Originally posted by jaywillokay, you can join your friend ross in his lies. call him an atheist if it will make you feel better. never mind that wikipedia says he's a christian. never mind that he calls himself a non-denominational christian (in his books and articles). never mind that christian productions invite him as a christian scientist guest speaker. never mind all that. he's an atheist.
Wikipedia was the first place I went.
3 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
okay, you can join your friend ross in his lies. call him an atheist if it will make you feel better. never mind that wikipedia says he's a christian. never mind that he calls himself a non-denominational christian (in his books and articles). never mind that christian productions invite him as a christian scientist guest speaker. never mind all that. he's an atheist.
okay, you can join your friend ross in his lies.
No. I don't join my friend and his lies. I ignore your vehement reactionary exaggerations. And I consider the substantial contribition which Ross has made to science and my search for truth.
I realize that any step away from atheism and a designless universe is going to infuriate people like you and is going to be resisted on every front.
I am not turning back from the truth because of your fierce opposition and slander, even if you have somewhat of a point in someone's misstep. The big picture is still definitely on the side of design and a Creator.
call him an atheist if it will make you feel better.
On this point, I do not call this Freeman Dyson person an Atheist for certain. On that score, it is still an unknown to me until I read his own words.
Now my understanding is that this Mathematician (whether Atheist or Agnostic or Pantheist or what) said something to the effect that - It seems that the universe knew that we were coming.
If Ross is dead wrong on Dyson's theism, this word of Dyson, I think, is still quite right. The universe seems to have known man was coming. In this regard Dr. Ross and FReeman Dyson are in agreement.
That point is much more important to me. But I do not know that Dyson is an Atheist / Agnostic. And Ross may be incorrect there. It is a gray area so far.
never mind that wikipedia says he's a christian. never mind that he calls himself a non-denominational christian (in his books and articles). never mind that christian productions invite him as a christian scientist guest speaker. never mind all that. he's an atheist.
I didn't notice that in my brief look at Wikipedia. I looked for the man's talks and articles. I'll go back and see if I can find that paragraph. But I didn't depend primarily on Wiki. I went to an archive of lectures in universities to find his speeches on Ethics and Natural Theology.
Freeman Dyson has said this:
“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God's mind?”
I admit that that may not be an Atheist speaking. But depending on his definition of God, he might be a Deist or Pantheist or Panentheist. Einstien spoke of God but did not believe in a person God of the Bible.
Maybe Ross is mistaken on Dyson's beliefs. It is still an unknown to me.
He is not mistaken though, that Dyson is right that the universe seems to have known that human beings were to arrive in it.
That is a point for Creationism.
3 edits
This is the paragraph ViodSpirit must be refering to in Wikipedia, which I read the first time also:
He is a non-denominational Christian and has attended various churches from Presbyterian to Roman Catholic. Regarding doctrinal or Christological issues, he has said "I am neither a saint nor a theologian. To me, good works are more important than theology." [45]
Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.[45]
This is not enough to inform me that a person is not an Atheist or Agnostic. So I went to look for the man's own words.
But I do take the point that Wiki assumes Dyson is a church going Christian. From experience, however, Unitarians, Mormons, Universalists, even an Ethical minded Atheist might refer to him or herself as a Christian.
"I agree with the Golden Rule. So I must be a Christian."
" I believe we should love one another. So I must be a Christian."
Sorry. This Wiki information is noted. But I would prefer to see a self confession of Freeman Dyson's stand on the existence of God to be more certain. Some people do not LIKE too be pinned down to definitely. Some vocal people like to keep their beliefs obscure from too definite a classification.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillwiki is just an introduction. you're supposed to verify the evidence for yourself. exactly how much research did you do?
This is the paragraph ViodSpirit must be refering to in Wikipedia, which I read the first time also:
[quote] He is a non-denominational Christian and has attended various churches from Presbyterian to Roman Catholic. Regarding doctrinal or Christological issues, he has said "I am neither a saint nor a theologian. To me, good works are more important ome vocal people like to keep their beliefs obscure from too definite a classification.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/mar/28/science-religion-no-ends-in-sight/?pagination=false
5 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirithttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/mar/28/science-religion-no-ends-in-sight/?pagination=false
more quotes from freeman dyson;
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
no mistaking, the man is a christian theist. he is not an "atheist-agnostic" according to the lies of ross.
