Am I being immoral by believing in a transcendent creator?

[Htom Sirveaux]

Am I giving aid and comfort to the fundamentalists? I go to a UU church, and I frequently argue with internet fundamentalists in favor of marriage equality and choice, and against hell. I was once politely told to leave and never return to a fundamentalist youth group I was visiting for arguing for an old Earth and against hell. But is that good enough, or does my belief still support fundamentalism much more than that?

I should say that I believe in this transcendent creator because I think this belief is true. Not because a Bible or a pastor told me so. Nor was I raised in a religious family. We can get into the reason why I think my belief is true if you want, but rest assured that it has nothing to do with "anything goes when it comes to religious belief." I am very much favor of reasoning about religious beliefs.

So what say you?

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	You are still giving too much aid and comfort to fundamentalism by believing in a transcendent creator.
	0 (0%)
	You are sufficiently far away from fundamentalism that you are not morally responsible for their misdeeds
	0 (0%)
	Only fundamentalists are responsible for fundamentalist misdeeds.
	4 (100%)
	Other (please explain)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[No Vested Interest]

1. It doesn't matter to whom you are giving aid and comfort.

You believe what you believe regardless of where others fall in their own beliefs or unbeliefs.
It's nobody else's business and there is no right or wrong in belief if it is sincerely formed and held.

[Iggo]

2. I wouldn't call it immoral.

[Deep13]

3. Beliefs do not make us immoral. Actions do. nt

[trotsky]

4. Simply by believing, no.

But if you defend religious belief and/or revelation as a legitimate and equal method of acquiring knowledge about the world as compared to reason and observation, then yeah.

[cbayer]

5. This is an argument often made around here and I think it's entirely bogus.

I find it curious that you would even consider it valid.

If anything, as a fellow believer you are in a better position to challenge the right wind fundamentalists about how they have used their religious beliefs to stifle the civil rights or impede social justice for others.

So how in the world do you think your personal belief supports fundamentalism? And where did you hear this?

[trotsky]

6. Often, eh?

I've never seen it. Perhaps you could point out a post or two? I mean if it's made "often" then it should be pretty easy to document your claim. Especially since you're using it to attack others.

[edhopper]

8. Believers are often

challenged to take on the extremist elements of their faith and the idea that not challenging someone's belief with reason and logic because we need to be "tolerant" has been discussed. Also the idea that people can be immoral due to their belief, even though they attribute that belief to God has been made. But no, that argument that having a belief makes one immoral has not "often been made around here".

[cbayer]

15. Believers that frequent DU often do take on the extremists who share in name their

faith.

Articles are posted here frequently that challenge those extreme views or talk about those that are actively challenging the fundamentalists.

There is no tolerance here for religious views that support discrimination, hatred or bigotry towards others.

If anything there is active push back against those very ideas.

This concept that the religious left was too complacent in allowing the conservative fundamentalists to gain so much power has some validity, but that pendulum is swinging and that swing can be seen here on a daily basis.

The idea that the religious right has used their religious beliefs in a distorted way to limit the civil liberties of others is often discussed here and found to be immoral in pretty much every post I read.

[edhopper]

17. That is true

but I was differentiating between what nonbelievers do challenge believers with at times and your false statement about what happens "often around here."

Maybe now would be a good time to say your post was mistaken.

[cbayer]

19. It's not a false statement. It is merely a matter of what you read and how you read it.

What the OP is posting is a position that has been expressed here. It has been said that liberal/progressive people of faith have not only been complacent but have given shelter and support to the religious right. The argument has been made that the religious left does this in order to protect their own position of privilege and/or are afraid to confront those in their own camp.

I'm not going to research it, but I will stand by it.

Perhaps "often", being open to interpretation, could be seen as too much, and I will retreat from that particular word.

But there is not doubt that the concern the OP is expressing is a direct reflection of things that are said here and elsewhere.

[trotsky]

20. Wow.

So in other words, you don't give a shit whether it's actually true, it's what you believe so you're going to stick to it even if it unfairly maligns fellow DUers.

What a piece of work you are.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

64. No, he is saying that it does happen,

Not that it happens "often". In fact, it is quite true. I was told, I believe by you, Trotsky, although I may be wrong, that my remaining a Catholic means that I support homophobia and misogyny.

[edhopper]

71. If you go to Church and give them money

you most certainly do. But those are actions in support of an immoral institution. The mere fact of your belief in a God doesn't make you immoral, which is the topic of the OP.

[trotsky]

74. You are wrong.

You support an institution that promotes homophobia and misogyny.

