The enlightenment and creationism

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Bias is not generally something you are aware of. It is not something someone purposely perpetuates. How many people CHOOSE to include bias? How many recognize their own bias? It is too deep a thing to just be set aside. It is subconcious. Again, you somehow seem to presuppose these works to be based solely on reason. Its as if its the "sacred scripture" of the athiest. Don't you realize the philosophers were just as human as we are? They were in no way superior. You start with the FACT that reason was used to come to conclusions, then say that means they were able to get rid of subjectivities. Since you already defined reason as being seperate from any subjectiviites or bias, thats circular reasoning! Its like saying "the FACT that the Bible is God inspired implies that it is devoid of falsehood or human interference."

If you cannot recognize your own bias then your are mentally inferior to others, because your subjectivities can only be broken down objectively using the ideas of another person. Philosophers are not superior humans, just superior thinkers. And no, it is not subconcious, it is selfishness that fails to lose a bias. One is biased when they are believing in a religion, since they ultimately disagree with other religions and automatically discard science that goes against their religion. Using reason, you can empathize situations by mentally detaching yourself from what you believe and seeing the other side of things with a clear, open mind, something religious people, and a few atheists, never do.

[kygojags]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 If you cannot recognize your own bias then your are mentally inferior to others, because your subjectivities can only be broken down objectively using the ideas of another person. Philosophers are not superior humans, just superior thinkers. And no, it is not subconcious, it is selfishness that fails to lose a bias. One is biased when they are believing in a religion, since they ultimately disagree with other religions and automatically discard science that goes against their religion. Using reason, you can empathize situations by mentally detaching yourself from what you believe and seeing the other side of things with a clear, open mind, something religious people, and a few atheists, never do.

Actually in order to set aside your bias, one must actually obliterate it by somehow finding a neutralizing force to contradict it. For example, I had a bias that muslim women do not like football, however, I heard a muslim woman screaming very loudly at one game and was more passionate than most of the fans around her, which left me choking on my sterotype. After that, that particular bias never crossed my mind again.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 If you cannot recognize your own bias then your are mentally inferior to others, because your subjectivities can only be broken down objectively using the ideas of another person. Philosophers are not superior humans, just superior thinkers. And no, it is not subconcious, it is selfishness that fails to lose a bias. One is biased when they are believing in a religion, since they ultimately disagree with other religions and automatically discard science that goes against their religion. Using reason, you can empathize situations by mentally detaching yourself from what you believe and seeing the other side of things with a clear, open mind, something religious people, and a few atheists, never do.

How can my subjectivities be broken down by someone else? They are no less biased than I am. Or do we just go by majority rule? I don't think even you would argue that. I would like to ask if you recognize your own bias? Because it is clear that you have much. If you are predisposed to any single view for any reason, you have not eliminated your bias. As an athiest, you are biased because you disagree with religions. Ha. That is the exact same criteria you used to judge me, so don't bother trying to deny it. A bias is much deeper than simple selfishness. Its deeply ingrained in a person. For example, someone who grew up with racist parents in a racist community. Not suprisingly, our hypothetical person grows up a racist. They are told black people are "bad, theives, criminals" whatever you like. That person will most likely be biased for life. It isn't selfishness, its the environment he was raised in. Its the people you associate with. No one chooses to remain biased. Its never a concious decision. You go on ahead and worship your philosophers. It's clear that you are predisposed towards them. I'm mature enough to hear from many, think for myself, and draw my own conclusions. Perhaps not free from bias, but I am honest enough to admit such biases are a part of me.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: kygojags Actually in order to set aside your bias, one must actually obliterate it by somehow finding a neutralizing force to contradict it. For example, I had a bias that muslim women do not like football, however, I heard a muslim woman screaming very loudly at one game and was more passionate than most of the fans around her, which left me choking on my sterotype. After that, that particular bias never crossed my mind again.

That is not entirely true. The bias is not gone, only lessened. Bias is harder to destroy than that. Only by recognizing and thus discarding bias can you set it aside, so to speak. Bias can summed up as what you believe, added to a little faith. You had faith that the women didn't like football. When that faith failed, your beliefs were challenged, and you begin to question your beliefs. However, you cannot deny the faith in that belief, so next time you see Muslim women at a football game, you will still feel a glimpse of bias that they don't like football, or won't enjoy it. You will watch and wait, and if your beliefs are challenged again, and maybe even again, then your beliefs ultimately disintegrate, taking every bit of faith in those beliefs with it.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 That is not entirely true. The bias is not gone, only lessened. Bias is harder to destroy than that. Only by recognizing and thus discarding bias can you set it aside, so to speak. Bias can summed up as what you believe, added to a little faith. You had faith that the women didn't like football. When that faith failed, your beliefs were challenged, and you begin to question your beliefs. However, you cannot deny the faith in that belief, so next time you see Muslim women at a football game, you will still feel a glimpse of bias that they don't like football, or won't enjoy it. You will watch and wait, and if your beliefs are challenged again, and maybe even again, then your beliefs ultimately disintegrate, taking every bit of faith in those beliefs with it.

So you admit it is far more than self-evaluation.

[Athena]

Quote by: rez Some notes: By 1790 the population in America was 2,780,000 People at this time were more interested in science and politics than religion (man-centered world, rather then bible-centered) "god" became remote and impersonal. This philosophy can be called "Rationalism" Prose: dominance of reason...Franklin, Jefferson, Adams. The enlightenment gave birth to man being politically, socially, and morally perfectible. (concentration of societies and its improvment) My point: The 18th century was a time when humans truly seperated from god, however, people still kept religion around. Can the 18th century be considered the time period when man betrayed god and commited the same sin as Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge? Should the enlightenment be considered mans TRUE seperation from God's grace?

Ouch, why did you state things that way? Deism is not a separation from God. It is a separation from religion. It is seeing God in nature instead of looking for God in the bible.
Please, folks, I hope an interest in philosophy increases. From Aristotle through Cicero to
Newton and Locke and our forefathers, nature is the book of God. Why are you saying this is a separation from God, when many saw it as embrassing God manifest in our lives 24/7.

[Athena]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 If you cannot recognize your own bias then your are mentally inferior to others, because your subjectivities can only be broken down objectively using the ideas of another person. Philosophers are not superior humans, just superior thinkers. And no, it is not subconcious, it is selfishness that fails to lose a bias. One is biased when they are believing in a religion, since they ultimately disagree with other religions and automatically discard science that goes against their religion. Using reason, you can empathize situations by mentally detaching yourself from what you believe and seeing the other side of things with a clear, open mind, something religious people, and a few atheists, never do.

I disagree,. "One is biased when they are believing in a religion, since they ultimately disagree with other religions and automatically discard science that goes against their religion." The bias is not knowing the other religion and philosophies. To benefit self and all live on earth, we need get beyond our bias by increasing our knowledge.

I will repeat again, the Statue of Liberty carries a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment. It is knowledge we need.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Athena Newton and Locke and our forefathers, nature is the book of God. Why are you saying this is a separation from God, when many saw it as embrassing God manifest in our lives 24/7.

Your view may have been main stream in scientific circles up till about 100 years ago. It was then realized that god was irrelevant to explaining reality. Science doesn't use god to explain anything. After that the majority of scientists were atheist and it has become increasingly so ever since. God may satisfy some emotional need for some people but it doesn’t serve any purpose in science other than as man made superstition.

Starboy

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe How can my subjectivities be broken down by someone else? They are no less biased than I am. Or do we just go by majority rule? I don't think even you would argue that. I would like to ask if you recognize your own bias? Because it is clear that you have much. If you are predisposed to any single view for any reason, you have not eliminated your bias. As an athiest, you are biased because you disagree with religions. Ha. That is the exact same criteria you used to judge me, so don't bother trying to deny it. A bias is much deeper than simple selfishness. Its deeply ingrained in a person. For example, someone who grew up with racist parents in a racist community. Not suprisingly, our hypothetical person grows up a racist. They are told black people are "bad, theives, criminals" whatever you like. That person will most likely be biased for life. It isn't selfishness, its the environment he was raised in. Its the people you associate with. No one chooses to remain biased. Its never a concious decision. You go on ahead and worship your philosophers. It's clear that you are predisposed towards them. I'm mature enough to hear from many, think for myself, and draw my own conclusions. Perhaps not free from bias, but I am honest enough to admit such biases are a part of me.

And doesn't it seem so simple for the hypothetically rascist to recognize that he doesn't like blacks for different reasons than others, and has less reasons to not like them, over the reasons to like them? Anyone is capable of recognizing a bias, its just a matter of looking for it and not looking for ways of defending it.

Do I have bias for atheism? Sure, a little bit. I was raised a Catholic, then when I was 8 years old, I walked over to my priest after a service and asked him where God came from. He told me God always existed, so I asked again where then did he come from, and he said God works in mysterious ways and its best to follow his guidelines. From then on, I became a skeptic. I guess I attained a bias, one of objectivity if you will, questioning everything. Do you really think I go on atheist websites or something, or get into atheist cults? I just want to know the truth, and if that's all your looking for, then you barely have bias. It can come on levels. Religious people are very biased, because most do not question, only follow, and therefore ignore others signs of fallicies in their beliefs.

How am I predisposed to philosophers? Your acting like I had one for a father. My mom told me to believe what I want, so I do. I want the truth. You want God. There's a difference. A difference for the levels of bias each one of us has. You do choose to remain biased, because bias attaches to belief. And you want your beliefs don't you? So you keep your bias, too. Bias is not alone, or else it would be gone in a heartbeat once the real answers come around.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Athena I disagree,. "One is biased when they are believing in a religion, since they ultimately disagree with other religions and automatically discard science that goes against their religion." The bias is not knowing the other religion and philosophies. To benefit self and all live on earth, we need get beyond our bias by increasing our knowledge. I will repeat again, the Statue of Liberty carries a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment. It is knowledge we need.

Athena I completely agree, and that was what I was inferring to. Automatically, when a Christian reads a Muslim book about Muslim ideas, the Christian will be a skeptic to each belief read. The level of skepticism depends on the realism of the belief. Knowledge will take faith away from a belief, and replace it with certainty.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe So you admit it is far more than self-evaluation.

Self-evaluation is the most effective way of treating a higher level of bias. Let's not refer to bias anymore as a 1 and a 10 (on a scale of 1 to 10 of course), but let's assume bias has different levels. It only makes sense for some to be sort of biased and some to be more biased than others. There can always be inbetweens where skepticism on other ideas according to bias falters due to the level of truth and reality for that particular idea or belief.

[Athena]

Quote by: Starboy Your view may have been main stream in scientific circles up till about 100 years ago. It was then realized that god was irrelevant to explaining reality. Science doesn't use god to explain anything. After that the majority of scientists were atheist and it has become increasingly so ever since. God may satisfy some emotional need for some people but it doesn’t serve any purpose in science other than as man made superstition. Starboy

Okay Starboy would you please explain your statement "Your view may have been main stream in scientific circles up till about 100 years ago. It was then realized that god was irrelevant to explaining reality. Science doesn't use god to explain anything". Sounds to me like you are trying to argue a point, but what is it? I didn't say science uses God to explain anything. Explain yourself and this groundless, turmpted up argurment.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Athena Okay Starboy would you please explain your statement "Your view may have been main stream in scientific circles up till about 100 years ago. It was then realized that god was irrelevant to explaining reality. Science doesn't use god to explain anything". Sounds to me like you are trying to argue a point, but what is it? I didn't say science uses God to explain anything. Explain yourself and this groundless, turmpted up argurment.

This was your statement that the post was under.

Quote by: Athena Newton and Locke and our forefathers, nature is the book of God. Why are you saying this is a separation from God, when many saw it as embracing[sp] God manifest in our lives 24/7.

As I point out later scientists did not look at it that way.

Starboy

[Athena]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Athena I completely agree, and that was what I was inferring to. Automatically, when a Christian reads a Muslim book about Muslim ideas, the Christian will be a skeptic to each belief read. The level of skepticism depends on the realism of the belief. Knowledge will take faith away from a belief, and replace it with certainty.

Okay and to take this a little further. If a belief is reasonable or not, depends on person's culture. How we interpret any holy books depends on our culture and our education. So to a US citizen the bible makes sense, and to an Arab the Koran makes sense. Muslims can not understand why we put so much importance on a book written in the third person. A book that is the word of God should be written in the first person, like the Koran, not third person. Understand? First person is the word of the person. Third person is a story about the person/God, not the word of God.

In the Koran, Jesus is born under a palm tree because this is what made sense to the Arabs at the time. Islam is also a God of Abraham religion but it is explained so it makes sense to Arab culture. If we do not have the required culture, we read these books and wonder how they could make sense to anyone.

People who have not learned abstract thinking will interpret the bible literally, and it will make perfect sense that there are demons, although we no longer count them coming out of people's bodies, and the earth is only a few thousands years old and was always exactly as it is today and the same every where in the world, with apple trees and plenty of clean water, and it is sin than causes diseases, because this makes sense to a simple person who knowns no better. But people who understand abstract thinking will see the bible is stories like "The Little Red Hen" is a moral story. They will not need to prove everything in the bible, because we know stories have meanings but are to be taken literally. Nor will they have deny science to prove the bible is God's truth. It doesn't matter if a story exactly factual. The importance of the story is the meaning, not the facts.

God, like time is an abstract, a non material, non tangiable reality.. We can give any qualities we want to something that is not material or tangiable reality. Our world view is very different when we understand the difference between abstract ideas that are not tangiable, matter, and that which is tanglible material matter.

Satan and demons are:

1. real because we can see them and scientifically observe them

2 abstract concepts without substance

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Athena Okay and to take this a little further. If a belief is reasonable or not, depends on person's culture. How we interpret any holy books depends on our culture and our education. So to a US citizen the bible makes sense, and to an Arab the Koran makes sense. Muslims can not understand why we put so much importance on a book written in the third person. A book that is the word of God should be written in the first person, like the Koran, not third person. Understand? First person is the word of the person. Third person is a story about the person/God, not the word of God. In the Koran, Jesus is born under a palm tree because this is what made sense to the Arabs at the time. Islam is also a God of Abraham religion but it is explained so it makes sense to Arab culture. If we do not have the required culture, we read these books and wonder how they could make sense to anyone. People who have learned abstract thinking will interpret the bible literally, and it will make perfect sense that there are demons, although we no longer count them coming out of people's bodies, and the earth is only a few thousands years old and was always exactly as it is today and the same every where in the world, with apple trees and plenty of clean water, and it is sin than causes diseases, because this makes sense to a simple person who knowns no better. But people who understand abstract thinking will see the bible is stories like "The Little Red Hen" is a moral story. They will not need to prove everything in the bible, because we know stories have meanings but are to taken literally. Not will they have deny science to prove the bible is God's truth. God, like time is an abstract, a non material, non tangiable reality.. We can give any qualities we want to something that is not material or tangiable reality. Our world view is very different when we understand the difference between abstract ideas that are not tangiable, matter, and that which is tanglible material matter.

You often attack Christians for once believing that sin caused disease. Where did this belief origionate? It CAN be implied from the Bible, but it is never stated implicitly. For example, according to (Exodus?) God struck Miriam with leprosy as a punishment. Does that mean that leprosy always comes from God? No. Does it mean there are no bioligical explanations for leprosy? Of course not. The disciples once asked Jesus why a certain man was born lame. They asked if it was for his sin or his parents sin. Jesus answered it was neither. He said this man had been born thus so God's glory could be shown.
Similarly with witches. The Bible prescribes death for witches, and they are real. Not the silly witches from children's stories that ride on broom sticks and gobble innocent children. Witches are those who communicate with dead spirits or practice witchcraft. Should such people still get the same punishment? If you would apply that rule, than you would also have to do the same to homosexuals, blasphemers, even those who disrespect their parents. I think such laws were for God's chosen people Israel, because that is to whom they were given. They were to be holy and pure above all nations, and anything that God saw that was not pure would be "cut off".
I have not personally witnessed any miracles, but I have talked to many who say they have. Some at my church have baffled doctors when cancers disappeared, my pastor has seen super-human strength in individuals and performed exorcisms. My mother claims pains in her body she has had for years suddenly disapeared with prayer, but medicine would do nothing. Missionaries who have cured the sick. Dreams that come true. Are all of these people lying to me? Or perhaps it is not all abstract.