "lie" today. How then do you know that science "today" won't be a lie in 1000 years time?

Remember, science is based on "current" findings and current "1000 years from today" will obviously not be what is current "today".

You guys have spiralled out of control with your arguments. I do not think this is what Enigma meant to begin with. We're not talking (at least, not I) about occurrences that have no scientific explanations now as if there would be a scientific explanation later. You can't approach the issue of the soul with any kind of science because that's supposed to be on another plane. Jesus' birth is not a mechanism but a specific act. You can't liken that to technology. It just reminds me of the Noah thread. The thing is supposed to be a miracle. Or a grand meteorological event. But it can't simply be both. Science and miracles are immiscible. Miracles defy science and are not compatible with it; that's why they are called miracles. There's no point looking for a common ground.

Belief and faith are not straight forward things. Any miraculous event that can be easily explained by science ceases to be a miracle. There is no need to feel it is wrong to accept that faith is anti-intellectual. It simply is. Even laws that govern our known universe can not really be universal in the truest sense of the word. Different planes have different laws. Religion should keep its nose out of science and Science should keep its nose out of religion. QED.

Oga Nuke! How are you feeling? Much better I hope.

thehomer:

What does the rest of the verse say? I don't think it's actually about reasoning together.

If you have an inerpretation of the verse, let's have it.

That's all well and good. But the clashes and denigrations tend to occur when the religious overstep their boundaries into public policy decisions.

The thread is concerned with the Christian faith; it is not concerned with political activists even though it is actually normal for different interest groups (e.g. environment lobby, gay lobby etc etc) to seek to influence public policy.

But it does.

I think faith does preclude the use of the intellect how else can one explain an act like only praying for a diabetic child to get well who ends up dying yet the perpetrator of such an act actually thinks this was a good approach?

Typical caricature come straw man ---- otherwise how does one then explain the millions of Christian doctors world wide including our very own aletheia? How come several Christians on this forum constantly challenge faith healers and so-called "healing ministers"? In fact there are still a number of threads on this --- one of them near the top.

How do you wish to find a balance between faith and science? The way I've seen it done is by the person simply suspending the scientific method from their religious inquiries.

In the first place "the scientific method" (if we mean the same thing) is not a necessary part of my Christian faith. I believe it is a fallacy to assume Christianity must conform with science or perhaps even vice versa.

What you've mentioned above is a very good example. How is your solution better than science? Your method of going around it which is by inventing a new field/term is simply not an intellectual solution and it is not better either.

It's just a work around you've invented for your special exception.

The same fallacy of assumption! You forget that I first acknowledged the scientifically recognised method of conception --- yet I believe in the virgin birth.

One question is why do you believe the concept of the virgin birth? Is it because it's in a book? Or because you were told? Or that you have some other unmentioned reason to think it is possible?

Because I believe; because I have faith. If that is not enough for anyone, tough!

How much of the Bible do you believe literally? Or do you think it is allegorical? Is it the entire old and New Testament that you believe?

It does not matter; whichever option you choose does not make a difference to my Christian faith.

How authoritative do you think the Bible is?

The Bible is authoritative on matters of the Christian faith and life/living as a Christian.

Should we run our government on the rules and punishment in it? How about those not in it?

Another caricature come straw man; 'render unto Caesar' and all that.

For example, do you believe in speaking animals? How about plants? How about zombies? How about flying people? How about global floods? How about the origin of the rainbow?

The worst you can say is that these things are not true based on your knowledge of science? Well, it still makes no difference to my Christian faith.

There are simply too many questions raised by believing the Bible in any particular way you wish to choose.

And we Christians are continually grappling with them and trying to improve our understanding of these matters. We recognise that we look through "a glass darkly" but we are convinced and happy that one day we will know all these things.

nuclearboy:

^^^ I know you understand the above posers I put before you.

[1] I am using parthenogenesis as a poster child for "impossibility" or whatever you wish to say is not possible. Based on that,
[2] 1000 years ago, parthenogenesis was a lie. Yet there was science
[3] Today it is true because science has advanced
[4] Tomorrow, we assume science will keep advancing
[5] 1000 years from now, prove that "science" would not have advanced to the point where it "understands" the virgin birth.

I ask [5] of you on the premise that the same science that discounts the "virgin" birth today as a lie also refused to accept planes could fly or ships would sail or parthenogenesis 1000 years ago based on the information science had then. We have thus shown/seen that science "then" has become a "lie" today. How then do you know that science "today" won't be a lie in 1000 years time?

