Why Science is So Hard For People

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:27 pm

infidelguy wrote:

1.) The Trinity is a being said to be a single being consisting of 3 parts, (Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit).
2.) A being is anything that exists.
3.) A being with intent, possesses a mind.
4.) A mind is recognized by a beings ability to possess thoughts, to plan, to desire, to reason, among many other things.
5.) At the very 'least', Jesus and God are beings that have their own minds.
6.) In having their own minds, they are separate beings.
7.) The Trinity cannot be one being.

Back again!
Here are my latest thoughts, this time strictly within a christian context.
I'll step back into my athiest shoes again at the end of this message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MULTIPLE MINDS ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRINITY.

1. Yes, this is biblically correct. For christians any Old Testament references to god in the plural should be seen in the light of the Gospels and New Testament. O.T. Prophets like Moses and Elijah would have been unable (and unwilling) to accept the concept that One god is made up of three personalities. It was left to Jesus, Paul and the other N.T. writers to explain this. Nowadays christians can look back thru the O.T., knowing that where it says, "we" and "us" this is a reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Of course, using newer portions of scripture to understand older ones does lead to an uncomfortable problem for christians. Prior to Jesus' life and work on Earth only the O.T. scripture would have been availible for believers to read. So then how did they understand the plural references to the one and only god of Israel? Rolling Eyes

Go figure!

2, 3 & 4. Correct.
These points (describing what a mind is and how it operates) can be simplified or expanded as needed. I consider them to be essentially ok. The christian pov of what a mind is kinda vague. The most common approach I heard was to say that just as god is a triune being, so is man; having a material body, a mind for the governance of his body and an eternal soul/spirit. On the Day of Judgement our bodies would be renewed, clothing our spirits in a new flesh. Quite what role (if any) our minds would play in this is left unsaid. Will we receive new minds to govern our new bodies? Who knows?

5. Correct, but christians include the Holy Spirit as well.
As mentioned before all three members of the Trinity are considered to be "fully" god and are capable of co-operating as one or operating (apparently) independently.

6. No. (Explanation below)
Christians maintain that because God the Father is totally omnipotent, omnescient and omnipresent there can be no such thing as the Son or the Holy Spirit operating without his approval. Though god eternally occupies his throne in heaven his presence, power and knowledge are simultaneously and timelessly everywhere at once. Therefore truly independent action by any part of the Trinity is impossible.
Because they are not confined to one corporeal body (as is man) or spiritual body (as are the angels & demons) no physical, dimensional, cosmic or spiritual distance can ever separate them from each other.

In contrast Man occupies the physical universe of space and time, is born, dies and is severely limited in what he do, know and affect. He is a bit like an amphibian - existing in both the physical and spiritual realms simultaneously. When he dies his body decays but his spirit will sleep awaiting Judgement Day when it will be clothed in a new, eternal body.

All purely spiritual beings (not Man) have great powers and knowledge. While they are not affected by old age and death they still occupy specific locations within the spiritual and physical realms. God sent the angel Gabriel to announce to the Virgin Mary that she would become the mother of God's Son. When Gabriel was on Earth doing this he was not still present in heaven or anywhere else. This limitation is also true Satan, his demons and every other spiritual being.

This quality of being limited in thought, deed and presence is a major difference between them and the trinity. Another is the fact that men, angels and demons are created beings. A third is that god's nature is unchanging, whereas both angels and men can change. The proof of this is Satan's fall from grace and the potential for man to reject god (Eden) and yet still be saved by christ's death on the cross.

Therefore the Multiple Minds Argument might work when applied to a trinity of angelic/demonic beings, proving that such a fusion is impossible.
They have separate minds (identities, memories, thoughts etc.) , occupy different locations in the spiritual and physical universes and are subject to change. None of this applies to god. He is supremely qualified to be a trinity by having no such limitations. Separation just doesn't apply to him.
Therefore...

7. No.
The trinity can only be one being.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking as a Born-Again Athiest again...

So Reggie, it looks as if the christian model of the trinity does work. You say that the Multiple Minds Argument has worked in the past, right? Has anyone tried to refute it by pointing out the impossibilty of the three parts of the godhead becoming in any way separated?

Just to reiterate, I no longer accept any of this stuff. Even bad ideas hang together well sometimes. The ancient Greeks proved to themselves that the world is round via two different methods. This was then forgotten for centuries until the time of Christopher Columbus. For dozens of generations the idea of a flat earth looked unshakable and unassailable.
The fact that it was plain wrong could have been deduced if anyone had performed the same experiments and observations as the Greeks had long ago. Such is life!

