I would like your opinion on Bertrand Russell's comment

by Terry 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Joe Grundy

  Knowsnothing:

  The flood? That falls at the 'plausability' stage I would say, without going into all the evidence which is out there. Less than 6,000 years ago the world population was reduced to 8 people in the Middle East?

  As in the OP, those making the claim that gods exist are required to prove it (at least to those of us that require proof). Those who wish to believe will continue to do so regardless of what evidence is or is not available. Indeed, to some believers the more irrational their beliefs the greater their 'faith' and thus the 'stronger' they are.

  Some, many, most, rational people would conclude that the 'creation' myth has been effectively disproved, that the 'creation' debate is over. But when we discuss religion 'rationality' is not frequently a recognised factor.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Some, many, most, rational people would conclude that the 'creation' myth has been effectively disproved, that the 'creation' debate is over. -Joe Grundy

  You're right. I'll give an example. The WT was proven wrong about 7000 yrs=1 creative day. So they moved the goal posts, and now they too agree that the earth is billions of years old, that life also came about millions of years ago.

  However, I participate in a discussion forum on Beliefnet, and someone made an interesting observation. The creation account doesnot stipulate literal days. Why? Because the 7th day never is said to have finished. I'll post and excerpt and the link.

  Knowsnothing, the Bible language pretty clearly indicates a much longer than 24 hour period for each creative day, since the expression 'and there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a ____ day' is used for each day, excepting the seventh! indicating the seventh has yet to end.

  Why should I believe in the Bible?

  I've read up a bit on the science that disproves creationism. So far it's pretty convincing. I started reading at talkorigins. Do you have any other resources or places to look this stuff up?
• 

  fresh prince of ohio

  I always come back to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. IMO, on this doctrine the whole truth or lack thereof of Christianity hangs.

  This is so on-its-face impossible for me to believe, and so beyond any attempts at literal proof, that I don't feel any obligation to PROVE that it didn't happen. This is one of the most extraordinary claims made about Jesus and I can't imagine how any extraordinary, or even ordinary proof could be provided authenticating it. It is a 100% leap of faith to believe it, and I sometimes wonder just how much hard thought this doctrine is given by persons professing Christianity, in terms of, 'this is just a willing belief in something entirely unprovable and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to reject it and therefore I cannot fault a soul for not believing it'.

  Of course there are Christians who insist that "spiritual truths" don't necessarily have to be "literal truths" or whatnot, and I can respect that, I guess. But all it amounts to is a kind of existentialist Christianity, in other words, just choosing to believe something not because of its literal truth but because of its ability to provide meaning. I've tried that course but in the end it just doesn't work for me. Maybe I'll keep trying, I'm always a bit enticed by the Kiirkegaard school but there's just not enough meat on that bone to really chart your life course based on it.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  Knowsnothing: While WTBTS may now accept that 'life came about millions of years ago', the few publications I have seen recently still say that Adam was created 6,000 or so years ago. They don't trumpet it for obvious reasons.

  Fudging about with the length of days etc. seems a bit dishonest to me. As far as I'm concerned anyone can believe what they like as long as it doesn't affect other people, but it seems to me that if they claim to have the 'unchanging and eternal truth' they should stick to it or admit they were wrong. 'New light' is just a weaselly cop-out IMHO. A core tenet of science is the acceptance that no-one knows it all and that there must always be an acceptance that a currently accepted hypothesis may be shown to be wrong and thus discarded. Seems more honest to me.

  The Richard Dawkins Foundation site has a lot of very reliable stuff from expert sources and is worth a look.

  Fresh Prince: As I understand it the claims to 'virgin birth' were far more common-place than many modern christians understand. They think it is unique to their religion but history shows the truth to be very different. It seems to have been a fairly common feature claimed for Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods, amongst others, and some writers have suggested that Saul/Paul included it in his view of the new religion to endow it with some 'credibility' to potential converts at that time.
• 

  smiddy

  I can go back 50 years ago,when i was a jw and the understanding then was that the earth could be millions of years old,the creative years of 7000 yrs for a" day" only applied to the preperation of inhabiting the earth for humans.Some people get this confused thinking the jw`s beleive that the earth was created about 50000 years ago.they never claimed that.

  smiddy
• 

  cyberjesus

  TD: Interesting comment as always, however I dont agree with this, can you expand?

  In other words, even without proof, belief in a non-corporeal Super-being completely outside of our realm of experience is still more plausible than the idea that Hercules died from the blood of a centaur.

  Terry: you ask for our thoughts, however I think the OP has little left for thought.... rather for contemplation

  Agnostics are to me ignorants not acknoleding their ignorance.
• 

  Terry

  Terry, you should warm up your Underwood and write a dialogue between Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche on religion and christianity in particular.

  One of my heroes when I was a kid was STEVE ALLEN, who invented late night talk shows, was a comedian, writer, musician, composer, etc.

  He wrote a series called MEETING of the MINDS in which he put various famous historical characters together at a dinner table for conversations.

  Riveting and enlightening. It was his influence that left the most imaginative legacy in my subconscious.

  Visit the website:

  http://www.steveallen.com/television_pioneer/meeting_of_minds.htm
• 

  Terry

  Terry: you ask for our thoughts, however I think the OP has little left for thought.... rather for contemplation

  Agnostics are to me ignorants not acknoleding their ignorance.

  Well, I'm an Agnostic and I "acknoleding" my ignorance.
• 

  TD

  Interesting comment as always, however I dont agree with this, can you expand?

  A 'plausible God' is a concept that has emerged in Christianity, Judaism, and to a lesser degree, Islam since about the 17th century. There are entire books on the subject, but it boils down to acknowledging that there are limits to our knowledge and that God, if he exists lies outside those limits. This puts God comfortably enough in the realm of the unknown that there is no need for a liberal believer to reject scientific law to believe in Him.

  For example, the big three monotheistic religions were pretty happy when the Big Bang theory emerged as the prevailing cosmological model. Not only did it imply that the universe had a beginning, but it was pretty darn easy to mentally ascribe the Big Bang to God. There was no need to explain exactly how He caused it and an explanation would actually have been detrimental to the whole idea.

  Of course, plausibililty should not be confused with proof. If it helps, think of it as the difference between science fiction and fantasy. These are two closely related genres of writing, but good science fiction restricts itself to that which we believe is scientifically possible and fantasy does not.

  The wild sex and confilcts between the Greek gods is the stuff of pure fantasy. God as the Architect and Engineer of the Big Bang is much closer to science fiction and in that respect is more plausible.
• 

  Terry

  Everything has to have a "cause" and a "beginning". Therefore: God created the universe out of nothing.

  Now apply the first clause to the 2nd.

  Everything has to have "cause" and a "beginning". Therefore: God had a cause. He was Created.

  And so on....