Remember, science is based on "current" findings and current "1000 years from today" will obviously not be what is current "today".

Yep, I agree with this. I think there is a quote from Augustine referring to what scientists/intellectuals (can't remember which) know or think they know --- i.e. expecting us to base our faith on that; yeah right.

BTW nuclearboy trust you are recovered and glad to see you on form.

@Vesc & Enigma:

Thanks, I'm good now.

On miracles and the atheist, its significant that the issue is a deliberate refusal to remember the lessons of history, the discoveries of cunieforms of all kinds, the dead sea scrolls, excavations that led to science finding her foot in her mouth etc. People talk of what they know today as though understanding stops today. Thats why I used the back-track/fast-forward approach as an allegory - so he could re-consider his absolutist approach.

I thought I already answered this. Ok to make things a bit clearer,

nuclearboy:

^^^ I know you understand the above posers I put before you.

[1] I am using parthenogenesis as a poster child for "impossibility" or whatever you wish to say is not possible. Based on that,
[2] 1000 years ago, parthenogenesis was a lie. Yet there was science

Obviously, based on what we know now, it should not be considered a lie. But, if someone proposed it without having studied and understood the process, it would not be intellectually satisfying to accept it simply because someone has proposed it.

nuclearboy:

[3] Today it is true because science has advanced
[4] Tomorrow, we assume science will keep advancing
[5] 1000 years from now, prove that "science" would not have advanced to the point where it "understands" the virgin birth.

The point is this why would any one today accept such a claim made thousands of years ago with little evidence today to back it up?

nuclearboy:

I ask [5] of you on the premise that the same science that discounts the "virgin" birth today as a lie also refused to accept planes could fly or ships would sail or parthenogenesis 1000 years ago based on the information science had then. We have thus shown/seen that science "then" has become a "lie" today. How then do you know that science "today" won't be a lie in 1000 years time?

Remember, science is based on "current" findings and current "1000 years from today" will obviously not be what is current "today".

You're mixing these things up. One (the virgin birth) is a claim about a biological event that has happened. The other is a proposition in the future about what is technically feasible.
In such a field (biology) we do not "prove" statements etc. Besides, how do you expect me to "prove" your negative statement?

vescucci:

You guys have spiralled out of control with your arguments. I do not think this is what Enigma meant to begin with. We're not talking (at least, not I) about occurrences that have no scientific explanations now as if there would be a scientific explanation later. You can't approach the issue of the soul with any kind of science because that's supposed to be on another plane. Jesus' birth is not a mechanism but a specific act. You can't liken that to technology. It just reminds me of the Noah thread. The thing is supposed to be a miracle. Or a grand meteorological event. But it can't simply be both. Science and miracles are immiscible. Miracles defy science and are not compatible with it; that's why they are called miracles. There's no point looking for a common ground.

Belief and faith are not straight forward things. Any miraculous event that can be easily explained by science ceases to be a miracle. There is no need to feel it is wrong to accept that faith is anti-intellectual. It simply is. Even laws that govern our known universe can not really be universal in the truest sense of the word. Different planes have different laws. Religion should keep its nose out of science and Science should keep its nose out of religion. QED.

Oga Nuke! How are you feeling? Much better I hope.

There you've said it. But as we can see, religion cannot keep its nose out of science neither can science keep its nose out of religion.

@thehomer:

This has gone past the realms of truth and entered the realms of "I have made up my mind to disagree". But that is fine by me.

If the statement in my penultimate post about considering the lessons of the past flew by you without any impact or lessons learned, no problem. I remain commited to truth, not conjecture, not argument, not sturbbonness. I guess it seems "hype" to not back down at some levels. Not where I stand. Readers can make their own deductions on what is true and what is "evidenced" from the conversation.

On Vescucci's post, the truth is that I am not the one saying you are deluded. That is your "platform". Most everyone who has contributed to this thread has the basic - a bachelors degree - but you seem to assert we threw our education away and you ended up the only literate person here. I say Science is "on-going". You say it is absolute. So I show examples of its progressive progress and you, understanding yet unwilling to accept (not lose) decide to shift the goal-post just so you seem "above" and don't concede nothing. Very powerful. Lovely Ladder. Enjoy the elevation.

Enjoy your week.

Enigma:

If you have an inerpretation of the verse, let's have it.

I think it's about one person giving commands and instructions to be obeyed by another.

