Breaking the Stalemate?

Breaking the Stalemate? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

hellohellohi -> Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 3:59:16 PM)
Just wondering if "Science & Origins" questions can be nudged towards other (possibly) productive directions, if the current arena of dialogue is a stalemate. In general... Isn't the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" conflated with or the same as the question "Why is anyone around to observe any of it?" For Christians... Why waste breath arguing for the objective existence of God when it is that he came to earth as a subject (even in the double sense of being under the father) and our relationship (as individual subjects) to Him that is what Christianity is all about? (edited) For agnostics/scientists... If there is a scientifically framable question along the lines of "Why is there something instead of nothing," it is surely "What is the objective usefulness, or impact, of subjectivity on the physical world?" It would be very exciting to come up with an evolutionary explanation for the usefulness (to reproductive success) of a subjective observer! Let me get you started, why aren't animals and humans super-flexible "robots" with presumably nothing that can be called an "inner life" (in the sense that one might presume robots don't have an inner life)? Why couldn't a completely "non-conscious", "non-sentient," "non-subjective", "non-intentional", "non-[substitute any acceptable term for what is colloquially known as consciousness]" neural-net be the decision maker (rather than what seems subjectively to be the case, that an individual or agency is)? Even though it is stated somwhat philosophically, please consider this from a scientific standpoint and leave philosophy (and definitions, etc.-- meta-science) aside if you will. For philosophers (please don't respond to the science question)... why not stay true to philosophy's foundations by questioning people (philosophers and others)? Specifically, why don't you use the language of your audience? My question is, wasn't it the "first cause" of philosophy to question supposed wisdom rather than to establish it? ...

gluadys -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:07:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi For Christians... Why waste breath arguing for the objective existence of God when it is the subjective experience and relationship that is what Christianity is all about? I couldn't agree more. quote: For philosophers (please don't respond to the science question)... why not stay true to philosophy's foundations by questioning people (philosophers and others)? Specifically, why don't you use the language of your audience? My question is, wasn't it the "first cause" of philosophy to question supposed wisdom rather than to establish it?... Sounds right to me. But seeking wisdom is part of it too.

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:11:31 PM)
quote: For Christians... Why waste breath arguing for the objective existence of God when it is the subjective experience and relationship that is what Christianity is all about? Well, my relationship with my wife is subjective, but if she didn't exist (objectively) my experience would be akin to insanity - which is basically what atheists argue, come to think of it.

PromiseLander -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:28:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi For Christians... Why waste breath arguing for the objective existence of God when it is the subjective experience and relationship that is what Christianity is all about? Mainly because experience is one of the worst determiners of what is right or wrong. One only needs to look as far as Joel Osteen to see false doctrine based on experience. Joel teaches a prosperity gospel - that God wants you to have the best life NOW - that is simply not Biblically based. But many people turn to him becuase it sounds good, and many people leave his "sermons" feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, but no actual doctrine is being taught. If EXPERIENCE is to be a determination of true or false gospel, then TRUE sermons might always SEEM wrong because true gospel convicts us of our sins and should leave us feeling utterly crushed for how we have sinned against God.

gluadys -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: For Christians... Why waste breath arguing for the objective existence of God when it is the subjective experience and relationship that is what Christianity is all about? Well, my relationship with my wife is subjective, but if she didn't exist (objectively) my experience would be akin to insanity - which is basically what atheists argue, come to think of it. An atheist would not question the objective existence of your wife--at least not once s/he has met her---but does question the objective existence of God.

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:39:43 PM)
quote: An atheist would not question the objective existence of your wife--at least not once s/he has met her---but does question the objective existence of God. That would be my point.

gluadys -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:55:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: An atheist would not question the objective existence of your wife--at least not once s/he has met her---but does question the objective existence of God. That would be my point. But how does the atheist meet God, other than subjectively?

hellohellohi -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:56:13 PM)
hmm, y'all are right, I shouldn't say "the subjective experience ... is what Christianity is all about" since that can be understood as, "y'know, i FEEL like God exists, etc." (thanks for the corretion) I actually meant, the Christian God is not approached by propositions (only paradoxes) because He is not an OBJECT. He is a subjectivity too. It is our relationship with Him (we should be subject to His subjectivity) that is what Christianity is all about. Get what I mean?

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 4:58:08 PM)
quote: But how does the atheist meet God, other than subjectively? How does anyone meet that which they don't believe exists?

swan42 -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:01:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: For Christians... Why waste breath arguing for the objective existence of God when it is the subjective experience and relationship that is what Christianity is all about? Well, my relationship with my wife is subjective, but if she didn't exist (objectively) my experience would be akin to insanity - which is basically what atheists argue, come to think of it. but, you wouldn't be able to tell if you were insane or not.

gluadys -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi hmm, perhaps I shouldn't say "the subjective experience ... is what Christianity is all about" since that can be understood as, "y'know, i FEEL like God exists, etc." I actually meant, the Christian God is not approached by propositions (only paradoxes) because He is not an OBJECT. He is a subjectivity too. It is our relationship with Him (we should be subject to His subjectivity) that is what Christianity is all about. Get what I mean? Yep. In that sense, God is always the subject (the initiator of action), never the object. We can only scrutinize objectively that which is in creation and God, as the creator, is not an object within creation. Hence God is only known as subject. Philosophically, subjectivity is not just "touchy-feely" sentiment. It is a way of knowing.

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:05:04 PM)
quote: but, you wouldn't be able to tell if you were insane or not. This is true, making it a viable option. Then again I can take comfort in the fact that at least I am not alone.

swan42 -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:06:59 PM)
quote: Why couldn't a completely "non-conscious", "non-sentient," "non-subjective", "non-intentional", "non-[substitute any acceptable term for what is colloquially known as consciousness]" neural-net be the decision maker (rather than what seems subjectively to be the case, that an individual or agency is)? Is this asking whether an artificial intelligence program can be invented that passes the Turing Test?

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:08:36 PM)
quote: Yep. In that sense, God is always the subject (the initiator of action), never the object. We can only scrutinize objectively that which is in creation and God, as the creator, is not an object within creation. Hence God is only known as subject. Philosophically, subjectivity is not just "touchy-feely" sentiment. It is a way of knowing. Objective in this sense simply means that the experience of that which exists isn't the product of personal experience. God is ultimately objective.

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:12:41 PM)
I have to admit I find it deliciously ironic that an attempt to allay debate has led to a new one.

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:29:07 PM)
quote: Is this asking whether an artificial intelligence program can be invented that passes the Turing Test? As no one here has actually met anyone else posting, perhaps one already has. [;)]

swan42 -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:32:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Is this asking whether an artificial intelligence program can be invented that passes the Turing Test? As no one here has actually met anyone else posting, perhaps one already has. [;)] http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-03-30/

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 5:55:11 PM)
quote: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-03-30/ I love Dilbert.

gluadys -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 7:04:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yep. In that sense, God is always the subject (the initiator of action), never the object. We can only scrutinize objectively that which is in creation and God, as the creator, is not an object within creation. Hence God is only known as subject. Philosophically, subjectivity is not just "touchy-feely" sentiment. It is a way of knowing. Objective in this sense simply means that the experience of that which exists isn't the product of personal experience. God is ultimately objective. By that definition, yes. But then it always comes down to definition, doesn't it? God is the Wholly Other and so the ultimate object. Yet God is known only in subjectivity. Both in the sense that as subject, it is God who choses to be known, and in the sense that God is known inwardly, in what we ourselves experience as subjective, and not as something concretely out there available objectively to the senses.

Jhud -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 8:33:35 PM)
quote: By that definition, yes. But then it always comes down to definition, doesn't it? God is the Wholly Other and so the ultimate object. Yet God is known only in subjectivity. Both in the sense that as subject, it is God who choses to be known, and in the sense that God is known inwardly, in what we ourselves experience as subjective, and not as something concretely out there available objectively to the senses. I disagree that our knowledge of God is wholly subjective. We have a common text, a common history, a common person who actually existed in history, Jesus Christ, the common witness of nature, and a common plan of salvation. All these are objective in the sense that they exist quite apart from our experience of them. Now because God is a person and we are persons, we have a personal relationship with Him and that relationship is our experience, and so can be described as 'subjective' - but that is not all there is to our knowledge of God.

hellohellohi -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 10:58:33 PM)
quote: ...but that is not all there is to our knowledge of God. What else is our knowledge of God? I think the Universe is neutral regarding the existence of Jesus. Only the Holy Spirit lets us know (inwardly). Does the Bible objectively let us know? Well, as far as I'm concerned the Bible is written by fallible human beings. It is the Holy Spirit enables us to believe the Bible as well. Paul who? I don't care who the guy is. However, if the Bible is the Living Word, then it is different. You see, this "knowledge" is different from scientific knowledge. "Knowing" as science is simply the naming of things (God's first commission), that is, the naming of (and debating of the parsimony and reality of) OBJECTS. However, we can name other, uh, things, as well -- I mean non-things. The only "thing" I could mean are people. God has the existence like that of people and unlike that of objects. He is nameable only as a person is nameable. Therefore, if you don't know His name (Jesus, e.g.) you don't know Him. Seems fairly Biblical to me. That's why I say it is personally misleading to believe that one can "know" God objectively. I am wondering if it is perhaps going too far away from Christian beliefs to be useful to argue with atheists over the EXISTENCE (understood as objective existence) of God. No self-respecting atheist will say God has been disproven (hmm?) anyway. Hey, it's not like any of us believe that atheists are sincere in their unbelief!! Also, I wasn't meaning to allay debate, just to move it away from the BANAL! You say objective, I say subjective, tomato, tomato ... but do you see how the different types of "knowing" are different? How can we know another human? They are concealed in a way. To know your true love in life is very unique for this reason, and probably only due to God himself. How can we know God? In the same way I say. A black hole is nothing compared to God. The Big Bang was a firecracker. Evolution is just what happened when nature got bored making two-headed Drosophila. Science is great, but life is a freaking bore! Show me the measure of God in the Universe. The only measure (yardstick) or reference for judgment is Jesus. One won't find one iota of the Word among the winding equations on a chalkboard in a classroom. If one takes a walk in the woods, one will find the birds in their air and the foxes in their holes, but will one have got any closer to the home of the Son of Man? Please, write me an equation that can express the love of God so that I can wring my heart in dread! For I love being afraid, and if I feel that man has got it in his head that God has been captured by logic, I can only sense the stronger that the true reckoning is bound to be near. Basically, we can search to the edges of the Universe, but where is it written about Jesus except in the Bible and in man's hearts? (And if it is not written IN OUR HEARTS, how do WE know -- Who's heart is it written in? That is, obviously, the experience of God is subjective. While, objective proof (in the Universe, not to say the proof we are given isn't real) of Jesus is not there. Perhaps you will also be a one who needs to put his hands in Christ's wounds personally?) Praise be that the knowledge of Christ is UTTERLY distinct, utterly heterogeneous with the category of knowledge of which we speak in science. For scientific knowledge is driven by the desire to question, to know more; it is always anxious, even if this anxiety is only manifested as enthusiasm. But the knowledge of Christ has shown us that God is indeed as loving as can be conceived and that, therefore, there cannot possibly be anything important hidden from us. If science is driven out of restlessness, the desire to explore, and the urge to move from what has just been seen to what we have just realized we might investigate, then science resembles BOREDOM, which could be defined as the desire to be other than where one is. And if boredom begets boredom then we will soon have a world of charming companions whose company we cannot wait to avoid. Dialogue will degenerate into banter and bickering, and worship will transform into one-upmanship. Am I exaggerating? Aside, from being incoherent, do I make sense or not?

hellohellohi -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 11:11:49 PM)
quote: Is this asking whether an artificial intelligence program can be invented that passes the Turing Test? No. I was asking why evolution didn't create organic bio-machines that could pass the Turing Test, rather than subjects like you and me. But what's the obsession with the Turing Test? So, some computer scientist with his wires (and panties) crossed came up with the idea that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it must be a duck, and we are supposed to celebrate him forever? No offense though to cross-dressers or computer scientists. I'm just acknowledging I know who Alan Turing is, sort of. I'm thankful for the Enigma, but, pah, the Turing Test. Isn't there a more thorough test for consciousness, though, called "existence as we know it"? (Sure, it will be a milestone though if the Turing Test is met. But I just wasn't talking about AI; I was talking about evolution.)

gluadys -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/12/2008 11:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: By that definition, yes. But then it always comes down to definition, doesn't it? God is the Wholly Other and so the ultimate object. Yet God is known only in subjectivity. Both in the sense that as subject, it is God who choses to be known, and in the sense that God is known inwardly, in what we ourselves experience as subjective, and not as something concretely out there available objectively to the senses. I disagree that our knowledge of God is wholly subjective. We have a common text, a common history, a common person who actually existed in history, Jesus Christ, the common witness of nature, and a common plan of salvation. All these are objective in the sense that they exist quite apart from our experience of them. Now because God is a person and we are persons, we have a personal relationship with Him and that relationship is our experience, and so can be described as 'subjective' - but that is not all there is to our knowledge of God. Do you know any languages other than English? French and many others make a distinction between two kinds of knowing. In French the relevant terms are savoir and connaitre. Savoir is used for objective knowledge, for what one can establish among several observers as fact e.g I know that 2 + 2 = 4, that the Mona Lisa is displayed in the Louvre, prices rise when demand exceeds supply, etc. Connaitre is used for personal knowledge, what we may call personal acquaintance with a person or place. One cannot say in French that one knows (connaitre) a person by having read a biography about him/her or through having seen/heard him/her in the media, or through a common friend. The only situation in which one can say "I know (connaitre) Jhud" is through establishing a personal acquaintance built on personal meetings and conversations. The "objective" knowledge you are describing above is savoir knowledge. It is what one can glean in terms of knowing about God indirectly through, as you say, a common text, a common history, a common witness. It is the sort of knowledge Job spoke of when he said "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear..." This is not and can never be actually knowing God. Knowing God directly, personally, experientially, existentially, means knowing in the sense of connaitre. It is the knowing that came to Job when he could say: "...but now my eye sees you." The objective knowledge you speak of can give us knowledge of the reputation of God, but it is not the same thing as knowing God like one knows a personal friend. The first is a pale shadow of the second. One can have all those things--common text, common witness, etc. and still be among those to whom Jesus in the last day will say "I never knew you". When I spoke of only being able to know God subjectively, it was in the sense of connaitre. The savoir sense of knowledge is at best knowing stuff about God. And we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that because we know a lot about God through the scriptures and the teaching of the church, we thereby know God. To know God, subjectivity is essential and without it there is no knowledge of God worth having.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/13/2008 12:18:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi I was asking why evolution didn't create organic bio-machines that could pass the Turing Test, rather than subjects like you and me. Evolution did create organic bio-machines that can pass the Turing test.

hellohellohi -> RE: Breaking the Stalemate? (6/13/2008 12:23:44 AM)
quote: Do you know any languages other than English? French and many others make a distinction between two kinds of knowing. In French the relevant terms are savoir and connaitre.... yeah! i'm glad someone can speak to what i'm saying without being as incoherent and excitable as I!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI