I have some legitimate questions about Christianity, and knowing that this forum is populated with theists, particularly Christians, that are informed and articulate, I thought this would be a good place to address them.
Because of the sensitive subject of the topic, I'd like to disclaim that I do not set out to insult, inflame, or harm anyone, I merely have some valid questions that I would like to discuss. Also, I am not referring to all Christians or Christian practices in my writing by any means, just certain ones to be stated.
I'd like to clear up that these questions apply for those who take the Bible literally, in its entirety. Also, it applies to those who say they believe in the Bible, yet don't bother to fully read it. Or, some who say they weren't supposed to read it at all, despite it being the "ultimate" truth. I am also, to a much lesser extent, referring to those practices that are never mentioned in the Bible, yet still continue on. (Like original sin, etc.)
Does anyone else notice the blaring hypocrisy in the vast majority of modern Christian practices today? I am referring to how many Christians state that they worship a loving God, a just God, yet there are many grotesque passages in the Bible about how God orders his people to kill, rape, murder etc. Like when taking over the Canaanites, God orders them to kill without discretion, to take the lives of women, children, men, animals, for "their souls are corrupt," despite the fact that they are innocent children.
In some particularly gruesome scenes, he orders the "bellies of women to ripped apart", the head of children to be smashed on rocks...Pardon my not quoting particular verses, I don't have my Bible handy atm.
How could a just God, let alone one opposed to abortion, claim that his children should do this?
How would any just God claim to love you irregardless of your sins, yet still send you to hell when you defy his wishes?
What happens to those that have never even heard of Jesus, yet have to saved through him, and die without ever hearing his name? Will they go to hell?
Why did Jesus have to be baptized, despite his being blameless?
I also notice how many Christian concepts are taken from older Pagan religions, like the vast majority of holidays, the story of Jesus, (see the link), even the Christian concept of hell was taken from the old Norse word, Hel, the goddess of the afterlife. (Although the firey place of Brimstone is not in Norse mythology.)
Here's a link detailing many of the points I'd like to raise, it's jut a pamphlet that I that covers many of the inconsistencies. :
I wanted to give you a link that was more succinct, even if it's not as comprehensive.
This just covers several of the points I wanted to expound upon and several others in a more organized format.
I think it can best be summed up in that quote by Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus, 341-271 BC
I know that you are all intelligent, well-researched and learned people, and I know that anyone secure in their religion won't mind a few questions.
Also, although I don't know if it makes any difference, although I'm clearly not a Christian, I'm not an atheist either.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Disclaimer: I'm definitely an atheist.
I do not buy that you are legitimately curious, especially since you did not seem to come up with these objections yourself, or particularly attempt to understand how people generally come to terms with the Bible. For the record, actually quoting verses helps. It shows you've done the research.
But perhaps I can help shed some light, or at least go into a little more detail.
quote:Does anyone else notice the blaring hypocrisy in the vast majority of modern Christian practices today? I am referring to how many Christians state that they worship a loving God, a just God, yet there are many grotesque passages in the Bible about how God orders his people to kill, rape, murder etc. Like when taking over the Canaanites, God orders them to kill without discretion, to take the lives of women, children, men, animals, for "their souls are corrupt," despite the fact that they are innocent children.
To be absolutely clear, most (if not all) of the bloody, gruesome, vengeful bits are Old Testament. The 'loving God' usually comes from the New Testament, which I think was intended to be an updating of the old ways (whether it's regarded as one theologically or not.)
In addition, some people do not regard a loving God at odds with the bloody vengeance. After all, great love can drive people to do all kinds of things to enemies, especially if those enemies are evil. This is consistent with a more ancient view of justice, compared to our modern 'do no harm' view.
That said, I do not find the New Testament as touchy-feely as it is usually regarded in the popular imagination. A lot of what we think of when we think of Jesus and that theological era does not come from the Bible but from later elaborations. One of the things that seems to have grown out of later tellings and retellings is a very touchy-feely version of the New Testament and this is the one I grew up with as Culturally Christian.
Like I said, I'm not at all religious, but when I started reading the New Testament I genuinely believed that Jesus was a pretty great guy when it came to modern sensibilities about forgiveness, love and such. I have to say, I was pretty surprised when, reading Matthew, to discover this wasn't actually the case. There are examples of this version of Jesus, certainly, but there are also a lot of "less friendly" occurrences.
Compared to the Old Testament God, Jesus is sweetness and light. But compared to today's sensibilities, he is not. He's still fighting a war and he's not out to make sure people feel warm and fuzzy about this new version of the religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. I don't think you'll get any answers that will satisfy you, because there aren't any; Bronze Age tribal rules just don't match up well with actual morality. There are three main positions, exemplified by people on this forum:
kmbboots believes (to the extent she believes anything, which is not a large extent) that those parts of the Bible she doesn't like were not in fact inspired by her god, or were terribly misunderstood by the writers.
