"Pure hard core athiest are becomming rarer and rarer I won't say we are becoming more christian but spirituality is something that is growing."

Where do you get your information?

This is the problem with religiosity in general - facts don't seem to hold any sway over the religious. It's all hearsay and wishful thinking.

The 3rd world might be getting more religous. The post modern world, apparently less so. The US is a very bad example as its become more religious over the past decade, but it seems to be turning the other way now, as reasonable people are sick of xian's crap!

We don't want to live in your world of fantasy, anti-science bullshit anymore.

Don't mean to offend you personally, you seem like a nice (if misguided) person, but honestly, if you want to help the world, give up your belief in supernatural beings and start 'believing in' the here and now. You can't help African AIDS victims by preaching abstinence. You can't help Alzheimers victims by preventing stem cell research. And as has been proven many times, you can't do shit with prayer!

I haven't read your previous posts but I'll bet you're not getting "such a stiff arm to the topic just because [you are] a believer."

Even if we ignore the poor grammar and awful spelling, the message you just posted makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not suggestiong that your school has low admission standards but HOLY CRAP, you can't even spell "seminary".

Get a spell-checker and take an introductory class in logic and try again.

Um, at what point in time did we change from modern to post-modern? I might have missed it.

POSTMODERNISM BY ANY OTHER NAME

Whether you want to call it post-modernism or simply the questioning mind, we all face the same questions regarding what's behind the metaphysical curtain. Either you die and your memories and personality are no more (just as they were before you were conceived), or you die and live on in some mystical or personal form. In either case none of us can make one result or the other happen.

Speaking of the second option, I can't imagine an infinite being sending people to "eternal hell" without parole. So the option of life after death isn't one I fear.

I feel similarly pragmatic concerning the question of morality as I do about the question of life after death. A whole lot of people like being liked, and hate being hated. People also dislike being beaten up, stolen from, or murdered. So When you understand the joys of human-to-human contact, friendships, and also understand why people don't like being murdered, beaten up, or stolen from, then maybe you'll understand the value of morality in and of itself, apart from metaphysical questions.

Also note that many contributors at exchristian.net are less concerned with what lay behind the metaphysical curtain (i.e., whether or not God or an afterlife exists), than with the fact that many people today assume they know exactly what God would do in most every case, and use that so-called knowledge to back up their own prejudices, fears and desires.

It's that latter fact that affects us and concerns us more, relatively speaking.

ENDNOTE

People of all beliefs or none seem to get an equal emotional and rational kick out of having a discussion. We feel a joy at making contact with another human being on a variety of subjects that keep our own brains active and healthy and curious to read more about a subject, kind of like the joy of trying to solve the puzzle of mutual understanding between two fellow human beings, along with the joy of making "points" if one is being competitive about it, or discovering more about ourselves in the process (if we are open to knowing ourselves, as Socrates said we ought to be).

Edward T. Babinski

"If It Wasn't For Agnosticism, I Wouldn't Know What to Believe."

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/babinski_agnosticism.html

Mike,
I'm sure you'd make a great neighbor or friend, but sadly, you're suffering from religious dellusion. Cheer up, help is at hand! There is a wealth of scientific information readilly available, you need but to read something other than chick tracts and the Watchtower, that stuff is all so much bunk. Remember, most of us on this rant are EX-Christians! There is hope for those who question, and you did!

It sounds like you have a poor understanding of post-modern philosophy anyway. you seem to thing all it amounts to is pluralism.

I for one, think pluralism is stupid. Like when you say that "pure hard core atheists" are getting more rare. it seems both logically confusing and historically inaccurate.

Logically confusing because reality is not multiple choice, God either exists or he does not. It is absurd to say someone can be sort of an atheist, either a person believes in a god or they do not.

Historically inaccurate, because very few people prior to the 18th century would have claimed to believe in no god of any kind.

saying people are becoming more spiritual seems empty to me, because the term spiritual can have more than one meaning. I could considered spiritual by some definitions but it doesn't mean I believe in god

You say "What I have discovered is actually quite shocking to me. Not only can I not find anyone to discuss post modernism and it's implications but I can't even find anyone who will accept that we live in a post modern world. I mean I've gotten a hold of people who think that there really is a truth and that empiricism has access to it. It's amazing to me, honestly."

This, to me, is very telling. I remember my time in Christianity, and one of the lies that most Christians are taught in church is that all non-Christians tend to be extremely pluralistic...except towards Christianity of course.

In fact, I find pluralism to be a rare view among atheists. What you are running into is nothing more than the revelation that even the most educated Christian theologians have some very inaccurate ideas about what Atheists actually think

Hey Mike,
First, I just want to say that it was very difficult for me to understand your request. However, I don't think you would be treated badly on this site just because you are a Christian. Personally, I get along with most Christians as long as they respect my right to believe what I wish. The minute they cross the line I can make mincemeat out of them, and devour them for breakfast, quite effortlessly.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your request is genuine, (even though I rally don't understand it). So here is my answer:

First, I think anyone, who is a Christian, that posts on this site, is either trying to convert us or they are having doubts about their own faith. I'm thinking you are having doubts. Why? Because you are not getting answers from the people of your faith. That was a first step for me too! Most hard core Christians are too deeply indoctrinated to even consider an atheist's point of view! Think about it!

also, you need to consider that your view of the world is much different from ours. You think that hard core atheists are rare. I would beg to differ. However, I do agree that spiritualism, in general, is growing. But then again, I don't think the new spiritualism has anything to do with religion! I think your line of work will be on the decline as more and more people discover their own spiritual path. More and more people are breaking away from organized religion and discovering a whole new paradigm emerging!

This site is a wonderful way to unload all the pent up rage that was created by the oppression and depression of the church! For many of us the DARK AGES are over! We can now openly express our outrage at the evils that have been perpetrated by the church for centuries! Even though I have moved on to a more spiritual state, I still visit this site and periodically vent! It is good to have free expression!

Before you spend anymore of your hard-earned money on your degree, you might want to take the summer off and do some soul searching. Read some of the hundreds of posts here, that were written my ex ministers and priests! An education is a wonderful thing! The more you read and learn, the more you are able to discern between fantasy and fact!

leave the semonary, and go to a sanitarium.Get help soon!!

Mike, your posts are always difficult to understand. I don't want to insult you, and I have tried to have open, respective dialouge with you, but it's very difficult, because you are so attached to your beliefs and no amount of reasoning seems to suffice. I, on the other hand have stood where you do--on the side of "God"--and have first-hand knowledge of devout religious belief, so I am able to approach the topic with much more credibility. You are biased not out of first-hand knowledge, but out of religious brain-washing.

The loose statistics you employ are flawed. America is NOT becoming more spiritual. It has always been predominately spiritual. Atheism IS on the rise, as more people are coming out of the closet and admitting their doubt, but even if we consider the possibility that religion is on the rise in America, doesn't make religion right.

Example: There is no denying that the Muslim faith is becomming a worthy competitor for the minds of the populace. Christianity in Muslim nations is practically unheard of for obvious reasons. Most Christians in countries like North Korea or Afghanistan would lose their lives for admitting to a belief in Jesus. Now you, being a Christian, won't deny that the Muslim faith is growing, but you would hardly agree that the popularity of it does not mean the Koran is TRUTH.

American Athiests may not be under threat of death, but there is SO MUCH pressure to keep our mouths shut, and many people feel embarrased to admit that they think religion and Christianity in particular to fall short. Now, just because Christianity is the predominant religion of America, doesn't make it TRUTH.

Religious statistics are difficult to obtain due to government and societal pressures, but these are not the only reason statistics are so arbitrary. Research has found that the poorer a country is, the more religious they are. There are exceptions such as Vietnam, which is terribly impoverished but highly Athiestic and America, which is a very fat nation and has (depending on the one's presenting the statistics)only between 3.5-6% Athiests. However, for the most part, you will find this research to be valid. Interesting enough 15% of Israel are AThiests, and this is a nation that spawned Christianity and it has a higher percentage than America. Sweden has the highest amount of Athiests (according to statistics it's 46-85%) and they are a country that enjoys a high level of societial comforts, as does France, Cananda, Norway, Denmark, etc. These countries enjoy National health care, plentiful food distribution, widely accessible housing, etc. Poorer countries often have more of a need to turn to a "god" for comfort.

Another problem in obtaining reliable statistics is that the definition of "God" is arbitrary and subject to personal belief. Buddhists are "religious" people, but they do not maintain a belief in a higher power or an afterlife, and yet they have practically deified Buddha.

The "paradigm of the world" is NOT
shifting", my friend. The world has ALWAYS been religious. What is changing is that evangelistic religions such as Islam and Christianity are taking more of a hold on the world, because making converts is the main objective of the two faiths. Both religions use fear to motivate conversion. Christians boast of their loving Savior and free will, but will readily admit that should their listener refuse their 'TRUTH', they will burn in Hell for eternity. Where the Church once used threat of torture and earthly punishment, it now uses mental rape. The Muslim faith was once peaceful but now mirrors the same tactics that the Christian church once did and yet your followers are appalled.

When you are able to substantiate your claims and produce a coherent post, perhaps you will gain the respect and correspondence you desire.

I think I understand what Mike is trying to ask. And, I even think I know where he is heading with this (I’ll get to that later).

Mike’s initial frustration is indeed justified, though I am not fully sure of his motives. He is asking a question that pertains to the idea of epistemology and how it is currently understood by the leading intellectuals of our society. How do we acquire knowledge? No one seems to be answering that question.

I have studied post-modernism in a very limited way. So I want to apologize right up front if I misconstrue or misinform those who are either familiar or unfamiliar with postmodernism. I am by NO MEANS an expert.

Leading intellectuals of our day and the past several decades have come to the conclusion that knowledge is a non-linear process. In other words, knowledge does not necessarily start from the ground and build itself up to an ultimate and better understanding of reality. Each generation DOES NOT build upon the knowledge of previous generations, accruing more and more knowledge . . . a better and more fuller understanding of ultimate reality.

This is in stark contrast to the era ushered in by the development and use of science, empiricism and logic. Scientific epistemology claims that each succeeding generation builds off of the developments of it’s predecessors and is closer to the truth than the past. (i.e. the Romans knew more than the Greeks, the Renaissance knew more than the Romans, we know more than the Renaissance, etc, etc, etc, on and on).

The first thinker to break with the “modern” tradition was Nietzsche who “prophetically” claimed that truth was like a snake turned inward upon itself eating itself. In other words, empiricism would turn against itself, use it’s own method, to prove that there is no such thing as truth. Truth would eat itself. Other thinkers include Karl Popper, Umberto Eco, Thomas Kuhn, Foucault, Derrida, etc.

The most ground breaking of the aforementioned is Thomas Kuhn and his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This book is an absolute must read for anyone interested in this kind of stuff. Also, it will keep you from using his invented expression, now clichéd mistakenly all over the place, “paradigm shift” inappropriately. Kuhn stated that whatever a society was looking at they would find it. So if they were looking for gravity they would find it. It they were looking for another explanation they would find it, (i.e. relativity). Kuhn would state that there is no correlation between relativity and Newtonian physics. They are incompatible. Newtonian physics is not a “poorer” version of ultimate reality leading to the “great discoveries” of Einstein.

Knowledge now becomes a web with interlacing and connecting strings that do not build in a linear fashion.

There is my brief, horrible, poorly articulated intro into postmodernism.

So, where does this leave us. It leaves us with where I think Mike is trying to go. That leading intellectuals don’t believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. And science can not accomplish the job everybody thought it would. Therefore, Mike will conclude our best intellectuals have handed over knowledge by default.

Which, in a way, is really scary. What Mike probably won’t tell you though is that the people he quotes “to tell us the truth” about our current predicament, were the very same people that affirmatively said and discovered . . . “God is dead.”

And, ,many leading intellectuals believe that we are heading right back toward the Middle Ages. That conservatism and fanaticism is on the rise and science is starting to take a back seat. EVEN WITH SOME OF OUR INTELLECTUALS. Check the current trend. The United States has taken a strong swerve to conservatism, the middle east (well, do I really need to explain), the new Pope is more conservative, etc.

It goes to show that free thought is a flame that can be blown out much easier than most people imagine. Could you imagine if the legacy we left to future generations was a dump right back into mysticism and theocratic rule?

I just thought of something funny. What if this isn’t what mike was talking about. I just wasted a shit load of time writing this, and you by reading this. Hahaha

by ironlion

I think the only reason that dude is here is to try to convert people to his superstitious beliefs. He says bullshit like "hardcore atheists are becoming rarer and rarer". First of all, that's a boldface lie. Second of all, he just threw that in to get atheists to believe the lie and get converted. And if he is going for his masters in anything, he would know how to spell better than that.

And if he has studied the Bible as a believer he must have a strong stomach. It makes me sick to thing someone would worship a racist, sexist, child-killing son of a bitch they call THE CHRISTIAN GOD.

Mike,

I must agree with NGB that you're proceeding from a false assumption that there is a paradigm shift toward faith or spiritualism. People are becoming more polarized, in my opinion, but I've no basis for making that claim other than my impression.

I'm not familiar with your posts elsewhere because I haven't followed them. However, after a quick search using the Google feature I was unable to locate any post in which you mention postmodernism. Instead, I found posts in which you were proselytizing. Can't exactly ask what people think about postmodern thought if you're too busy defending the faith now, can you?

As it is, I don't think the term postmodernism has much meaning for people outside of academic or philosophical circles. People are in general more comfortable with terms they can get a handle on. To be perfectly frank, I'm not convinced you do. It seems you want clear labels for this person and that person as to whether they're a "modernist" or "postmodernist" as if there is something intrinsically important about these terms, and by implication you seem to think that one is better than the other. As Ed implied, you're simply substituting terms for what you're really interested in discussing: the metaphysics of faith.

See I'm in semonary working towards my MDiv. We've been talking about some pretty difficult stuff for the church.

I've never attended seminary. Do they have middle and high school level seminaries? I ask because your English here is not exactly what I would call college level. I don't mean to sound condescending, it's just that I'm experiencing some cognitive dissonance over the idea that someone who wrote this post is actually in college. Sorry.

Mike you said one thing in a fraction of a sentence that made perfect sense.

...but there is a much bigger world out there.

Feel free to go out and enjoy it. Don't let anybody tell you something is true because it's true, because it's true. Go see. Go on now. You'll be OK. It's nice out here.

Mike is there any chance you could get your money back from that school you are attending? It sounds like you are terribly misinformed.

LOL, Joe

The "Truth" is, I cant believe this spelling bee champion is getting so much attention. When does the post modern world end???

MIKE YOU NEED TOO COME OUT OF THE CLOSET I KNOW INSIDE YOU WE'RE JUST LIKE ME TOO AFRAID TOO ADMIT YOU KNOW THE BIBLE IS FULL OF SHIT.

COME OUT! I COMMAND YOU ( I AM SPEAKING TOO YOUR INNER ATHIEST ) IN THE NAME OF THE GODS OF COMMON SENSE,BE HEALED OF THE PRISON YOU HAVE BEEN IN.

ONCE YOU REALIZE WHAT WE ALL HAVE THAT THE BIBLE IS LIKE A BAD GOVERMENT BRAIN FART YOU WILL BE BETTER OFF.

DID YOU KNOW THAT CONSTANTINE SHOT HIS FAMILY LIKE TWO DAYS AFTER HE SAT IN AND PARTICAPATED IN WHAT BOOKS WE'RE TOO BE IN THAT FAIRY TALE

THINK ON THAT

Nvrgoingbkeither:

I have answered every one of your messages, but I have yet to receive your article or any responses from you or your wife. The only messages I have received are those sent through the website.

I suspect that all my emails to you are being eaten by your spam-blocking software, or something.

I just responded again. Hopefully you'll get this one.

Dave

Ironlion: "Knowledge now becomes a web with interlacing and connecting strings that do not build in a linear fashion."

A very poignant fact, some could make a career out of figuring out how to untangle the web...

Ironlion: "Which, in a way, is really scary."

I'm more optimistic...

Ironlion: "What Mike probably won’t tell you though is that the people he quotes “to tell us the truth” about our current predicament, were the very same people that affirmatively said and discovered . . . “God is dead.”

The philosophers, who had no problem rewriting reality, are plentiful, and due to their revisionist philosophy and writings, they set the stage for others to come around and be skeptical about discerning the honesty of literature, rhetoric, etc.

Still, truth still exists; it’s a matter of extracting meaning, using the proper context filter(s).

Ayn Rand, on a "God is dead" philosopher... When she was asked about the dichotomy between reason and emotion:

Ayn Rand: "Friedrich Nietzsche and the hippies, for example, believe there is a dichotomy, and they do so in order to place emotions above reason. When you reverse the relationship of reason and emotion, and decide your mind must serve your wishes, you create an inner conflict--a dichotomy between your reason and your emotions. Such a dichotomy is created in an irrational mind and by an irrational culture."

The topic of epistemology... well, that seems like a deep subject, how does one know or have certainty in "not knowing" something, which they talk of -- so much contradiction in life, and so little time.

Mike,

Define your terms. Everything I read about "post modernism" sounds to me like a big step backwards.

Hello, hello? Are you still there?

Mike,

One does not necessarily have to move from Positivism towards Post-modernism. There are more middle-ground positions, such as Critical Realism, which I hold to. Might I suggest the following book on the topic:

Bhaskar, R. (1998). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the
Contemporary Human Sciences (3rd edition). New York and London: Routledge.

I make spelling mistakes, sometimes, but I don't claim to be in "semonary."

Mike,are you on medication? You strike me as the type.

Damnit Mike Brown, when are you going to stop buying into the shit you've been indoctrinated with to believe? Sit back for a minute or two and think about the reality of things. Put aside your preconceived notions of indoctrinated belief for a minute or two and think about what's real. Is there anything there prompting you to believe? Anything outside of your own self-convincing? What makes you any different from me or any other non-believer? Is it not your own self-convincing? What external (i.e. outside of your own faculties) factors can you possibly know of and experience that I don't that enable you to believe but not me? And of you can experience that external factor, why is it that I cannot? Is it not then your own self-delusion that is causing you to believe? Why can't we all experience what individual christians claim to experience? If god is real, we all ought to experience him and arrive at the same conclusion. But only those who convince themselves to believe can believe. There are no external factors causing you to believe. You have to think about and interpret to your pleasing the world around you to believe. The world does not reveal god as your bible claims. YOU convince yourself that it does because your bible tells you to. We can experience the world, but that experience is NOT god; it is the world. God is not self-revealed; he is derived from your own delusion. If he were real, we would experience and know it without having to argue with you about it. Let him speak for himself. And I'm sorry, but that nice warm feeling inside, or the life in the natural world, or the beginning of the universe, or any other direct sensual experience or logical observation are not god; they are what they are. You want to convince yourself that god is behind them without god revealing himself directly? Well, what is your support? Where are the facts of god? Do you have his direct observable and self-verifiable fingerprints? Or is he just in your mind? Why should we believe your bullshit? Who the f%ck are you to tell us to believe? You think we're some mindless f%cks for you to shit around with? You think we just woke up one morning and said, "hey, you know what, I'm just not going to believe anymore"? And do you think we can just wake up another morning after talking to your delusional ass and say, "Hey, you know what, I'm just gonna believe again"? We came to a place of disbelief based on direct observational and self-verifiable grounds. Either we were let down by the promises of Christianity first-hand and experimented with the whole belief thing in all of sincerity just to be let down again and again and were rationally led to abandon the nonsense to the betterment of our minds; or we have thought about the rationalities of our beliefs and have found them to be lacking; or have discovered that there is nothing externally in support of our beliefs; or we have realized that that our stinking bible is full of shit that is self-contradictory, at odds with science and/or history, and full of pagan parallels, immorality, and incoherent teachings; or we have found that nothing stands on its own to reveal god directly; or all of the above and more. You see, Mr. Brown, your circumlocutory arguments and theories are baseless because the only way we can know that they are true is by believing you, your filthy church, or your damned bible. Belief is without warrant when the DIRECT, no-circulatory evidence is lacking. DO us a favor, and go back to your divinity school until you come to your senses.

I have to say that Mike Brown didn't say one single coherent thing in that entire post. It reads like something from Alice in Wonderland.

What in the name of all that is logical is a "postmodernist worldview" and how precisely does it differ from a "modernist" worldview?

Is this like the difference between cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk? Cos' I didn't understand that either.

Mike Brown, (said)
"What I have discovered is actually quite shocking to me. Not only can I not find anyone to discuss post modernism and it's implications but I can't even find anyone who will accept that we live in a post modern world. I mean I've gotten a hold of people who think that there really is a truth and that empiricism has access to it. It's amazing to me, honestly."

Mike!
The reason you can find people to discuss post modernism with over at your school and not here on Ex Christian is that you really haven't shown us, in simple English, how it has any relevance to who we are.

Simple unsophisticated folk, who for the most part can smell bullshit from a mile away.

On the other hand you are paying good money, to be around the next generation of hick preachers who will convolute any and all thought processes in order to keep you in line, because that is how cults work!
Dan

Trying to reconcile the modern world and a faith based on books over 2000 years old is difficult at best. One is always made to cast dispersions on anything that contradict scripture. An example would be the Theistic belief that homosexuality is a choice. Christians are usually willing to take the latest cancer treatment based on science but are unwilling to accept science that goes against the dogma of their “faith”. At its core all “faiths” are really cognitive dissidence wrapped in the fear of the god characters wrath. We can look at light that has traveled millions of light years by using a telescope, yet Christian can’t believe this. We see strata filled with fossil records that indicate billions of years of change for species, yet Christians will proclaim we walked with dinosaurs. At what point can the evidence be so overwhelming that the words in the holy books lose their literal meaning? To many of us it happened long ago. Does it prove god does not exist? Of Course not, but it does show that holy books are not what they proclaim to be… the word of god. Secularism is really the only way foreword for the human race. Theistic/ magical thinking will doom us to a constant cycle of societal failure and environmental desolation.

Anonynous, you said: " At what point can the evidence be so overwhelming that the words in the holy books lose their literal meaning?"

This particular quote was profound, but your entire post also deserves a standing ovation.

According to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 2004, postmodernism is:

"Relating to, or being any of several movements (as in art, architecture, or literature) that are reactions against the philosophy and practices of modern movements and are typically marked by revival of traditional elements and techniques."

I'm curious why this is even being discussed in a seminary. Shouldn't postmodernism be a good thing for faith and a much easier situation to deal with, since it means that modern movements are being rejected and traditional elements and techniques are being employed? It seems that modernism is what religion should be worried about.

It is we freethinkers who have to worry about the world reverting to traditional elements and techniques. Traditionally, religion heavily employed fear and intimidation to prove its points. Traditionally, science has been rejected in favor of faith. Traditionally, those who have little hope in life turn to make-belief, adamantly defend their fiction, and sucker other hopeless people into accepting their delusions.

Are we living in a post-modern world? I don't think so. I think the continual rise of knowledge and information reveals the world we live in and leads to change. Atheism is not on the decline; freethinkers, able to access information much quicker and easier than ever, are seeing a need to wake up and do things differently. I believe we are just starting to realize a new type of renaissance era.

When I was still in ministry, “something was happening.” God was always moving in some very provocative way somewhere – and in ways that had never happened before! We were at the very beginnings of a global revival!!!

And guess what…

We still are…

And we have been for about 2000 years.

Everyone looks around and, because of a necessarily self-centered world view, believes that they are a part of a special time. It is a common delusion that is not unique to you. But it IS a delusion. God is doing nothing more than he has always done. If you are an atheist, then god is and always has been doing nothing. If you are within my realm of spiritual belief, god is just an energy that never changes and is not sentient, so its purpose is sort of indeterminate and people have grown more and more disconnected from it as society has advanced. If you are a Xian, god just continues to hold out that carrot of good works and gives you a reason to believe that your existence is more significant than the existence of others.

God hasn’t changed one bit – nor are we getting any closer to him suddenly waking up and getting on the ball. The purposed god is a fallacy.

As for post-modern pap – the big (and quite annoying buzz) in ministry when I was there (especially working with teens) was the post-modernism. After listening to well-meaning, but pseudo intellectual youth pastors toss around their thoughts, I realized that post-modernism means one thing really – and this is the reason it is threatening to Xianity: People are no longer willing to take “because I am the pastor and I said so” as an answer. They want to experience truth – whatever that might be – for themselves. Since these post-mods are very unlikely to experience truth in a Xian church, this is very bad news indeed…

How are non-Xians, exXians, atheists or agnostics dealing with it? I would imagine the change in paradigms is fairly seamless to free thinkers. After all, some one else’s authoritative word either stopped mattering at some point anyway (perhaps you are talking to the very children of the Post-Modern shift) or it never mattered in the first place. You are unlikely to get a good discussion started about it simply because such paradigm shifts aren’t particularly concerning…

We aren’t exactly struggling to once again harmonize our fables with emerging truth and shifting paradigms.

Spoomonkey

Thank you, Spoomonkey. It wasn't until I got to your comment that I had any idea what this thread was about.

Mike,

I appreciate what appears to be a sincere query from you. I will attempt to give you a meaningful answer, although I'm sure it's not the type you are looking for. To me, red flags go up as soon as I hear large communities being pigeonholed into one philosophy or another; e.g. your claim that we are now in a "post-modern" world. There are two major problems with this, as I see it. First, it presupposes a dominant philosophy, which is always risky; more often than not, I think it reflects the beliefs of the one imposing the label, and not the beliefs of those so labeled. Second, no philosophy is so cogently and consistently defined that everybody knows precisely what it consists in, what it implies, and what supports it. Take "postmodernism". To some, this is nothing more than a reaction to prevailing (19th and 20th century) philosophies, to others it has distinct political overtones, and to others it is a criticism of empirically-based epistemology. Even within the various sub-categories, there is a wide range of interpretations. Consequently, I cannot accept your appraisal that we live in a "post-modern" world, on the grounds that that statement is ill-defined, and because there are numerous dissenting views (regardless of how you intend it).

