> Stephen Black wrote... > Well, I tend to the opinion that if Firm Believers can say that an > allegedly loving God is going to torture me in Hell for all eternity for not > believing (and eternity's a pretty long time, isn't it?)
> Dr. Jim Guinee, Firm Believer, wrote... > No firm believer that I know if believes that or teaches that, and it's not > based on biblical interpretation. > > Besides, this isn't about Christianity per se, it's about belief in God > versus no belief in God. If you don't like my response, I'm sorry you feel > that way, but engaging in a religious peeing contest will not make things > better. > Aubyn writes... > You must not get out much, Jim. With small children in the house, you got that right. ;) > I know lots of Firm Believers who teach just > what Stephen states above (of course many of these would substitute "punish" > for "torture" but the operational definitions would not change). And I'm aware of someone in the Jesus Seminar who calls Jesus the first Jewish comic. That someone posits something about Christianity does not automatically authenticate it. > Something > tells me this is not the place for a Bible Quiz-O-Rama, but there certainly > is a basis in Biblical texts for this position, though personally I agree > with your implication that it does not reflect the best interpretation of > the Bible. Thank you. And as I said, I wasn't interesting in looking at Flew/theism from a Christian perspective. So why anyone would suddenly interject a pejorative remark about Christianity seemed unnecessary. > Jim, you have recently contributed several posts cryptically suggesting some > kind of positive inference about religious claims from reported phenomenon, > without explaining the basis for your inference (examples: Suggesting that > the study about the effect of prayer shortening LOS in hospital provides > data supporting a theory of divine intervention; the current thread in which > you characterized as miraculous the report that a life-long atheist had > become a theist near the end of his life). You then respond with something > like irritation or exasperation when your posts elicit skepticism from other > list members. I don't know how long you've been around here, but as much as I respect the intellectuals that make this list so great, I have endured a number of anti-religious remarks over the years. Very few here seem to want to allow "divine intervention" as a POSSIBLE causal variable. > As someone who values religious commitments existentially, and religious > variables as legitimate and important (and often overlooked) personality and > social psychological components in the scientific (read: "naturalistic") > study of human thinking, feeling and behaving, I find myself troubled by > your approach, which seems (intentionally or not) designed to pick a fight > rather than to start a productive conversation. I don't have any desire to fight with people. Perhaps what I wish to discuss regarding religious commitment, experience, needs to be done elsewhere. I don't find those discussions on TIPS to be fruitful. > It reminds me of the huge > chip on the shoulder of many "Christian Psychologists" (sometimes bordering > on paranoia) who walketh about seeking anti-Christian bias in secular > psychology that they may devour. [I hope I did not just accuse you of being > paranoid; I don't mean that - I mean that there are some "Christian > Psychologists" who are paranoid in their suspicion of secular psychology, > and some of your comments seem to evoke that]. Do you think I'm too paranoid? ;) > I think it is illogical to look to scientific methods to give any data on > which to base theories of divine intervention; since science is based on > assumptions of naturalism, there is no data for which a scientifically > coherent explanation would be something like: "that must be the result of > God's activity". Well said. > The only coherent scientific response to data for which no > natural explanation has been found is something like: "I guess we have not > yet found the natural explanation for that - let's keep looking". This it > not unfair, it is not anti-religious bias, it is just following the rules of > science. Anyone who wants anything else (and of course who does not want, in > some dimension of their life, something else?) should look elsewhere. Another good point. > You seem to disagree with this Jim, which is fine of course. I don't think I do. Look, if a tree falls over, which is more viable -- that an angel pushed it over, or that it rotted and eventually went boom on its own? Just about anyone who vote for tree rot over angel push. So would I. > But rather than > reliably eliciting skeptical and even derisive responses with your cryptic > posts, and then responding with irritation, wouldn't it be so much more > productive (and pleasant) if you explained the basis of your assertions and > conclusions, and why you disagree with more traditional understandings of > science? I would certainly be interested in what you have to contribute > along these lines. Well, I'll try to be more clear in the future. Cheers, Jim Guinee --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
