Trying again--why is God silent?

[Lady Florida.]

 

But what I can't figure out about all of you atheists is why do you care about our ( to you) myths? What's it to you?

 

Because it affects me. It permeates society and secular schools and government and our laws. It matters to me because people who believe in magic are getting elected and appointed to high offices and making decisions that affect me. What I can't figure out is why religious people don't see that.

[Scarlett]

Because it affects me. It permeates society and secular schools and government and our laws. It matters to me because people who believe in magic are getting elected and appointed to high offices and making decisions that affect me. What I can't figure out is why religious people don't see that.

I stay out of politics completely.

[Audrey]

At some point in these discussions people are just talking past each other because nobody can agree what the God concept means.

 

 

Well, quite.  This whole thread is only about one particular god from one particular religious group.  There are thousands more gods that people believe in or don't. 

 

FTR, I disbelieve in all gods equally.

[Lady Florida.]

I stay out of politics completely.

 

Please reread your question. It doesn't address yourself only, nor does it address private beliefs that don't affect how one votes or acts. You asked why we care about your (general your) myths. You asked, "What's it to you?" We answered. You don't seem to like the answers but they are relevant to your question.

[Scarlett]

Please reread your question. It doesn't address yourself only, nor does it address private beliefs that don't affect how one votes or acts. You asked why we care about your (general your) myths. You asked, "What's it to you?" We answered. You don't seem to like the answers but they are relevant to your question.

Meh. I read the answer. I understood the answer. I didn't particularly dislike the answer. I was just making random conversation. Sorry. Too late for me to be posting.

[Rosie_0801]

Apparently even I'm not atheist, given there is a deity I could imagine myself publicly declaring faith in...I need a name for my non-human quantum multiverse unaware intelligence...Fred ?

 

Nope. It's GUS.

 

 

(God-Universe-Source)

[fraidycat]

I like Gus. Can I be a Gussy Hussy?

[Free]

This whole thread is only about one particular god from one particular religious group.

 

But even within this one particular religious group there is no singular perception of what this god is. God, it seems, is pretty much what we want and need her to be. For me personally, I had not realised how much I had needed God to exist until I realised God does not exist :)

 

It is however an interesting thought experiment - if there was indeed a God who regularly broadcast messages, we would have proof that he exists, but how many would be enamored with him? I would think we would either see him as a sadistic, narcissictic tyrant who has kept us captive on this measly planet, demanding worship and love while sending tsunamis and epidemics our way. Or we would see him as incompetent and demand more accountability. Or we would be completely terrified. It is much better for this anthromorphic God that he remains silent - we can be ambiguous about his real intentions.

 

Like Sadie said, there are others models of the God concept which to me seem much more internally consistent. But then, none of these varying models of God have been tested making them all ultimately just ideas borne out of the human mind.

[Heidi]

Moxie, if we had knowledge we would have no need of faith, and without faith, mercy could not be extended to us. We would be subject wholly to the justice of God. God is perfectly holy and no unclean thing can dwell in His presence. God is also just, and every sin has a punishment. Without the atonement of Jesus Christ, who suffered the punishment of our sins to fulfill the demands of justice, we would be damned. God loves us and wants us to live in His presence, but we can only return if we willingly accept the atonement that has been made on our behalf, and we can only do that through faith and repentance. He doesn't give us knowledge of Himself because He is merciful.

[sunflowerlady]

Personally, I love these discussions. They help me process thoughts and work through beliefs. Atheists are likely interested in the beliefs of Christians of all sorts as well as other religions because humans in general find in interesting to think about these things and discuss them.   Also , there is the fact that that these beliefs end up in the public sphere through elections and public policies. Even though one group might not be active in voting and politics, many more are.  

 

Back to the OP and God speaking-I am still stuck on my earlier post about all the ways God is said to speak and all the ways people could be missing out. 

 

Scripture-God speaks through the Bible. Some groups have unique versions that they use. Am I not hearing God if I am not reading a New World Translation or a Book of Mormon? Also various groups and various scriptures sometimes teach very different things about God, Jesus, the crucifixion, resurrection , eternity, hell and heaven and eternity. People talk about Truth. Which one is Truth? Seems whichever one is the one that is chosen by that person is the Truth.

 

Prophets- some say God speaks through prophets today and some say no. God only speaks through his word. ( Bible) 

 

Holy Spirit-This seems to be a personal way of hearing from God.  He seems to really vary in what he tells people.

