Brilliantly argued AlanF
Science and Logic and Faith - WT Study July 11, 2004
From page 542 Twentieth Century Bible Commentary
Edited by G. Henton Davies, Alan Richardson, Charles L. Wallis
1932, 1955 Harper & Brothers New York, NY
Wow! You guys took good care of my thread while I was gone. I will add my own comments point by point as I have time.
a. ...the vast majority of mankind are not <moved to give God glory>.
Good catch, Gopher!
What are they, mind readers? Surveys show that most people do believe in God in some way.
According to one poll, 5,760,000,000 people in the world, or 96.00% believe in God.
"Of course, it's possible to enjoy the traditions of religion--the ceremonies, the ties with the past--without believing in God... But, in fact, there are millions of Jews who believe--really believe--in God (or G-d); indeed, secular Zionist Judaism was on the wane while formal observance was rising. And there are millions of Christians who believe in the holy threefer of, as one of my Catholic friends occasionally quipped, Big Daddy, Junior, and the Spook. And there are millions of Muslims who embraced the Qur'an as the revealed word of God.
Indeed, even here, at the dawn of the century following the one in which we'd discovered DNA and quantum physics and nuclear fission and in which we'd invented computers... ninety-six percent of the world's population still really believed in a supreme being--and the percentage was rising, not falling. "
Sawyer, Robert J. Calculating God. New York: Tor (2000); pg. 147.
b. Some even deny that God exists.
Tashawaaa,you point out that while some scientists deny that God exists, others don?t. No big surprise there, belief in God is subjective, so we would expect to see scientists for and against. My interpretation of Greenstein?s quote is that we cannot use science to prove our faith, we bolster our faith alone, outside of science. By using one scientist?s quote AGAINST, are they trying to debunk scientific thought altogether? Greenstein?s quote sent me on a hunt for new words and definitions, though I am doubtful of the second.
anthropocentrism- an inclination to evaluate reality exclusively in terms of human values
anthropism - Cultural/philosophical movement, claiming the Earth-derived clades of intelligence have a special place in the history of the galaxy. The most common view is that the terragens have a noticeably higher level of diversity and dynamism compared to the other, now extinct alien species or the other extant species. This will prevent any mass die-off or single fate, and guarantee the eventual spread and dominance of the galaxy by Earth-derived mindkind and their alien allies. Critics have questioned these assumptions, but more properly anthropism is rather viewed as a religious/emotional commitment to the terragen future than an accurate assessment of evolutionary potential. encyclopedia galacticawww.orionsarm.com/eg/a/An.html
Jgnat...I love the thinking, detail, and effort you've put into this thread.
Please, define/quantify/describe/communicate to this non-believer what 'faith' is.
If you or someone else has already done this elsewhere, please give me a link.
Once I figured out my logical, observational jw 'faith' wasn't what others call faith, I was really messed for I didn't know what it was.
I really want to know gnatster, it could mean a lot in my life.
boa....a snake without a shred of recognizable faith
Really, guys, I will respond in kind to everybody as I go. I am flattered, especially, that Hillary and Alan visited this thread.
I thought I would at least give a link to boa before he explodes:
I am still working through what my own faith means. I haved decided for sure, though, that I will not deny evidence in my face, even if it contradicts how I thought the world works. Just 'cause I might have been wrong about my worldview, however, does not mean that God does not exist.
I am convinced He was the one who rescued me from my abusive husband. For that, I won't deny my history or what He has done for me.
Another thought-provoking site, though I am not sure if I agree with all their conclusions:
Thanks for posting this jgnat... It was good for a laugh!
c. Scientific research is limited - restricted to what humans can actually observe and study.
It is shocking to find something true in the WT. I guess a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Too true, LABD. Good scientists follow a proscribed method of study and observation. This method is designed to prevent any false assumptions or error. This way, one scientist can fairly confidently build on the discoveries of another, and over time great body of knowledge is built up.
The WT article implies, however, that because this method is limited, it is therefore inferior. It is not. It is merely a method.
ALL human methods of observation are limited - we are not gods!
A proper follow-up is that using the bible alone as a guide is also limited. I don't think a witness would similarly conclude that bible-living is similarly inferior.
d. Since ?God is a Spirit? he ....cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. e. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.
Elsewhere: "Sorry buddy... can't have it both ways. " You caught it!
And gopher, "It is arrogant of the WT Society to proclaim that people don't measure up to their standards of belief or faith"
By definition, faith in God is unscientific. I have a theory that the WTBTS is a product of the industrial age. They are embarrassed that faith is unscientific. KH assemblies are run like little business meetings. Testimonials, anecdotal evidence, and pseudoscientists are quoted to give a semblance of order and credibility to their belief. The bible is dissected like a frog, with tasty bits held up as "proofs".