Thanks for finding this article. I'll take a look.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDidn't I repeatedly say that that is what I was trying to do ?
wiki is just an introduction. you're supposed to verify the evidence for yourself. exactly how much research did you do?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/mar/28/science-religion-no-ends-in-sight/?pagination=false
7 edits
The words of Freeman Dyson:
What are we who are not Christians, or we Christians who are not theologians,
This is a long article. I have not finished the entire writng. But this paragraph is giving me some kind of impression of Freeman Dyson's beliefs.
I think when he says that "we Christians who are not THEOLOGIANS' [my emphasis] that signals to me that there is something gray and weak about the man's concept of God. His wavering in where he stands is expressed in this kind of way IE. "Now, I am no Theologian" (paraphrase).
When people talk this way, apologizing that they are not THEOLOGIANS, it is often kind of coded way of saying they do not have a personal God. But lets go on.
to make of all this? We are in the position of anthropologists observing the rituals and liturgy of an alien culture. As anthropologists, we try to understand the alien way of thinking and we try to enter into the alien culture as far as we can. We make friends with individual members of the alien culture and listen to their stories. We respect them as human beings, struggling in their own way to deal with the mysteries of life and death, sharing with us our common weaknesses, fears, passions, and bewilderments. We respect their faith in the love of God, whether or not we share it.
Look at these words carefully. "We respect them as human beings ... We respect their faith in the love of God, whether or not we share it."
Now it is difficult to ascertain if Freeman Dyson is including himself among the good example of one who "respect[s]" someone else's belief in the love of God yet, himself, DOES NOT SHARE IT.
So far where Dyson himself stands is not easy to grasp. I see that he holds up as a good model of humanity, to RESPECT other's belief in the love of God. But I do not know that Dyson SHARES any such belief. He may in fact be Agnostic about God's whole existence.
But he is a tolerant and magnanimus person who wishes to RESPECT and even meet with other people who MAY believe in God or the love of God.
I am doing this on the fly. When I find something definite indicating to me Dyson confesses his belief in God, I will highlight that as I go along.
So far I see someone hinting that he is no "theologian." Whether this means he has no God, I am not yet sure. Freeman Dyson may not WANT people to be that sure about this.
I am myself a Christian, a member of a community that preserves an ancient heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own fashion.
Okay. Do we have a smoking gun here ?? Do these words cause me to be sure I am reading the words of a Christian Theist ? Do these words indicate without doubt he is a THEIST ?
Well, in my opinion, not quite yet. He says he is a Christian. But here, in his mind, is what that means to him:
1.) He is a MEMBER of a community that preserves an ancient heretage of great liturature.
Hmmm. Okay, I suppose he means that the Bible, perhaps the King James Bible is "great liturature". Well it IS. I agree. But you are naive if you think everyone who thinks the Bible or religious liturature is great, is a THEIST. They clearly are not. Plenty of English professors will say that the King James Bible or the writings of Augustine are "great" liturature.
At this point I am WANTING to see something that would unambiguously indicate Dyson as a believer in God.
2.) He appreciates the "great music" of Chrisianity. Fine. So do I. So do some Agnostics and Atheists appreciate the B Minor Mass of J.S. Bach or the Oratorio "The Creation" by Joseph Haydn or Handel's "Messiah". Sure. Many people appreciate the "great liturature" of Christianity and the "great music" of Christianity.
Doesn't mean that they believe in God. Sorry. But let's go on. I am looking for something more definite.
3.) He says he's a Christian who assembles with people who " provides help and counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates children in moral responsibility, "
Well, that is very commendable. But not everyone at a Outreach of social services is a believer in God. They may be "good" people. There are "good" Agnostics who perform community services very much needed by people.
Teaching children moral responsibility, counseling troubled youths, assisting the elderly, are all good works in themselves. By this information, I cannot know that Dyson Freeman believes in God.
I hope he just comes out and tells us he does. Some people like to keep that close to the vest. Some people consider their personal beliefs to be just that, very personal.
Then he says:
4.) He assembles with some people who " and worships God in its own fashion. ".
Nothing wrong with that. But it is rather obscure. I don't know that he believes in thanking God, praising God, petitioning God, telling God he loves God. Maybe God to him is the whole universe - Pantheism.