 

I fully understand that there will not be an agreement on all these things. However, that does not stop me from seeking and working through it all  I totally participate in these discussions in a friendly manner and appreciate everyone's input.  

 

[Laura Corin]

I think I came to some kind of understanding of the emotion behind worshipping a silent god today.  This piece is by a modern Welsh Christian composer.  

y.

[Guest]

Scripture-God speaks through the Bible. Some groups have unique versions that they use. Am I not hearing God if I am not reading a New World Translation or a Book of Mormon? Also various groups and various scriptures sometimes teach very different things about God, Jesus, the crucifixion, resurrection , eternity, hell and heaven and eternity. People talk about Truth. Which one is Truth? Seems whichever one is the one that is chosen by that person is the Truth.

 

I thought about this a lot as I was trying to figure out what I believe/don't believe. Some will say this is an immature or limiting view of God, but my eventual reasoning was this: if The Creator wanted to speak to us, why would he choose a written vehicle? Why would He "need" dozens of people over thousands of years to record these things and then another couple groups of people to have a convention to decide which of these old writings were The Woed - *the* things God meant to say to all of humanity for all time? Even when God was reportedly here in the flesh (seems like a really good opportunity to write an assemble God's Word), Jesus never actually wrote any scripture.

 

A book has obvious and immediate limitations if it was *The* way God chose to speak to all of humanity for all time. Few people could look at or interpret the original documents; all interpretations do not say the same things; it was hard to distribute this Word of God to anyone for most of the years until modern history. We were dependant on humans to decide which writings belong in there. There's a lot of cool stuff in the Bible...but there's a lot of bizarre, wrong-headed and contradictory stuff in there, too.

[SunnyDays]

Reading this thread has been interesting.  Personally, I've gone from being a fairly conservative Christian (albeit one who *always* had questions) to a more mainstream, open minded Christian, to teetering between that and "there's *something* out there but I'm not entirely sure anymore if it looks like I thought." 

 

Perhaps I'm joining Quill in the Deist lounge.  :)  Which would mean that my answer to Moxie's question is that perhaps God, in some form, is out there, but it's not the personal interactive God with whom many of us were raised.  Perhaps it is and there's a different answer, but we can't know that.

 

But it strikes me, reading the responses, how different starting points take us different places.  Some who are talking about faith have some assumptions about the world that others don't have.  I'm going to take Heidi's post as an example (sorry, not picking on you, Heidi):

 

 

Moxie, if we had knowledge we would have no need of faith, and without faith, mercy could not be extended to us. We would be subject wholly to the justice of God. God is perfectly holy and no unclean thing can dwell in His presence. God is also just, and every sin has a punishment. Without the atonement of Jesus Christ, who suffered the punishment of our sins to fulfill the demands of justice, we would be damned. God loves us and wants us to live in His presence, but we can only return if we willingly accept the atonement that has been made on our behalf, and we can only do that through faith and repentance. He doesn't give us knowledge of Himself because He is merciful.

 

Most devout Christians share the assumptions in the post:  that God is holy and just, that we need his mercy, etc.  But many others are back at the starting line of "that's not an assumption I share."  Like other posts that have encouraged the more secular among us to read the scriptures... again, many have, countless times. 

 

It's what others have said:  one only needs faith.  But that's not something you can stop in and pick up at Target, KWIM??  For me, it'd be a lot easier if I didn't question everything, but I'm not built that way... I'm learning that DS isn't either, which makes for interesting conversations sometimes. 

 

I'm kind of rambling, but my random thoughts as I read through.  :)

 

[5of5]

 

It's what others have said:  one only needs faith.  But that's not something you can stop in and pick up at Target, KWIM??  

 

Actually, if Target did sell "faith", it would probably come in different flavors, sizes, etc., etc.  So, you'd still need to decide which "faith" to buy!   :001_rolleyes:

[hornblower]

 

The difference, the fundamental incredible difference, between his barely living body (I had seen him earlier that day) and his just-died body, was as clear a sign as I have ever had of the existence of the soul, or God, or whatever you want to call it.  

 this would require an acceptance of souls in animals because there is a marked difference in animals alive and animals dead. If you spend time watching animals die, you see this.

 

To me it's not a sign of god or soul, it's a sign of life & death.

[hornblower]

Anyone who works in mental health realizes that god is apparently not silent at all to many people.
I don't quite know what people of faith make of that.

[Hyacinth]

I wonder if this blog post from Peter Enns is helpful in this discussion (not so much regarding the OP's question, but the fatih vs. science rabbit trail):

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/04/what-i-think-about-noma-not-the-ex-red-sox-shortstop-but-the-evolution-thing/

 

[Lady Florida.]