And that's STILL not the same as what was claimed in the OP, that merely by believing in a creator you're immoral or supporting right-wing fundies.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

88. Thank you for showing that I am correct

[trotsky]

99. Well, I did show that evidently you don't care to read what I wrote.

There is a difference between what I said, and what you think I said.

If you want to have a dialog here, let me know if you would like me to explain.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

114. I said

"I was told, I believe by you, Trotsky, although I may be wrong, that my remaining a Catholic means that I support homophobia and misogyny." You replied "You support an institution that promotes homophobia and misogyny." In other words, I quoted you quite accurately.

So tell me how I am wrong.

[edhopper]

116. because this

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

is not the topic of the OP, which is only about just the belief in a creator and not about the Church you belong to.

Hope you can see the difference.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

124. So we were talking past each other.

[edhopper]

126. appears so.

often discussions from other threads come into play. Probably the case here.

[trotsky]

134. If you don't see the difference between...

personally supporting something, and supporting an institution that promotes that something, then there isn't much left to discuss. You might personally be opposed to homophobia and misogyny (at least I hope you are), but the institution you support with your time and money is perpetuating them.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

136. Oh, I understand the difference quite well

I have said, in as many words, that I remain a Catholic in spite of, not because of, the misogyny and homophobia. I have addressed both previously, for example, see my two posts in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12211141

I would just like to say this: I have serious problems with the Catholic Church, but I have no problems accepting the Catholic faith. The two are quite different things,

[trotsky]

137. Depends on what gets lumped into those categories. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

104. It depends

Last I checked, the UU were not homophobes or misogynists. Most of the clergy here are minority females, one of whom is a very prominent lesbian activist. I do agree with the rest of your argument, but not all churches are homophobes or woman haters.

and no, I would not have made much of it if the OP did not identify as a UU.

[trotsky]

105. I believe your reply to me is mistaken.

I am specifically referring to FA's church - the RCC.

[DonCoquixote]

110. OK

But I still wanted to note that the author of the OP is coming from a perspective not typical of most

[edhopper]

21. Doubling down huh?

He is asking:
"Am I being immoral by believing in a transcendent creator?
Am I giving aid and comfort to the fundamentalists?"

Is the very presence of his belief making him immoral. No and no one here has ever said such a thing.
He explicitly stated that he argues with fundamentalist and doesn't think belief trumps reason.

Please proceed.

[cbayer]

22. Doubling down? How so?

And I told him that I don't think he is giving aid and comfort to anyone, nor do I think he is being immoral. I also asked him explicitly where he has gotten the idea that this is the case and pointed out that he could have gotten it from some posts here.

What do you mean by please proceed?

[edhopper]

28. You claimed that what he said

that merely the belief in a creator makes him immoral in some people's eye's has been leveled by people here "often".
That is false, and unless you can provide an example I suggest you walk that one back.

It is a reference to allowing someone to dig themselves into a deeper hole after they are given the opportunity to retraxct.

See Obama v Romney: Benghazi.

[cbayer]

35. I should have been more specific as I was referring to the aiding and abetting bit.

What's your deal, edhopper? I'm just trying to have a conversation and have accused you personally of nothing.

I don't need you to tell me when I should walk something back or apologize. I expressed my opinion based on my experience here. Another member has confirmed it as his experience and yet another member has really confirmed it by his vote in the poll.

I have no idea what Benghazi has to do with this.

[edhopper]

49. And he has been challenges to back it up as well.

You accused people here of accusing believers in doing what the OP said "often".
Since I am part of the non-believers here, I take it as an accusation.
If you want to give an example of some one here saying believers are immoral due only to their belief, then please do so.
If not, a retraction would be in order.
That's my deal.

Romney was wrong and didn't take the opportunity to step back, Obama said "please proceed" and Romney went forward to misspeak and be called on it. But I guess you can't see the analogy.

[cbayer]

52. And I retracted the "often" bit.

And I made absolutely no mention of the non-believers in general or of anyone in particular.

And I wasn't addressing the immorality issue, just the issue in the poll.

Is there some reason you are so amazingly defensive on this?

Have you also decided to find something wrong with everything I post?

You are right, I can't see the comparison you made between me and Romney. Call me just plain stupid.

[edhopper]

53. I will ask once again

you said

"Perhaps "often", being open to interpretation, could be seen as too much, and I will retreat from that particular word.

But there is not doubt that the concern the OP is expressing is a direct reflection of things that are said here and elsewhere."

Where has anyone claimed that believers are immoral based solely on their having belief.

That is what the OP is asking and that is what you claim has been said here.

No where in the OP does he ask if nonbelievers think believers aren't doing enough to confront fundamentalist. In fact he volunteers that he does often. So what in the OP do you think is claimed here often?