As for your surprise that there may be people who still cling to the naive idea that there is an objective truth that can be gleaned through observation, it sounds to me like you have been fed a very "post-modernist" diet for too long. That is still the prevailing idea behind science, and it's not going to be toppled any time soon given the stunning success of science. However, here is where we again run into problems of definition. Science is in some ways "post-modern" in that it does not posit absolute truth; its only currency is models of reality that are more or less faithful, according to the accumulated evidence thus far. Also, the enigmas of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, not to mention incompleteness and undecidability results in mathematics, have definitely changed the way scientists generally view what is empirically attainable. In particular, it's now commonly held that there are some fundamental limits to what can be observed and computed. You might see this as a "post-modern" tint to science.

To my mind, this all comes down to epistemology; how do we know what we know. I don't care what label you put on it beyond that, it's all about approximating "truth", and what fundamental limitations there may be in doing so. As an atheist, I have no problem at all with the strangely unintuitive and "illogical" notions of quantum mechanics, and I have no problem admitting that our brains are adapted to perceive a narrow range of phenomena, and may utterly fail to grasp "reality" beyond that. I see "truth" as something that we can only approximate, and only if we are willing to continually test our beliefs and reject ideas that are shown to be in error. I also see this as being quite different from the way most religions operate. The so-called "revealed" religions posit an entirely different mechanism for attaining knowledge; communication from a supernatural being. If one accepts this as "axiomatic", then one arrives at a rather different world view. The question for me is why this axiom should be accepted. I see no evidence of greater utility stemming from this axiom--it does not permit people to make better predictions about the natural world, so far as I can tell. Moreover, I see the "god axiom" itself as having an increasingly clear naturalistic explanation--e.g. as a side effect of the mental machinery that has made our species so stunningly successful. For these reasons (and others) I see the "god axiom" as extremely dubious.

I'm not sure that was of any help to you.

first off I am so sorry that my spelling is such a hinderance you all. Sadly, I don't live or get paid to visit this site. So I sit down in one sitting and whack out a response to you all, I should have guessed with such intelligent and soul searching persons grammer would be way more important than the intent of the thought...

As to my motives, I gave them plainly I am not working on a paper, currently I am getting ready to go to iraq. I appologize for saying that athiest are a shrinking group, (I should have known it would become the focus of the responses instead of the over all theme)

Who ever wrote this has pretty much nailed my intent on the head. I disagree with some specifics but he, at least, is understanding the question:

"Leading intellectuals of our day and the past several decades have come to the conclusion that knowledge is a non-linear process."


I would say however, that this is no longer just the leading intellectuals, many of the works that are influencial were written 40 + years ago. The fact that many of the people you accuse of being "mindless christians" have used similar arguments testifies to the fact that this perspective is becoming pretty common. (I emphasize again this is not a christian perspective)

The fact that you are not familiar with these thoughts(kierkegaard, Foucault, Darria, rorty, Kuhn ect.) does not speak against you nearly as much as these:

"We don't want to live in your world of fantasy, anti-science bullshit anymore."

"I'm not suggestiong that your school has low admission standards but HOLY CRAP, you can't even spell "seminary"."

"I'm sure you'd make a great neighbor or friend, but sadly, you're suffering from religious dellusion."

"leave the semonary, and go to a sanitarium.Get help soon!!"

"I think the only reason that dude is here is to try to convert people to his superstitious beliefs. "

"MIKE YOU NEED TOO COME OUT OF THE CLOSET I KNOW INSIDE YOU WE'RE JUST LIKE ME TOO AFRAID TOO ADMIT YOU KNOW THE BIBLE IS FULL OF SHIT."

"Damnit Mike Brown, when are you going to stop buying into the shit you've been indoctrinated with to believe?"

"Theistic/ magical thinking will doom us to a constant cycle of societal failure and environmental desolation."

Just becuse you call yourselves "intelligent" and open minded people it does not follow that you ARE.
Now: I would like to have a rational conversation with the likes of Jim Arvo, ironlion, ed babinski and Dave8

"To me, red flags go up as soon as I hear large communities being pigeonholed into one philosophy or another; e.g. your claim that we are now in a "post-modern" world."

that's a fair enough statement. I don't intend to imply that everyone is / should be a post modern. I personally think that we are in some kind of shift based upon listening to kids and even young adults talk about things now, but that's not my point. I was simply meaning that this is not just me sitting here making things up.

Arvo wrote: The so-called "revealed" religions posit an entirely different mechanism for attaining knowledge; communication from a supernatural being.

I'm not sure I see it that way. I don't think christianity believes that ALL information comes from God, but rather a specific type of information comes from God. Does that make sense?

"I don't care what label you put on it beyond that, it's all about approximating "truth", and what fundamental limitations there may be in doing so."

I find this interesting, what are the implications when it comes to talking about the truth? I suppose what I mean is how are you thinking of truth. Do you see it as an objective reality or rather as a creation of our relationship with the external world

Mike: "I'm not sure I see it that way. I don't think christianity believes that ALL information comes from God, but rather a specific type of information comes from God. Does that make sense?"

Yes, that was my intent. Perhaps I could have been more clear by saying "religions posit an entirely different mechanism in addition to observation and reason for attaining knowledge...".

Mike: "...what are the implications when it comes to talking about the truth? ...Do you see it as an objective reality or rather as a creation of our relationship with the external world"

I think the notion of an independently-existing external world is a useful abstraction, and it's one that has served us well (e.g. through science). All we can know of it, however, is what we can gain through observation (which includes "phylogenetic" knowledge gained by our ancestors) coupled with reason. (If you are a theist, you will likely wish to add "revelation" as well.) It's a fair bet that there is more than we can observe: where I part company with religionists is in postulating specific entities that exist outside the sphere of observation. To me that is indistinguishable from make-believe. As for "truth", I always put that in quotes because I think it is nearly impossible to define exactly what we mean by it. To me it implies a correspondence between a concept and a feature of "reality" (another troublesome word). It's a thought that allows us to interact with the world. If I know the "truth" about where I parked my car, it allows to find it with less effort. If I know the "truth" about Julius Caesar, it may inform me as to what artifacts and writings I can expect to find that are connected with him, as well as beliefs held by other people. As for "truth" that is disconnected from observable things (even in principle), I honestly don't know what that could mean.

"All we can know of it, however, is what we can gain through observation (which includes "phylogenetic" knowledge gained by our ancestors) coupled with reason."

I think Plato would disagree with you. Mathmatics is a subject that doens't really reside in observation. You can take issue with this of course but don't we learn mathmatics purely through our imagination? (I mean this in terms of the mind "playing" with concepts rather than something made up) Now you might say we can take mathmatics and employ it in the physical world but really what are we doing? Are we proving that its "true" or are we proving that it's not incompatible? In other words it may work but there may be more to it.

Secondly doesn't this presuppose that a) our sense are reliable and we can trust them. (I don't think it's necessary to debate this issue, I'll generally say our sense's CAN be reliable). but more importantly b) doesn't it presuppose that we are "properly" interpreting the information that our senses provide us. Ie giving meaning to what we observe.
c)What is the role of education when it comes to observation? Do ANY of us actually learn through observation or are we lead towards what we are "supposed to to see"


Didn't Immanuel Kant discuss this issue in the Critique of Pure Reason?

I think the role of perspective is not being given enough weight. I mean if we all "saw" the same things wouldn't we all see alike? Remember Im just raising ideas I don't think I've proven anything I'm just asking questions.

Mike,

This site was intentionaly created for people who have passed through the Christian dogma, abuse and brainwashing, and desire to connect with others who are also healing. We are not here to amuse you and have long, drawn out philosophical discussions with you.

You take up so much room on this site with your incoherent babbling, however I will entertain your musings for a moment.

It isn't that we don't understand post-modernism, but the term was first coined in 1949 and was coined in regard to a dissatisfaction with modern architectual styles. Post-modernism used in any other context does not have a simple definition and is quite arbitrary, indeed.

Post-modern CHRISTIANITY, is a relatively new term, and refers to a movement of dissatisfaction with current trends within Christianity and a battle of ideologies.

According to http://www.gotquestions.org/post-modern-Christianity.html, Post modern Christianity is defined as such: "Post-modern Christianity falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking. It is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward. Are these things good? Sure. Are these things bad? Sure. It all depends on how far from biblical Truth each reaction against modernity takes one's faith. This, of course, is up to each believer. However, when groups form together under such thinking, theology and doctrine tends to lean more towards liberalism."

From what you have said in former posts, you seem quite the liberal Christian, but there is a major problem with that, which is that the more you deviate from your Holy text, the less you are able to credibly call yourself a Christian. That's just the way it is Mike. Liberal Christianity is flawed. The fact of the matter is, that Christians hold up the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. It is your map of instructions, your how-to's and not-to's, your warnings and commandments from your God. If you are able to "feel" God and experience "Him", outside of the book that you admittedly (in other posts) believe is NOT the inerrant word of god, then why use it at all? And if you don't need the Bible to experience "god", then how do you know this god is the one defined by Christianity in the first place?

The only reason you identify this "presence", this mystical Whatever, is because you've been indoctrinated by Christian philosophy. If you'd grown up in Iraq, chances are pretty damned high that you'd identify with Allah and pray five times a day on your prayer mat facing the direction of Mecca. Odds favor that, Mike.

I just don't understand what your point is in trying to engage EX-CHRISTIANS in a discussion about post-modern Christianity. We don't care what form of Christianity you take, we DO NOT BELIEVE ANY OF IT. There is no form of Christianity liberal enough for us to accept. You are trying to correspond with people who consider your religion to be inherently flawed and quite often, down right repulsive, so what is your point? Why are you unable to discuss such things with your professors and fellow classmates among you?

"From what you have said in former posts, you seem quite the liberal Christian, but there is a major problem with that, which is that the more you deviate from your Holy text, the less you are able to credibly call yourself a Christian."

mmm. nope I've been called many things... but a liberal is not one of them. I'm really not interested in talking about post modern christianity. I'm interested in discussing somethings with you, that's all. Is that a problem? I didn't know this forum had rules...? Am I some how offending these rules? Or You? Can you illustrate what you mean by my "incoherent babbling,"?

If you want to talk about how christians use scripture I can... but I don't think that's what you're really after.

"If you'd grown up in Iraq, chances are pretty damned high that you'd identify with Allah"

Does this mean that you agree with me about how we access reality? Does this statement mean that you think that the way we are educated plays a pivotal roll in how we see the world? In other words the context that we "grow up in" determines the way we interpret the "external world"?

Mike Brown: Remember Im just raising ideas I don't think I've proven anything I'm just asking questions.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we got the part about "asking questions"....now can you actually answer some?

1) Do you KNOW that God exists, empirically/materially?

(If "yes", present your evidence at this time. If "no", go to question "2")

2) Then do you even know if God exists at all?

(If "yes", tell us how you've aquired this "knowledge"; *how you "know" it is reliable, and how this philosophy/methodology for aquiring knowledge only makes Christianity a "truth", and not any other religion a truth. If you answer "no", and you believe purely on "faith"?...have a nice day)

You see i'd love to answer your questions boomslang but if you recall you wouldn't even acknowledge that I was asking anything significant. ie you wouldn't answer my questions. So if my questions aren't good enough to be answered why are my answers going to be good enough. They are not. In other words you've made your mind up that I HAVE to not be using my brain so anything I say MUST therefore be a non argument.

I'm not fool boom... the only reason you ask those two question is because this fits your little argument paradigm. you say prove empirically that God exist and I provide you a litany of "arguments" and you demonstrate how this isn't really an argument or how its really not empirical or what ever. And then I respond "no boom it is an argument really it is" (much like my discussion concerning philosphical developments) and then you say: "see christians are so full of sh$%t you just turn off your brains." Then I go "no way" and you guys go "yes it is" and than I go "no it isn't" and you "go yes it is"
and then we turn into 6th graders. Personally I would like to avoid such childish antics.

Mike Brown, you're doin' the Curly shuffle, dude. It's obvious to me, and probably everyone listening in---and yes, you too---that you cannot validate/substantiate the Christian worldview as an objective "truth". If you could, you would've done so long ago.

So far, the best you've got is "I believe". The rest is just 'fluff'.......boisterous, space-taking, 'fluff'.

Since I'm a fairly down-to-earth type person, I tend to get raised eyebrows when a poster states he or she is just on this site to ask questions. Whenever I ask questions, I have an agenda in asking them. Mike seems to understand that idea, because he accused Boom of having an agenda in his questions, and even filled in the entire progression of thought.

I'm wondering, Mike, could you get to the point. Would you mind being a bit more transparent? Perhaps you think you have clearly stated what you are aiming at with this discussion, but I guess I'm curious about the underlying, unstated, agenda. I'm missing it. No offense, perhaps I'm just too simple, but I live in a world of going to work, paying bills, and raising a family. Popular philosophic concepts are interesting to me, but...

Anyway, to what end are you asking these questions? I've found that no one asks questions for NO reason.

Thanks.

Can you illustrate what you mean by my "incoherent babbling,"?

Is it not obvious now that NONE of us can quite understand what it is you're after? Your questions are vague and throw around terms such as "empericism", "Post-modern", and Modernism" attempting to engage us in philosophical debates or discussions.

Post-modernism, when not used in the context of Architecture is a very loose term. It can mean different things to different people. You call most of modernists, when we would not even necessarily consider ourselves as such. I would not consider myself one. I do not think on my world in such a rigid way. I do not consider myself "liberal" or "conservative". After 33 years of observing the world around me, I have hopefully attained some amount of wisdom and discernment, which is hopefully leading me toward a more balanced outlook on life and all of its aspects. I am rarely black and white about anything.

You asked:
"Does this mean that you agree with me about how we access reality? Does this statement mean that you think that the way we are educated plays a pivotal roll in how we see the world? In other words the context that we "grow up in" determines the way we interpret the "external world"?

Yes, I would agree that the way are educated plays a major role in how we see the world, but at some point, Mike, the more evolved person, the more intuitive person begins to see the world in shades of grey. The more discerning man or woman, begins to filter out fundamentalist thinking in any regard. I used to believe that was such a thing as absolute truth. With honesty being so important to me, I am trying to digest the fact that this preconcieved notion just may not be. "Truth" is different to all of us. Such is the point of that little poem many of us read years ago as children about the blind men and the elephant. Remember that one? Each man, holding on to or feeling a different part of the elephant described it differently. We each see life through the tinted glasses that we acquired at birth and then throughout the years, we are constantly exchanging leses.

It isn't that you are not welcomed here, Mike, but there are proper forums for your discussions and this is hardly it. Many of us here are well educated, but have not studied philosophical arguments in depth outside of the short introduction we were given in college courses. The first time I had ever heard the term "post-modern" was in my Humanities class and it was referring to trends in art.

Speaking on such matters does not make you sound intelligent. You give yourself away by your negligent grammar and difficult to understand questions. In previous posts, I have found it very difficult to communicate with you, as you seem to continually come back with a rebuttal and seem only interested in engaging in debate. I have to say that much of your conversation is downright weird, Mike. We just don't get you. We can't all be wrong, man. Perhaps you need to work on your communication skills. Have you taken a debate class? Have you taken your required Speech course? Have you taken a Creative writing course, or have you completed English Comp. I and II? I am not trying to being condescending. I am not sure what Seminary schools require in the way of education, but it seems you are lacking in some of elementary skills. Maybe you're just a quirky lad.

“It isn't that we don't understand post-modernism, but the term was first coined in 1949 and was coined in regard to a dissatisfaction with modern architectual styles.”

Since I didn’t make the list of folks with anything to contribute to Mike’s discussion (though I tried without insult to offer my perspective as a former Southern Baptist Youth Pastor working in a large church and having to wade through the Post-Modern garbage for much of the end of my ministry) I’ll go in another direction.

Nvrgoingbk

I think this quote is very interesting.

Youth pastors are a group of men who desire, more than anything, to be hip – even when it is tragically obvious that they never were and never will be. They seek validation for everything they do – and it is not a humble validation they are looking for. Rather it is a real quest for “super-importance” if I can call it that.

Tossing around the term “Post-Modernism” was simply a form of intellectual posing and masturbation of the self-esteem. The funny thing is, not only did they not understand the terminology (in most cases) they took ridiculous short cuts to find a completely nonsensical answer – COFFEE HOUSES! That was the thankfully flagging rage when I was at the end of my time in church anyway. Every church had one in some form, from store fronts to rearranged youth rooms – as long as their was coffee and a little pretense of deep thought, the church was responding and relevant.

And god was “moving”. (I rolled my eyes when I wrote that, by the way.)

Even at the time – as a staunch believer – it irritated me to no end. I was always amazed at how people in different churches, with different kids could claim to put in so much thought into “how to respond to Post-Modernism” could come up with the same bad idea… Inspiration, indeed…

What Xians really need to be asking themselves about Post-Modernism is this: Are we really 50 years behind the rest of the world in everything we do and think? And if so, how in the hell do we think we’ll ever be relevant to anyone? Wouldn’t it be better if we just turned on some MTV and found out what was going on in the world?

Or maybe Mike’s class project can be a coffee house… It is a guaranteed “A”.

Spoomonkey

Mike,

It doesn't appear that you're getting the help you need, so why are you still here?

Spoo, I couldn't agree with you more.

I too was a member of a very large ministry here in the Tampa Bay area and was sickened by the appearance of new facilities springing up constantly in an effort to attract more outsiders. The church came complete with a coffee shop, book store, teen night club and every ministrial need you can think of. The pastor and his wife drove a Lexus and a Hummer, and lived in a HUGE mansion in a very lucrative area of Tampa. They would throw around terms like "the year of Jubilee" and "prosperity", when Jesus had taught his followers to be in the world but not OF the world. Jesus had taught his followers to not give thought to tomorrow and not store up for themselves treasures on Earth.

The church is left with a conundrum: How do we attract followers and still stay true to the church? Christianity is rarely successful in convincing people that they are in need of a Savior. They must bring food to the starving and build them churches and schools to attract them. They must have huge emotionally charged crusades, more modern facilities and activities, secular sounding music that is so hard to discern from the shit we hear on contemporary radio stations that you almost don't realize you're listening to religious radio, and hip television programming. The gospel just doesn't stand on it's own. They wait until natural disaster strikes or until some terrible crime is committed and declare such things to be God's judgment for their sins, and then they stand back and wait for the "sinners" to flock to the pews.

911, Katrina, the Tsunami of 2004, and the recent V-tech shootings are all examples of this.

Christianity's leading spokesmen such as Pat Robertson, weasel their way into politics and try it from that angle. The church has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. The entire religion is hypocritical. They want to enjoy similar sounding music and entertainment. They want to use our sounding boards, our politicians, and our terminiology WHEN IT SUITS THEIR AGENDA. They want to use secular scientific knowledge and medical discoveries ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEIR AGENDA. If science, medicine or anything else disagrees with their theological views, they then throw these resources out the window until they need them again.

Mike Brown is impossible to communicate with, because there is no answer that satisifies him. He doesn't shut up until his post is moved past the first page of the site.

Mike-

What's the name of this board? Why did you choose this particular board?

You're just another poor, victimized Christian aren't you? I just can't understand why anyone would question your motivation here.

You could have taken your pseudo-intellectual blather and rambling comments phrased as questions to a Christian board, a philosophy board or even the Chevrolet truck board but you chose to come here.

Why?

You say you didn't come here to recruit and that you hope to avoid childish "no it isn't" "yes it is" antics yet it seems as if you're... How's a good way to put it??? Disingenuous?