Anyone who works in mental health realizes that god is apparently not silent at all to many people.

I don't quite know what people of faith make of that.

 

I tried asking a certain question about that IRL and was told I was being disrespectful. I asked it sincerely because I really wanted to know. I'd really like an answer to my question but it seems it's not an acceptable one to ask.

[.Michelle.]

 this would require an acceptance of souls in animals because there is a marked difference in animals alive and animals dead. If you spend time watching animals die, you see this.

 

To me it's not a sign of god or soul, it's a sign of life & death.

 

My church teaches that animals (and plants) do have souls.  The difference is that they are material, not spiritual.  They cease to exist at death.

[Scarlett]

I tried asking a certain question about that IRL and was told I was being disrespectful. I asked it sincerely because I really wanted to know. I'd really like an answer to my question but it seems it's not an acceptable one to ask.

What is the question?

[Matryoshka]

Anyone who works in mental health realizes that god is apparently not silent at all to many people.

I don't quite know what people of faith make of that.

Dh has a cousin who is to all appearances a healthy and functional adult, and you can't talk to her for any length of time without her suddenly interjecting something about her latest conversation with God, and what he'd told her to do. I'm assuming it's a way of talking about praying about something, but the way she talks about it, it sounds like it's about a back and forth conversation... (like, "I was talking to Bob yesterday, and he told me...")

[Lady Florida.]

What is the question?

 

When people say God told them to do something, how do we distinguish between those who are mentally ill and those who aren't? Who decides when it's really God? You would probably say you would weed out the obvious behaviors/acts that God would supposedly never tell someone to do, but beyond that, then what? 

 

There's the old joke that when you speak to God it's called praying and when God speaks to you it's called schizophrenia. There's also a saying that if God talks to you audibly (and the OP is asking why he doesn't), then it's mental illness. Jokes aside though, how does one know?

 

If someone sells or gives away their possessions because God told them to, is that undiagnosed illness? Are they joining a cult? Or are they doing what Jesus said to do in Matthew? 

 

I really don't understand (and didn't when I considered myself a believer either) how we differentiate between the "crazies" who hear God talking to them and the truly devout and pious who hear God talking to them. Who gets to decide? And how do they decide?

 

**NOTE: I will be out much of the evening for our homeschool teen night. While I usually spend my time at Starbucks during teen time (it's too far away to come home, so I find a place to hang out), I don't always get to go online if other parents are there and want to talk. So, if I seem to have disappeared after posing my question(s) that's why.

[albeto.]

I wonder if this blog post from Peter Enns is helpful in this discussion (not so much regarding the OP's question, but the fatih vs. science rabbit trail):

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/04/what-i-think-about-noma-not-the-ex-red-sox-shortstop-but-the-evolution-thing/

 

Interesting blog post. Thanks for sharing. Do you mind if I share my thoughts?

 

 

And that means that science and religion are separate “domains†of knowledge where each operates by different rules of inquiry. These “magisteria†do not “overlap†and so the rules of one cannot determine the findings of the other.

 

In other words, religion can’t tell science what to do and vice-versa. 

 

My first thought is, how does one identify the "domain" of religion? Is this domain universal, or does it appeal to Christianity, or maybe the Abrahamic religions in general? What are the parameters and how would an unbiased, objective observer know the elements of this "domain"? 

 

 

But they are less happy about the other half: the Bible can’t tell science where it is wrong.

 

I can see how that frustration is applied in society, and it's quite problematic, imo. 

 

 

But when scientists conclude from their work that a higher power does not exist, or that this or that religious tradition is not “true,†they have overstepped their bounds, because spiritual reality is not subject to the rules of scientific inquiry.

 

This is disappointing. Scientists don't conclude from their work that a higher power does not exist, and if one does, there are scores of others ready and willing to offer a correction. One cannot prove a negative, even heathen scientists know this. (; However, it is a common enough claim that the plausibility of the God hypothesis of the universe is highly unlikely, as unlikely as attributing the world, everything in it, and how it works to some earth-based Squire of Gothos scenario. That's not proof of course, but conclusions made based on supporting evidence. 

 

 

And zeroing in on the Bible and saying that science has “disproven†Genesis displays ignorance of nature of biblical literature, assuming that it can and should be evaluated by the rules of scientific inquiry.

 

I think it's fair to say this criticism only comes in response to the claim that Genesis is meant to be read literally. When there is no such claim, there is no such response. This seems like a silly point in this argument to "win," and a perfect example of a Straw Man.

