Hi Dave, I don’t think I have much more to add. This article by Paul Davies refers to the fine-tuning of the multiverse, though he doesn’t accept a theistic explanation. This is the quote relevant to what I said:
“The multiverse theory certainly cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.”
Davies has varied his metaphysical views several times, and at the time of this article he was saying the universe could design itself, not by chance (if I understand him correctly) but by the universal laws evolving to produce the desired result, as if the future could influence the past. I have trouble even understanding that concept, and he seems to be out on his own on this, but he is an original thinker.
Just as in the story of the “Emperor and his New Clothes”, the more preposterous the claim you are asked to believe, the more complicated is the explanation by its proponents, for why it is NOT as preposterous as it appears.
Dear friends, don’t be fooled by clever theories for the origin of the universe. It is a distraction. The teller of this tall tale wants to keep you focused on complex hypothetical theories for intelligent design, using sophisticated-sounding pseudo-scientific psycho-babble; all in hopes of being able to avoid having to explain to an educated audience, why he believes that virgins can birth babies and dead corpses can eat broiled fish.
The fine-tuning argument is one that several up and coming ”modern thinking ” theists are looking at and ”adopting”.
Of course, Divine Command proponents such as William Lane Craig also believe in fine tuning.
Luke Barnes is currently one of the scientists at the forefront of this ”charge”, and is a favorite of unklee’s; ( though it is has been almost impossible for me to ascertain whether he is christian ) and who he drags out whenever names such as Victor Stenger, whom Barnes is apparently claimed to have refuted, is thrown onto the table.
Aligning with all the ”science stuff” makes the supernatural believing religious folk appear to have a measure of respectability.
In the end this is simply a sham, and reeks of manipulation once more.
For even if we were to concede the universe ( in whichever form it takes) has some sort of designer, to get from this belief to attributing design to some shitty little eschatological itinerant preacher running around 1st century Palestine in a nightshirt like Wee Willie Winky is a leap of faith that requires a total suspension of mental faculties largely apparent within the indoctrinated religious community.
With no verifiable evidence for christian god claims, no contemporary evidence for the character Jesus of Nazareth Nowhere, religious text that is rampant with historical, geographical and scientific error including plain lies and forgery the best alternative is to attempt to hijack philosophy and theoretical science.
It wont wash.
”Faith is believing what you know ain’t true.”
Twain
Oh, and if any internet super sleuth could possibly establish if Barnes has any religious/Christian leanings I would be very grateful if they could pass on the info.Thanks.
Robert Funk (no jokes, Ark!), founded the Westar Institute in 1985. That same year, Westar launched “The Jesus Seminar.” The goal of the Seminar was to review each of the sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels and determine which of them could be considered authentic.
Thirty scholars took up the challenge at the initial meeting in Berkeley, California. Eventually more than 200 professionally trained specialists, called “Fellows,” joined the group at various phases. As the editors of the Seminar’s 1993 book The Five Gospels” explain in their Preface, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar represent a wide array of Western religious traditions and academic institutions. They have been trained in the best universities in North America and Europe.
The Seminar met twice a year, from 1985 to 1998, to debate technical papers that were prepared and circulated in advance. At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows voted using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels.
Funk had this to say:
We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus’ divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God.
The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.
Needless to say, unkleE doesn’t seem to think overly highly of either Funk or his Seminar.
I might add that unk feels that Funk stacked the deck, in that he chose whom and whom not to invite, yet no mention was made of the greatest deck-stackers of all time – the ones who decided whose books to include in the Bible, and whose to reject. Hmmm —
“unk” – “Funk” – there’s gotta be a Rap tune in there somewhere —
Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Want to drive any religious person nuts? Do this:
Every time they mention their god or any of their god’s alleged supernatural acts, tell them this: “Magic isn’t real. Your supernatural-based religious beliefs are imaginary; they are only an illusion in your mind; like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. No one today believes that rabbits magically appear in hats and no one today should believe that virgins have babies or that dead men walk out of their graves to eat broiled fish sandwiches.
(I’m sure that everyone is probably getting sick of the “broiled fish” punch line, but it is so obviously contrived, I can’t stop being amused by it.)
Someone just sent me this article about an Hasidic Jew leaving Judaism’s form of fundamentalism and becoming an atheist (and an actor). His experiences parallel those of some of us who grew up fundamentalist Christians, but his experience was probably more extreme than that of most of us. It is a fascinating story. One point he mentions is that the internet will be the doom of Hasidic Judaism. I believe that the internet will be the doom of all forms of religious fundamentalism…thank goodness!
Peter, thanks for posting the video on Luke from the Yale video series. I finally got around to watching it — it was really good. I’m moving onto the one on Acts now. 🙂
I imagine that whole series is good. Looks like it’s 26 videos — have you watched them all?
During a debate at the University of Northern Iowa, I asked my opponent, “Do you believe that a donkey spoke human language?”
“Yes, I do,” he responded.
“Yesterday, I visited the zoo,” I continued, “and a donkey spoke to me in perfect Spanish, saying, ‘Alá es el único Dios verdadero.’ Do you believe that?”
“No, I don’t,” he answered without hesitation.
“How can you be so quick to doubt my story and yet criticize me for being skeptical of yours?”
“Because I believe what Jesus tells me, not what you tell me.”
Here’s something to chew on a bit Arch, or anyone else interested: As I’ve come to understand it: the one thing humans appear to fear most is knowledge. Something about that old bit of concrete isn’t very pleasant. I’ve got more on this, but wanted to know someone else’s take.
I would say yes on both counts. The discomfort of cognitive dissonance is only the result of the information that knowledge presents them with. The knowledge of death is the perfect example.
Barry, given the trauma that departing from religion has caused me, I often look back with nostalgia to the times when I was a full blown religious zealot. I was so certain, life seemed so simple.
I would say, and this only from my own perspective, that knowledge of “worldly” things, or secular knowledge, scared the crap out of me. It had been so ingrained in me to trust scripture and to not believe anything that mere man said that I was afraid of hellfire if I trusted man’s word over God’s. Now, on this side of knowledge, I can hardly get enough of it. I’m not sure it was knowledge, itself, that I ever feared.
Ruth, when I was a Christian, I was genuinely puzzled why some people converted to Islam. But after studying cases I found a common thread, people who had troubled upbringing often were attracted to the ‘structure and certainty’ they found in Islam, someone told them everything they had to do. The uncertainty of life was taken away.
Finding Truth 
“@Carmen
I’m surprised. Thought that you were a seasoned swimmer in the atheist pool. Well, we learn more about each other each day.”
You don’t get it, Powell – she is! You just have to understand her community.
LikeLike
Hi Dave, I don’t think I have much more to add. This article by Paul Davies refers to the fine-tuning of the multiverse, though he doesn’t accept a theistic explanation. This is the quote relevant to what I said:
“The multiverse theory certainly cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.”
Davies has varied his metaphysical views several times, and at the time of this article he was saying the universe could design itself, not by chance (if I understand him correctly) but by the universal laws evolving to produce the desired result, as if the future could influence the past. I have trouble even understanding that concept, and he seems to be out on his own on this, but he is an original thinker.
LikeLike
Notice who only wants to talk about the origin of the universe and not evidence for the Resurrection.
Hmmm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just as in the story of the “Emperor and his New Clothes”, the more preposterous the claim you are asked to believe, the more complicated is the explanation by its proponents, for why it is NOT as preposterous as it appears.
Dear friends, don’t be fooled by clever theories for the origin of the universe. It is a distraction. The teller of this tall tale wants to keep you focused on complex hypothetical theories for intelligent design, using sophisticated-sounding pseudo-scientific psycho-babble; all in hopes of being able to avoid having to explain to an educated audience, why he believes that virgins can birth babies and dead corpses can eat broiled fish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fine-tuning argument is one that several up and coming ”modern thinking ” theists are looking at and ”adopting”.
Of course, Divine Command proponents such as William Lane Craig also believe in fine tuning.
Luke Barnes is currently one of the scientists at the forefront of this ”charge”, and is a favorite of unklee’s; ( though it is has been almost impossible for me to ascertain whether he is christian ) and who he drags out whenever names such as Victor Stenger, whom Barnes is apparently claimed to have refuted, is thrown onto the table.
Aligning with all the ”science stuff” makes the supernatural believing religious folk appear to have a measure of respectability.
In the end this is simply a sham, and reeks of manipulation once more.
For even if we were to concede the universe ( in whichever form it takes) has some sort of designer, to get from this belief to attributing design to some shitty little eschatological itinerant preacher running around 1st century Palestine in a nightshirt like Wee Willie Winky is a leap of faith that requires a total suspension of mental faculties largely apparent within the indoctrinated religious community.
With no verifiable evidence for christian god claims, no contemporary evidence for the character Jesus of
NazarethNowhere, religious text that is rampant with historical, geographical and scientific error including plain lies and forgery the best alternative is to attempt to hijack philosophy and theoretical science.It wont wash.
”Faith is believing what you know ain’t true.”
Twain
Oh, and if any internet super sleuth could possibly establish if Barnes has any religious/Christian leanings I would be very grateful if they could pass on the info.Thanks.
LikeLike
Thanks UnkleE, I’ll check it out.
Powell, thanks for sharing your story.
LikeLike
In the end this is simply a sham, and reeks of manipulation once more.
Exactly.
LikeLike
Robert Funk (no jokes, Ark!), founded the Westar Institute in 1985. That same year, Westar launched “The Jesus Seminar.” The goal of the Seminar was to review each of the sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels and determine which of them could be considered authentic.
Thirty scholars took up the challenge at the initial meeting in Berkeley, California. Eventually more than 200 professionally trained specialists, called “Fellows,” joined the group at various phases. As the editors of the Seminar’s 1993 book The Five Gospels” explain in their Preface, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar represent a wide array of Western religious traditions and academic institutions. They have been trained in the best universities in North America and Europe.
The Seminar met twice a year, from 1985 to 1998, to debate technical papers that were prepared and circulated in advance. At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows voted using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels.
Funk had this to say:
Needless to say, unkleE doesn’t seem to think overly highly of either Funk or his Seminar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I might add that unk feels that Funk stacked the deck, in that he chose whom and whom not to invite, yet no mention was made of the greatest deck-stackers of all time – the ones who decided whose books to include in the Bible, and whose to reject. Hmmm —
“unk” – “Funk” – there’s gotta be a Rap tune in there somewhere —
LikeLike
For the ancient bird!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi again Powell,
Here’s my line – “I believe in GOOD, not god(s)” I have for the last couple of years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I LIKED it! Thanks, Ruth.
LikeLike
Catchy, huh, arch?
LikeLike
Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Want to drive any religious person nuts? Do this:
Every time they mention their god or any of their god’s alleged supernatural acts, tell them this: “Magic isn’t real. Your supernatural-based religious beliefs are imaginary; they are only an illusion in your mind; like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. No one today believes that rabbits magically appear in hats and no one today should believe that virgins have babies or that dead men walk out of their graves to eat broiled fish sandwiches.
(I’m sure that everyone is probably getting sick of the “broiled fish” punch line, but it is so obviously contrived, I can’t stop being amused by it.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Someone just sent me this article about an Hasidic Jew leaving Judaism’s form of fundamentalism and becoming an atheist (and an actor). His experiences parallel those of some of us who grew up fundamentalist Christians, but his experience was probably more extreme than that of most of us. It is a fascinating story. One point he mentions is that the internet will be the doom of Hasidic Judaism. I believe that the internet will be the doom of all forms of religious fundamentalism…thank goodness!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luzer-twersky/hasidic-judaism-hollywood-actor_b_7242886.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
LikeLike
Peter, thanks for posting the video on Luke from the Yale video series. I finally got around to watching it — it was really good. I’m moving onto the one on Acts now. 🙂
I imagine that whole series is good. Looks like it’s 26 videos — have you watched them all?
LikeLike
I found this amusing, from Dan Barker’s LOSING FAITH IN FAITH – Jesus: History or Myth?:
One must note that Jesus never told that story —
LikeLiked by 5 people
Nate, I have been working my way through the video series, one per evening.
LikeLike
Here’s something to chew on a bit Arch, or anyone else interested: As I’ve come to understand it: the one thing humans appear to fear most is knowledge. Something about that old bit of concrete isn’t very pleasant. I’ve got more on this, but wanted to know someone else’s take.
LikeLike
“the one thing humans appear to fear most is knowledge.” – Is it knowledge they fear, or the discomfort of cognative dissonance?
LikeLike
I would say yes on both counts. The discomfort of cognitive dissonance is only the result of the information that knowledge presents them with. The knowledge of death is the perfect example.
LikeLike
Barry, given the trauma that departing from religion has caused me, I often look back with nostalgia to the times when I was a full blown religious zealot. I was so certain, life seemed so simple.
Ignorance was bliss!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Barry,
I would say, and this only from my own perspective, that knowledge of “worldly” things, or secular knowledge, scared the crap out of me. It had been so ingrained in me to trust scripture and to not believe anything that mere man said that I was afraid of hellfire if I trusted man’s word over God’s. Now, on this side of knowledge, I can hardly get enough of it. I’m not sure it was knowledge, itself, that I ever feared.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I also agree with you, Peter. Having everything in black and white and structured just made life simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ruth, when I was a Christian, I was genuinely puzzled why some people converted to Islam. But after studying cases I found a common thread, people who had troubled upbringing often were attracted to the ‘structure and certainty’ they found in Islam, someone told them everything they had to do. The uncertainty of life was taken away.
LikeLike