I'm sure you'd recognize it immediately if I were to go to (insert your favorite religious board here) and tried to utilize tactics similar to yours...

perrystl said:

"I'm sure you'd recognize it immediately if I were to go to (insert your favorite religious board here) and tried to utilize tactics similar to yours..."

Trouble is, he'd never see your post on his favorite religious board. Many don't allow opposing comments or questions in their clubs

nevergoingback wrote:

"Is it not obvious now that NONE of us can quite understand what it is you're after"

did you mean NOW obvious?

"empericism" do you mean empiricism?

"You call most of modernists, when we would not even necessarily consider ourselves as such."

do you mean most of US modernists?

"I do not think on my world in such a rigid way."
Do you mean in my world, or do you mean of my world?

"I used to believe that was such a thing as absolute truth." do you mean there was such a thing?

I could go on but it would belabor my point. I will freely admit my spelling and grammar esp. in a forum such as this, has problems. I will forgive your errors if you will forgive mine. Is that a deal?

"I used to believe that was such a thing as absolute truth. With honesty being so important to me, I am trying to digest the fact that this preconcieved notion just may not be. "Truth" is different to all of us."

Is it really different to all of us? boomslang? What do you think of that comment? Do you agree or disagree?

"The first time I had ever heard the term "post-modern" was in my Humanities class and it was referring to trends in art."

Well as I have pointed out in other posts you COULD try talking with a professor of philosophy and asking him what to make of some of the people I have told you about... You might even try googling them... That might be a novel way learning something. I have to go to my sons ball games

Being ignored by this fine, upstanding, educated Christian doesn't bother me, because no answer from him, in this case, is actually a quite revealing answer.

And, I especially enjoyed the condescension in Mike's last post. He must make his semonary instructors very proud.

However, I'm beginning to suspect that Mike just might be one of those funny trolls. Am I the only one who suspects this?

MB: "I think Plato would disagree with you. Mathmatics is a subject that doens't really reside in observation. You can take issue with this of course but don't we learn mathmatics purely through our imagination?..."

Of course Plato would disagree, as would the majority of mathematicians today, as they are largely Platonists. However, most mathematicians are not concerned with the ontological status of mathematics, but rather with its form and content. For them the notion of a Platonic realm is more of an aesthetic issue than a philosophical one. Among those who are actually concerned with the ontological status of mathematics, there are many who see it as being a reflection and extension of our innate logic, which was in turn shaped by our evolutionary past--i.e. it agrees with what we observe because it was adaptive. But, of course, mathematics can also model "alternate realities" that do not match our world. This is a huge topic, and one that is still hotly debated. Suffice it to say (for now) that not everyone is a Platonist. I, for one, do not believe that mathematics is a window into some independently-existing reality, but a reflection of our own thoughts which have been shaped by the constraints of the physical world.

MB: "Secondly doesn't this presuppose that a) our sense are reliable and we can trust them... but more importantly b) doesn't it presuppose that we are 'properly' interpreting the information that our senses provide us."

It depends on how strictly you adhere to that "presupposition". If you mean that we are forced to assume something as eternally true, then I disagree. There is no such restriction that I can see, except perhaps the presupposition that there are patterns in nature that can be discerned. If this is not true, then we are hopelessly adrift anyway. If you mean that we tentatively assume some model is true, and see what can be derived from it, then yes, absolutely. I think much of the criticism directed toward science (largely by religionists) is a result of seeing it as dogmatic where it need not be. Take quantum mechanics, for example. That broke many of the basic presupposition that prevailed before 1920. The observations were simply inexplicable within the context of determinism, so something had to go. It forced a total rethinking of nature. At around the same time a similar revolution took place in mathematics, forcing the foundations of mathematics to be rethought in the light of certain paradoxes (in set theory) and incompleteness results (in logic) that were uncovered. My point is that even very fundamental presuppositions can be overthrown if "nature" proves them inadequate. This does NOT imply that we are guaranteed to converge toward an accurate model of reality, however. (Another big topic that I do not even wish to broach at the moment.)

Mike: "Do ANY of us actually learn through observation or are we lead towards what we are 'supposed to to see'"

Certainly there is a strong bias toward seeing what nature has shaped us to see, and clearly we can peer somewhat beyond that through science. There is no way to determine whether all of nature is ultimately discernible to us, however. All we can do is to keep looking and to keep asking questions.

Mike: "Didn't Immanuel Kant discuss this issue in the Critique of Pure Reason?"

Yes, of course Kant examined many of these issues (I don't recall whether it was in his "Critique", but that sounds right). His categorizing of all knowledge into analytic and empirical is still popular today, although the distinction is now much fuzzier in the light of evolution. Kant did not take account of philogenetic "knowledge", which would seem to sit somewhere between his categories. (Max DelBruck, the 20th century biologist, explored this idea quite extensively, and makes a compelling case for it, in my opinion.) I think this new perspective is valuable, and will ultimately enable us to see a little farther in the same way that knowing the optical distortion of a telescope lens allows one to recover a less distorted image.

Mike: "I think the role of perspective is not being given enough weight. I mean if we all 'saw' the same things wouldn't we all see alike?"

I think many philosophers and scientists do not give enough weight to our innate biases, so I agree if that is what you are implying. But this is by no means completely overlooked. As for people "seeing" the same things, I can interpret that may different ways, so I'm not even going to attempt to answer. Many of these questions lead straight into philosophical quagmires that would take a huge amount of time and effort to explore. I'm not sure it's worth going there.

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned is this: You, as a theist, posit something that I consider to be utterly fantastic--an invisible conscious entity with unlimited power, unlimited knowledge, and the desire and ability to intervene in human affairs. Is that a fair statement? Regardless of what specific dogmas you assert beyond that (e.g. the trinity, atonement, special creation, etc.), that is a fundamental aspect of your religious convictions, is it not? My question is this: Is there something you can offer that would compel me to share your belief, or at least regard it as likely to be true?

Nvrgingbk: "Truth" is different to all of us."

Mike Brown: Is it really different to all of us? boomslang? What do you think of that comment? Do you agree or disagree?

I'm not sure...is that a question..or an inquiry? I'd need to know before I can answer that. Well, okay, if you are going to badger me into it---I think that traffic was otusable today on my way to the book store. Speaking of---have you ever read "The Empirical Dualist", by Jack T'orse? You should read it, because there's a contemporary ancient movement going on right before our eyes, and what people are finding is that they like part-skim ricotta over whole milk ricotta in their lasagna. Which do you prefer? Don't mind me, I'm just asking questions. I hope that helped.