 

 

That “disgraceful†treatment of Genesis is even less excusable today than in Augustine’s day. The Bible and science have grown further apart.

 

Just an aside, but it makes me wonder why aren't you Christians aren't doing more to reign in this false theology from your brothers and sisters. If it's so disgraceful, if it's so problematic to the community, why not address it head on? Why not take creationists to task? Why not criticize their articles and arguments and public claims, and provide the pertinent correction in love? 

 

 

Back to NOMA. It makes sense to me. For me to think differently, I would need to see either (1) where the Bible has contributed to a scientific knowledge of origins, or (2) where scientific inquiry has been able to bring to light evidence for or against the numinous.

 

(1) A reliable, supportable scientific contribution from the bible does not exist.

(2) If you can offer claim of the numinous, and while science cannot disprove it (by definition, the supernatural exists outside nature, and science is a method by which the natural world is explored and understood), we can show you far more reasonable, plausible, supportable explanations to offer than the religious.  

 

The idea that science and religion can and do coexist is an illusion. They're not existing in conjunction with each other, but politely moving aside for one or the other to offer an acceptable explanation. I can think of no biblical insight that cannot, and has not been explained through natural means, which is why I wonder what exactly the religious domain is, what it looks like, how it's identified, and what its parameters are. 

[hornblower]

for a rebuttal of SJG's NOMA, Jerry Coyne's Faith v Fact  :why science & religion are incompatible  is avail for pre order now.  Will be released May 19.

[.Michelle.]

When people say God told them to do something, how do we distinguish between those who are mentally ill and those who aren't? Who decides when it's really God? You would probably say you would weed out the obvious behaviors/acts that God would supposedly never tell someone to do, but beyond that, then what? 

 

There's the old joke that when you speak to God it's called praying and when God speaks to you it's called schizophrenia. There's also a saying that if God talks to you audibly (and the OP is asking why he doesn't), then it's mental illness. Jokes aside though, how does one know?

 

If someone sells or gives away their possessions because God told them to, is that undiagnosed illness? Are they joining a cult? Or are they doing what Jesus said to do in Matthew? 

 

I really don't understand (and didn't when I considered myself a believer either) how we differentiate between the "crazies" who hear God talking to them and the truly devout and pious who hear God talking to them. Who gets to decide? And how do they decide?

 

**NOTE: I will be out much of the evening for our homeschool teen night. While I usually spend my time at Starbucks during teen time (it's too far away to come home, so I find a place to hang out), I don't always get to go online if other parents are there and want to talk. So, if I seem to have disappeared after posing my question(s) that's why.

 

For Catholics, there are specific guidelines that are followed.

 

The steps of the investigation are mandated as follows: An initial evaluation of the facts of the alleged event, based on both positive and negative criteria:

Positive Criteria

1. Moral certainty (the certainty required to act morally in a situation of doubt) or at least great probability as to the existence of a private revelation at the end of a serious investigation into the case
2. Evaluation of the personal qualities of the person in question (mental balance, honesty, moral life, sincerity, obedience to Church authority, willingness to practice faith in the normal way, etc.)
3. Evaluation of the content of the revelations themselves (that they do not disagree with faith and morals of the Church, freedom from theological errors)
4. The revelation results in healthy devotion and spiritual fruits in people's lives (greater prayer, greater conversion of heart, works of charity that result, etc.)

Negative Criteria

1. Glaring errors in regard to the facts
2. Doctrinal errors attributed to God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or to the Holy Spirit in how they appear
3. Any pursuit of financial gain in relation to the alleged event
4. Gravely immoral acts committed by the person or those associated with the person at the time of the event
5. Psychological disorders or tendencies on the part of the person or persons associated

After this initial investigation, if the occurrence meets the criteria, positive and negative, an initial cautionary permission can begranted that basically states: "for the moment, there is nothing opposed to it". This permits public participation in the devotion in regard to the alleged apparition.

 

Ultimately, a final judgment and determination needs to be given, giving approval or condemnation of the event.

Final approval is rare.  I think there were only 11 that were approved out of around 260 that went up before the SCDF.

[Lady Florida.]

For Catholics, there are specific guidelines that are followed.

 

Final approval is rare.  I think there were only 11 that were approved out of around 260 that went up before the SCDF.

 

Interesting. Thank you. I don't remember that when I was Catholic, but then I was no longer in the RCC when I started wondering. The person I asked IRL wasn't Catholic either and I think he found it easier to call my question offensive than to find an answer from his kind of Christianity. 

