IS and OUGHT

[Dubious]

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him. But there are no middle positions on that. To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

What he really was, was a back-alley preacher who screwed himself badly the first time he came to the big city, i.e., Jerusalem which had bad-tempered Roman soldiers everywhere trying to maintain order in a place historically prone to disorder and insurrection. There were probably more Jews who got crucified during Passover than just Jesus...the main difference the others weren't divine enough to serve as sacrifice in atonement for all our sins since Adam. It takes the Son of a god to manage that miracle!

[Harbal]

I have heard it said that we can't be sure that he was even a historic figure.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died

So he not only existed, but he actually did look exactly like Robert Powell.

[uwot]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

It is an example of the fact that exactly the same evidence can support different hypotheses. So is this:

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him. But there are no middle positions on that. To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

I have heard it said that we can't be sure that he was even a historic figure.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died

I've mentioned Thomas Kuhn in this thread before. You can read my short Philosophy Now biography of Kuhn here:https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
For current purposes, this is the relevant bit:

Among the most controversial aspects of Kuhn’s model of science, is his claim that different paradigms are ‘incommensurable’. That is to say, in extreme cases, there can be no meaningful dialogue between scientists who hold the different perspectives. That the same evidence can inspire different worldviews is often illustrated by the duck/rabbit illusion. The point Kuhn was making is that if you’re talking about a duck, you are going to make no sense to someone seeing a rabbit. String Theorists look at the universe and see eleven dimensions, whereas according to Loop Quantum Gravity, there are only four.
This raises another issue for which Kuhn’s paradigm model is criticised. How do you decide whether you are looking at a duck or a rabbit? The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:
1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.
2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.
3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.
4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)
5. It should make predictions that come true.
However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.”

[attofishpi]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

I'm almost fully through the article, and thanks for posting Henry, really interesting.

From what I am reading it appears to be suggesting that red shift is simply how light behaves at such great distances, rather than an effect of an expanding universe. Is this correct?
Since then it appears we had no way to comphrehend\test how the wavelength of light changes over such a great distance...that is, here there is no doppler effect, since the universe is not actually expanding in all directions - no relative change to us. Obviously there are areas where galaxys are moving towards and away and doppler effect remains, including on the revolutuion of the galaxy relative to us.
Aha! I was on da money!

[Harbal]

After thinking about it, it seems to me that there are two things that motivate our actions. One is the avoidance of pain, or physical discomfort. For instance, we eat to eliminate the unpleasant sensation of hunger. Most of our immediate survival needs seem to be attended to through this process of reacting to discomfort or pain. It is how most living creatures function with regard to their personal survival.

One of the reasons for our great success as a species is our ability to create very sophisticated social structures which necessitate our behaving in specific ways, both towards each other and in cooperation with each other. The avoidance of physical discomfort is not normally what motivates our social behaviour. We are a very emotional species, and the avoidance of emotional discomfort probably plays a major part in our social behaviour. It seems to me that a component of this emotionally driven behaviour is a need to believe there is a reason for our actions. Rationality alone is very often not enough. I think this because, despite our being extremely rational creatures, many of us believe things that are not in the least rational, and these beliefs are very often what we act upon. The point is, it works.

For society to function, we need to have beliefs that inform us how we ought to behave. It doesn’t matter whether the beliefs make sense, we just need to believe. A belief in God who is beyond our understanding is no more powerful than a belief in right and wrong for its own sake that we can’t logically account for.

But, like I already said, this is only how it seems to me.

[Belinda]

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him. But there are no middle positions on that. To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

I have heard it said that we can't be sure that he was even a historic figure. A bit like Robin Hood and his merry men, but without bows and arrows.

I read somewhere that outlaws are historical . As fairly large sections of society they were a nuisance as robbers but were used as a main source fighting men when required.

Proper Christians believe historical Jesus and the Biblical portrayal of Jesus Christ were the same person. I think many modern Christians think The Bible is a like a modern history book.

[Harbal]

Proper Christians believe historical Jesus and the Biblical portrayal of Jesus Christ were the same person. I think many modern Christians think The Bible is a like a modern history book.

Is it true that everything about Jesus that is in the Bible was written long after his death?

[Walker]

On the basis of accepting an effect as the proof of an inferred cause’s intangible existence, as science does, then God is also credible.

Only if you start from the position that God only has to will something for it to be tha case. If religion wants the respect that science has, it is not enough to say that it is plausible that God created the world, it would also need to be able to explain how he created it.

All matter and energy in the universe instantly expanded from a infinitesimally small point. I guess that explains it for scientists, with some fancy footwork thrown in.

- God is everywhere all the time. (as explained by Christianity)
- Dark matter is everywhere all the time. (as explained by science)

- Science rejects the first based on what science knows (God everywhere all the time, no. But that's okay for dark matter.)
- Christianity says maybe to the second. (Dark matter, if it exists at all, exists as an aspect of God.)

- Wait a minute … which one is the religion?

[Harbal]

- Wait a minute … which one is the religion?

The one that imagines there was conscious intention behind it all.

[Walker]

- Wait a minute … which one is the religion?

The one that imagines there was conscious intention behind it all.

Is this metric that you apply to religion determined by both science and religion, and does this metric also apply to science?

If it does not apply to science, how does science account for the source of what science says happened in the beginning?

Or, does science quibble and say there never was a beginning ... with self-referential, circular proof of course.

[Harbal]

Is this metric that you apply to religion determined by both science and religion, and does this metric also apply to science?

You are being incomprehensible. I know that you like to be told when you are being incomprehensible, and that is why I'm telling you.

If it does not apply to science, how does science account for the source of what science says happened in the beginning?

I have no idea what you are asking me.

[attofishpi]

After thinking about it, it seems to me that there are two things that motivate our actions. One is the avoidance of pain, or physical discomfort. For instance, we eat to eliminate the unpleasant sensation of hunger. Most of our immediate survival needs seem to be attended to through this process of reacting to discomfort or pain. It is how most living creatures function with regard to their personal survival.

One of the reasons for our great success as a species is our ability to create very sophisticated social structures which necessitate our behaving in specific ways, both towards each other and in cooperation with each other. The avoidance of physical discomfort is not normally what motivates our social behaviour. We are a very emotional species, and the avoidance of emotional discomfort probably plays a major part in our social behaviour. It seems to me that a component of this emotionally driven behaviour is a need to believe there is a reason for our actions. Rationality alone is very often not enough. I think this because, despite our being extremely rational creatures, many of us believe things that are not in the least rational, and these beliefs are very often what we act upon. The point is, it works.

For society to function, we need to have beliefs that inform us how we ought to behave. It doesn’t matter whether the beliefs make sense, we just need to believe. A belief in God who is beyond our understanding is no more powerful than a belief in right and wrong for its own sake that we can’t logically account for.

But, like I already said, this is only how it seems to me.

Yes, I think you have considered the major driving force behind the free-will of sentient beings. With humans comes the other driving forces, you have hit upon the motivation to avoid physical and mental pain. Let's consider them negative forces. Positive forces could be more hedonistic I suppose, such as
motivation for sex , drugs and rock n roll . I'm sure someone around this place can clarify for us of non-philosophically studied types with the correct lingo for what we have stumbled upon in our wisdom Harbal!

[Harbal]

I'm sure someone around this place can clarify for us of non-philosophically studied types with the correct lingo for what we have stumbled upon in our wisdom Harbal!

I often stumble upon things in my wisdom that I don't have the lingo for.

[uwot]

...this is only how it seems to me.

Well, the idea that we are motivated by the avoidance of pain is fundamentally Sigmund Freud's pleasure principle; "sophisticated social structures" sound like Émile Durkheim's collective consciousness and that "beliefs are very often what we act upon. The point is, it works." is the rationale behind Paul Feyerabend's methodological anarchy. So you're in good company. The important thing is that whatever we think, it is as you say "only how it seems to me".
The story of Socrates and the Oracle of Delphi is central to western philosophy, and by extension western science. The gist is that Socrates found out that the Oracle had identified him as the wisest person in Greece. On hearing this Socrates protests 'How can that be? I know nothing' and that's the lightbulb moment when the reader is meant to realise that people who claim to know - don't. There's very little that we know for certain and I would certainly agree that "a component of this emotionally driven behaviour is a need to believe there is a reason for our actions". All I would add is that there is a certain cerebral weakness that compels the hard of thinking to insist their beliefs amount to knowledge.

[Harbal]

All I would add is that there is a certain cerebral weakness that compels the hard of thinking to insist their beliefs amount to knowledge.

I suppose that is what I am saying, or at least that people act upon their beliefs as if they were knowledge. I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that human beings have an innate tendency to invest in belief systems, and this tendency is present in us in order to facilitate social cohesion. It was probably essential in the past that all the members of a tribe or society believed the same thing, which amounted to having a shared religion. Not least because there can then be an imposed religious authority. This no longer seems to be the case in modern Western societies, and there isn't the same pressure on us to believe in a particulat religious doctrine, yet we still can't abandon our instinctive predisposition towards having religious beliefs. At least some of us don't seem to be able to abandon it, and this has manifested itself in the vast array of weird and wonderful beliefs we come across today.