BlackBlade believes that if the evils described had not occurred, something even worse would have happened.
Lisa believes the victims had it coming; after all they weren't Jews.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KoM: You should probably let people state their own views rather than sum them up through a KoM filter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, at first I was worried about electing KoM spokesman for theist positions (for some crazy reason), but now I see I was worried for nothing!
ETA: Let me add that I share Teshi's impression about the intent of your post, Vyrus.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Others more qualified than I will surely respond, but I can tackle a couple of those.
quote:What happens to those that have never even heard of Jesus, yet have to saved through him, and die without ever hearing his name? Will they go to hell?
Different denominations answer this differently, but Catholicism's answer is "not necessarily." We trust to the mercy of a God who understands the impossible standard this would set. We hold that salvation comes through Jesus, but how exactly that applies to those who never hear about him is unknown.
quote:I also notice how many Christian concepts are taken from older Pagan religions, like the vast majority of holidays, the story of Jesus, (see the link), even the Christian concept of hell was taken from the old Norse word, Hel, the goddess of the afterlife. (Although the firey place of Brimstone is not in Norse mythology.)
Just a not about the linguistic aspect of this. You're confusing a word with an entire concept. "Hell" is an English word. Its etymology is quite reasonably derived from a pre-English word, but that does not mean the whole concept is derived thus. In Latin, it's infernum, gehenna, or baratrum. Other languages use different words. It's a similar case with "Easter". Just because the word derives from the Anglo-Saxon term for spring, and the springtime goddess, does not mean the Christian Easter (paschum) is about an Anglo-Saxon goddess.
Of course, there ARE lots of traditions that have common associations with old pagan traditions, but don't confuse etymology with syncretism.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't believe the Bible is necessarily literally true down to every detail, but I do think the following points apply to your questions:
Firstly, the "omnipotence" of God is a concept that may have been hijacked over the years. It seems likely that there are at least some limitations He must face - creating a stone He can't lift, for instance. An absolutely omnipotent God could step in and force everyone to do exactly His will, yet He does not, so it seems likely there's some sort of framework of limitations even if they are self-imposed. I don't think this would make God any less God.
Secondly, if you approach morality from a utilitarian viewpoint, it would make sense that God should follow somewhat different moral rules than human beings - simply because God knows what ends his actions will result in, while human beings do not. For instance, the ethics of killing a human being would be somewhat different if you could know for sure that person would instantly be in heaven upon their death, living happily for eternity.
Thirdly, I think most Christians would say that suffering is a necessary element in God's plan - and that it stems from free will.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Disclaimer: I'm definitely an atheist.
I do not buy that you are legitimately curious, especially since you did not seem to come up with these objections yourself, or particularly attempt to understand how people generally come to terms with the Bible. For the record, actually quoting verses helps. It shows you've done the research.
But perhaps I can help shed some light, or at least go into a little more detail.
quote:Does anyone else notice the blaring hypocrisy in the vast majority of modern Christian practices today? I am referring to how many Christians state that they worship a loving God, a just God, yet there are many grotesque passages in the Bible about how God orders his people to kill, rape, murder etc. Like when taking over the Canaanites, God orders them to kill without discretion, to take the lives of women, children, men, animals, for "their souls are corrupt," despite the fact that they are innocent children.
To be absolutely clear, most (if not all) of the bloody, gruesome, vengeful bits are Old Testament. The 'loving God' usually comes from the New Testament, which I think was intended to be an updating of the old ways (whether it's regarded as one theologically or not.)
In addition, some people do not regard a loving God at odds with the bloody vengeance. After all, great love can drive people to do all kinds of things to enemies, especially if those enemies are evil. This is consistent with a more ancient view of justice, compared to our modern 'do no harm' view.
That said, I do not find the New Testament as touchy-feely as it is usually regarded in the popular imagination. A lot of what we think of when we think of Jesus and that theological era does not come from the Bible but from later elaborations. One of the things that seems to have grown out of later tellings and retellings is a very touchy-feely version of the New Testament and this is the one I grew up with as Culturally Christian.
Like I said, I'm not at all religious, but when I started reading the New Testament I genuinely believed that Jesus was a pretty great guy when it came to modern sensibilities about forgiveness, love and such. I have to say, I was pretty surprised when, reading Matthew, to discover this wasn't actually the case. There are examples of this version of Jesus, certainly, but there are also a lot of "less friendly" occurrences.
Compared to the Old Testament God, Jesus is sweetness and light. But compared to today's sensibilities, he is not. He's still fighting a war and he's not out to make sure people feel warm and fuzzy about this new version of the religion.
I understand what you're saying. But, considering both the Old and New Testaments are parts of the Bible, which is, in theory, supposed to be taken as a whole, I don't see how the discrepancy between the attitudes of the two is extremely relevant.
Jesus never set out to form Christianity, merely to deliver a message to God's chosen people, the Jews, and stated himself (Matt.5:17-9) that all of the rules in the Old Testament still applied.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: ... does not mean the Christian Easter (paschum) is about an Anglo-Saxon goddess.
Indeed. My observations this time of the year leads me to believe that Christian Easter celebrates the fact that the Easter Bunny died for all of our sins and that we must acknowledge this fact by taking communion with chocolate eggs.
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus: ... and stated himself (Matt.5:17-9) that all of the rules in the Old Testament still applied.
Ah yes. A most moving passage:
quote: 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the zombies, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to purify.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth and zombies pass, many bullets or many shells shall blaze from my gun, till all zombie dead be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall eat one of these brains, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and slay them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Do those observations include the church services conducted on Easter Sunday across the country?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Like I said, although theologically it may all be equal, I find it very hard to conceive that Jesus' appearance is not supposed to mark a change in certain aspects of the dogma even when you consider when he goes over the rules again.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Like I said, although theologically it may all be equal, I find it very hard to conceive that Jesus' appearance is not supposed to mark a change in certain aspects of the dogma even when you consider when he goes over the rules again.
What changes specifically do you feel take place? Also, what parts of the Bible still apply, or should be emphasized?
Also, to everybody: Sorry about any smarkyness that I may convey-it was unintentional.
Also, apologize for not being fully comprehensive.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: In some particularly gruesome scenes, he orders the "bellies of women to ripped apart", the head of children to be smashed on rocks...Pardon my not quoting particular verses, I don't have my Bible handy atm.
How could a just God, let alone one opposed to abortion, claim that his children should do this?
It's be a good idea to have your Bible handy for reference if you're going to start criticizing those who don't know what it contains...
I'm not sure of the answer to your question; I've got ideas about the why, but they mostly center on people having an imperfect knowledge of God.
So it's apologetics, not necessarily justification.
Alas!
However-- you realize that very few of us are actually in the audience you're criticizing? Most of the believers here do not take Scriptures 100% literally; most of us have read and considered our Scriptures; and most of us have discussed these subjects (ad nauseum...) here on this very board.
quote:How would any just God claim to love you irregardless of your sins, yet still send you to hell when you defy his wishes?
Let's first define what Hell is: strictly defined, hell is separation from God's presence. It is a spiritual state, in which the soul is agonized because of the separation. The separation comes from the soul's unwillingness to be with God, and to live the life required in order to be with Him.
The Book of Mormon teaches that it is better that a sinner be separated from God than be forced to be with Him. A sinner who is forced to live in God's presence would have more agony than if he were not near God.
Mormonism (a non-trinitarian Christian religion) teaches that the popular concept of Hell as a place, and as an eternal status, is false. There is a concept of Hell-- called Perdition-- but it is reserved for those who have absolute knowledge of God and of Christ, and who reject them anyway.
quote:What happens to those that have never even heard of Jesus, yet have to saved through him, and die without ever hearing his name? Will they go to hell?
They will be taught in the afterlife, and may accept Jesus Christ there. God is just-- those who never heard Christ's name during mortality will be given the chance to accept him after death.
quote:Why did Jesus have to be baptized, despite his being blameless?
Jesus says why:
quote:Matt. 3: 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
He was baptized in order to be obedient to the commandments of the Father.
In the Book of Mormon:
quote:2 Nephi 31
5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water! 6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? 7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments. 8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove. 9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them. 10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
quote:I also notice how many Christian concepts are taken from older Pagan religions, like the vast majority of holidays, the story of Jesus, (see the link), even the Christian concept of hell was taken from the old Norse word, Hel, the goddess of the afterlife. (Although the firey place of Brimstone is not in Norse mythology.)
Yep. The story of the Son of God is told in many religions, and many religious practices. The fact that others told stories about Christ before he was ever born doesn't surprise me at all, considering how important he turned out to be.
quote:"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
God is not omnipotent. It's not a big deal.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Matt. 15:11 “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”
Maybe?
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Vyrus, I too doubt you will find any good answers and I personally doubt there are any good answers to find. I admire your tenacity in searching, though.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
Well it's been many years since I have read the old testament and many more since I've read it in English. So if you can find me the references for the verses you quoted then I'm sure we can have a good disscussion. If I'm stuck finding them myself it may take a number of months(last time I read the old testament it took me a year, but your quotes should be somewhere in the first 6 books).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:I've got ideas about the why, but they mostly center on people having an imperfect knowledge of God.
Yup. (Thanks, Scott.)
The tendency to anthropomorphize God is both a comfort and an obstacle.
What do you mean that the Bible should be considered as a whole? It is a bunch of different kinds of writings that should be understood as what they are. And it is not the "whole" - there is plenty more information about how to be in a relationship with God that isn't found in the Bible. It is to be hoped that we get better at understanding God. Creation isn't over with.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Vyrus, I can’t speak for all Christians, or even all Catholics (which is what I am). But I can tell you how I handle these question. The Bible says a lot – a lot – of things that I don’t agree with, and I’ve struggled to reconcile that with my own experiences of God. For a while I decided the whole Christianity thing was a crock; the thing that changed my mind was Julian of Norwich.
In case you don’t know anything about her, Julian of Norwich was a 14th century mystic and anchorite. During her life she had numerous experiences of God, which she kept to herself for years before deciding that it was important to share them with the rest of the world. In the end she wrote a book called Revelations of Divine Love. It’s a remarkable book, well worth reading, and it resonated with me in so many ways – not just with my Catholicism but with my own experiences of God.
Anyway, there’s this one part in it where Julian asks God to send her a vision of hell, and God doesn’t do it. She says “And for my desire [to see hell] I coude [see] of [it] ryte nowte.” She goes on to say how this only strengthened her belief in hell.
I liked this bit. She believed in hell, and wanted to see hell, and God didn’t show it to her; and still the way she interpreted the event was, Hell is real. I believe Julian really did experience God in her showings, but I don’t believe in hell. It’s one of those things I’ve never been able to reconcile with my beliefs in a loving God, and my experiences of what God is like. So reading this gave me one of those epiphanies that feel earth-shaking but are really a bit obvious: You can have a true experience of God, and learn wisdom from God, and still get things wrong when you try to articulate it. We are fenced in by the times we live in, our upbringing, the limits of language, and that puts certain filters in place that make it difficult for us to hear exactly what God is telling us, and to report it faithfully to others.
And that helped me with the Bible – it’s not contradictory to say that the writers of the Bible were receiving divine truth, and to say that you believe in God but not in all of the Bible. Rather than using the Bible as a strict guide to tell me what God is and what God isn’t, I think of what my (Jesuit) priest told me during my confirmation process. If your experiences of God lead you to peace and goodness, then they are true experiences of God; if not, then not. That’s the test I use now. It’s flawed, of course, because so am I – my experiences of God aren’t The Truth, but they’re the little piece of the truth that I’m able to comprehend and believe.
As far as the question of why do bad things happen to good people, I just do not know the answer. I believe in God because I can’t look at the world, and my life, and not believe in God. When I die, I dearly hope that God will be there and will say “This will explain everything,” because – truly – I don’t understand it now. De Tocqueville says that he would rather doubt his own incapacity to understand, than God’s goodness.
Hm. This ended up very long and serious. Usually I am posting about how sexy Tahmoh Penikett is with his shirt off. I feel exhausted from the effort of all this seriousness. Phew.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If your experiences of God lead you to peace and goodness, then they are true experiences of God; if not, then not.
This being so, what does the phrase 'of God' add to your understanding? What would change in your actions or life if you simply said 'experiences', no god required?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Actually, I have no problem with and believe the following:
quote:If your experiences [are of] peace and goodness, then they are true experiences of God; if not, then not.
"Lead to" is too broad - you can experience something horrible and that make you want some thing better, but that doesn't mean the something horrible was of the Lord. For instance, "hitting bottom" in an addiction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: That's probably the nicest treatment you've given any of my religious views. Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
KOM - I'm not talking about all experiences ever; I'm talking about my experiences of God. I believe my experiences of the divine to be true because they give me peace.
I don't know how I would lead my life without God. I doubt it would be enormously different, in terms of how I would behave and what I would do - I would still strive to be a good person and do the right thing. Fundamentally I don't think that I would change as a person; but I would be lacking something that currently provides me with comfort and support.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KOM - I'm not talking about all experiences ever; I'm talking about my experiences of God. I believe my experiences of the divine to be true because they give me peace.
I understand that; this is the subset of your experiences I was referring to. What does this word 'divine' add to your understanding? Suppose we label these experiences with a word not containing all that cultural baggage, say 'wakalix': You hold your experiences of the wakalix to be true because they give you peace. Is the sentence still true? If not, what about 'divine' makes it true? Better still, insert a description in terms of universally-understood adjectives, for example, "My experiences of feeling calm and lifted outside myself". (Obviously this is only an example, I don't know what it is that you are labeling 'divine' - indeed that's exactly the problem.) You may find that with such a substitution it doesn't make a lot of sense to label the experience 'true' anymore.
quote:[No major difference] but I would be lacking something that currently provides me with comfort and support.