[Scarlett]

When people say God told them to do something, how do we distinguish between those who are mentally ill and those who aren't? Who decides when it's really God? You would probably say you would weed out the obvious behaviors/acts that God would supposedly never tell someone to do, but beyond that, then what? 

 

There's the old joke that when you speak to God it's called praying and when God speaks to you it's called schizophrenia. There's also a saying that if God talks to you audibly (and the OP is asking why he doesn't), then it's mental illness. Jokes aside though, how does one know?

 

If someone sells or gives away their possessions because God told them to, is that undiagnosed illness? Are they joining a cult? Or are they doing what Jesus said to do in Matthew? 

 

I really don't understand (and didn't when I considered myself a believer either) how we differentiate between the "crazies" who hear God talking to them and the truly devout and pious who hear God talking to them. Who gets to decide? And how do they decide?

 

**NOTE: I will be out much of the evening for our homeschool teen night. While I usually spend my time at Starbucks during teen time (it's too far away to come home, so I find a place to hang out), I don't always get to go online if other parents are there and want to talk. So, if I seem to have disappeared after posing my question(s) that's why.

 

 

I don't think we get to decide. Sure we can have a pretty good idea that mental illness and hallucinations (audible and visual) go hand and hand....but I don't think there is a reason why I have to decide if someone is hearing straight from God or not.  I don't believe God is currently speaking to us directly (as in audibly to our own ears),  Personally I say the proof is in the pudding.  

[Joanne]

I don't think we get to decide. Sure we can have a pretty good idea that mental illness and hallucinations (audible and visual) go hand and hand....but I don't think there is a reason why I have to decide if someone is hearing straight from God or not.  I don't believe God is currently speaking to us directly (as in audibly to our own ears),  Personally I say the proof is in the pudding.  

 

? There is no proof of god(s). There is faith, speculation, possibility. What many believers say is "proof" is always explainable by other things. Creation and beauty? Science. Intuition/knowing? The elaborate mechanism of observation such as described in the book "Blink."

[Scarlett]

? There is no proof of god(s). There is faith, speculation, possibility. What many believers say is "proof" is always explainable by other things. Creation and beauty? Science. Intuition/knowing? The elaborate mechanism of observation such as described in the book "Blink."

 

 

I was talking about whether someone is mentally ill and hallucinating or not.

 

I clearly disagree with you that there is no proof of God.  To me the fact that I exist is proof of God.  Nothing has ever seemed more illogical to me than people who say there is no proof of God.  

[Cricket]

Just throwing this out there since I haven't been part of this conversation.  I really can see both sides.  I understand why some people say there is no god.  For me, though, I can't get past this pesky person named Jesus.  I can't get past how the New Testament makes sense in light of the Old Testament, that prophecies were fulfilled and that Christian theology makes logical sense.  Modern psychology doesn't have any satisfying answers to me as to why people act the way they do.  Science only makes sense if there are unbreakable laws governing the universe which, to me, implies a creator/designer.  Science can only explain the hows, never the whys.  Whys don't exist.  (I just could never believe that.)  Chemical processes just aren't enough of an answer.  Materialism will never be satisfactory to me in the same way spiritualism (for lack of a better word) will never be satisfactory to someone else.

[albeto.]

To me the fact that I exist is proof of God.  

 

By definition, proof refers to evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. If there is no evidence or argument to establish the claim, what you have is not proof, but opinion.

[leeannpal]

? There is no proof of god(s). There is faith, speculation, possibility. What many believers say is "proof" is always explainable by other things. Creation and beauty? Science. Intuition/knowing? The elaborate mechanism of observation such as described in the book "Blink."

 

I don't think there is proof of God. In fact, faith and Proof seem mutually exclusive to me. It bothers me when some Christians seem to imply that one can prove God exists in with our finite senses in our physical world. I may feel individual proof from various times God has touched my life, but I really disagree that everyone can just look around and know God exists.

[albeto.]

Just throwing this out there since I haven't been part of this conversation.  I really can see both sides.  I understand why some people say there is no god.  For me, though, I can't get past this pesky person named Jesus.  I can't get past how the New Testament makes sense in light of the Old Testament, that prophecies were fulfilled and that Christian theology makes logical sense.  Modern psychology doesn't have any satisfying answers to me as to why people act the way they do.  Science only makes sense if there are unbreakable laws governing the universe which, to me, implies a creator/designer.  Science can only explain the hows, never the whys.  Whys don't exist.  (I just could never believe that.)  Chemical processes just aren't enough of an answer.  Materialism will never be satisfactory to me in the same way spiritualism (for lack of a better word) will never be satisfactory to someone else.

