# This philosophy screams xNTPs mindset



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

goguapsy said:


> Am I the only NT that thinks theism and religion the only logical thing?
> Roman Catholic here.


If you are seeking the way of logic and knowledge, if you are seeking the truth you will soon find why agnostic point of view is the only one thats purely rational. I know you don't like me saying this, but take it as a challenge.

Read about scientific breakthroughs of the recent history. Mainly modern science like Einsteins general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics and of course the evolution alongside with genetics and psychology. Also, read the worlds most famous philosophers and I think you will become an agnostic.

I was a Roman Catholic (and my family is really, may I say ''fanatic'' in their beliefs and so was I) 2 and a half years ago when I decided I am going to learn about nature (I was 16 years old), soon after I've entered a big struggle with religion leading myself into state of doubting but still wanting to stay a believer, into ''I'm really in the middle'' kind of thingy into being a firm agnostic atheist.

Most of my struggle was with the sudden loss of the imaginary meaning of life (that was kind of a dumb meaning to begin with, but nevermind), also, some things like morality needed some revision, because I lost their roots, but when I philosophically sorted them out I was really feeling stronger than ever, because I was seeing the world with an open mind, with more intellectual sophistication and beauty then ever before. Pursuit of knowledge is still my main goal and I truly enjoy it.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

PisceanReve said:


> Wouldn't that just be agnostic?


I'm agnostic, and an atheist... They are opinions on different question. 

If you ask me: ''Is there a god/gods?'' I will answer:''I don't know. For now there is no evidence that supports that claim.'' -> Agnostic answer

But if you ask me: ''Do you believe there is a god/gods?'' I will answer:''No, I don't believe there is a god/gods. For now there is no evidence that indicate that there is a god/gods and actually there is even a lot of evidence that would rule out many of different versions of god/gods people believe today, so I am a non believer.'' -> An atheist answer


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

@Entr0py I see your point of view. You can argue infinite arguments on how God doesn't exist. I, however, am convinced of His existence. Science is simply the way God made things (you know, there's a reason why Roman Catholics invented the Scientific Method).

Many things convince me of God's existence and the Roman Catholic faith to be the correct one (speaking about *doctrine *here), but specially miracles. My personal favorite: Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

goguapsy said:


> @Entr0py I see your point of view. You can argue infinite arguments on how God doesn't exist. I, however, am convinced of His existence. Science is simply the way God made things (you know, there's a reason why Roman Catholics invented the Scientific Method).
> 
> Many things convince me of God's existence and the Roman Catholic faith to be the correct one (speaking about *doctrine *here), but specially miracles. My personal favorite: Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano


Well, there you see it... Your opinion is not based on logic, it's based on personal experience and emotional needs, you ''just know'' there is a god, ''just know'' is an emotion, not knowledge. 

Also ''Science is simply the way God made things'' is ofc, true if there is a God, but if you actually study the issue you will see (especially in the scientific fact of the evolution) that many logical problems arise. Once you accept we are cousins with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, that we are primates with ''bigger-than-usual'' frontal lobes, but still quite irrational animals you will hardly still believe you are made ''in the image of god''. And when you lose a religious concept of ''human specialness'' you start seriously doubting the whole concept of a soul, or at least why would only humans have one. (<- This is only one example. There are thousands of them. It's quite frustrating trying to deal with them once you give yourself that assignment)

Believe me goguapsy, I felt same as you did back then, I was even sure I experience many miracles myself. I was really religious, I even saw with my own eyes an early stage of exorcism being performed by one of the big spiritual christian leaders here in my country.

But now, there is no question in my head anymore. It was all an illusion, one big simulacrum of my mind.

P.S. Actually, don't believe my words, but take them as a challenge. Study those things yourself. I am sure you are a smart, if you think there is a god, try to intellectually defeat those who beg to differ, and in order to do so, you need to learn at least the same amount of science and read at least the same amount of philosophy and spend at least the same amount of time thinking. I wanted to do it myself, but obviously failed to do so. And I don't feel like I ''failed'' in the end, I think I made a big victory for myself, I've learned much about the world.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Entr0py said:


> Well, there you see it... Your opinion is not based on logic, it's based on personal experience and emotional needs, you ''just know'' there is a god, ''just know'' is an emotion, not knowledge.


Life experiences that make no sense through Science, and are explained by religion in a way that I see as logical --> THUS, there must be a Higher Power --> THUS, there is God.