I am sorry if you can't see why I have a problem at baseless smears aimed at nonbelievers.

[cbayer]

58. No one has claimed that. I was responding to the aiding bit,

which I have now said about four times.

Sorry. Please forgive me. I humbly beg that you give me another chance. I will be more careful in the future.

JFC.

[edhopper]

62. Which is not what the OP was asking

and went out of his way to show how he opposes and does not aid the fundies.

And you still don't get how misplaced your post was.

Your snarky apology is accepted as intended, without sincerity.

JFC indeed.

[cbayer]

65. Lol. I had forgotten who you were,

but now I remember.

Don't forget about those dogs and fleas.

[edhopper]

68. So now the atheist on this forum are

dogs. What happened to tolerance? Or does that only go for believers?

[cbayer]

69. I didn't say that, you did.

I have no problem with most of the atheists in this form. I have a problem with the people, be they atheist or not, who have rigid ideas about other people who see things differently than them, even though those POV's don't infringe on the rights or liberties of others.

I have problems with people who think all religious believers concept of god is the same.

I have a problem with people that think that all people with religious beliefs are wrong and further state that most atheists agree with them, when it's not the case.

And I have a problem with people who think that all religious people think that anyone that holds different religious beliefs are wrong.

In short, I have a problem with dogma, particularly when it is held in the face of contradictory evidence.

But atheists? I have no problem with atheists.

[edhopper]

70. What contradictory evidence do you have

from the atheists' view. Because God knows they have been asking for it "often" enough.

[cbayer]

72. You started threads on all these topics and received a very diverse set of responses

which challenged (or should have challenged) your blanket assumptions.

Your last one was particularly interesting, although I think you didn't get anything like you expected.

So, in light of that it's not surprising that you found my statement provocative and felt it to be wrong. You thought I was aiming it at all atheists, when I was only speaking of a small group that maintain rather rigid POV's on religious people in general.

I'm not sure what "atheist view" you speak of. It's been my experience that there are as many views as there are atheists….

just like believers.

[edhopper]

73. the view that God

does not exit.

[cbayer]

75. I have no evidence that god either exists or does not exist, as we have

discussed previously.

And if someone wants to believe or not believe, it generally makes no difference to me.

Unless they want to use that to harm others.

I'm certainly in no position to say they are wrong or right.

And neither are you.

[edhopper]

81. you'll have to pardon me

if I don't accept your "impossible to know" premise.

[cbayer]

67. One last thing, then I will leave you alone.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110632

[trotsky]

106. I've pondered why you think a link to that post somehow supports your position...

and I just don't see it. Even the lone poll responder that you claim supports your false statement has chimed in and clarified that it's not the mere act of belief that aids the fundamentalists, but the legitimization of religious belief and revelation as methods of obtaining knowledge. You do see how that's different, right? Or does it not matter to you, when there are people you need to hate?

[hrmjustin]

23. I have been accused by people here of giving the religious right.

Never understood how but find it amusing that they think that.

[cbayer]

24. I know, so have I.

But apparently that doesn't mean it has actually happened.

[hrmjustin]

25. Do you like my avatar and sig line?

[cbayer]

30. I do indeed.

I'm not familiar with your candidate but will do some research.

[hrmjustin]

31. He is running against grimm and I think he is good.

[trotsky]

26. Perhaps you would be willing to provide more details?

cbayer refuses, but I think this is an opportunity for dialog to find out why there is a misunderstanding. Neither edhopper nor I think that the claim has been made that by simply believing in a creator, you are helping the religious right. cbayer thinks otherwise, but won't provide any evidence.

Will you?

[hrmjustin]

32. What do you want to know?

[trotsky]

33. How about starting with what exactly it is you think you've been accused of? n/t

[hrmjustin]

36. I have been accused of not standing up against the Bastardization of my religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Episcopalian, yes?

[hrmjustin]

38. Yes.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Hm.

What kind of bastardization?

Episcopal Church seems like a fairly progressive separatist/offshoot of the Catholic church. Blessing same sex marriages. Ordination of women.

What was the reference to?

[hrmjustin]

41. That I don't stand up enough against the right wing enough.

Ihave also been told "Your attitude toward people who have been harmed by Christianity need to "deal with it" is deplorable".

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Did you dismiss such injuries with 'deal with it' or similar language?

I would expect a strong response from that sort of thing, if that's what happened.

[hrmjustin]

44. I don't make light of people who have been harmed by people who follow my religion.

[trotsky]

40. OK, you realize that's not the same as what was said in the OP or claimed by cbayer, right? n/t

[hrmjustin]

42. I disagree.

[trotsky]

45. Care to explain? n/t

[hrmjustin]

46. I have been accused of sitting on my high horse and not getting my hands dirty.

[edhopper]

50. Have you been accused of being immoral

just because you have a belief in a creator?