 

I find this argument interesting in that it would likely never be considered seriously outside the context of human behavior. Imagine if one were to say, "Modern astronomy doesn't have any satisfying answers to me as to why the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west. Astronomy can only explain the hows, never the why." If someone were to come here and argue this statement, I suspect they would not receive such a polite, if not aloof welcome. 

 

When you look back in time, you see a history of one phenomena after another for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how the leopard got its spots; what is the moon made of, etc. Supernatural explanation are constantly being replaced with natural, physical explanations. I find it fascinating that we humans think that our part in nature is somehow removed from the ordinary mechanics that explains everything else, that somehow we are elevated above and beyond what is otherwise considered mundane. But how fascinating, and not at all mundane our world really is! How many mysteries give rise to more interesting things to consider and apply in so many creative ways, mysteries for who the supernatural explanation was never really satisfactory in comparison with the natural explanation. From 3D printing to bio-printing, exploring and understanding the world and accepting answers by virtue of the facts rather than personal faith has opened up so many inspiring possibilities! It's one thing to not understand how they work, but to assume that just because one doesn't understand, the answer could just as well be anything any individual imagines it to be is fascinating to me. 

 

But back to the OP and her question. This god of the gaps keeps getting smaller, and "God" is no longer an acceptable answer to auditory messages from unseen voices. Natural explanations are not only more plausible, they're more reliable, and we can interact with the findings through medicines as well as inspiring further research. Instead, this god has been reduced to such nebulous and evasive gaps as a vague form of communication understood through secret messages written out in various events, stolen moments of seeming clarity, emotional highs (or lows), and coincidences that are more appealing when explained by mystery than simple chance. Increasingly, we find we can interpret human behavior through natural explanations (such as schizophrenia and seizures, all the way to the "mundane" explanation of behavioral conditioning). This god of the gaps has gotten so small, it's relegated to hints here and there. When people try to apply the claims as they once were genuinely believed to be true, they are met with shock and sadness [Church Reportedly Tried to Raise a ‘Possessed’ Toddler From the Dead].

[Cricket]

I find this argument interesting in that it would likely never be considered seriously outside the context of human behavior. Imagine if one were to say, "Modern astronomy doesn't have any satisfying answers to me as to why the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west. Astronomy can only explain the hows, never the why." If someone were to come here and argue this statement, I suspect they would not receive such a polite, if not aloof welcome. 

 

When you look back in time, you see a history of one phenomena after another for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how the leopard got its spots; what is the moon made of, etc. Supernatural explanation are constantly being replaced with natural, physical explanations. I find it fascinating that we humans think that our part in nature is somehow removed from the ordinary mechanics that explains everything else, that somehow we are elevated above and beyond what is otherwise considered mundane. But how fascinating, and not at all mundane our world really is! How many mysteries give rise to more interesting things to consider and apply in so many creative ways, mysteries for who the supernatural explanation was never really satisfactory in comparison with the natural explanation. From 3D printing to bio-printing, exploring and understanding the world and accepting answers by virtue of the facts rather than personal faith has opened up so many inspiring possibilities! It's one thing to not understand how they work, but to assume that just because one doesn't understand, the answer could just as well be anything any individual imagines it to be is fascinating to me. 

 

But back to the OP and her question. This god of the gaps keeps getting smaller, and "God" is no longer an acceptable answer to auditory messages from unseen voices. Natural explanations are not only more plausible, they're more reliable, and we can interact with the findings through medicines as well as inspiring further research. Instead, this god has been reduced to such nebulous and evasive gaps as a vague form of communication understood through secret messages written out in various events, stolen moments of seeming clarity, emotional highs (or lows), and coincidences that are more appealing when explained by mystery than simple chance. Increasingly, we find we can interpret human behavior through natural explanations (such as schizophrenia and seizures, all the way to the "mundane" explanation of behavioral conditioning). This god of the gaps has gotten so small, it's relegated to hints here and there. When people try to apply the claims as they once were genuinely believed to be true, they are met with shock and sadness [Church Reportedly Tried to Raise a ‘Possessed’ Toddler From the Dead].

 

Funny thing is though, your explanations are within only what you deem logical.  God of the gaps isn't something people of faith believe in but it is the role you delegate to god because you simply can't conceive of anything else.  One doesn't have to ignore science in order to believe in the spiritual realm and yet you keep insisting that one does. That just isn't true no matter how often it is said.

