Why (or why not) be Christian? Part 2

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing from this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/5018897-why-or-why-not-be-christian

Anyone welcome to join. 🙂

Oh, I've just seen the original was spelled correctly anyway 😄

Shame really - I was kind of looking forward to discussing the Galileo myth. Clearly not the moment though!

Oh just saw my post capitalised and changed to Mike - I’m not supporting dropping anyone called Mike lol.

I love that Galileo/Bruno disco ball quote,@BeAzureExpert!

Looking at Christian Churches' continuing difficulties with contraception, homosexuality, women's independence, evolution et al, not to mention demons, angels, witchcraft and sexual abuse of minors ... I'd say the conflict between Christianity and 'sceptical reasoning' is still ongoing.

I do think they have a role, mind you. Ethical and moral debate is important. The Vatican in particular puts a lot of effort into ethical nuance - whether I agree with its resolutions or not. It's less dogmatic than it was 500 years ago.

Some other religions are worse in these regards.

I think the only interesting thing about that utter crap @BeAzureExpert copied and pasted (and seemed incapable of using to form a coherent question or statement) was it illustrated that we can all tell the difference immediately between human snd machine. If we are just basically biological machines why is that? Theoretically, a computer should be able to pull together a much better argument than any of us as it can look across huge amounts of data very quickly. Yet AI repeatedly comes out with nonsense and it is often factually incorrect., it often has a lot of misinformation, cannot cope with nuance and paradox and is incapable of original thought. What is it that makes us human?

All of those things you mentioned are prevalent in many hierarchical organisations where power isn’t challenged eg the Studies in Hollywood, the music industry. It’s a situation much more related to power generally than God.

I think religions develop at a steady pace. Newer religions tend to be more dogmatic as the seek to establish themselves.

for me its what happens if everything we believe to be true is wrong when humanity meets god (assuming that ever happens)

also if its not about control then why does the church have a history of suppressing anything thats different from its official doctrine ?

some books to consider :

1. "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel (1999)
2. "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan (1995)
3. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962)
4. "God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science" by James Hannam (2009)
5. "The Birth of Science: Ancient Times to 1699" by Ray Spangenburg and Diane Moser (2004)
6. "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman (2003)
7. "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown and Down and Out in Paris" by Ed Simon (2016)
8. "In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture" by Alister McGrath (2001)
9. "The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It" by Shawn Lawrence Otto (2016)
10. "Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction" by Thomas Dixon (2008)
11. "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine (1794)
12. "Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic" by Ingrid D. Rowland (2008)
13. "The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision" by Henry Kamen (1998)
14. "The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God" by Jonathan Kirsch (2008)
15. "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" by Catherine Nixey (2017)
16. "The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe" by Brian P. Levack (1987)
17. "God's Jury: The Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World" by Cullen Murphy (2012)
18. "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels (1979)
19. "The Burning Time: Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, and the Protestant Martyrs of London" by Virginia Rounding (2006)
20. "The Atheist's Bible: The Most Dangerous Book That Never Existed" by Georges Minois (2012)

Thanks for the list of books. Would you recommend any in particular? Is there an over arching message throughout them all. What made you recommend that particular list? Always keen for recommendations of good books (although read some of them)

That reads a little odd😅, but never mind.

So what does the internet/you say about how some of those books were influenced by the largely debunked (by historians of science) Draper-white conflict model.

The myth of science v religion which has become a popular trope (esp amongst the uneducated atheist group) largely arose in the 19th century with Draper’s “History of Conflict between Religion and Science” and Andrew Dixon Whites “a history of the Warfare of Science with Theology snd Christendom”

However, Historians of Science have generally debunked this and prefer a complex model.

Re Galileo the true picture is really revealed by comparing him to Copernicus- what’s your thoughts on that?

Re Thomas Paine - How do you see his thought processes against a background (alleged) of Rosicrucianism?

Re Gnosticism, Historians are largely moving away from talking about a single group, they are even querying the identity of the Cathars. To what extent do you think other factors drove the writings of Iraneaus and the Albegensian crusades?

Do you think it’s possible to split religion from other factors in these periods? If you could have removed religion do you think these issues would be any different give. Even the god of social media undoubtedly has heresies.

Sorry got all the list of questions but given the books you have read I assume you have a broad knowledge in this area so interested in your thoughts😅

Well that’s what Chatgpt thinks, what about you?

Jesus Christ, can people stop trying to use AI to answer questions? It might stop people regurgitating a load of generic shite.

AI only reads the data it's given, and I'll admit it gives a lot better-balanced and more detailed answers than most average people.

I had to use it, as it was that or researching through Wikipedia to draw my conclusions, and to be honest, it saved a lot of time and effort, and AI still gave a balanced rather than biased view.