If not, it is not the same thing.

[hrmjustin]

51. I was responding to cbayer's point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110589

[edhopper]

54. Which is OT to what the OP

was asking.

[hrmjustin]

56. Mypoint wS only that I have been accused of not standing up to conservative Christians.

[edhopper]

57. I get that,

and you came in down thread, so your post is understandable.
But you don't think anyone here has accused you (or anyone) of what the OP says about immorality and belief?

[hrmjustin]

59. I have never been accused of being immoral here.

Others I can not speak for. I notice one person did vote for the option of we are giving aid and comfort to the religious right.

[edhopper]

60. Yes,

that was Brettongarcia, I hope he posts to explain that further.

[hrmjustin]

61. I do as well.

[trotsky]

63. No, what I asked you to explain is how that is equivalent to the statement that...

by merely believing in a creator you are being immoral or helping the fundamentalists.

If you do now see how those are different accusations, there doesn't appear to be any way to discuss this.

[trotsky]

18. None of what you just said supports your initial claim.

If you can't support it, you should probably retract it, since all it will do is increase misunderstanding and acrimony. You don't want that, do you?

[skepticscott]

66. Seriously?

"There is no tolerance here for religious views that support discrimination, hatred or bigotry towards others."

That would explain why people here are labeled intolerant bigots and goose-stepping hateists simply for criticizing such religious views, right? And with your applause and full support.

[Htom Sirveaux]

76. I was having a discussion here

with someone who suggested moderate and progressive people of faith were enabling fundamentalists because each were claiming "faith". What I may be seeing here is a distinction being made between "belief" and "faith". Maybe the exact same belief would be treated differently depending on whether it was based on a claim of faith versus a claim of reason and observation?

[cbayer]

77. Yeah, I know. It happens.

Mentioning it sure did kick a hornet's nest though.

Attempts to distinguish different flavors of believers are sometimes met with great resistance. It just doesn't play well with the prevailing narrative that some people want to hang on to.

I don't think there is a distinction being made between belief and faith in these discussions, though.

[trotsky]

98. And you know what, cbayer?

You made it worse. You made a bogus, incendiary claim and now have the gall to pretend like you're just an innocent bystander.

You're part of the problem, and this thread is a great example showing why. So glad it's there for all to see.

[Starboard Tack]

7. You are not responsible for the intolerance of others.

You have every right to believe whatever makes sense to you.

[hrmjustin]

9. You zre giving no comfort to them. I believe in the same tenets of death and resurrection as them

but that is not giving aid and comfort to them. It is my faith and I will not allow them to hijack it.

[edhopper]

11. You changes your avatar

what's the shield?

[hrmjustin]

12. That is the flag and shield of the Episcopal Church.

My sig line is the democrat running agaist my congressman the one and only Michael Grimm.

[edhopper]

13. okay

[hrmjustin]

14. I love your sig line and agree 100%.

[edhopper]

16. Thanks

it becomes more apt every day.

[edhopper]

10. In reading this again

I would say that unless you have an example of someone saying just because you have a belief in the supernatural, and only that, you are immoral, this is a giant heaping pile of strawman.

[Htom Sirveaux]

78. Nobody I know of said those exact words, no.

I was told that belief without evidence (faith) gives aid and comfort to the fundamentalists. The idea of a transcendent creator might be considered a prima facie example of that by some. I wanted to know if that combination of sentiments is here, and if so, how prevalent it is.

[edhopper]

80. I can only answer for myself

but no, I don't consider it so in and of itself.

[Brettongarcia]

135. I feel that transcendental Christianity is similar to parts of Fundamentalism.

SOME RANDOM NOTES:

To be sure, it DOES have some good qualities. It is for example, rather more intellectual than raw, unreasoning, blind belief in obvious irrationalities; it DOES try to explore things rationally.

In fact, for many years I was attracted to transcendental Christianity myself. I liked its attempts to reason Christianity out, logically. But finally there are logical problems. Modern Analytic Philosophy for example. It finds problems with the whole notation of an "Uncaused Cause." In general, 1) the problem is "question-begging"; it does not answer what made the universe, but just says that causal thinking is wrong.

Another problem Analytic Philosophy finds in the notion of God as uncaused cause, is 2) "incoherence," or failure to locate an answer in logical space. That is: is the notion of an "uncaused cause" really ... CLEAR and logical? Does it really tell us anything clearly?

Can you really form a clear mental picture from it?