[Lady Florida.]

.but I don't think there is a reason why I have to decide if someone is hearing straight from God or not.  

 

I do. I don't want to get political because it's against board rules but we had a president who said God told him to end the tyranny in Iraq. He said he was on a mission from God. That might not matter to you, but it does to me and to many other people. I don't want people in charge who believe God is telling them how to run the country. It's dangerous. It's scary. 

[Cricket]

I do. I don't want to get political because it's against board rules but we had a president who said God told him to end the tyranny in Iraq. He said he was on a mission from God. That might not matter to you, but it does to me and to many other people. I don't want people in charge who believe God is telling them how to run the country. It's dangerous. It's scary.

Is this what you are referring to? http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/10/09/2003275089

[Lady Florida.]

Is this what you are referring to? http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/10/09/2003275089

 

 

Or this.

 

Or this.

[albeto.]

Funny thing is though, your explanations are within only what you deem logical.  

 

Upon what do you base this idea? Do you think I alone deem the earth revolving around the sun to be a logical argument? The explanations to which I am referring have undergone rigorous scrutiny for decades, each detail painstakingly analyzed and researched and corroborated against other details to confirm or modify going hypotheses. The peer review process functions in part to identify logical faults and dismiss irrelevant components. Your statement suggests a misunderstanding of the scientific method, and because you start with an incorrect premise (scientific explanations are only within what one person deems logical), your conclusions will be faulty as well. 

 

God of the gaps isn't something people of faith believe in but it is the role you delegate to god because you simply can't conceive of anything else.

 

"God of the gaps" isn't my idea, but dates back (in concept anyway) to the 19th century. 

 

One doesn't have to ignore science in order to believe in the spiritual realm and yet you keep insisting that one does. That just isn't true no matter how often it is said.

 

Can you please define "spiritual realm" for me, and give an example of a claim unique to this realm, one that has been subsequently independently confirmed through an objective, analytic, scientific method? 

[Rosie_0801]

Can you please define "spiritual realm" for me, and give an example of a claim unique to this realm, one that has been subsequently independently confirmed through an objective, analytic, scientific method? 

 

What sort of question is that? You say yourself that spirituality and the supernatural fall outside the scope of science.

[albeto.]

What sort of question is that? You say yourself that spirituality and the supernatural fall outside the scope of science.

 

It's a question of definition, of specifics. It's not enough to say what it isn't, and it's not practical to assume we mean the same thing. 

[Free]

What sort of question is that? You say yourself that spirituality and the supernatural fall outside the scope of science.

 

I don't think it is an unreasonable question. The "spiritual realm" is a nebulous idea. What is it? Is it a kind of a parallel universe, a plane of existence in which spiritual beings reside safe from pesky science. Is it within our minds? Do we have any evidence of such a spiritual realm? Or is it a concept similar to God which can mean anything, everything and as a result nothing at all?

 

And this idea of the spiritual realm infact just ties in with the God of the gaps. God did infact once play an active role in the physical world until we started discovering natural explanations to most physical phenomena. Now this God who no one has seen, heard or felt in any objective way is relegated to an undefined spiritual realm.

[Cricket]

Upon what do you base this idea? Do you think I alone deem the earth revolving around the sun to be a logical argument? The explanations to which I am referring have undergone rigorous scrutiny for decades, each detail painstakingly analyzed and researched and corroborated against other details to confirm or modify going hypotheses. The peer review process functions in part to identify logical faults and dismiss irrelevant components. Your statement suggests a misunderstanding of the scientific method, and because you start with an incorrect premise (scientific explanations are only within what one person deems logical), your conclusions will be faulty as well.

 

 

"God of the gaps" isn't my idea, but dates back (in concept anyway) to the 19th century.

 

 

Can you please define "spiritual realm" for me, and give an example of a claim unique to this realm, one that has been subsequently independently confirmed through an objective, analytic, scientific method?

I still fail to see how the scientific explanation of anything explains away God. You keep claiming that it does. I'd say your entire thought process concerning the divine is flawed because you see god as merely an explanation for the natural world. That might have been true with some animist religions but it has never been true in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our worship services don't consist of pleading to an invisible being to protect us from these scary, natural things we can't understand. We aren't secretly offering some kind of sacrifice to appease the scary god living in the volcano. As far as evidence from the spiritual realm, there's this interesting book where historical events were recorded involving people over thousands of years but particularly one, completely unique person.... The fact that some choose to relegate that book to the category of fiction is their concern, not mine.

