Scientism and origin

[Secular Sanity]

God of the gaps 

"We’re tackling these mysteries one by one. If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, god has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread."—Neil deGrasse Tyson

Yeah, that's so trivially true (at least to the religious) that it's no wonder it took a demagogue like Tyson to act as if it were profound. 

BTW, who are you speaking on behalf of, all Christians?  If this is so "trivially" true (at least to the religious), why on earth would Collins need a whole page to explain it?

[Syne]

God of the gaps 

"We’re tackling these mysteries one by one. If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, god has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread."—Neil deGrasse Tyson

Yeah, that's so trivially true (at least to the religious) that it's no wonder it took a demagogue like Tyson to act as if it were profound. 

BTW, who are you speaking on behalf of, all Christians?  If this is so "trivially" true (at least to the religious), why on earth would Collins need a whole page to explain it?

Like Collins said, "Christians believe that God is always at work in the natural world, in the gaps as well as in the areas that science can explain." Collins is talking about evidence claims, where Tyson seems to be talking about a caricaturization (i.e. straw man) of the actual beliefs people hold.

How about you? Do you think evidence claims about god encapsulate such beliefs? Or do you think that's just the part of the belief that engages with materialist arguments? Do YOU think that Tyson quote is profound or trivial? O_o

[Secular Sanity]

Like Collins said, "Christians believe that God is always at work in the natural world, in the gaps as well as in the areas that science can explain." Collins is talking about evidence claims, where Tyson seems to be talking about a caricaturization (i.e. straw man) of the actual beliefs people hold.

Doing a little backpedaling there, eh, Syne?  

How about you? Do you think evidence claims about god encapsulate such beliefs? Or do you think that's just the part of the belief that engages with materialist arguments? Do YOU think that Tyson quote is profound or trivial? O_o

It's spot on.

Where exactly do you imagine the demagoguery in wishing science and religion were not so contentious...and actually advocating the bulk of evolutionary science? O_o

"Religions can put up with all kinds of particular scientific ideas, so as long these ideas do not contradict the sense that the whole scheme of things is meaningful."—Coyne

What they can’t tolerate, nor survive is the news that there is no ultimate intentionality.

The bible is not a scientific book, but the assertions are. They think they can find true things out about the universe through religion.  When certain claims are disproved, they become metaphors.  Religion asserts itself as having the knowledge and answers to some of our biggest questions. It’s not just a collection of stories, and historical events, or an attitude towards life, it is about reality itself.  It tries to tell us how and why things are the way they are.  

A Christian Apologist; that’s what you are?  No, you’re a panentheist.  You’re beliefs are contrary to Christianity, but you want to present historical, reasoned, and evidential bases for Christianity?  That’s fucking hilarious!  

What about you, little lonely boy, are you single?  Do you want to go wine tasting with some of my Christian friends?  Learn more about yourself through Christ?  

[Syne]

Like Collins said, "Christians believe that God is always at work in the natural world, in the gaps as well as in the areas that science can explain." Collins is talking about evidence claims, where Tyson seems to be talking about a caricaturization (i.e. straw man) of the actual beliefs people hold.

Doing a little backpedaling there, eh, Syne?  

You're imagining things. Must come in handy to quell the cognitive dissonance.
How is quoting the sentence immediately following the one you quoted backpedaling?

How about you? Do you think evidence claims about god encapsulate such beliefs? Or do you think that's just the part of the belief that engages with materialist arguments? Do YOU think that Tyson quote is profound or trivial? O_o

It's spot on.

So you think religious people only believe in a god that handles the gaps in science? O_o
Do you have ANY evidence such people actually exist? You know, aside from your wishful thinking.

Where exactly do you imagine the demagoguery in wishing science and religion were not so contentious...and actually advocating the bulk of evolutionary science? O_o

"Religions can put up with all kinds of particular scientific ideas, so as long these ideas do not contradict the sense that the whole scheme of things is meaningful."—Coyne

What they can’t tolerate, nor survive is the news that there is no ultimate intentionality.

The bible is not a scientific book, but the assertions are. That think they can find true things out about the universe through religion.  When certain claims are disproved, they become metaphors.  Religion asserts itself as having the knowledge and answers to some of our biggest questions. It’s not just a collection of stories, and historical events, or an attitude towards life, it is about reality itself.  It tries to tell us how and why things are the way they are.  

So ALL assertions or beliefs are scientific. Thanks for the very apropos demonstration of scientism.

A Christian Apologist; that’s what are?  No, you’re a panentheist.  You’re beliefs are contrary to Christianity, but you want to present historical, reasoned, and evidential bases for Christianity?  That’s fucking hilarious!  

LOL! You actually think Christian apologetics and panentheism are mutually exclusive? Poor, naive little, SS.
I'm actually a syncretic panentheist, but there is even such a thing as Christian panentheism.
"For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’" - Acts 17:28a

"Pantheism emphasizes God’s presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; J. Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004a)." - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

So you're obviously arguing out of total ignorance.

What about you, little lonely boy, are you single?  Do you want to go wine tasting with some of my Christian friends?  Learn more about yourself through Christ?  

