Where's the humility in having confidence based on faith?

[Boojatta]

Maintaining an attitude of confidence that there is no need to question the basis of your opinions and an attitude of readiness to take offense seem to akin to the opposite of humility.

Where's the philosophical or scientific rigor in having a strong opinion in a subject area for which there is no public domain information that provides a strong basis for any conclusion?

[Az]

1. Um... there is none?

There is no scientific rigor in faith. It is the direct opposite of the scientific method as far as I can see. Do you see some connection that I am missing?

[Boojatta]

3. Can a dead man be resurrected?

[Az]

11. Happens all the time

Doctors yank people back from death all the time (it could be more often but we are working on that). Life and death are just special names we have for particular states of matter. The matter is all still there. Its just a question of getting the parts working right again.

But if you are asking if a dead man can be wished back to life or willed back to life by some omnipotent entity then you are going to have to come up with some evidence of such shenanigans. It doesn't seem likely to me. But then I am a critter of science and not fancy.

[Boojatta]

15. According to science, can injuries to arms and legs heal because they are

merely material constituents of humanity, but a whole human being who has been dead for three days cannot be revived because his scientific human spirit has departed from the body?

[Az]

16. Has nothing to do with spirit

It has to do with the simple fact that once a person "dies" their body begins to decompose. Just because the continuity of the entity we used to know has ceased does not mean that life has stopped within the body. All sorts of life kicks into high gear when your defenses shut down. And the damage to the infrastructure that is your body and brain as a result of these processes renders the body beyond our current ability to revive.

Give us time. Who knows how far out a person can be brought back from the "dead"? Death is just a word. Its not some magical thing. It is just a transition from one state of matter to another. Such transitions can be affected by our ability to learn. We can figure out how to repair and undo various things. Including cheating death.

[Boojatta]

17. "It is just a transition from one state of matter to another."

You don't distinguish between the state of a body that is evidence in a police investigation of a possible murder and the process of dying?

I suppose that a funeral home caught burying people who are later revived could use your argument. "See, folks ... we didn't bury anybody alive. It's all relative and nobody can say for sure what the word 'alive' means!"

[Az]

18. The police look to the doctors to pronounce the time of death

and doctors keep shifting the bar as to when to give up hope. So if you have a problem with it take it up with the doctors.

So what do you think death is?

[Boojatta]

19. Doctors keep shifting it?

Are you talking about assessing the state of a body prior to burial to ensure that the person isn't merely in a coma or other such non-death state?

[Az]

20. No

They shift what they consider a body that is beyond revival. It used to be that they keyed off whether the heart was still beating. Now they look to the brain to determine whether a person is still viable or not. And it continues to shift even now with the length of time the brain can continue without oxygen getting to it.

[Boojatta]

21. I don't expect people to use time machines to travel into the future

to acquire knowledge of future medical techniques and future rules of law when they are attempting revival or conducting essential pre-burial examinations.

In my opinion, we should focus attention on the facts with respect to processes of examination/treatment that occurred and evaluate them in the light of medical-legal standards in the relevant jurisdiction at the time of examination and/or treatment. In my opinion, both a revival attempt and an attempt to confirm that revival was already impossible are human actions to be judged based on medical-legal standards in the relevant jurisdiction at the time of examination and/or treatment. What do you think?

[Az]

22. Um ... ok

Not sure how you extrapolated that out of anything. You really do take things to weird places. Time travel is a new one as far as I can tell.

To restate your statement (eschew obfuscation). You think we should obey the laws and try to save those we can while following the advice of doctors as to what they can achieve. Sure.... sounds good.

Now... why did you bring all this up (ie the death angle)?

[Boojatta]

23. Some people claim to be quite confident that the dead cannot

be brought back to life. I wondered whether or not you were yourself confident of that and what any such confidence might be based on.

[Az]

25. I don't think a dead person can be magiced back to life

But I do not know what technology the future holds. So I cannot say that the dead cannot rise... ever. At this point in time if your brain is without oxygen for more than six minutes (barring cryogenics) you are dead and gone.

[Boojatta]

26. Are technology and magic the only possibilities?

Does the chess champion of the world tend to either win or draw when playing chess because he cheats with a supercomputer that transmits good moves to him via cell phone? Does the chess champion of the world tend to either win or draw because he was endowed with magic powers?

[Az]

27. Well

You certainly do know how to sidetrack like crazy. But lets see where it goes.

There are other means of cheating available to things like chess where ideas are sufficient to change the course of events. Simple human communication would be capable of cheating a game of chess by allowing an outside player to convey moves and such. Thus neither technology nor magic would be required to cheat chess.

Unfortunately as far as we can tell though real death is not a game played with death (ala The Seventh Seal) and having someone slip you a move isn't going to help you cheat death. Its gonna take a doctor using accumulated medical knowledge and technology.

[Boojatta]

36. Okay.

Good point!
O8)

[wtmusic]

2. A different view of humility

The religious believe man is humble before God, not science.

[Boojatta]

4. When you say "God", do you mean the Pope and the Bible?

Alternatively, do you not consider Catholicism to be a religion?

[wtmusic]

5. Catholics believe the Pope is Messenger of God

and the Bible is the word of God. So yes.

[Boojatta]

6. Scientists are humble before the actual book of nature

if they maintain scientific integrity and ensure that they rely upon actual experimental results and not merely upon, for example, computer simulations of events. Scientists aren't merely humble before what they (controversially) assert to be the book of nature.

It seems that you admit that Catholics are humble before the Pope and the Bible. There's no debate. To substitute the word "God" and claim that the statements are equivalent is very misleading. The alleged equivalence is the key assumption made by Catholics.

[wtmusic]

7. You won't get me to defend the indefensible

IMO religion is nonsense.

But there is not fundamental contradiction in their choice of what to be humble before. Yours is science; theirs is God, and any lackeys/teachings thereof.

[Boojatta]

8. On what basis do you conclude that it's impossible for a

dead man to be resurrected? Or do you not reach that conclusion?

[wtmusic]

9. I don't even understand what it is. nt

[Boojatta]

10. It's like coming out of a coma, except that it was death rather than a coma.

[wtmusic]

12. Well if that's possible

it's too divorced from my realm of experience to understand. People don't come back to life.

Some say they are "reborn in the Kingdom of Heaven". But that always impressed me as a fable invented by those who are afraid to die.

[Boojatta]

13. Refusing to accept something on the grounds that you don't

understand it is certainly legitimate. However, it would then make little sense for you to say that you are confident that an event of a kind that you don't understand has in fact never occurred.

[wtmusic]

14. OK, I won't say that

;)

[Silent3]

24. The fact that there are a lot of things...

...that can't stated with absolute 100% certainty, that we might have to change our minds about if we had more information, that are gray areas because words aren't always defined clearly and distinctly in fixed and unchanging ways, is not so endlessly fascinating or deeply significant as you seem to think it is.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Why in the world would one say "God" and mean either

the pope or the Bible?

Christians, even R. Catholic Christians, do not worship the Pope. Nor do Christians worship the Bible - though I'll grant you that a great many of the more recently developed fundamentalist types can sound as though they do.

The Pope is simply the leader of one branch of Christianity. A human being. The Bible is scripture, an instrument of learning and wisdom. Not God's dictation. Not a textbook or a rulebook. But the record of humankind's history of relationship with God - reflecting the outlooks of all the different people and times recorded there.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. That's an assumption on your part - that confidence in one's own

faith means no need to question.

What about people who come to their faith through a great deal of questioning, and whose day to day faith is marked by continuing questions?

I think the difficulty for you might be in the answers to those questions - they might diverge from the answers you want.

As to philosophical or scientific rigor:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Boojatta]

30. Two frequent answers (not on DU) are silence and "we will kill you."

I think the difficulty for you might be in the answers to those questions - they might diverge from the answers you want.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Would you care to elaborate?

Perhaps it's my illogical, belief-addled mind, but I'm not following the connection you seem to be drawing.

[Boojatta]

32. Elaboration:

It seems that you're suggesting that I have some preconceived preference and refuse to consider that at least one alternative to my preconception might actually be the truth. I simply gave you a couple of examples of how an answer might be inherently problematic and not merely in conflict with my preconceptions.

Example one was a silent response. Example two is a threat. For conducting a back-and-forth discussion, neither of those two kinds of answers is helpful.

[Boojatta]

33. My answer to people who come to faith through a great deal of questioning is...

Jarlsberg has a pleasantly nutty taste. It's one of my favourite cheeses. But I think my very favourite must be Roquefort, which really deserves to be called the "king of cheeses".

[Az]

34. No Boojie baby... you are the King of Cheese.

Hands down.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. LOL! nt