In basic terms, without a full dissertation to show my research, basically, yes, I can see in some aspects why society back then needed religion. But when you actually research Christianity, there seems to be a lot of copying and pasting from other religions to make Christianity what it became.

Also, Christianity seemed to have quite a lot of issues with scientists and other individuals that did not bow down to the church's authority. From that, I concluded that religion could be debated as primarily a method used to control the masses and population before modern society arose and the Enlightenment.

Bottom line, without religion suppressing science, etc., society would be a lot more advanced. And yet again, because some people wanted to control society, society as a whole was limited in its potential for what society could have achieved without the chains of religion.

You see this is what you get relying on AI, someone with an ill-informed position which says nothing.

I would recommend to anyone to undertake proper research, the human brain can assimilate information and appreciate nuance in ways no computer can replicate. Hence it is easy to spot AI a mile off!

The concept that society would be further advanced without religion is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of history.

I think the previous AI generated twaddle is a lesson to everyone as to why AI should never be relied upon for historical or philosophical research, if this is a glimpse into the future -it’s horrifying!

I can only assume the last post is a complete and utter piss take as it indicates such a piss poor attitude to research I refuse to believe anyone could think it’s ok. So I won’t be commenting further!

and yet how are humans any better with their bias etc
even the history books themselves show how much control the church had back then so yes society would of been better and more advanced without the church supressing knowledge and science (thats not to say other groups would not have done similar but those other groups would of been better than religion.)

by all means refuse to engage, bottom line there is a lot more out there in the galaxies, and humanity could of potentially have already been into those galaxies if religion had not held back society from progressing

and yet how are humans any better with their bias etc

We're humans on this thread (I think/hope!) so we would like to speak to other humans, hear what they actually think and have a real discussion.

I don't know if it's different posters or a name change but the fact that we've now had TWO attempts to pass off ChatGPT as some kind of contributor to the conversation is bizarre and a bit sad.

Using ChatGPT is pointless but agree with the comment that society would be better off without religion.

I was going to ask why Christ would want to stop people using the tools of their God-given intelligence, but then I realised I'd mis-read and you were probably blaspheming. This makes me ponder: is it only Christian deity that can be blasphemed with impunity in this life?

Religion defined as what? Belief in God?

And also extremely worrying that they think this is acceptable research! Is this what is being seen as research these days.

But it does show how far removed from humanity machines are. Interestingly I think it does indicate how humans are being conditioned to be more machine like!

Im not sure what’s going on behind the scenes but Mumsnet agreed to remove the posts I bothered to report so guessing something suspect.

i don’t believe Jesus is any more God than you or I. Quite happy to say, oh Zeus/Odin/allah. In fact “Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah” (ref life of Brian)

Chat CPT is an abomination on the face of humanity - if that is the level of God given intelligence, I can only assume there was a very long queue and supply issues on the relevant day!

This is very important to the debate as the two aren’t interchangeable

Apologies for the name changes im trying to find my handle/name and stick with one i like

My personal belief aligns with the possibility of a Supreme Being, akin to the concept of Freemasonry. However, beyond that, the only texts I would wholeheartedly believe are those directly authored by a deity, rather than by humans.

I utilized specific programs to aid my research, as machines offer a level of detail and coverage of information sources that humans may overlook or fail to realize are interconnected.

Humans are limited in their capacity to retain vast amounts of information at any given time. In theory, machines can provide a more comprehensive analysis due to their ability to process vast datasets.

Furthermore, considering that machines were created by humans, one could argue that just as humans created machines, so too did a deity create humans.

In this light, would it be considered an abomination if a deity were to heed the words of humans in the same manner that humans heed and study the writings generated by machines?

Alternatively, do some perceive this as fundamentally different, and if so, why?

@BioHive That's ok. I just don't think inputting something and then presenting it as a view (supposedly unbiased) is really what this conversation is about. I'm also not entirely sure what you're getting at re humans, machines, and a God or a deity. AI can be a useful tool no doubt but it's disturbing to see the way it's intruding and creating distrust and disruption.

I think we need to value our humanity and ability to parse things in the way we do - with nuance, real creativity, doing the work to think things through properly. Just because we can't retain vast amounts of information doesn't mean we should outsource our thinking.

@Mustardseed86
That i can understand my apologies for not making the points different eg my own vs the machine

The reason i brought up the god and humans and machine was based on @Kdtym10 comment :

"Chat CPT is an abomination on the face of humanity - if that is the level of God given intelligence, "

So if that's the case, then is it any different if God were to listen to humans? After all, if God made humanity, then humans make machines. Then why is it an abomination if humans use AI? And how is AI any different than humans studying a book and reinterpreting the book?

Overall, if humans using AI is an abomination for gaining information, then would that not be the same if God got information from humans?

After all:

God + Humans + Humans make and use machines?