Ah, if all else seems to fail just go back to trolling, huh?

---

I'm surprised to have found an actual defender of scientism.

[Secular Sanity]

Do panentheists believe in the resurrection, heaven and hell, an afterlife, or Satan?

Panentheism is unbiblical since it denies God’s transcendent nature, says that God is changing, confuses creation with God, denies miracles, and denies the incarnation of Christ along with the atoning sacrifice. [1]

Everything else that you said is so wrong and twisted that I don't even feel need to respond.

[Syne]

Do panentheists believe in the resurrection, heaven and hell, an afterlife, or Satan?

Panentheism is unbiblical since it denies God’s transcendent nature, says that God is changing, confuses creation with God, denies miracles, and denies the incarnation of Christ along with the atoning sacrifice. [1]

Really?! So after I give you two secular sources stating things like "a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions", you go running to a Christian source that seems to have a very nonstandard definition of panentheism? Would you accept an argument against climate change that cites solely Christian sources for data?

You still don't seem to understand the difference between pantheism and panentheism. Of the two, only pantheism denies the transcendence of god over the material world.
"In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

And only process theology (which is far from mainstream Christianity) deems panentheism to imply that god's nature is malleable. Panentheism generally considers god's nature to be unchanging because it is transcendant, and only god's experience within the world as temporal.

Panentheism isn't itself an orthodoxy, so it does not include dogmatic stances on the vast majority of details of any religion. Nor is it incompatible with the Bible. Panentheism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Panentheism generally holds that every moment of existence relies on god, so there's simply no need to posit miraculism as a special pleading for divine intervention. And there's no reason it would deny the incarnation of Christ, since it affirms the incarnation of everyone (just as Jesus himself did, e.g. "sons and daughters of God", "ye are gods", etc.).

"Most versions of Christianity are panentheistic. They believe in a God who is present and active in this world, a God who can dwell in each person if they accept the grace of the Holy Spirit. Yet he is also a God who transcends the world, who passes far beyond the material universe and far beyond our comprehension." - https://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/gospel.htm


"Now, it is not that the issue of immanence is foreign to monotheist religions. Even the Christian Old Testament mentions God’s pervading nature and the relationship of his ‘sustaining’ power to the continuance of our world [Jeremiah 23:24, Job 34:14-15 as examples]. The New Testament has some more explicit examples to further highlight this understanding [Acts 17:27-28, Colossians 1:17]. Despite such examples, we rarely hear discussion about God’s immanence in the Church. In its defence, the transcendent nature of God and all that flows from that, including our ability to individually enter into a personal relationship with such a God, reduces the importance of his immanence for the average Christian.

Importantly though, the two opposing views of God’s being, i.e. immanence and transcendence, are actually aligned within the Christian theology of “panentheism”. Although as stated it is not an issue for the average Christian pulpit, the concept of God as the ‘ground of being’ has received considerable thought from learned twentieth century Christian theologians such as John Macquarrie and Paul Tillich." - https://about-i-am.net/panentheism.html

Everything else that you said is so wrong and twisted that I don't even feel need to respond.

Yeah, probably better to curtail the display of your ignorance.

At least read the above quotes and educate yourself a bit.

[Secular Sanity]

Okay.  You were nice enough to stop trolling my threads and create your own space. So I'll try to keep yours tidy.

As for scientism, I already told you that I don’t have an excessive belief in science.

"Science would have us believe that such accuracy, leading to certainty, is the only criterion of knowledge, would make the trial of Galileo the paradigm of the two points of view which aspire to truth, would suggest, that is, that the cardinals represent only superstition and repression, while Galileo represents freedom.  But there is another criterion which is systematically neglected in this elevation of science.  Man does not now and will not ever—live by the bread of scientific method alone.  He must deal with life and death, with love and cruelty and despair, and so must make conjectures of great importance which may or may not be true and which do not lend themselves to experimentation: It is better to give than to receive; Love thy neighbor as thyself; Better to risk slavery through non-violence than to defend freedom with murder.  We must deal with such propositions, must decide whether they are true, whether to believe them, whether to act on them—and scientific method is no help for by their nature these matters lie forever beyond the realm of science."—Allen Wheelis

He's one of my favorite authors.

[Syne]

Okay.  You were nice enough to stop trolling my threads and create your own space.  So I'll try to keep yours tidy.

That's called a discussion, deary. Just because you don't like it and are "triggered" doesn't mean the intent is trolling. You, hypocritically, have already trolled my Panentheism thread with all your lying accusations.

Very disingenuous to now claim you're returning to that thread to keep this one "tidy". You've already shat yourself in both.

As for scientism, I already told you that I don’t have an excessive belief in science.

Yet your arguments belie it.

[Secular Sanity]

I didn't lie.  I have no need.  You on the other hand, did.  You lied to me.

[Syne]

I didn't lie.  I have no need.  You on the other hand, did.  You lied to me.

So now you're going to hypocritically troll this thread with the same lies too, huh?

Given every opportunity to attempt to justify your erroneous accusations, you've offered nothing but your obviously faulty memory. Whatever you may think you remember was obviously strongly skewed by your own assumptions/preconceptions....or you're just a liar.