Enigma:

The thread is concerned with the Christian faith; it is not concerned with political activists even though it is actually normal for different interest groups (e.g. environment lobby, gay lobby etc etc) to seek to influence public policy.

Are you about to claim that the Christian lobby does not try to influence public policy?

Enigma:

Typical caricature come straw man ---- otherwise how does one then explain the millions of Christian doctors world wide including our very own aletheia? How come several Christians on this forum constantly challenge faith healers and so-called "healing ministers"? In fact there are still a number of threads on this --- one of them near the top.

Please explain why you think it's a straw man. I already mentioned how some may simply choose not to critically review their previously held religious beliefs.

Enigma:

In the first place "the scientific method" (if we mean the same thing) is not a necessary part of my Christian faith. I believe it is a fallacy to assume Christianity must conform with science or perhaps even vice versa.

What sort of fallacy is it?

Enigma:

The same fallacy of assumption! You forget that I first acknowledged the scientifically recognised method of conception --- yet I believe in the virgin birth.

How is it a fallacy of assumption?

Enigma:

Because I believe; because I have faith. If that is not enough for anyone, tough!

This is circular reasoning. Do you wish to consider this an intellectual response?

Enigma:

It does not matter; whichever option you choose does not make a difference to my Christian faith.

I'm not the one choosing. It's whoever wishes to consider their religious belief on an intellectual level that has to decide.

Enigma:

The Bible is authoritative on matters of the Christian faith and life/living as a Christian.

But I say it is not authoritative on living as a Christian.

Enigma:

Another caricature come straw man; 'render unto Caesar' and all that.

How is it a caricature or straw man?

Enigma:

The worst you can say is that these things are not true based on your knowledge of science? Well, it still makes no difference to my Christian faith.

If your faith is as I understand faith to be, nothing would make a difference to it. So why would you wish to consider such a stance as being an intellectual one?

Enigma:

And we Christians are continually grappling with them and trying to improve our understanding of these matters. We recognise that we look through "a glass darkly" but we are convinced and happy that one day we will know all these things.

Are you actually trying to understand them or are you trying to force current knowledge to fit your preconceived notions of what it's supposed to be based on old texts?

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

This has gone past the realms of truth and entered the realms of "I have made up my mind to disagree". But that is fine by me.

If the statement in my penultimate post about considering the lessons of the past flew by you without any impact or lessons learned, no problem. I remain commited to truth, not conjecture, not argument, not sturbbonness. I guess it seems "hype" to not back down at some levels. Not where I stand. Readers can make their own deductions on what is true and what is "evidenced" from the conversation.

. . .

Enjoy your week.

All right then. But I was simply pointing out that the two situations are not comparable. I also wonder what you mean by "remaining committed to truth".
But, since you've made up your mind to disagree, that's fine by me.

Enjoy your week too.

"Truth" is that there are 2 sides to this divide.

One side [AA] says here is why, when, what.

The other [ZZ] says NO, it cannot be, BASED on what we can observe, study, see

Then [AA] says - "look, this is easy. One thousand years ago, you guys couldn't see Parthenogenesis and thus said it was impossible. And you expected ALL to believe. That position is TODAY false. Today you say this issue is impossible. How do you know that it will not be resolved into your understanding in another 1000 years"

But [ZZ] insists - "We are right because we don't see it"

[AA] - "no wahala. You truly haven't seen it. YET!"

Truth then for me is that, your position is not planted on solid ground. It shifts based on "advancements", which are in turn based on "findings", which are in turn, based on time! Christians cannot shift goalposts and thus, you appear informed because of "doubt" rather than knowledge.

I am going back to this post by vescucci to point out one or two things.

vescucci:

Belief and faith are not straight forward things.

I can agree to this.

Any miraculous event that can be easily explained by science ceases to be a miracle.

Actually, not necessarily --- particularly if the chances of the occurrence of the event are microscopic. EDIT (I make allowance for the word "easily" which I didn't notice initially)

There is no need to feel it is wrong to accept that faith is anti-intellectual. It simply is.

1. The statement uses the broadbrush "faith" as that is the only way it has a chance to be true rather than if it were specific to Christianity.

2. The argument is not necessarily accurate in any event as faith can be based on physical/material evidence or even non-material evidence.

Example A - the material: three times in the past James has told me he will show up at my place on Monday at 9AM, Yesterday, James told me he will show up at 9AM today. It would be indeed thoroughly "intellectual" for me to believe and have faith that James will be here at 9AM today.