When was the last time you faced some crisis that you mastered, which would have broken the counterfactual you who is an atheist? And supposing you can produce some examples of this, do you really want this to be your reason for believing something? I suspect that you agree with the statement "Beliefs should be supported by evidence, not by appeals to consequence". (If not, please correct me.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Vyrus, here is how I would look at these things you mention that seem to be theological inconsistencies:
God knows the end from the beginning. He knows the evil the man will do while he is still a child. Would not the world have been better off if Adolph Hitler had died as a child? God allowed Hitler to grow up to become what he was to become, so the world could learn a lesson it needed to learn, about the evil humanity is capable of without God. What about the children of a community wholly given over to violence and murder? Do not whole communities sometimes become so thoroughly evil, they should not be allowed to exist, let alone be perpetuated? This is apparently what God saw in some cases, when He called for certain tribes or clans to be eliminated.
There was a time when God saw it was necessary to wipe out the entire human race, when "violence filled the earth, and men's hearts were only "evil continually," except for eight people. It is amazing forebearance that God now allows so many to live. Remember that "in Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28) He sustains our every breath (Job 12:10; Dan. 5:23). That must mean that He necessarily knows us from the inside out. He knows what it is like to be the persecutor, and the victim. He feels what they feel, and is fully conscious of their thoughts.
But His nature is pure and Holy! What immense pain we all subject Him to! I think it is very profound the way the Christian writer Ellen G. White put it: "The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God." (Education, p. 263; also in God's Amazing Grace, p. 189) It should actually be a comfort to us to know that at Calvary, God showed us that He utterly refuses to embrace evil, even if He must endure a separation of a part of Himself because of it.
How long can we expect God to endure this burden we impose upon Him? How long must we crucify Christ afresh? It is not a matter of God being cruel to us, when "the cup of His wrath is full," and He acts to eliminate the worst offenders. It is a matter of us being cruel to God!
All human children are descended from Adam. Adam forfeited his right to exist. Therefore, no human being should exist, no child should be born, but for the forebearance of God, who provided a way for man to be restored to fellowship with Himself. Those who would suggest that God ever does anything that is unloving, are guilty of calling Good Evil, and setting forth human "good" as superior to God.
But inevitably, when God allows those who think this way to have "enough rope," they hang themselves with it, by demonstrating beyond question the true vileness and utter evil that results from what they would call "good."
God allows this demonstration to be made, so that all the intelligent beings in the universe who witness us will be satisfied forever of the truth in the dispute between Himself and Satan, so that "affliction shall not rise up the second time." (Nahum 1:9.) If God had wiped out Lucifer the instant he invented evil, all the other creatures would have suspected that maybe Lucifer was right in his charges against God. So God must allow the regime of evil to be played out on earth, so every question can be answered, and sin will never arise again.
[ April 15, 2009, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
KOM, the thing is - I can't prove God exists or doesn't exist. My beliefs in this case can't be based on scientific evidence, because experience of God is wildly subjective and varies from person to person. I believe in God because I want to, because my faith gives me strength; and, in recent years, because I have had internal experiences that do not seem to come from me. But I have had no experience, divine or otherwise, that cannot be explained except by the existence of God. Is that what you're asking?
As far as "beliefs should be supported by evidence, not by appeals to consequence" - I don't know. With things like gravity and the laws of motion, sure. With issues of morality or religion, it's a bit trickier. On what evidence do you base your beliefs about morality?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:With issues of morality or religion, it's a bit trickier. On what evidence do you base your beliefs about morality?
On evidence that an argument would likely be compelling to the hypothetical version of me that has infinite time to think about the problem and full information of all consequences; but this is somewhat beside the point, because "God exists" is a statement of fact. Again, I suggest you rephrase your beliefs into words without a lot of cultural baggage: Either "a powerful entity, possibly the cause of the existence of the universe, with a benevolent interest in humanity" exists, or it doesn't. Why would you handwave an important statement of fact like this one as "not to be supported by evidence"? You would not accept "because I want to" or "because it gives me strength" as reasons for belief in anything other than a god; why should this belief be treated so differently?
quote:I can't prove God exists or doesn't exist.
Yes, yes, but there's such a thing as designating a most probable scenario based on the existing evidence. Don't let proof become the enemy of evidence. It only exists in math, anyway.
quote:experience of God is wildly subjective and varies from person to person
It seems to me that this is a much better argument for "These experiences should not all be described using the same label" than "these experiences are magically support for my pre-existing hypothesis". What makes you think differently?
quote:in recent years, because I have had internal experiences that do not seem to come from me.
All right; this is legitimate evidence. But have you considered the Bayes math? Is it really, truly more likely that these experiences come from an external force that matches your pre-existing faith very precisely, than that you are interpreting them in a pre-arranged pattern?
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
quote: All right; this is legitimate evidence. But have you considered the Bayes math? Is it really, truly more likely that these experiences come from an external force that matches your pre-existing faith very precisely, than that you are interpreting them in a pre-arranged pattern?