> Also ''Science is simply the way God made things'' is ofc, true if there is a God, but if you actually study the issue you will see (especially in the scientific fact of the evolution) that many logical problems arise. Once you accept we are cousins with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, that we are primates with ''bigger-than-usual'' frontal lobes, but still quite irrational animals you will hardly still believe you are made ''in the image of god''. And when you lose a religious concept of ''human specialness'' you start seriously doubting the whole concept of a soul, or at least why would only humans have one.


Humans are made in the image of God in that they have souls. Other animals are irrational. There is a GIGANTIC difference between humans and chimpanzees (and any other animal) that Science, as far as I know, has not yet explained. The fact that humans are so much more logical, rational and advanced compared to any other animals suggests we have something special. I think evolution is how God worked to create men, really. But, of course, he influenced in it when it came to humans... There is nothing natural in how humans are SO MUCH different (NOT physiologically speaking, I mean if you take History and all the deeds of men and whatnot). -->Thus, if there IS a God (see above logic) --> There must be souls.





> Believe me goguapsy, I felt same as you did back then, I was even sure I experience many miracles myself. I was really religious, I even saw with my own eyes an early stage of exorcism being performed by one of the big spiritual christian leaders here in my country.
> 
> But now, there is no question in my head anymore. It was all an illusion, one big simulacrum of my mind.


I believe you and respect your views - if I by any chances sound challenging, ignore the tone, I suck at conveying tone through writing XD

Now, I'm not sure if we are discussing theism or or organized religion here... But interestingly, one of my teachers (a course I was taking in order to receive a Catholic Sacrament) even said "If an atheist comes to you and tells you to convince him of the existence of God, simply walk away, there's nothing you can do - atheist will beat you in any argument. Only 'waste your time' with an atheist if he comes to you and says he wants not to be convinced, but to understand".


----------



## PisceanReve (Jun 2, 2011)

goguapsy said:


> Am I the only NT that thinks theism and religion the only logical thing?
> Roman Catholic here.


I seem to be one of the few people who combine spirituality (an NT and spirituality--no way!! :/ ) and science to create an understanding of the universe.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

PisceanReve said:


> I seem to be one of the few people who combine spirituality (an NT and spirituality--no way!! :/ ) and science to create an understanding of the universe.


haha don't worry, most smart people unite both things to understand the Universe.

My opinion? God works through what we discover with Science to create things.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

goguapsy said:


> There is a GIGANTIC difference between humans and chimpanzees (and any other animal) that Science, as far as I know, has not yet explained.


Human arrogance at its best. 

You can teach pigeons to count to three. It is clearly more of a spectrum to me.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> Human arrogance at its best.
> 
> You can teach pigeons to count to three. It is clearly more of a spectrum to me.


Yeah... Tell me about an animal (besides humans) that have philosophers and religion. Tell me an animal that is rational and is not just instinctive.

Also, you don't *TEACH *a pigeon to count to three. You *condition *it. Like any other influence we exerce over other non-human animals. Take dolphins in water parks. Do you think someone convinced the dolphins to boost children across because it's the right thing? No. They are *conditioned *to do so. Have you heard about that monkey that got to be the 22nd best Wall Street broker, according to the Guinness from 2009? Do you know how he did that? He didn't analyze data and reached a conclusion on which stocks would rise - he threw darts at a dartboard.

I wanna see you compare the lowest-level human (no prejudice intended, you know what I mean) to the smartest irrational animal out there. Bring it.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Human learning is also based on conditioning. What is your point?

If parrots had the same brain capacity and similar experiences to us, who are we to say that they wouldn't also have (deeply communicable) philosophy and religion?

I'd prefer to believe in a God that doesn't arbitrarily favour humans over all other life.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> Human learning is also based on conditioning. What is your point?


Yes, you can condition humans to act a certain way alright. However, you can't make a parrot (or any other animal) act in rational form. A parrot won't do something because it's right or wrong, but it is reward/punish based (reinforcement). Humans do so, because they are TAUGHT, not just conditioned, AFTER A CERTAIN AGE (you don't have to give a cookie to an adult for him to learn that darts should be thrown at dartboards and not at the wall... you can have the social reinforcement, but the human will understand WHY he must throw darts at dartboards, he won't do so ONLY because it's socially acceptable). My point is that humans can learn to act in a certain manner through conditioning too, but they are also taught many things that demand a critical and rational mind. Human learning does not have to be based on conditioning alone. We can think - and rationalize - by ourselves. These are not things that happen just because we have strong brains, or just because. We think differently.

Let me get you the last paragraph from a book I've read this morning:

"Wilfred Trotter, an English surgeon and sociologist, called human reason 'the indispensable agent in everything man has accomplished. It enables him to learn, to add knowledge and preserve it,* to build up arts, sciences and civilization without limit*.' His comment can apply not only to the thought processes that computers attempt to replicate, but to the search that has gone on throughout human history: *the attempt to observe, measure and understand** - in other words, the perennial search for theories for everything."

*understand is not just "what should I do", but why - so a pigeon that counts to three, or a monkey that throws dart at dartboards, sure gets that 1 is 1, 2 is 2, 3 is 3, and that darts go on boards. They don't understand WHY, though. In other words, they don't UNDERSTAND. They are simply conditioned to do so (to count and to aim at that round thing).

From National Geographic's "Theories For Everything", p. 391. Bolding and the asterisk/observations (*) were made by myself.

You see humans making art, science and civilization. You see humans creating theories. You don't see any other animal doing anything that even remotely RESEMBLES the human capacity for rational thinking.

And God doesn't "arbitrarily" favour humans over all other lives. We were created "to His image" (on account of the fact that we have souls) for a reason. We are rational thinkers. We are far superior to any other species that you really can't compare the rational capacity of humans to do many things that even the most developed species that are not the _**** sapiens_ is unable to be compared on high levels. We are similar to chimps biologically and physiologically speaking. Not rationally though. Our huge capacity to do things so superior to what other animals do (see bolded parts above) is not biologically random or induced. There must be something extra...

Get the smartest animal (non-human) you can find and see what's on his mind: you'll find instinctive behaviour all around. Analyze our brains: we do act instintively... though we also act rationally.

Now... if humans are JUST a better developed animal species... how come the gap between humans and ANY other animal is just so ridiculously big? It's not just a spectrum observation. Humans don't simply do things that other species do less - we do things that other species are incapable of.



P.S. Edit button seems to be working now


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

@goguapsy 

I'm just letting you know that I've made my point and I don't really intend to argue this further.
You ask some interesting questions in your last post. I often find it is a good idea to explore and seek answers to my own 'challenging' questions, perhaps you will too.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

@Snow Leopard Whilst I don't doubt Science may find a reason beyond spiritual for humans to be superior to others, I think the base answer for this is that we were created by a Higher Power (God). Also, I believe in miracles, another reason I believe God exists.

Thought I must say, I'm upset! Why would you state your point of view if you are not willing to defend it or come with an open mind for changing it?


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

goguapsy said:


> Thought I must say, I'm upset! Why would you state your point of view if you are not willing to defend it or come with an open mind for changing it?


Do you really think back and forth arguments on the internet is the best way to achieve that? I prefer to encourage others to think on their own, not merely debate.

I have seen your perspective and now I am on to seeking the perspectives of others as well as my own explorations.

Love and forgiveness for all men, but not for the rest of the Earth? Maybe that bit was left out when the Bible was sanitised by the Romans.

If you want to do some more thinking, what detrimental effects do you think such anthropocentric perspectives have had on the rest of the Earth? 

Nice try with the tu-quoque though.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

goguapsy said:


> Whilst I don't doubt Science may find a reason beyond spiritual for humans to be superior to others, I think the base answer for this is that we were created by a Higher Power (God). Also, I believe in miracles, another reason I believe God exists.


At that point, we step beyond the realm of discussion and into the realm of belief... hence, your word choice. You're rushing to explain the gray area without having a light to shine into that space; but I think the point was being made to explore it rather than predetermine an answer.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> Do you really think back and forth arguments on the internet is the best way to achieve that? I prefer to encourage others to think on their own, not merely debate.


Haha yes I know arguments over the internet won't convince anyone (that's not really the point of this... I just love word-fencing, and I don't have anything else to do right now in the holidays... hahaha).



> Nice try with the tu-quoque though.


What? Where? Didn't realize I did it :/


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> At that point, we step beyond the realm of discussion and into the realm of belief... hence, your word choice.


What word choice? "Higher Power" or something else?


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

goguapsy said:


> What word choice? "Higher Power" or something else?


Yes, that one.

... I mean, as soon as you go there, there is no agreed-upon basis for discussion any longer. We're just talking about what you "believe." I mean, despite my alignment with some undefined mix of theism/existentialism, I have to acknowledge I could just say I believe some sort of ghost squid fills that missing vague spot that you fill with Higher Power (God), and there's not much you can really say about it to change my belief or vice versa. The criteria governing the discussion has now changed.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

What you believe does not necessarily necessitate falsifiability.

Think about it.

I mean, _really_ think about it.



> Now... if humans are JUST a better developed animal species... how come the gap between humans and ANY other animal is just so ridiculously big? It's not just a spectrum observation. Humans don't simply do things that other species do less - we do things that other species are incapable of.


Should I actually waste my breath explaining how this particular line has _nothing_ to do with argument of whether god exists or not? Fellow INTPs, thoughts?


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Pride said:


> Should I actually waste my breath explaining how this particular line has _nothing_ to do with argument of whether god exists or not?


I see the line you've quoted to be one of the most evident reasons that humans have something special about them beyond biological, therefore must come from some supernatural source = God.

So yes, please do explain why this particular line has _nothing_to do with arguemnt of whether god exists or not. Don't need to waste your breath, though - you can be succint.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

goguapsy said:


> I see the line you've quoted to be one of the most evident reasons that humans have something special about them beyond biological, therefore must come from some supernatural source = God.


Evident to who? Yourself? Two people? A pigeon? Non-falsifiable, personal, subjective, and biased sample can be held as the empirical, objective criterion? No, it cannot. Violation of logical consistency number one.



> So yes, please do explain why this particular line has _nothing_to do with arguemnt of whether god exists or not. Don't need to waste your breath, though - you can be succint.


Your former argument is based on the acceptance of teleological criteria regarding the fundamental purpose of reality itself (or life, or even biological life if you want to get more complex/specific). Teleological arguments suffer from a few problems, first of which is the effect of a tautology. There are other accompanied issues, which I'm sure someone as insightful and intelligent such as yourself will no doubt already be _very_ familiar with.

So the issue is a very real one, is it not? In order for your original premise to be considered true, we would have to accept it as true to begin with. 1 = 1; A = A. There is no place for an actual statement because a statement would invalidate the tautological nature of the premise. The premise is both the premise and the conclusion.


----------



## Zerosum (Jul 17, 2011)

I have never really heard of this position before, yet it is quite familiar.. I thought this may have been a form of glorified agnostic, but it appears to have a slightly different flair about it. I was raised in a extremely religious family and it wasn't until I began reading Darwin's theory, that I began to question it. Either way, I am now a fairly firm atheist and whilst I know we don't understand everything.. I still think that atheism is the most logical stand point. If you go back to its roots (stop connecting atheism with the fundamentals, that just spend their time offending people) you will notice that it was originally based on scientific principles, the pursuit of truth through the application of logic.. These principles are open to any change, given that some form of evidence exists. Sure we may not have the required technologies to prove a (Ill word it nicely..) "external presence of some influence" whether magic or a higher being. However, fundamentally, This form of mindset is based on atheist logic.. It is simply a rebranding of atheism, because science takes this approach... The scientific community is accepting of this premise, We just require some evidence and not just promises.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Pride said:


> Evident to who? Yourself? Two people? A pigeon? Non-falsifiable, personal, subjective, and biased sample can be held as the empirical, objective criterion? No, it cannot. Violation of logical consistency number one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Alright, if you say so.

Keep in mind that I said _I_ saw at as one of the most evident reasons - thus yes, evident to myself, and extremely logical, on MY opinion, as I stated.

So, basically what you are saying is - my statement requires something to be believed as true, such as a dogma, correct? If that's what you mean, are you saying you disagree (or simply don't believe) that us humans are far superior than any other animals?


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Dogma is irrefutable belief or doctrine. It is not the same as theory, as theory can and have been disputed in the past, even when accepted as true in all probability by the majority of people/scientists/whatever.

Your statement requires that I already accept human superiority. I don't think humans are superior, just more highly evolved. 

Everything can be reduced. Irreducible complexity is a misnomer and a blatant lie.

Personal opinion does not necessitate truth. What is "extremely logical" to you is not necessarily based on sound premises.

For example:

1. The sky is above me
2. The earth is below me
3. I've never fallen upwards towards the sky before
4. Therefore, the earth is flat

That's perfectly logical to me as well, but it is only so at the surface, or when we don't have enough facts.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

@Pride

Yeah, I know.

But my "logic" is based on how humans are so highly evolved that the gap between any two species is not nearly as big as it is between the human when compared to any other species (when it comes to rational thinking - read arts, philosophy, theories...).

So my logic is:

1. The sky is above me
2. The earth is below me
3. I've never fallen upwards towards the sky before
4. The earth is round, as we know it (don't worry, we have many evidences that God exists, including miracles)
5. Therefore, there must be SOMETHING that keeps us glued to the ground


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Gravity. Which can be explained by physics.

Even if I were to accept any interpretation of a god as the ultimate truth, it is still begging the question. Why is gods existence necessary to begin with? If we go down this route, then nothing makes sense.

You can accept any strange phenomenon as miracles. 

Just because something cannot be immediately explained does not necessitate a supernatural creator.

If I were to accept the Abrahamic god as real, I can then claim to know of an even GREATER paradigm upon which HE was formed. 

We could call it the "ultranatural." It supersedes the supernatural, and my ultranatural god supersedes your supernatural god.

The ultimate miracle of my ultranatural god is the CREATION of your supernatural god, which has ultimate domain, omniscence, omnipotence and everything else over this reality (or this supernatural universe), including all the things we cannot explain, INCLUDING all the things that "lie outside the realms of logic, reason, physics, etc."

But still, your supernatural god cannot influence the power of my ULTRANATURAL god. 

1. The sky is above me
2. The earth is below me
3. I've never fallen upwards towards the sky before
4. The earth is round, as we know it
5. Therefore, there must be SOMETHING that keeps us glued to the ground
6. That glue is gravity
7. The Abrahamic god created gravity
8. The Abrahamic god exists
9. The Ultranatural god created the Abrahamic god
10. The Ultranatural overgod exists

Once again, any physical phenomenon which cannot be immediately explained using a naturalistic model does not necessitate a supernatural cause. Maybe the supernatural exists, but by that token, maybe the ultranatural also exists.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Exactly - gravity. Thust the logic makes sense.

Now, your ultranatural god is my God... Simple as that.

And of course God's existence is necessary - if not for Him, supposing that He created everything, nothing would exist...

So. Let's formulate a hypothesis for this, shall we? Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano


----------



## theinterweb (Sep 10, 2011)

No, I don't agree. Yes it is possible there is a God or supreme ruler but also it is extremely UNLIKELY. So I might as well just say one doesn't exist. It could, but probably not.


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

I've always been a little bit confused about how other NTs and scientific thinkers view religion.

I was raised in a Catholic family and would consider myself a believer, though not in a structured, hierarchical, "RELIGION" sort of way. There are things I agree with and things I disagree with, but I have never really doubted my belief in God or at the very least, some sort of power beyond ourselves. I think that even if I was raised in a non religious family, I would probably still have these views. 

However, I have never had an issue with accepting logical facts and scientific advances either. In fact, I have never really related the two. In my mind, anything is possible until proven otherwise and my mind has always been able to develop a kind of framework or system in which both points of view are able to stand independently and also in harmony with each other.

I believe that people become so wrapped up in feeling they need to accept all facets of a religion to believe any of it is true and that, I believe, is a somewhat ignorant and closed-minded view. The same goes for religious people. If they hear one bit of scientific fact that doesnt line up exactly with their religious views, they discount it entirely and that is also an immature, adamant and naive view.

I very seriously doubt we will figure it all out in our lifetime, so how can we make claims about how the universe truly works? We choose to believe certain things based upon previously instilled dispositions, whether those be genetic or environmental, and live our lives based off that. I know many people who use atheism as a tool to get away with things they'd otherwise feel guilty about and I have seen religious people use religion as a tool to assert power or "holier than thou" attitudes over others. In my opinion, both are incorrect, and there is indeed a happy-medium.

I actually wrote an essay for one of my English classes that involved this topic. Here is a bit of what I'm trying to say:

"When I think about the world around me, it amazes me that there is so much more going on than what we can see with our eyes. The explanations for what happens around us do not detract from the beauty of nature and the universe, but add to it. Everything around us is made of trillions of tiny particles that we can’t see. Those tiny things’ interactions make life possible. They all work together to form compounds and molecules as complex as DNA. DNA defines what we are, how we look, and how our bodies function. There are so many intricate, meticulous and beautifully systematic processes that happen around us constantly that many of us are completely unaware of. It is this simple concept that attracts me so much to scientific subjects. 

...However, some atheists claim that science attempts to explain God away; make a higher power obsolete with equations and systems. In my mind, the discoveries of science work to confirm my beliefs. Are we not the only known sentient beings in the universe; a universe so vast and unimaginably complex that we cannot hope to understand it all? To me, that is remarkable. I find God in the explanation, the system and the equation. I find God in protons, electrons, evolution, gravity, time, space and everything. Call it contradictory, call it idealistic, call it what you like, but that is my reality."

I'll probably get slammed for this haha >.<


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

sorry that was prolly a bit of a rant. dont mean to offend anyone or anything either, just sharing


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

@TrailMix I believe everything you said - EVERYTHING - makes sense and I agree with it.

Religion has its ups and downs. The Church said the earth was flat and that witches should be killed. Well, these were both proved wrong (those were not matters of Doctrine, though).

I think Science and Religion work together. They are NOT mutually-exclusive. Science, as I see it, is how God made things (God doesn't need to make things "totally out of the blue". He can make things through ways that make sense!). Religion might be wrong sometimes... beliefs change... but not the Doctrine - not the CORE of it.

Basically, it will all boil down to what you want to believe - Science proves that God doesn't exist OR Science proves that God works in a certain way. I believe the latter.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

goguapsy said:


> OR Science proves that God works in a certain way. I believe the latter.


What conception of God though?



> I find God in the explanation, the system and the equation. I find God in protons, electrons, evolution, gravity, time, space and everything. Call it contradictory, call it idealistic, call it what you like, but that is my reality.


This sounds more like pantheism than an Abrahamic God.

And that's the think isn't it, our conceptions of God seem to have reflected our conceptions at the time. Jesus revised this conception in a fundamental way 2000 years ago. But to anyone who has read the Bible, it is clear it cannot be the whole truth. One of the major flaws is that the state of this world seems to have been an afterthought. Or perhaps Jesus was more 'liberal' than we thought, but that part of his teachings was suppressed by the Romans? What kind of God forgets to teach us about taking care of our environment? There has been major damage done already, so if it is to 'work out in the end', well it is going to be a hard lesson...

It is clear that God is not a personal God, at least in this world.


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

What I mean to say is that the way I view it, God works within the bounds of science, and though I do prescribe a bit to a semi-pantheistic view, I still believe in God as a being. Its complicated haha  I appreciate the beauty of the system and its intricacies, but in my mind, it is God's creation, and the wonder I experience from this is where I find my faith... its hard to explain i suppose.

Maybe we shouldnt sit and debate whether or not God exists. Its an endless battle and we cant come up with a definitive answer because this is something that most people are set in and probably will stick to regardless of evidence for or against.

As for @Snow Leopard 's post, it is vital that people remember that the Bible was written by MAN. Humanity's perspectives change, as do our beliefs. Making claims as to whether or not God exists based solely on scripture (which was written by man) and its relevance to modern times is irrelevant in itself. Its an impossible argument for either party.

I am still Catholic in terms of my beliefs, but I like to keep an open mind


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> What conception of God though?


That God is an almighty... "thing". God's a "thing", not a person.




Snow Leopard said:


> And that's the think isn't it, our conceptions of God seem to have reflected our conceptions at the time. Jesus revised this conception in a fundamental way 2000 years ago. But to anyone who has read the Bible, it is clear it cannot be the whole truth. One of the major flaws is that the state of this world seems to have been an afterthought. Or perhaps Jesus was more 'liberal' than we thought, but that part of his teachings was suppressed by the Romans? What kind of God forgets to teach us about taking care of our environment? There has been major damage done already, so if it is to 'work out in the end', well it is going to be a hard lesson...


The thing is, perceptions change with time. I honestly think that damaging the environment is a way to preserve our way of life (being fed, for example, I don't mean luxury). Of course, with science, we don't have to destroy the environment in other to be more productive... I think the conception that "damaging the environment is wrong" is somewhat modern - they didn't have to worry about it 2000 years ago, as far as I know.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

goguapsy said:


> Of course, with science, we don't have to destroy the environment in other to be more productive... I think the conception that "damaging the environment is wrong" is somewhat modern - they didn't have to worry about it 2000 years ago, as far as I know.


They certainly knew about it, but not on the scale we see it now.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> They certainly knew about it, but not on the scale we see it now.


Knew? Perhaps. Worry? I don't think they needed.


----------