Okay, Pantheism is, I suppose, a Theism of a sort. But my point is that so far it is hard, from his own words, to clearly see that he is anymore than a religious man with a keen ethical sense of humanism who likes great liturature and great music, and does not want to be seen as shoning Christianity as a cultural icon.
But I find Polkinghorne’s theology altogether too narrow for my taste.
I don't know enough about Polkinghorn's theology to comment.
But above Dyson curiously hinted that he himself in no theologian. I don't know if that means that he has no theology or that he has no Theos.
I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe.
VoidSpirit may think of Feeman Dyson as a Fundamentalist Christian. I don't know. VoidSpirit may think of Dyson as a apologist for Theism. But this sounds to me like a perculiar kind of stance for one who believes in God. He has no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions ...
"Beliefs in a single tribe" sounds like he has a beef with Judeo / Christian foundations of the Holy Bible. This sounds to me like a Unitarian or a Universalist would speak.
It is clear to me at this point, that Freeman Dyson, may be a respectful and tolerant religious person who may or may not himself believe in God. Like many modernist or theologically liberal students at, say, Union Theological Seminary. Up to this point I still read nothing that for certain indicates he believes in God. He probably does not believe in any personal God. He may see God as Einstien saw God - non-personal Deistic, or Pantheistic, or Panentheistic.
For sure, he is no apologist for orthodox Chrisian belief. He looks suspiciously at the Bible because it DOES claim some answers and came largly out of the "tribe" of the nation of Jews.
At this point I see nothing indicating that Dr. Hugh Ross's opinion that Freeman Dyson is an Agnostic / Atheist is a "lie" . Ross may know something I don't. Ross is calling it as he sees it.
Ross could be completely wrong. I don't think up to this point he would be LYING about his sizing up Dyson deliberately.
Going on
I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian.
That is pretty perculiar.
No, I didn't say a believing Christian who is not a PRACTICING Christian is normal. I said it is perculiar that Dysons says he is NOT a "believing Christian" .
If he meant that he believes strongly in ethical acts and service which puts practicality on his Christian faith he could have said he was simply a practicing Christian. But if Dyson wanst me to know more than that he is a good laboring Christian, doing good works, practicing what he preaches and not simply a pew sitting passive listener, he could say he is a believing Christian who does labors of good.
But that is not how he puts it. He wants you to know that he is "NOT" a believing Christian.
So you have to take his confession above in this light, when he said "I myself am a Christian ...". What kind of Christian are you Mr. Dyson ?
Ie. " I like great liturature. I like great music. I worship God in my own way. And believe in those helping troubled youth and old people. I like to be with them and serve with them. And I am NOT a believing Christian. I am better than that. I am a practicing Christian. And don't like narrow theology that has all the answers, especially if they come out of one tribe. " [all paraphrased]
How do I even know he believes in the existence of God ? I don't. Sounds like an Agnostic to me.
To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension.
Does that mean he believes in the existence of God ? I don't know.
He's skating close to SOME kind of theology, for someone who says he is no theologian.
You see, by saying that he is no theologian, Dyson may have his own manner of saying that he is Agnostic about the existence of God.
When I listen to Polkinghorne describing the afterlife, I think of God answering Job out of the whirlwind, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?… Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding…. Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? Or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?” God’s answer to Job is all the theology I need.
This is rather Agnostic, in my opinion. Dyson is really s...
continued:
This is rather Agnostic, in my opinion. Dyson is really saying to me "I DON'T KNOW" . That is what I hear him saying.
He does not really know that there is a God. Where were you at the creation ? He quotes the book of Job . This he says is ALL the theology he needs. That is that he really DOESN'T KNOW too much about God.
I can see why Dr. Ross, up to this point, would peg Freeman Dyson as an Agnostic. But I could still be wrong. Ross, could still be wrong.
Dyson is kind of in a gray area. I think he WANTS to be in a kind of gray area. I think he doesn't want to be labelled too clearly.
As a scientist, I live in a universe of overwhelming size and mystery. The mysteries of life and language, good and evil, chance and necessity, and of our own existence as conscious beings in an impersonal cosmos are even greater than the mysteries of physics and astronomy. Behind the mysteries that we can name, there are deeper mysteries that we have not even begun to explore.
I will continue to read Freeman Dyson's article. Up to this point there is hardly much to clearly identify Freeman Dyson as a Theist. For certain he is no apologist for fundamental Christianity. He is no apologist for Reform Theology. He is no apologist for Protestant Christian faith.
I know he appreciates the contributions of music, liturature, and social services of Christianity to civilization. He is rather obscure and Agnostic about the actual existence of God as far as I have read this article.
And though Hugh Ross may indeed be mistaken about Freeman Dyson, I see no lies.
Originally posted by jaywillhe is a christian by his claim and beliefs, a believer of intelligent design and god (thus, a theist). he is also an apologist for christianity. he may not be your kind of christian, or maybe not christian enough for the likes of you and ross, but that is irrelevant. to call him an atheist/agnostic is a lie.
continued:
This is rather Agnostic, in my opinion. Dyson is really saying to me [b]"I DON'T KNOW" . That is what I hear him saying.
He does not really know that there is a God. Where were you at the creation ? He quotes the book of Job . This he says is ALL the theology he needs. That is that he really DOESN'T KNOW too much about God. ...[text shortened]... icle.
And though Hugh Ross may indeed be mistaken about Freeman Dyson, I see no lies.[/b]
bottom line is that dyson is a theist who believes in intelligent design. he was dishonestly sold as an atheist who sees intelligent design in the universe in order to support ross's other lies.
9 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
he is a christian by his claim and beliefs, a believer of intelligent design and god (thus, a theist). he is also an apologist for christianity. he may not be your kind of christian, or maybe not christian enough for the likes of you and ross, but that is irrelevant. to call him an atheist/agnostic is a lie.
bottom line is that dyson is a [i]theist[ ...[text shortened]... s an atheist who sees intelligent design in the universe in order to support ross's other lies.
he is a christian by his claim and beliefs, a believer of intelligent design and god (thus, a theist). he is also an apologist for christianity.
[/i]
Wishful thinking doesn't count here. He said that he "is not a believing Christian".
He may be a Pantheist or a Panentheist.
he may not be your kind of christian, or maybe not christian enough for the likes of you and ross, but that is irrelevant. to call him an atheist/agnostic is a lie.
A person who says that he is "not a believing Christian" puts a big qualifier on his beliefs .
Those are his own words. He is "not a believing Christian". But I'll tell you what. I am not giving up trying to figure out where he stands. But I take him, thus far, at his word. He is not a man that I would be able to call a " believing Christian".
So he's some kind of non-believing or un-believing [in the biblical revelation of God] religious person.
bottom line is that dyson is a theist who believes in intelligent design. he was dishonestly sold as an atheist who sees intelligent design in the universe in order to support ross's other lies.
Even his views on intelligent design are a bit obscure to me. And Ross may be mistaken. He's not deliberately lying IMO.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillor a unitarian... the wishful thinking is on your part. it's entirely irrelevant what kind of christian he is. bottom line is that he is a theist, not an atheist. bottom line is that ross is a liar and you are going out of your way to defend his lies. i call them deliberate lies because these lies were designed to lead up to his other lies. one lie to support another.he is a christian by his claim and beliefs, a believer of intelligent design and god (thus, a theist). he is also an apologist for christianity.
[/i]
Wishful thinking doesn't count here. He said that he [b]"is not a believing Christian".
He may be a Pantheist or a Panentheist.
[quote]
he may not be your kind of christia are a bit obscure to me. And Ross may be mistaken. He's not deliberately lying IMO.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
or a unitarian... the wishful thinking is on your part. it's entirely irrelevant what kind of christian he is. bottom line is that he is a theist, not an atheist. bottom line is that ross is a liar and you are going out of your way to defend his lies. i call them deliberate lies because these lies were designed to lead up to his other lies. one lie to support another.
" I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. " Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson says he is not a believing Christian. His own words. Maybe he's a theist. It is not too clear.
I don't think Freeman Dyson really wants you to label his beliefs too definitely.
That's my bottom line.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritTypo. Sorry. This misquote should read:
or a unitarian... the wishful thinking is on your part. it's entirely irrelevant what kind of christian he is. bottom line is that he is a theist, not an atheist. bottom line is that ross is a liar and you are going out of your way to defend his lies. i call them deliberate lies because these lies were designed to lead up to his other lies. one lie to support another.
He said that ... "[but] not a believing Christian".