Btw, I'm happy to clarify and expand upon any of the above. Yes, it's very long and wordy but sometimes that's necessary too.

All the best,

BornAgainAthiest.

Newbie Joined: Mar 07, 2006 Posts: 22 Location: Australia

my argument against the trinity: are you out of your mind ?

Ask anyone who believes in the trinity to explain it, briefly, as if to someone who has not heard of the idea before. I have found that even the most hardcore believers will smile and try and gloss over the silliness of it all.

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:06 pm

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

Therefore the Multiple Minds Argument might work when applied to a trinity of angelic/demonic beings, proving that such a fusion is impossible.

When you're pulling ideas out of your ass (making shit up) almost anything is possible Laughing

This falls within the purview of fantasy (religion). It’s not difficult to make something “work” when you have at your command the unbridled power of human imagination applying itself to make-believe entities.

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:17 pm

The reason my argument works pretty well Born is because the average believer loves to use the analogy of; my son being a part of me yet still me.. or they'll say.. your toe isn't you, yet it is you.

Once I show how minds by very definition pertains to individuals, it creates quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. Again, they agree with me up until they see the conclusion. Then it's a struggle to apply some ad hoc arguments to get around the problem.

"God can do anything" doesn't really fix it for then we can look into the how and what. If they agree that each entity has freewill and can make decisions apart from God.. this would simply be 3 individuals working together. If they say "No, it's all what God dictates and plans" then they truly aren't any more separate than my hand is, as distinguished from my body.

So.. I suppose the question could be asked. Is the Trinity one being with a single mind? or separate minds.

The Trinity sounds more and more like a Team, rather than one single entity.

In my face to face interviews with the average believer, the ones I wish to primarily address, the answer is usually, I don't know or One Being, three parts. But again, if they have minds, how can they one being.

I love to use this example.

If my hand had a mind and my penis (which it already does) has a mind. Are they the same as me, just different aspects? Or individuals with their own minds which are a part of my body? We'd be different beings, sharing a body.

Newbie First Class Joined: May 02, 2008 Posts: 39

In my Intro to the New Testament class that I currently taking, the early Christian sects struggled with multiplicity with just Jesus alone. Simply put the questions they asked were:

Is Jesus human? or is he God?
If he is God doesn't that mean there are two gods?
ect...

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:22 am

infidelguy wrote:

The Trinity sounds more and more like a Team, rather than one single entity.

This is the way the Jehovah's Witnesses look at it.

Confident Learner Joined: Jul 07, 2008 Posts: 71

Science is hard to understand because nature doesn't set up an educational system. Either the people do it or they set up stupid religions to confuse the issues.

they did the wrong one. Rolling Eyes

Now it has ot be undone starting with the basics.

Maybe these seven easy steps to create a theory for everything will help.

1. Create list of all scientific fields of study

2. Create list of all basic principles of each subject

3. Cross check all basic principles to make sure there are no contradictions

4. Create list of all intermediate principles of each subject

5. Cross check all intermediate principles to make sure there are no contradictions

6. Create list of all advanced principles of each subject

7. Cross check all advanced principles to make sure there are no contradictions

OK maybe it's not quite so easy however it will be a lot easier to do it this way than to do it in an unorganized way.

Even the basics are not always easy.

For example the basics of chemestry might be the table of elements. I never would have figured that out.

They had to go through a lot of research to figure that out and present it to the public.

I still don't know how to confirm it.

They need to do a better job showing the work and the public needs to do a better job stuying it.

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:46 am

infidelguy wrote:

So.. I suppose the question could be asked. Is the Trinity one being with a single mind? or separate minds.

The Trinity sounds more and more like a Team, rather than one single entity.

Sounds like you're onto a winner there Reggie!

Btw, why not check this out?
Matthew 12:22-30 & Mark 3:10-27 & Luke 11:14-23
These all deal with the same incident. The pivotal phrase Jesus uses is, "No kingdom divided against itself can stand."

Here he's talking about spiritual matters but using the example of Earthly kingdoms so that those listening will grasp what he means. The principle remains the same, however.

If the trinity is truly divided into fully separate, independent individuals how can it then stand as one unified whole or kingdom? According to Jesus it can't! Try running that past any christians you talk with! Their responses should be interesting. Wink

Oh and I like what you say about the hand and the penis.