I didn't say they matched my pre-existing faith. They don't match my pre-existing faith. They don't not match it either. So far, they've never really had anything to do with my religious beliefs at all. My religion is the way that I comprehend something incomprehensible to my brain; I would be really suspicious if my experiences of God aligned perfectly with that. My experience of God is always surprising, novel, and ultimately peaceful.
quote: You would not accept "because I want to" or "because it gives me strength" as reasons for belief in anything other than a god; why should this belief be treated so differently?
Maybe this would work better for you if I were casting it in terms of relationship, rather than belief. I have a relationship with God for the same reasons that I have relationships with anyone in my life - my family, my friends - because I believe those relationships enrich my life. I choose to be in them, because they make me happy. Does that make sense?
I am fully cognizant of the fact that this sounds idiotic to someone who doesn't believe in God. I get that it sounds like saying, "I enjoy my serious, long-term relationship with my Raggedy Ann doll." God is singular. God doesn't lend itself well to analogies.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I was going over the story of Moses with my son last Friday. I go to the part where "God made the Pharoah's heart obstinate.
Sasha said, "No he didn't. God wouldn't do that. He wants us all to be good."
Sometimes its hard to argue with a child.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Maybe this would work better for you if I were casting it in terms of relationship, rather than belief. I have a relationship with God for the same reasons that I have relationships with anyone in my life - my family, my friends - because I believe those relationships enrich my life. I choose to be in them, because they make me happy. Does that make sense?
The actions you are describing make sense. The language you are using does not make sense. Again, why do you use this word 'God' with all its connotations to describe what you admit you don't understand? How is this helpful?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. I don't think you'll get any answers that will satisfy you, because there aren't any; Bronze Age tribal rules just don't match up well with actual morality. There are three main positions, exemplified by people on this forum:
kmbboots believes (to the extent she believes anything, which is not a large extent) that those parts of the Bible she doesn't like were not in fact inspired by her god, or were terribly misunderstood by the writers.
BlackBlade believes that if the evils described had not occurred, something even worse would have happened.
Lisa believes the victims had it coming; after all they weren't Jews.
Which is exactly why I stayed out of this conversation.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
KOM, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you don't believe in God, obviously any reference to God will be nonsense - the way that it will sound silly to me if somebody is talking about the prophetic qualities of somebody I don't believe is a prophet. I call it "God" because it's peaceful and massive and unknowable and novel - I don't know what else to call it. I have no other words to call it by.
This may have missed the point of your question. As I say, I'm not sure what you're asking.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Vyrus, I'm not going to tackle any of your questions [not qualified] but here's a little feedback on style.
quote:Also, I am not referring to all Christians or Christian practices in my writing by any means, just certain ones to be stated.
I'd like to clear up that these questions apply for those who take the Bible literally, in its entirety. Also, it applies to those who say they believe in the Bible, yet don't bother to fully read it. Or, some who say they weren't supposed to read it at all, despite it being the "ultimate" truth. I am also, to a much lesser extent, referring to those practices that are never mentioned in the Bible, yet still continue on. (Like original sin, etc.)
If you have distinct groups in mind, it might help to address questions to the specific group to which they apply. I think it's good that you're trying to query people who hold certain specific beliefs, but it'd be more effective if you organized the format so that each group is addressed individually. "Group A [which I'm defining thusly]: What about this?" Then "Group B [defined]: I wonder about..". Know what I mean? It shows you've made an effort to understand the group you're addressing, and would help others avoid misunderstanding YOUR understanding of those groups. If you are misunderstanding those groups, this should make it easy to identify and correct those misunderstandings.
More importantly, though:
quote:Does anyone else notice the blaring hypocrisy in the vast majority of modern Christian practices today?
See, here you have adopted the tone of a prosecutor, not someone with sincere curiosity. You sound like you've already made up your mind. Plus, "vast majority" is hyperbolic - not at all supported by the rest of your post. In fact you don't seem to support it at all. "Modern Christian practices" might mean operations of a church, or the activities of church members related to the church, or just people trying to act Christian, but there doesn't seem to be a close tie between these "practices" and the problem of evil, or the vengeful/violent nature of some of the acts of God described in the OT.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth_Mauve, God did not write the Bible, humans did, inspired by Him. As such, they were His penmen, not His pen. Thus many things in the Bible are expressed in human terms, such as when it speaks of God being angry, or pouring out His wrath.
If you read the tenth chapter of 1 Chronicles, you will see where it says that King Saul was killed by the Philistines (v. 11). But it is also said that God killed him (v. 14): "But he did not inquire of the Lord; therefore He killed him." If you read the whole narrative, you will see that in actuality, Saul killed himself by falling on his own sword, after being mortally wounded by an arrow. This is one of the often-cited examples of how God often takes responsibility for things that He allows to happen, even though they are not His fault.
I would suggest it is the same in Exodus where it says that God "hardened" Pharoah's heart. Pharoah, of course, hardened his own heart; but God gave him the opportunity. What God actually did was bring Pharoah to the point of conviction, by giving him evidence that should have been enough to lead him to believe, so he could have repented. But instead, Pharoah chose to resist conviction by the Holy Spirit, and deny and seek to explain away the evidence God gave him in the plagues on Egypt. It is instructive that each time Pharoah did this, he became all the more obstinate, until finally he reached the point where no more conviction could reach him, and his heart was wholly given over to rebellion againt God.
The Apostle Paul warns about this same thing, if we continue to resist the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. He speaks of some people who have gone so far in lying and hypocrisy that they have become in effect "seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron" (1 Timothy 4:2).
When we read of God hardening Pharoah's heart, that should be cautionary to us, that we should not be like Pharoah. Look at the needless destruction Pharoah brought to his nation and people, because he hardened his heart and refused to yield to the voice of conscience and heed the conviction of the Spirit of God.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I have to say Ron, that is the best explanation of the Bible's accounts of God's cruelty that I've heard.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Darth_Mauve, God did not write the Bible, humans did, inspired by Him. As such, they were His penmen, not His pen. Thus many things in the Bible are expressed in human terms, such as when it speaks of God being angry, or pouring out His wrath.
Ron, it's really interesting to hear you say that; I had thought that you were a biblical literalist. Do you self-identify as one, or was I wrong in thinking that about you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KOM, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you don't believe in God, obviously any reference to God will be nonsense.
I don't think that's true. Suppose we consider WIMPs, weakly interacting massive particles, a hypothesized source of some largish chunk of the Universe's missing mass. There are some arguments for why they should exist, some arguments against, and some experimental evidence showing that their mass cannot be in this, that, and the next range. Now, suppose you are a physicist who finds the arguments against compelling; it is still not nonsense to say "WIMPs must have thus-and-so properties, and we are going to try to measure their mass by the following experimental procedure." It may be wrong, you may feel that the experiment is a waste of resources, but it is a perfectly sensible statement.
Further, notice that WIMP is a very specific term; it tells you exactly what kind of hypothetical particles are being discussed, and if you're working in this part of the field you can likely call to mind a considerable number of papers and the history of the hypothesis.
Now let us turn back to your 'God'. This is also a fairly specific term, although being much older it has had time to accumulate more connotations. Nonetheless, for English-speaking Western people there is some reasonably de-limitable set of images called up by this word, and the statement 'God exists' is certainly not nonsense for anyone; I obviously believe it is wrong, but it makes a claim of fact which I comprehend quite well.
So with that said, we can look at evidence in favour of the claim, 'God exists'. You appear to be saying that your experiences are such evidence. You also seem to be saying that they are not, you just call them 'divine' because they are mysterious and important. I submit that these two claims contradict each other. We have a perfectly good bin for things that are mysterious and important, labeled "subjects for inquiry". Historically, every time somebody has taken an item from this bin and put it in the 'God' bin, some scientist has come along, put it back in 'subjects for inquiry', inquired, and - oops - no gods.
Let me put it another way. Suppose you did not have these experiences. Would you still practice your religion? Would you still believe in it? (These are separate questions, by the way.) If you would not, how is this evidence for the existence of your god? If you would, what are you going to do when a scientist invents a pill that will give you exactly this experience?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I have to say Ron, that is the best explanation of the Bible's accounts of God's cruelty that I've heard.
Cold comfort to the first-born sons of the slaves (Exodus 11:5) and prisoners (Exodus 12:29), who died, though they obviously couldn't have had anything to do with keeping the Israelite slaves.
And to the charioteers, who wanted to flee. (Exodus 14:25)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But swbarnes, who really killed them? Pharoah was responsible for his land and people, and it was he who defied the authority of God after he had been warned of the consequences. Ten times, successively more severe. And the charioteers were in the midst of the Sea (most say Red Sea, but I believe better evidences shows it was the Gulf of Aqaba) because of Pharoah's orders.
What we do impacts others. Our evil can destroy those for whom we are responsible. That is an important lesson for the whole universe to learn, that evil is really and truly evil, and evil can bring widespread destruction to multitudes.
You see, you are demanding that God intervene supernaturally in every individual case in every single event of life. But yet, we as a species have in effect told God to back off, and not breathe down our necks. To a large extent, God has complied with this. As a result, we are mostly left to the reign of chance, as Solomon observed: "I again saw under the sun the race is not to the swift, and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is bread to the wise, nor wealth to the discerning, nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:11; NASB)
Noemon, I take the authority of the Bible as being supreme over all other authority. But it is the thoughts that are inspired, the God who gave the prophets their messages who is infallible. We do have to put forth the disciplined effort of sound scholarship. The most important key is to let the Bible define its own terms--especially in the case of prophetic symbols.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Pharoah was responsible for his land and people, and it was he who defied the authority of God after he had been warned of the consequences.
