Failed prophecy.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts.

Is there? Because if you take away the nonsense about a life after death, then all he's telling occupied Jerusalem is to obey Roman authority; let them beat you more than they otherwise normally would; pay your taxes; avoid going to court for any reason; be meek, docile and never seek to change your lot in life, for your suffering means you are blessed by a sky daddy that doesn't exist.

It's a slave owner's philosophy that literally instructs slaves to rejoice in their suffering.

I think there is, yes.

He was of his time and zeitgeist, sure, which makes a lot of it seem flawed, in hindsight.

Or outright Roman propaganda intent on fundamentally changing the words of a martyred insurrectionist leader that was crucified for sedition. Just the most logical thought.

 

[DBT]

But it's not a non-sequitur. Obviously, it doesn't necessarily follow that all religious beliefs are wrong just because of a dud prophecy, but it does cast serious doubt on Jesus and Christianity generally. As it should. And I don't mean the non-supernatural parts, there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts. I'm talking about any supernatural aspects of either Jesus or Christianity. It's those claims that are damaged by the false prophecy. And subsequent questions could go from, 'do you think it likely he actually rose from the dead?', for example, all the way up to, 'did he believe in a god that may not have existed at all?'

I mean, if you take out rising from the dead, and add in not coming back a second time and the end of the world not happening, that makes a pretty good case for thinking the whole shebang lacks manifest supernatural credentials on its own terms.

That is not what DBT wrote.

It would have been better to have specified Christianity because the failure of prophesy of the return of Jesus In power specifically undermines Christanity,
It was just a brief remark, using shorthand references.

 

[ruby sparks]

Or outright Roman propaganda intent on fundamentally changing the words of a martyred insurrectionist leader that was crucified for sedition. Just the most logical thought.

Not in my personal opinion.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Or outright Roman propaganda intent on fundamentally changing the words of a martyred insurrectionist leader that was crucified for sedition. Just the most logical thought.

Not in my personal opinion.

Fair enough.

 

[steve_bank]

Politesse is sounding more like a kind of agnostic. He believes, sort of.

 

[Politesse]

Politesse is sounding more like a kind of agnostic. He believes, sort of.

More like? That's always been my central philosophical positioning.

 

[ruby sparks]

Notgraspingthenettleism is not currently a widely recognised philosophical position, but who knows, maybe one day.......

 

[skepticalbip]

Notgraspingthenettleism is not currently a widely recognised philosophical position, but who knows, maybe one day.......

But it is a very close kin to solipsism.

 

[Politesse]

Notgraspingthenettleism is not currently a widely recognised philosophical position, but who knows, maybe one day.......

No, but agnosticism - the belief that one cannot know what is fundamentally true of the universe, and that wisdom lies in not speaking as though one does - has quite a history. Believe it or not, I did not invent the concept.

- - - Updated - - -

But it is a very close kin to solipsism.

I have serious doubts about our ability to rationally perceive the self, actually.

 

[ruby sparks]

Notgraspingthenettleism is not currently a widely recognised philosophical position, but who knows, maybe one day.......

No, but agnosticism - the belief that one cannot know what is fundamentally true of the universe, and that wisdom lies in not speaking as though one does - has quite a history. Believe it or not, I did not invent the concept.

Ok but I wasn't referring to agnosticism.

 

[bilby]

Notgraspingthenettleism is not currently a widely recognised philosophical position, but who knows, maybe one day.......

No, but agnosticism - the belief that one cannot know what is fundamentally true of the universe, and that wisdom lies in not speaking as though one does - has quite a history. Believe it or not, I did not invent the concept.

The problem is that while philosophers and theologians have wallowed in their ignorance to the point of declaring it a virtue, physicists have been busily finding out what is fundamentally true of the universe, and have been so successful in this endeavour as to determine that many of the assumptions made by theologists regarding what is knowable are certainly and unequivocally false.

The soul, an afterlife, the effectiveness of prayer, divine intervention in human affairs, and the performing of miracles (including the key elements of the Christ story) have all been shown to be incompatible with reality.

Agnosticism on these matters is therefore just another form of ignorance.

You needn't know Quantum Field Theory in order to hold a belief; But if you don't know QFT, you can't claim that your beliefs are fully informed, or in any way reasonable.

If you don't at least have a basic grasp of fundamental physics, you are incapable of having a useful opinion about the nature of reality - just as a person who believes that the Earth may be flat is incapable of having a useful opinion about geography or navigation.

The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood

Seriously: The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life Really are Completely Understood

It's one thing to say 'I don't know where Peru is', and quite another to suggest with a straight face that 'one cannot, fundamentally, ever know where Peru is'. We have the knowledge of the shape of the Earth, and the coordinate system that allows us to specify any point on the Earth's surface, and the knowledge that Peru must be somewhere on that surface. These things are known - even if some individuals don't know them - and so we can, with certainty, reject the suggestion that Peru might be on Mars, or Saturn.

Similarly, we know how the stuff we are made of interacts with the rest of reality - we know ALL of the ways this can happen - and so we can rule out substance dualism, souls, afterlives and miracles, just as confidently as we rule out the possibility that Lima nestles in the foothills of Olympus Mons.

 

[Politesse]

Notgraspingthenettleism is not currently a widely recognised philosophical position, but who knows, maybe one day.......

No, but agnosticism - the belief that one cannot know what is fundamentally true of the universe, and that wisdom lies in not speaking as though one does - has quite a history. Believe it or not, I did not invent the concept.

The problem is that while philosophers and theologians have wallowed in their ignorance to the point of declaring it a virtue, physicists have been busily finding out what is fundamentally true of the universe, and have been so successful in this endeavour as to determine that many of the assumptions of theology are certainly and unequivocally false.

The soul, an afterlife, the effectiveness of prayer, divine intervention in human affairs, and the performing of miracles (including the Christ story) have all been shown to be incompatible with reality.

Agnosticism on these matters is therefore just another form of ignorance.

You needn't know Quantum Field Theory in order to hold a belief; But if you don't know QFT, you can't claim that your beliefs are fully informed, or in any way reasonable.

If you don't at least have a basic grasp of fundamental physics, you are incapable of having a useful opinion about the nature of reality - just as a person who believes that the Earth may be flat is incapable of having a useful opinion about geography or navigation.

I have no problem with crediting the discoveries of physics. If you believe that the central hypothesis of atheism can be supported by empirical evidence, I'm interested.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that while philosophers and theologians have wallowed in their ignorance to the point of declaring it a virtue, physicists have been busily finding out what is fundamentally true of the universe, and have been so successful in this endeavour as to determine that many of the assumptions of theology are certainly and unequivocally false.

The soul, an afterlife, the effectiveness of prayer, divine intervention in human affairs, and the performing of miracles (including the Christ story) have all been shown to be incompatible with reality.

Agnosticism on these matters is therefore just another form of ignorance.

You needn't know Quantum Field Theory in order to hold a belief; But if you don't know QFT, you can't claim that your beliefs are fully informed, or in any way reasonable.

If you don't at least have a basic grasp of fundamental physics, you are incapable of having a useful opinion about the nature of reality - just as a person who believes that the Earth may be flat is incapable of having a useful opinion about geography or navigation.

I have no problem with crediting the discoveries of physics. If you believe that the central hypothesis of atheism can be supported by empirical evidence, I'm interested.

Please refer to my edited post, and the links I have added.

The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood

Seriously: The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life Really are Completely Understood

It's one thing to say 'I don't know where Peru is', and quite another to suggest with a straight face that 'one cannot, fundamentally, ever know where Peru is'. We have the knowledge of the shape of the Earth, and the coordinate system that allows us to specify any point on the Earth's surface, and the knowledge that Peru must be somewhere on that surface. These things are known - even if some individuals don't know them - and so we can, with certainty, reject the suggestion that Peru might be on Mars, or Saturn.

Similarly, we know how the stuff we are made of interacts with the rest of reality - we know ALL of the ways this can happen - and so we can rule out substance dualism, souls, afterlives and miracles, just as confidently as we rule out the possibility that Lima nestles in the foothills of Olympus Mons.

Pretty much every religion in history is ruled out by modern physics; I will allow that there are hypothetical 'gods of the gaps' that are not 100% ruled out, but these are not the gods that any significant number of humans have ever believed in - and they cannot be in any way important to us today, other than as intellectual curiosities. A god that started the universe, and then played no further role in it, is merely incredibly unlikely (and of little interest or importance); But all other god hypotheses are impossible.

 

[Politesse]

Please refer to my edited post, and the links I have added.

The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood

Seriously: The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life Really are Completely Understood

It's one thing to say 'I don't know where Peru is', and quite another to suggest with a straight face that 'one cannot, fundamentally, ever know where Peru is'. We have the knowledge of the shape of the Earth, and the coordinate system that allows us to specify any point on the Earth's surface, and the knowledge that Peru must be somewhere on that surface. These things are known - even if some individuals don't know them - and so we can, with certainty, reject the suggestion that Peru might be on Mars, or Saturn.

Similarly, we know how the stuff we are made of interacts with the rest of reality - we know ALL of the ways this can happen - and so we can rule out substance dualism, souls, afterlives and miracles, just as confidently as we rule out the possibility that Lima nestles in the foothills of Olympus Mons.

Pretty much every religion in history is ruled out by modern physics; I will allow that there are hypothetical 'gods of the gaps' that are not 100% ruled out, but these are not the gods that any significant number of humans have ever believed in - and they cannot be in any way important to us today, other than as intellectual curiosities. A god that started the universe, and then played no further role in it, is merely incredibly unlikely (and of little interest or importance); But all other god hypotheses are impossible.

An... opinion piece in a popular magazine?

 

[bilby]

Please refer to my edited post, and the links I have added.

The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood

Seriously: The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life Really are Completely Understood

It's one thing to say 'I don't know where Peru is', and quite another to suggest with a straight face that 'one cannot, fundamentally, ever know where Peru is'. We have the knowledge of the shape of the Earth, and the coordinate system that allows us to specify any point on the Earth's surface, and the knowledge that Peru must be somewhere on that surface. These things are known - even if some individuals don't know them - and so we can, with certainty, reject the suggestion that Peru might be on Mars, or Saturn.

Similarly, we know how the stuff we are made of interacts with the rest of reality - we know ALL of the ways this can happen - and so we can rule out substance dualism, souls, afterlives and miracles, just as confidently as we rule out the possibility that Lima nestles in the foothills of Olympus Mons.

Pretty much every religion in history is ruled out by modern physics; I will allow that there are hypothetical 'gods of the gaps' that are not 100% ruled out, but these are not the gods that any significant number of humans have ever believed in - and they cannot be in any way important to us today, other than as intellectual curiosities. A god that started the universe, and then played no further role in it, is merely incredibly unlikely (and of little interest or importance); But all other god hypotheses are impossible.

An... opinion piece in a popular magazine?

Written by a well respected physicist.

Do you disagree with any of his points, or are you just going to use the fact that this isn't a peer reviewed paper in a high impact factor scientific journal as an excuse not to even look at them?

It's a well written popular article on the topic. If you have the inclination, you can verify his claims in the scientific literature; None of the facts he claims are controversial amongst physicists.

If you think that the only thing wrong with the information is its source, then you are forced either to accept its veracity, or to commit an argument from lack of authority fallacy.

If you want to refute my argument (and Prof. Carroll's), then you need to show what is wrong with it - not just denigrate the forum in which it is presented.

 

[Kharakov]

Pretty much every religion in history is ruled out by modern physics; I will allow that there are hypothetical 'gods of the gaps' that are not 100% ruled out, but these are not the gods that any significant number of humans have ever believed in - and they cannot be in any way important to us today, other than as intellectual curiosities. A god that started the universe, and then played no further role in it, is merely incredibly unlikely (and of little interest or importance); But all other god hypotheses are impossible.

Wait. I thought the physical world was designed to hide God's existence from demonic atheists who couldn't handle omnipresence because they are drama queens who over react to the idea of a being that knows their every thought.

And when they poop. Keeps track of every time they poop. How much. Down to the quantum level. Literally (in the book of 2s).

 

[DBT]

Predictability being the key. Poop having a far better track record than prophesy in Scripture....sorry to say.

 

[Politesse]

An... opinion piece in a popular magazine?

Written by a well respected physicist.

Do you disagree with any of his points, or are you just going to use the fact that this isn't a peer reviewed paper in a high impact factor scientific journal as an excuse not to even look at them?

It's a well written popular article on the topic. If you have the inclination, you can verify his claims in the scientific literature; None of the facts he claims are controversial amongst physicists.

If you think that the only thing wrong with the information is its source, then you are forced either to accept its veracity, or to commit an argument from lack of authority fallacy.

If you want to refute my argument (and Prof. Carroll's), then you need to show what is wrong with it - not just denigrate the forum in which it is presented.

I have every respect for Sean Caroll. But I also know that he knows the difference between data and opinion. I have no issue with the article, but it doesn't actually say very much if you're really reading it carefully. He's a positivist. That's fine. A valid belief, in my opinion. Not a scientific conclusion, though.

 

[bilby]

An... opinion piece in a popular magazine?

Written by a well respected physicist.

Do you disagree with any of his points, or are you just going to use the fact that this isn't a peer reviewed paper in a high impact factor scientific journal as an excuse not to even look at them?

It's a well written popular article on the topic. If you have the inclination, you can verify his claims in the scientific literature; None of the facts he claims are controversial amongst physicists.

If you think that the only thing wrong with the information is its source, then you are forced either to accept its veracity, or to commit an argument from lack of authority fallacy.

If you want to refute my argument (and Prof. Carroll's), then you need to show what is wrong with it - not just denigrate the forum in which it is presented.

I have every respect for Sean Caroll. But I also know that he knows the difference between data and opinion. I have no issue with the article, but it doesn't actually say very much if you're really reading it carefully. He's a positivist. That's fine. A valid belief, in my opinion. Not a scientific conclusion, though.

Well it's pretty hard to hold the opinion that there's an unknown interaction between humans and 'souls' or 'gods', when you are aware that the conclusion of our best scientific evidence is that no unknown interactions are possible.

It's pretty watertight - you either reject our best science; Or you reject the core concepts of the vast majority of religions. All of which have incredibly weak foundations.

It's really no less silly to believe in a flat Earth than it is to believe in gods or souls - The only substantive difference is that most people do not have a good grasp of the science in the latter case. But that's just ignorance.

 

[Politesse]

I have every respect for Sean Caroll. But I also know that he knows the difference between data and opinion. I have no issue with the article, but it doesn't actually say very much if you're really reading it carefully. He's a positivist. That's fine. A valid belief, in my opinion. Not a scientific conclusion, though.

Well it's pretty hard to hold the opinion that there's an unknown interaction between humans and 'souls' or 'gods', when you are aware that the conclusion of our best scientific evidence is that no unknown interactions are possible.

It's pretty watertight - you either reject our best science; Or you reject the core concepts of the vast majority of religions. All of which have incredibly weak foundations.

It's really no less silly to believe in a flat Earth than it is to believe in gods or souls - The only substantive difference is that most people do not have a good grasp of the science in the latter case. But that's just ignorance.

The article you link doesn't say any of the things that you are saying, neither do all religions, let alone religious people, say the things that you say they say.