Sunday, December 04, 2016

dialouge on meaning of religion: What Does It Explain?

Photobucket





This is a dialogue between a poster on my message board (Pixie) and myself over the meaning of religion, The initial issue is what does religion explain? His position is it explains  nothing.

Metacrock said of religion:
In addition to explaining things it really explains it was also used to explaimn things it really didn't explain but it was all they had,then they discovered science.
It got me wondering what is there that religion does explain? Cannot anyone give any examples - together with an outline of the explanation, just so we can see it really does have one.



Meta:

I've already answered that several times. there are many things:
*Origin of existence
*meaning and value of life 
*grounding axioms (you never am answered)
*understanding and resolving the human problematic
probably more that's enoigh



PIX:
See, anyone can claim to have an explanation. I could say mother nature explains all those things. That does not count for jack. What counts is the number of explanations you can actually show.
.

Mother nature would not be an explanation for the origin of existence, would not ground axioms or provide meaning and value or understanding and resolution to the human problematic. God would be an explanation definitionally because of aseity and necessity. In fact, I think God under some definition would be the only explanation for origin of existence. The atheist can counter that that's a meaningless or superfluous question, but that's not what you were asking





The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:God explains it to me even i I can't communicate it to you.

Remember the context from the blog is the difference between what religion can reallyexplain, in contrast to what it seemed to explain when, for example, it said rainbows were put there by God as a sign of his promise.


the rainbow thing is a literary device and a metaphor perhaps. If we look at it on the simplistically we might think it's just about explanation why there are rainbows,. That's too simple minded. No religious people are that banal. It's a metaphor and what it is a metaphor of is probably similar to what I'm talking about.


In what sense is this a real explanation, where the rainbow one is not? Besides the fact that we already know the rainbow one is wrong?


we would have to determine what the rain bow means to know that. Simpler just to try and say something that can be communicated about what kind of things I feel it explains and that;'s what I've done below.


*Origin of existence

obviously that is supplied by God a priori

That is not an explanation, it is a claim. It explains nothing.


Where do rainbows come from? God puts them them as a sign of his promise.

Where did the universe come from? God made it.


the point of the story about Noah is not explain why there are rainbows,. maybe it was at one time but by the time it's redacted into the text it's gone though a lot of sophisticated re telling. Attributing the universe to God's creation is very different. You have no alternative, you do not know how the universe came to be or why and the best you can do is examine the physical process but you have no way to penetrate the singularity. Because your aanswer remioves reasomn and telos and satisifies itself with surface level existnece and survial rather than morality and detemim ism rather than thinking it'snot an expliamnatiom at all, it's meaingless and irrational and abandonds reasom, it;s merelythe illusion of technique.


Again, in what sense is that an explanation?


In what sense is it not one?

*grounding axioms (you never am answered)


Ditto but also the basis is love--a reality that palpable and present in the life of the believer.

But "the basis is love" is just a glib phrase. It is useful to hide the fact that you have no explanation.


Not it's not a glib phrase, it's a exactly to the point of the kind of thing one needs to know to say something is explained; it's both a motivation (ie God's) and an axiom from which moral values are obtained,.



How do you define "love" in this context? How is love a basis for grounding axioms?


love = the will to the good of the other, So moral axioms are chosen (by God ) because they reflect the good as it pertains to the other. don't kill because it harms others, we don't steal because it deprives others, we don' cheat because wounds others ect,





Can you even tell us what axioms are grounded in this way?


all moral axioms that God imposes as moral law are grounded in god's love. They all means to the end of the good of the other God's creation and imn our dealings with others our other.

*understanding and resolving the human problematic


reflected imn christian theology soeriology


Again, that is a claim, not an explanation.


It is an explanation if you understand the terms, its not hard to understand, obviously the human problematic is the set of problems at the heart of being human, What is the problem or set of problems leading to the human condition? Christianity suggests it is sin. Sin is disobedience to God but plays out in terms of will to the good of ourselves over the good of the other; the opposite of love. Not hate, not merely indifference, but indifference to the good of the other and willingness to exploit. Sin separates us from God and from each other because we are not available to hep each other while we are trying to exploit each other,




As I said, these supposed explanations do not actually explain anything, and are no more deep that the claims of religion in centuries past that it could explain lightning and earthquakes.


That is a huge mistake to assume that religion is not deep,it's fr deeper than robot speaks determinism that reduces humanity to mindless drones. you probably don't values the arts so you just of science as deep; and that's all right? That;s just the illusion of technique.



This is the retreat we see in religion. At one time it could use God to explain anything that was at all mysterious. One by one those mysteries have fallen to science, and religion is forced into the dark places science cannot go, places so dark even theists who claim they have an explanation cannot communicate it.



that is an ideological spin lit;not original it';s been fed to you by brianwashers it;'s based upon ignogrnace of the ferment of Western civilization which firmly base upon it's religious roots,




The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:the rainbow thing is a literary device and a metaphor perhaps. If we look at it on the simplistically we might think it's just about explanation why there are rainbows,. That's too simple minded. No religious people are that banal. It's a metaphor and what it is a metaphor of is probably similar to what I'm talking about.




Sure, because we all know rainbows are due to light refracted in raindrops.

But hundreds of years ago, that was not the case. Hundreds of years ago, things like rainbows and lightning and earthquakes were attributed to God.


Do you not know what literary devices are? I said the idea that they would tell the flood story just to answer why there are rainbows is ridiculous. What makes a rainbow works is irrelevant. The real message is God's salvation is as dependable as rainbow after rain. God controls nature God is in charge that sort o hing thiat is the point.


the point of the story about Noah is not explain there are rainbows,. maybe it was at one time but by the time it's redacted into the text it's gone though a lot of sophisticated re telling. Attributing the universe to God's creation is very different. You have no alternative, you dot not know how the universe came to be or why and the best you can do is examine the physical process but you have no way to penetrate the singularity. Because your answer removes reason and telos and satisfies itself with surface level existence and survival rather than morality and determineism rather than thinking, it's not an explanation at all, it's meaningless and irrational and abandons reason, it's merely the illusion of technique.




So your argument is that science cannot explain it? Basically God-of-the-gaps then.


Dude how can it be God of the gaps when it's not meant to to explain  nature???, screw your head on man!!!!


Just so we all know, any time someone presents an argument that comes down to "science cannot answer this" I will call it out as God-of-the-gaps.


too bad you don't know what God of the gaps means, where did I say science doesn't know what rainbows are?



http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4606&start=40



too bad you didn't pay any attention to my answers on the other thread,. I argued that God has reasons for not eliminating things and those are important reasons, God is the judge he;'s not your busboy, he runs the world not you.

I did not pay attention because you were spouting this sort of vacuous nonsense. Claiming there is a reason and that it is an important reason is worth exactly nothing if you cannot tell us what that reason is. You have faith that there is a reason, but that counts as nothing to someone without that faith.



[of course I did but since he dint read them he doesn't know what they are. see below]




http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/04/answer-to-theodicy-soteriological-drama.html






2 comments:

JBsptfn said...

I like the part where Pixie says "science explains everything". That's what all these atheist robots say. You see that on Skeppy's blog often.

Joe Hinman said...

yea that's pretty funny