OT: Religious Reflections

[Martin Harran]

My religious beliefs have occasionally been discussed here, mainly by
Glenn who insists that I am really an atheist and Peter who has
claimed I am an apostate Catholic. The link below is to some religious
contributions I have made to our diocesan periodical over the last two
years or so; if nothing else, the articles show how vacuous the claims
are by those two posters.

The articles are purely religious with no scientific content so are of
little or no direct interest to most people here but if anyone wants
to discuss any of them, feel free to do so - probably better by
commenting at the site rather than creating a distraction here.

I hope to add some material at a later stage relating to the
religion/science interface. If and when I do so, I may link to it
here.

The site itself is a bit basic at the moment and does need some
polishing up which I will work on gradually.

https://www.martinharran.com/net-reflections/

[Martin Harran]

P.S. Where has Glenn gone to? Is it just coincidence that he and
Nyikos are taking a break at the same time?

[erik simpson]

I'd be surprised if anyone other than those you mentioned have any reason to
doubt your faith is what you say it is, not that it's anyone else's business. Opinions
based on ignorance are what they are; not worth very much.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:13:26 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

Interesting; thanks.

You *do* realize that neither Glenn nor Peter is qualified
to pass judgement on anyone else's honesty or beliefs,
right?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Martin Harran]

Yes, but showing opinions to be based on ignorance is a fundamental
part of TO's raison d'être.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:45:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:13:26 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
><martin...@gmail.com>:
>
>>My religious beliefs have occasionally been discussed here, mainly by
>>Glenn who insists that I am really an atheist and Peter who has
>>claimed I am an apostate Catholic. The link below is to some religious
>>contributions I have made to our diocesan periodical over the last two
>>years or so; if nothing else, the articles show how vacuous the claims
>>are by those two posters.
>>
>>The articles are purely religious with no scientific content so are of
>>little or no direct interest to most people here but if anyone wants
>>to discuss any of them, feel free to do so - probably better by
>>commenting at the site rather than creating a distraction here.
>>
>>I hope to add some material at a later stage relating to the
>>religion/science interface. If and when I do so, I may link to it
>>here.
>>
>>The site itself is a bit basic at the moment and does need some
>>polishing up which I will work on gradually.
>>
>>https://www.martinharran.com/net-reflections/
>>
>Interesting; thanks.
>
>You *do* realize that neither Glenn nor Peter is qualified
>to pass judgement on anyone else's honesty or beliefs,
>right?
>>

Yep, but that doesn't stop them doing it.

[israel socratus]

" If He (God) understands Math and Physics then He exists." / Frank Tipler. /

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think that's generally true, but when the opinions are simply personal opinions about another individual then I don't much see the point. Who cares what they say about you here? Anybody whose opinion of you is even remotely worth thinking about is going to form that opinion based on what you yourself post, not what somebody else's post says about you.

[Ernest Major]

On 25/01/2023 17:13, Martin Harran wrote:
> My religious beliefs have occasionally been discussed here, mainly by
> Glenn who insists that I am really an atheist and Peter who has
> claimed I am an apostate Catholic. The link below is to some religious
> contributions I have made to our diocesan periodical over the last two
> years or so; if nothing else, the articles show how vacuous the claims
> are by those two posters.

The strange thing is that according to Peter he is an apostate Catholic,
at least in so far as he says that he is an (explicit, but not dogmatic)
atheist (though he prefers the term agnostic as a self-identification).

--
alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

He also claimed that he attended church regularly, but he was the
creationists that tried to defend Pascal's wager on TO. Beats me how
anyone would think that they could lie to the god that they were
supposed to be worshiping.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Glenn and Peter both post lots of crap but plenty of people are
willing to tackle them on it. I don't see their personal attacks as
any different.

[Kalkidas]

I know how you feel. I get called a "Hindu" by some here.

[Zen Cycle]

+1

[Zen Cycle]

To me, that was always the biggest flaw in pascals wager - If this god is as omniscient as they claim, what makes them think anyone could bullshit it?

[Burkhard]

because they are beasts - or so Pascal says. If someone does not believe in God, but chooses to as a result of the wager, then the effect on them is "abetira", it makes them beast-like. Now, Pascal's Pensees are notoriously difficult to interpret, being mere drafts with lots of scribbles, corrections etc but to me this indicates that the Wager is not directed at atheists at all, and not intended to change someone's mind (and it would have this in common with Aquinas's proofs, which were also only ever intended as in internal consistency check for someone who does already believe.

The result is not aggressive proselyting, but a more modest religion - one that admits that there are no good epistemic reasons for Gods existence, but that the believer nonetheless on their own terms acts prudently when they continue to believe