Example B - the non material: John has dreams and premonitions which are subsequently borne out by events; John has just had a dream that x will happen; it would be indeed thoroughly "intellectual" for John to believe and have faith that x would happen ----------- as a matter of fact whether x does indeed happen or not.

3. Philosophy is not necessarily given to scientific methods yet is considered intellectual. Christianity is at the very least equivalent in propositional terms to philosophy ----- so why then is it not (or can it not be) "intellectual"?

Even laws that govern our known universe can not really be universal in the truest sense of the word.

Or "absolute"? ---- which is one of the things nuclearboy has been trying to point out to thehomer.

. . . . Religion should keep its nose out of science and Science should keep its nose out of religion. QED.

This line refers to the broadbrush "religion" not the specific 'Christianity' ---- nevertheless, I said in my opening post that Christianity is not about proving or disproving science. Indeed, what we find is that it is some scientists/intellectuals (usually atheist and some militantly atheist) who keep making the demand that Christianity (maybe, religion generally) need to be subject to, proven or perhaps even established(?) by science. Of course many fair and objective scientists do not do this e.g. I referred recently to Britain's 'top scientist' saying inter alia:

"I would support peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains," Lord Rees said. "Anyone who takes theology seriously knows that it's not a matter of using it to explain things that scientists are mystified by."

From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/martin-rees-we-shouldnt-attach-any-weight-to-what-hawking-says-about-god-2090421.html

Notice the line anyone who takes theology seriously? How does one understand that? I would venture it means a deep study, understanding and appreciation of theology not a superficial assumption that it must conform with science or take a particular form of intellectual enquiry; rather, it needs to be recognised in its own unique manner of intellectual (and I even maintain my claim, supra-intellectual) enquiry.

thehomer:

I think it's about one person giving commands and instructions to be obeyed by another.

1. Please read the whole chapter again and particularly verses 1-17 and you will see a constant appeal to the thinking faculty , to the intellect.

2. In any event, the giving of commands/instructions and reasoning together are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Are you about to claim that the Christian lobby does not try to influence public policy?

I'm sorry this is now off-point. If you have issues with the Christian lobby, please take it up with them.

Please explain why you think it's a straw man. I already mentioned how some may simply choose not to critically review their previously held religious beliefs.

It is a straw man because the Christian faith does not teach that a person should not take conventional medicine --- hence my reference to Christian doctors. This is such an obvious matter that I actually resent having to answer this point in the first place.

What sort of fallacy is it?

I repeat that it is a fallacy to assume that Christianity must conform with science. Now, no matter the "classification" which one gives the fallacy, the critical matter is that the assumption is a fallacy. See e.g. the quote of Lord Rees in my immediately preceding post.

How is it a fallacy of assumption?

This relates to a specific question about the virgin birth: we do not challenge science's claim about normal conception/birth by a woman; if we were challenging that, maybe you'd have a case; we say we believe that Jesus' virgin birth is outside that; yet, you keep demanding a comparison to science!

This is circular reasoning. Do you wish to consider this an intellectual response?

Oh yes, I do! It was a deliberately provocative statement: provocative in two senses i.e. provoking the interlocutor to further thought as well as a minor irritation. I believe because I have faith; I have faith because I have reason (i.e. intellectual basis) to have faith. Again, I will keep it this cryptic to still remain mildly provocative.

I'm not the one choosing. It's whoever wishes to consider their religious belief on an intellectual level that has to decide.

So are you going to force a choice or force a person to choose? Is that intellectual? A person says irrespective of whether you take all of the Bible literally or allegorically, he has enough reason to subscribe to Christianity ---- yet you say he must choose? He must operate on your own terms? Maybe you do not understand let alone appreciate his reasons for his faith? 

But I say it is not authoritative on living as a Christian.

As a Christian, I know that the Bible is authoritative on Christian living.

How is it a caricature or straw man?

I'm sorry this is another of those pretty obvious things; please read the "render unto Caesar" refrerence from the Bible.

If your faith is as I understand faith to be, nothing would make a difference to it. So why would you wish to consider such a stance as being an intellectual one?

For a start, as long as you expect my faith to prove itself to science, then you do not truly understand my faith. My faith is indeed intellectual because it is grounded in part but not only on reason i.e. the intellect ---- however, this reason is informed and conditioned by something far greater than scientific proof or the "scientific method" ---- personal experience of God.

Are you actually trying to understand them or are you trying to force current knowledge to fit your preconceived notions of what it's supposed to be based on old texts?

Ah, there you go! Current knowledge --- is that the be-all and end-all?