[albeto.]

I still fail to see how the scientific explanation of anything explains away God. You keep claiming that it does. I'd say your entire thought process concerning the divine is flawed because you see god as merely an explanation for the natural world. 

 

Are you suggesting that my cup of coffee slips out of my hand and falls to the floor, gravity doesn't explain it but Divine Pulling does? 

 

That might have been true with some animist religions but it has never been true in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our worship services don't consist of pleading to an invisible being to protect us from these scary, natural things we can't understand. We aren't secretly offering some kind of sacrifice to appease the scary god living in the volcano.

 

Just the one sitting on a throne in Heaven? A Christian doesn't have to make the sacrifice themselves, as Jesus already took care of that part (John 3:16). They just have to believe it's true to avoid an eternity of damnation (John 3:18). 

 

As far as evidence from the spiritual realm, there's this interesting book where historical events were recorded involving people over thousands of years but particularly one, completely unique person.... The fact that some choose to relegate that book to the category of fiction is their concern, not mine.

 

Circular reasoning is no more evidence for the Christian tales than the Muslim ones. 

[.Michelle.]

Gravity explaining why things fall doesn't disprove God.

 

The sacrifice of Christ is not to save us from natural disasters.

 

I may be misinterpreting your posts, but it seems like you're setting up strawmen.

[.Michelle.]

For the OP, it may be helpful to you to walk through these questions: http://newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm, specifically article 12.

[Cricket]

Are you suggesting that my cup of coffee slips out of my hand and falls to the floor, gravity doesn't explain it but Divine Pulling does? 

 

 

You are the one who keeps insisting that that is what religious people believe.  I have yet to hear one religious person in this thread make that claim so I'm not really sure what you are arguing against.

[albeto.]

Gravity explaining why things fall doesn't disprove God.

 

The sacrifice of Christ is not to save us from natural disasters.

 

I may be misinterpreting your posts, but it seems like you're setting up strawmen.

 

Gravity is an example of a scientific explanation that "explains away God," or rather, that renders the involvement of a deity to superfluousness at best. 

 

The comment is in reference to the statement that the Christian worship services don't consist of pleading to an invisible being to protect us from things we can't understand, that there is no secret sacrifice being offered. The sacrifice is not secret, and nature of protection is subjective. For some it is "scary, natural things we can't understand." I'd argue death is the general scary, natural thing that isn't understood that one believes they're being protected against. The idea of immortality is rather appealing to the human imagination. And quite natural.

 

What is the straw man? I suggested it is an interesting argument to suggest that because an individual does not comprehend a scientific fact, it could just as easily be God, and how that would never be an acceptable comment with regard to a simple scientific fact. Both human behavior and the revolution of the sun have been given religious explanations, both have been given scientific explanations. In both cases, only one provides evidence. I find it interesting that any scientific explanation could be seriously dismissed by virtue of personal incredulity. Cricket responded by suggesting one doesn't have to ignore science in order to believe in the spiritual realm, and I'm simply trying to understand what that means. I'm not offering an argument but trying to understand hers. I still don't know what precisely is meant by a "spiritual realm," and the example I offered (gravity) was also ignored. 

[albeto.]

You are the one who keeps insisting that that is what religious people believe.  

 

I refer to specific Christian doctrine, not what anyone personally believes. I know two Christians may have different beliefs, so I can only refer to generally accepted doctrine, and of course the written text of the bible. If I've insisted what someone personally believes, please link me to the post so I can edit it appropriately. 

 

 I have yet to hear one religious person in this thread make that claim so I'm not really sure what you are arguing against.

 

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Make what claim? I'm asking for a working definition of "spiritual realm," and an example of a claim unique to this realm that has been subsequently independently confirmed through an objective, analytic, scientific method. In other words, I'm looking for an example to illustrate your comment upthread that one does not need to ignore science in order to believe in the spiritual realm.

[Scarlett]

Gravity is an example of a scientific explanation that "explains away God," or rather, that renders the involvement of a deity to superfluousness at best. .

Except that to some people....the scientific explanation of gravity doesn't explain away God. Nor make His involvement superfluous.

[.Michelle.]

I do not follow how gravity "explains away God."  The law of gravity was developed through observation of the material world.  It has no bearing on the spiritual.

 

I understand the point you were making regarding sacrifice now.

 

The straw man I saw was the assertion that those who believe in God reject scientific explanations for the material world.

 

How does one use the scientific method, developed for observation and experimentation of the material world, to prove the existence of that which is immaterial?