Try comparing that to what the apostle Paul says about the parts of the body (referring to the corporate integrity of the church) in 1 Corinthians Chapter 12, especially verses 15 to 22. Not 100% on the same wavelength, but still interesting.

Thanks,

Born.

Newbie Joined: Oct 25, 2009 Posts: 14

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Unlike the social sciences, the answer in science to why questions is always, "Because it is just that way."

This makes it hard for kids to understand, because we are, as humans, natural psychologizers. We relate most to things we can make sense out of, and it is easier to make sense out of things that behave in ways that humans can relate to. We can relate, in turn, best to those things that we can ask 'why' questions about, because once we understand the reason behind it, it becomes easier to identify with and, in a way, less abstract.

This answer is unsatisfying because it is wrong. People are looking for the reason behind the complexity they see in the natural world, and believe it or not, we do know the "why" answer.

The answer to the "why" question is that the natural world follows rules.

We don't know why the world follows these rules, but that doesn't negate the fact that the world seems to follow them (and if we keep asking "why" chains, we'll be here all day). Wherever we look, we see rules in action and their effects. It is the purpose of science and the job of scientists to find these rules, no matter what those rules are and what their consequences, because those rules affect us even if we are ignorant of them or blatantly ignore them. They also affect how our world's history has unfolded. The better we understand our world's rules, the better we are at knowing about and living in this world.

Science has found a lot of these rules, and the world and everything in it has to obey them all, all the time, every time. If you have to obey a lot of rules at once, then things can easily get very complicated. Whatever we think of them, they are the rules of the world, and we can't change them no matter how much we hate them.

infidelguy wrote:

6.) In having their own minds, they are separate beings.

Or this one being is insane. Don't forget that possibility, Reggie. Twisted Evil

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:09 pm

Wyrm wrote:

Wherever we look, we see rules in action and their effects.

I'm not ready to call natural interactions "rules", unless you wish to apply the word to our understanding of the apparent limits of these interactions. Calling it a "rule" tends to imply the way nature interacts with itself is predefined by something else, just as calling nature a creation, tends to imply it was created by something else.

I like to think of it thusly. Was the universe created? No, the universe formed. The first implies an external cause (let the imagination soar) to nature, the second implies purely naturalistic interaction. We're now coming to understand that nature interacts within certain limits, I'm just not sure the word "rule" or even "law" is the best to describe these possible limitations. At best, using the word "rule" should be seen as a set of concepts we compile to understand how nature reacts, and the limits and variety of these reactions.

Sorry, I'm probably nitpicking.

Newbie Joined: Oct 25, 2009 Posts: 14

Calling a rule an "observed regularity in nature" is too much of a mouthful. That's why we normally call them "laws", as a shorthand jargon. I suppose the only remedy is to point that out on the outset.

"Principle" doesn't sound too horrifying, but does it have any legs?

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:05 am

Wyrm wrote:

Calling a rule an "observed regularity in nature" is too much of a mouthful. That's why we normally call them "laws", as a shorthand jargon. I suppose the only remedy is to point that out on the outset.

"Principle" doesn't sound too horrifying, but does it have any legs?

I actually like "observed regularities in nature" better. Very Happy

I think precision is important when discussing such ideas, and being a little more expansive in our descriptions can remove possible ambiguities that might fuel the supernatural, creationist's fire; if you care about that sort of thing. You just know if the word "rule" or "law" is used they're going to ask who created it.

Just Arrived Joined: Nov 26, 2009 Posts: 5

Perhaps the best way to help people to understand science is to teach them about cause and effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZGxeh2k-aw

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:15 pm

Quote:

Yeah, the Elohim are still there in the tower of Babel story. They say, "Let 'us' go down and confuse their language..."

People need to bring this up on TV interviews when creationists are trying to attack natural evolution.

Oh, that's easy. "We" refers to God,Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Really! This is what I was taught as a Christian many years ago. You see, God sits in heaven on a big throne, and Jesus sits next to him on another throne....er, even though they are the same being. I don't know what, if anything, the Holy Spirit sits on...another throne, I guess, or maybe it just floats around. So, yeah, "we" is proof of the Trinity in the Old Testament. Laughing

As for science being difficult, yes it is, and people want things to be easy, as a general rule. Belief is easy; thinking is hard. Accepting what your parents taught you is easy; learning to understand scientific stuff is hard. Faith in God is easy; studying the real world is hard. That is another reason why people resist science. It is simply easier to settle for "God did it," and then not worry your little head about it any more.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile