Could God be Disproved? (atheist, agnostic, faith)

[Jeremiah]

Originally Posted by Storm

LOL, not hippies, just not Literalists, either.

What would you relevant passages? The condemnation of literalism, the sample analysis of Genesis, the explanation of symbolic thinking? Really, I think it would be best to just read the whole thing. It's an excellent article.


What about the Venus figurines? The reverence for mirrors? I'm sorry, but I can't agree that art was strictly literal or abstract. That it was a craft, yes, but not the rest.


We may be talking past each other, then.

I thought about bringing it up myself, actually.


When atoms were first hypothesized, they weren't testable. It may well be that centuries from now, we will be able to subject theology to the same rigorous standards as physical matters, but we can't yet. Personally I look forward to the day when good theology can be winnowed from bad with the same precision that brought down eugenics.

Still, the thing about God is that we apparantly haven't even evolved enough - or at least our language hasn't - to adequately express he experience of communing with it. One thing that pretty much every mystic agrees on is "ineffable." We can't begin to tell you what it's like. We can barely communicate it to each other with inadequate shorthands like "love" or "unity." Believe me, that's at least as frustrating for us as it is for you. There have been times I was ready to tear my hair out over the sheer uselessness of language in the roughly 15 years it took me to describe my own theophany.

Think about that for a moment: it took me 15 years to produce one still-inadequate metaphor for a single experience. With the people who are trying to explain facing that kind of hurdle, is it any wonder that I get annoyed when people expect me to just rattle off random "facts" like God's 'location' without any regard for how theology, much less mysticism actually works?

I do believe that the day is coming when science will be able to test theology. But it won't get here until science drops the unnecessarily adversarial attitude and works with us. Neurotheology is a good start, but a small one.

Sorry for the ramble, but hopefully it will help you understand where I'm coming from.

I agree some people could show more respect for theology. But this is a two way street; science is just as important.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

I agree some people could show more respect for theology. But this is a two way street; science is just as important.

Oh, uncontested. (At least by me.)

[Eraser Salad]

Originally Posted by Storm

What would you relevant passages? The condemnation of literalism, the sample analysis of Genesis, the explanation of symbolic thinking? Really, I think it would be best to just read the whole thing. It's an excellent article.

I... couldn't really agree.

What about the Venus figurines? The reverence for mirrors?

What about them? The Venus figurines could be anything. Mirrors are interesting.

When atoms were first hypothesized, they weren't testable.

They were and they will always be testable. The atom was defined - it was called the smallest unit of matter. Not only did they discover it later, they discovered it was different from what they thought it was - the atom *is* divisible, and it's not the smallest block.

You can only be right or wrong - as in, discovery and debate can only exist - when what you're debating has been defined. There is no definition of God. Ask for one and you'll get, well...

We can't begin to tell you what it's like.

I do believe that the day is coming when science will be able to test theology. But it won't get here until science drops the unnecessarily adversarial attitude and works with us.

I'd say it's incredibly necessary. Although I'm not sure how you believe scientific studies can even been made into theology when the only facts we have to test fall between crazy literalism and "We can't begin to tell you what it's like."