Then too? 3) To say that things "always existed", is rather the same as saying "they just are." (Relating to begging the question).

I was once attracted to the attempt to reason about metaphysics, and cosmogony. But around the time of Russell and Wittgenstein and then Rorty, many philosophers began to give up on metaphysics. As simply too remote; and therefore unknowable.

In addition to other known logical problems: 4) it seems to me that the notion of a God being outside of Time, to have created Time, still leaves begging the question where God came from, in turn. Which Russell noted partially.

What I like about your (and Plato's?) approach though, is that it at least attempts to use reason and logic. And if it ends with an unimaginable God? Then that helps agnostics after all.

[broiles]

27. There's no creator, trans or otherwise.

[edhopper]

29. So does the mere belief in the imaginary

make one immoral?

[Brettongarcia]

117. If you believe that the imaginary being is ordering you to do bad things.

Nor can we make an absolutely firm distinction between "belief" and acting on that belief. Since normally, people WILL act on their beliefs. Even belief in a "transcendent" being, sometimes has real-world applications, most assert.

[edhopper]

118. Yes

but OT on the OP.

[Brettongarcia]

128. What do I support? Strictly speaking, a liberal and/or transcendental "belief" might seem harmless.

I had not firmly condemned that to date on this blog (I think).

But on closer consideration? I might support only a liberalism that does not rest content with "belief." Rather I might support one that looks to see if its religion works, in the material world. One that takes in much science and empirical data, to see what works and what does not.

For this and other reasons, though I did not say this earlier (I think), I would not support a liberalism of mere transcendental belief. Only a religion or a liberalism, that can prove itself by empirical or scientific evidence, is worthwhile.

This leaves room for a liberal Christianity, I guess. But only if it begins to value scientific evidence, far more than Fundamentalism does. I might call it "Natural Christianity," say. Or some other name. "Science-Based Theology," etc..

[LeftishBrit]

34. No.

People are only moral or immoral because of what they do, not because of their beliefs as to how the world originated.

[Gothmog]

47. No

Faith and reason are not incapable. The fact that you believe in a creator does not mean that you hold the same beliefs as the fundies

[edhopper]

55. Agree with the latter.

Disagree with the first bit.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I take issue with your wording in the poll.

"Only fundamentalists are responsible for fundamentalist misdeeds"

I agree with that sentiment insofar as they do what they do, and when they hurt others, they are responsible for that.



But morality, aid and comfort....

I think if you believe without evidence in some supernatural thing, that does add weight to the general assumption that such a thing is real, and fundamentalism is built, usually, on that assumption.

So, I wouldn't savage you for the behavior of the WBC, who are out there hurting people with their 'god hates fags' message, but without that foundation of general acceptance of the bible, or in general, faith in the supernatural, they might as well be standing there with signs that say 'Elvis hates fags' or 'pet rock hates fags' or some other clearly meaningless claim.

So I see it as somewhat aiding/comforting.

If it could be demonstrated that a god DOES exist, and that the bullshit in the old testament is NOT the word of that god, then they would simply be co-opting a faith for nefarious purposes. But as it is, how can I tell they aren't simply slightly misinterpreting what you personally interpreted a different way? Them literally reading a pile of bullshit written by man, that you have discounted/ignored, in favor of a different relationship with a supernatural god?

How am I, an outsider, supposed to firewall the concepts when I look at the two groups? Again, I don't view you as responsible for their behavior, but the general faith in a god of nebulous nature does generally contribute to the platform they are abusing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

79. I don't think any of the Bible

has a divine guarantee behind it, so interpreting the Bible is not an issue for me when it comes to justifying belief in a transcendent creator. I prefer the line of thought beginning with the pre-Socratics and running through Plotinus, with later assists from neoplatonic influenced Christian/Jewish/Muslim philosophers and mystics. A different animal that has had an uncomfortable relationship at best with the deity depicted in scriptures.

[skepticscott]

82. What aspect of the world is unexplainable in principle

without invoking god?

[Htom Sirveaux]

83. The mixture of change and stability our universe exhibits.

I can see several possibilities when it comes to the nature of the universe. There might be no universe at all. Or there could be a universe of unlimited change, where anything can happen for no reason at all. Finally, there might be a static universe, a single image frozen forever. Any of those would be simpler than the mixed universe we inhabit. So to me, that mixed nature would seem to require some explanation.

So how to explain that? How does the informational content get transmitted across moments in time and locations in space sufficiently enough to create any kind of stability or predictability? Whatever the mechanics of it, must it not have the ability to bridge time and space? And if this means has that power, it can be described as transcending time and space. But since it is not limited by time and space, it cannot fundamentally be material, and it must be eternal.. And since it deals in the creation, preservation, alteration, and transmission of information, it is in some sense mind-like.

[skepticscott]

86. Which is merely an argument

from ignorance and personal incredulity. Which also doesn't explain how something transcendent (god) could have arisen from something that isn't. Or why, if it could, the universe itself couldn't just as easily have arisen without the middleman.

[Htom Sirveaux]

87. "Arising" implies a beginning. "Eternal" means no beginning, therefore no arising.

And if the universe could cut out the middle man, and begin for no reason, then we're back to the version of the universe where change happens for no reason whatsoever.

[skepticscott]

89. If "god" could be eternal

so could the universe. Middleman not needed.

Sorry, you can wriggle all you like with your rationalizations, but the bottom line is that "god" provides no more of a solution to the problem of infinite regress than no god does. You've simply chosen to believe in the more complex, less parsimonious alternative, apparently because you need there to be something you can call "god". That's your business, but please don't pretend, like so many others have tried to, that "god" is the inevitable outcome of reason.

[Jim__]

92. Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

From the MIT Technology Review:

...

Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.

...

The actual paper on arxiv says it probably had a beginning. There is no known scenario that allows for an infinite past.

[skepticscott]

93. And...?

If you play expansion backwards you reach a point where no more compaction of the universe as we currently view it is possible. Duh. Which says and proves nothing about the state of things prior to the point where our physics and mathematics can be applied. Which says nothing about the state of things "before" the Big Bang.

[Jim__]

96. And, for one thing, they do talk about prior to the Big Bang.

I'm not sure how you could miss that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

94. If the universe was eternal,

We'd be in the "one frozen image forever" version. No time, no change.

[skepticscott]

101. And your proof of that is….?

If the universe would have to be "one frozen image forever" if it were eternal, then so would an eternal god have to be.

Come on…this is really tired stuff. Do you have anything new?

[Htom Sirveaux]

102. Correct, and the creator is indeed unchanging.

I wasn't claiming novelty. In the post you initially responded to, I said I preferred thinking about the transcendent that began with the pre-Socratics. Not exactly new.

[skepticscott]

103. If the creator is eternal

and the universe is not eternal, then at some point, the creator went from a state of not creating the universe to a state of creating the universe, from a state of imagining the creation of the universe to a state of no longer imagining it. i.e. the creator you propose changed. But you said it was unchanging. Contradiction.

And when I said this was old and tired stuff, I meant that all of these objections have been pointed out long ago, and that you're simply regurgitating failed and discredited arguments.

Still waiting for your evidence that "If the universe was eternal, we'd be in the one frozen image forever version."

[Htom Sirveaux]

127. Or the creator is always creating, so no shift needed.

The "one frozen image" idea is entailed by the relationship between time and change. No time, no change. So a universe that was eternal would be a universe with no time and no change, and therefore not the universe we live in.

[skepticscott]

131. Yet another invention by you

(probably made up on the fly) that has no more evidence for it than there is for the other "or" possibility. Of course it's easy to reach the conclusion you want if you pre-load your presumptions with the end point already in mind.

And while, within the common understanding of those terms, change cannot occur without the passage of time, "no time" is not self-evidently the same as "infinite time". Neither you nor anyone else understands what "time" is well enough to reach that conclusion.

Something new, please? Something that hasn't been addressed many, many times before.

[Htom Sirveaux]

132. What would qualify as evidence for you?

Also, if space-time began with the big bang, then time is finite because it has a beginning, right?

[Brettongarcia]

90. Crusader: sounds good. Even Liberal Christianity supports Fundies, Evangelicals, indirectly

Even when liberals Christians object to fundamentalists/evangelicals at times? Still they are considered "Christian." And people point to them as the majority; lumping them together.

Especially? Many fundies read liberal theology ... as backing them; they can't hear the critical subtext at all. Some of this delusion is deliberate; many liberals don't want their differences with rank and file believers to be foregrounded, or even known. Out of fear of the majority, zealots?

Even the "transcendentalists" who support a reality beyond Reason, often are used by believers as an underpinning for their blind anti-intellectualism, and unreasoning, anti-rational belief.

[Htom Sirveaux]

95. Fundamentalists read liberal theology and transcendentalists as backing them?

Have you personally experienced this, or can you point to an example?

I listen to a lot of fundamentalist radio, and they are quite clear on all the ways that liberals are corrupt, or "worldly" as they put it. Liberals are seen as standing with "the culture" against Jesus. Those tall tribal boundaries are part of the authoritarian tribalism inherent in fundamentalism.

[Brettongarcia]

97. Many fundies dislike "liberals." But as long as one "acknowledges" "God," or "Christ," then ...

... there is often/usually SOME acceptance.

Even some fundies feel it is hard to strike someone who calls himself a Christian.

Not all. But most.

[okasha]

107. "Many fundies read liberal theology...

as backing them"?

Really?

Proof, please.

[Brettongarcia]

108. Certainly backing them to the point that even lib theology affirms the fundamentals: "God" exists

Simple logic.

Examples? I've been reading and working in theology for 8 years; examples too numerous to mention of conservative theologians quoting - probably misquoting - literal theologians. People read selectively; they read what they want to read.

A random example out of millions? J. Lanier Burns of Dallas Theological seminary; "Hope: The Heart of Eschatology," pp. 182-3; in "Looking into the Future; Evangelical Studies in Eschatology" David Baker Ed. ET Studies, Baker Academic Publications 2001. Burns, in a very conservative publication, teaching at an arch-Baptist seminary, quotes say Pannenberg, as support for his conservative thesis.

P. 149 quotes liberal theologian Richard Bauckham.

[okasha]

109. Not quite.

Having one concept in common does not prove that fundamentalists read liberal theology as supporting them, especially when the two groups have radically different ideas about the nature of the concept. Go find us some quotes proving that fundamentalsts believe that liberal theology supports them. And while you're at it, please offer us some indication that you actually know what liberal theology is.

[Brettongarcia]

112. I'm citing lots of sources; including academic ones. Why don't YOU find some citations?

Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2014, 12:56 PM - Edit history (2)

Think for a second. My saying that Fundamentalists read liberal theology as supporting them, does not necessarily imply that they think that it TOTALLY supports them. One of the pillars of my portico supports the roof; it is not the only support. LOGIC.

Having one point in common, is important though. It shows that many reasonable people might find something in common between Fundamentalism and Liberal Theology. (As well as differences of course). Those similarities however, turn out to be important. I do not say that Fundamentalists are confident that Liberal theology ENTIRELY supports them; but parts of it are enough for most of those who call themselves "Christians" to cohere, albeit loosely and with conflicts, as a whole. To feel some loose kinship; as "Christians" say, as opposed to Buddhists.

Do your own homework. I'm supplying five times more references than you to date.

Ever hear of "projection"?

Of course there are far more liberal theologians than those cited here. But honestly, no one whatsoever that actually read much theology, would think that your point of view is sustainable.

Why don't you stop with raw judgmentalism, and bluffing? Cite your own sources, names and dates.

Here and now please.

[okasha]

113. Interesting.

First you identified yourself as a philosopher. Now, suddenly, you're a "liberal theologian."

Convince me. Cite your own publications and creds. Then explain how your own liberal theology supports or gves aid and comfort to fundamentalist Christianity

Next, kindly cite any fundamentalist who signs on to John Shelby Spong's Twelve Points, or to any part of Process Theology.

Sorry, can't post links on the Kindle. But a liberal teologian wouldn't need a cite; s/he would already know that stuff by heart, no?

[Brettongarcia]

115. Philosophy and religion have some overlap; cosmology, ethics/morality, and so forth. I do both.

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry; can't cite my creds in interest of internet anonymity/ nom de plume.

What are YOUR creds by the way?

Spong is really a preacher; at most the popularized version of a theologian. Somewhat liberal in some ways. Not really a scholarly theologian though. So he doesn't quite qualify.

Here's my major point. Over and over, you're ignoring/missing my central point: what essentially ALL Christians have in common. Which is that they acknowledge "God."

There is therefore, a common element in both Liberal and Conservative belief systems. One that you have ignored for three or so posts.

So what about my main point that you have not addressed for several posts already?

You seem eager to talk about anything but the main point.

Spong does not have an earned PhD; just an honorary one. But his idea of a "non-theistic" God or Christianity seems to complement contemporary Existentialist Theologies; like "Care Ethic" stuff. The idea in part is that our idea of God is ... our idea. But if so, then we need to be responsible about what we think and do; we should care for others and so forth. Here Spong interfaces with philosophical Ethics, especially Existentialism and Humanism.

[skepticscott]

122. You should be well aware

even after a short stay here, that the religionistas will go through almost any contortions to justify NOT backing up their claims with evidence.

[Brettongarcia]

123. Most think the Bible stresses blind "faith." But I say the Bible finally backs evidence, "science"

Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40; 1 Thess. 5.21; Deut. 18.20-2; etc..

Finally the Bible backs science, even over (its own?) traditional narrative.

So finally? Christians should learn far, far more science.

The Bible warned there were many bad and as it says "false" things in religion. So instead of having faith in religious authorities, we were told to examine, "test everything." (1 Thess. 5.21).

There are many false prophets. So how can we know what things in religion are true? (Deut. 18.20-2). "By their fruits you shall know them."

Finally that means not just mental or "spiritual" fruits; but real empirical results. As proven by real "science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-22; etc.).

[skepticscott]

125. Even fundies, but also other Xstians

are more than happy to tout science and its methods when they think it supports their "faith" (as they did with supposedly valid studies on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer, among others), but when it doesn't, they retreat to the convenient "evidence doesn't matter...I believe this..I have faith" or something to that effect.

Nice "heads I win, tails you lose" dodge.

[Brettongarcia]

129. Good observation: to me the Bible backs Science, even OVER traditional belief

"Do not believe me," Jesus said, amazingly.

Not until he AND his present-day followers produce physical material evidence for their claims. Including great material (not spiritual) "fruits," "works," "signs," deeds, and "proofs"; as "observe"d by we ourselves, in our own time, with our physical "eyes" here on this physical material "earth." In a timely way: "soon," "at hand," "quickly." And as verified by real, genuine "science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).

Beliefs which cannot pass this "test" (1 Thess. 5.21; Mal. 3.10; 1 John 4.1 ff? etc.), are to be rejected. Rather than tenaciously followed with "blind" "faith."

Says even the Bible itself, I suggest.

[skepticscott]

130. Well, Jesus also said

"blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed" in response to Thomas' waiting for confirming evidence that the guy supposed to be the risen Jesus really was.

[Brettongarcia]

133. Reading the Bible? Watch the double meanings/semantics. Cf. "Bless those who curse you."

The Bible, especially the NT, is written in a "poetic" or equivocal language. Where most phrases have at least two meanings. Often those meanings are exactly opposite.

In the case of the word "bless"? It turns out that this word does not always mean 1) God gives his approval to something. 2) "Bless" can always mean exactly the OPPOSITE of that. Often we bless people, when they sneeze. But note this: it is not to approve of their act. But to hope that they will do better - they will be better blessed; they will do better - in the future.

So "bless"ing someone in the Bible does NOT necessarily mean their act is being approved. Often it means exactly the opposite of that.

And in the case of Thomas being "blessed"? The language seem open to the negative meaning.

Careful! Our "tongues" were "confused" at Babylon; often things even in the Bible don't mean what a superficial/fundamentalist reading would suggest. Not only are there metaphors, or "figures" of speech, and "allegories"; but also equivocations, double entendres.

And finally I suggest, the "second" voice in the Bible adds up to the second and better appearance of Christ. Where he advocates not faith, but critical science.

[MellowDem]

84. You're mistaken, not immoral...

at least IMHO. Indoctrinating children in your belief is immoral though, and plenty of moderates an progressives still don't think so, though they're coming around slowly. You cannot reason with faith based beliefs, so even though you favor trying to, it's not possible unless you change the definitions of words.

[Htom Sirveaux]

85. Words can certainly change meanings.

Much to the displeasure of the fundamentalists who fervently insist that "gay" only means "happy"

[Meshuga]

91. You are certainly not being immoral

As many here pointed out. And you are not a bad person for it. Your beliefs are your beliefs. That's who you are. And your actions as a good person that you strive to be will speak for themselves.

However, if the source of one's religion is the same as the ones that use religion for malevolent ends that is when things get a little complicated and I start seeing the "enabling" issue becoming relevant.

Believers usually subscribe to a deity (something bigger than they are) to reinforce their morals, values, beliefs, and world view. If I get my source of good values and beliefs from a book where bigots are able to support their world view based on interpretation then the question becomes: "why is my interpretation valid and their interpretation is not?" If I can interpret scripture as a wish then that allows then to do the same.

[Htom Sirveaux]

100. That's one reason why the idea of God inspiring a book is problematic.

Why a book (or a church, for that matter)? Why not teach us directly? Free will? Did the authors of the Bible lose their free will while writing the Bible?

[WhiteTara]

111. By transcendent, do you mean

separate from you? I don't know what you are asking.

[Brettongarcia]

119. I'd say that liberal Christianity has SOME usefulness; a balance between conservatives & Reason?

Still, it's a rather compromised position. As a middleman between Fundamentalism and Reason, say, it often makes too many concessions to superstition. And it enables Fundamentalism more than most would like to admit.

Finally though, in its favor? Liberal Christianity CAN serve as peacemaker, albeit imperfectly; between major warring segments of society.

[edhopper]

120. And if Liberal Christianity

also supports secularism in Government, it leads to positive results.

[Brettongarcia]

121. Agreed. I am most sympathetic to a Liberal Christianity that leans most toward reason