God could have made the same point by teleporting them out of the way. If I were to beat my child to death for eating candy, would you say he deserved it for defying my authority?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. I don't think you'll get any answers that will satisfy you, because there aren't any; Bronze Age tribal rules just don't match up well with actual morality. There are three main positions, exemplified by people on this forum:
kmbboots believes (to the extent she believes anything, which is not a large extent) that those parts of the Bible she doesn't like were not in fact inspired by her god, or were terribly misunderstood by the writers.
BlackBlade believes that if the evils described had not occurred, something even worse would have happened.
Lisa believes the victims had it coming; after all they weren't Jews.
You're such a dick sometimes.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lemme see if I can take a whack at some of the questions from a Jewish perspective, simply covering the OT questions.
First - Orthodox Jews take the Bible literally. However, the Oral law explains that the primary intent of a number of verses are allegorical. Like God's appendages - He doesn't have any. He took Israel out of Egypt with a "strong hand" - no hand. That's allegorical. We all know what that means.
The passages about dashing babies on rocks and the no mercy rules tend to apply to specific enemies of Israel. There are Jewish laws about battle, and this is not the general practice of Israel's armies. The people above who don't read the Bible literally - I don't know how they read these passages because God DID talk about killing babies and disemboweling people.
So here is how Orthodox Jews deal with the problem. Humanity does not define morality. Period. There are basic fundamentals when it comes to approaching a religion and you need to believe those fundamentals in order.
For instance, say you were raised as a Christian and what got you into Christianity is that someone told you that Christianity is about love and mercy. Then when you find an inconsistency and God acted another way, you aren't able to deal.
That's because the fundamentals should go something like (and I'm taking these off the top of my head):
1) I know that God Exists 2) I know that He is omnipotent 3) I know that He is not physical 4) I know that He is able to control every possible outcome in the world, can see into the hearts of man etc. 5) I know that God has revealed Himself to the world.
Jews continue in the following beliefs:
6) God revealed Himself directly to the nation of Israel 7) God's prophecy to Moses was direct - not divine inspiration like the other prophets - God DICTATED the Torah (OT) to Moses. 8) There will never again be a prophet like Moses (sorry guys)
And here are the ones that count:
9) God, in His revelations to Us, told us that He is Good.
9a) God is the greatest good there is - the source of goodness and thus the essence of Good.
10) Whatever God does, or commands is God.
Now we can proceed. What if something doesn't FEEL good to us? Well that means:
We don't know God's plan, we are woefully ignorant and are beings of poor perspective, so cut God some slack.
Draw from your own life. In mine, i can think of times where I felt like God was being downright mean - and only a few years down the road did I realize that those supposed 'bad times' cleared the path for some of the most amazing things in the world.
Remember that human beings often tend to be inconsiderate of a bigger picture and wider perspective. I mean seriously, we get into the same fights with the same family and friends over and over often because we fail to live in the bigger picture.
So in a really rough and poorly articulated way, lemme dip into the "purpose of the world"
Judaism believes that God created the world for people to enjoy His goodness. Roughly - God is the ultimate Good, the ultimate giver, He created the world in order to give good.
However, the Jewish sages call this world the alma dishikra - the world of lies. God created humans with the ability to lose perspective, to forget, the ability to lie to themselves, and to hide. We all do it in our own lives, independent of religion. The creation of this circumstance gave humans the ability to EARN goodness.
Why not create Humans and just GIVE em goodness? Because part of the goodness God imparts is by giving humans the ability to become like God. This is a huge component of Jewish theology. God made man in His image. Jews are commanded to emulate the attributes of God. Mercy, love - of course, but also strength, justice, etc.
Anyways - where were we...right. So the world is created in a way in which where we have to actually expend effort to build a relationship with God, to go against the gradient of self-deception, lusts, and pain and evil in this world. Thus, this world is actually an opportunity for the truest good there is out there - a relationship with the Creator and the ability to become like Him.
Read the Worthing Saga. In a world of no pain, there cannot be a man like Hoom.
Back to the question:
With these new perspective we can understand that the assumptions that the questions were predicated on have been undermined. While it may be unpleasant to us when God commands things that we react to negatively, in the broadest perspective, if you believe in God and you believe He speaks truth, you believe He is good because He said He is, then you believe, that even though something looks evil, that it is good because God says it is.
God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Everyone applauds and cheers that God doesn't make Him do it. But what about Abraham? Why did He listen? Because if it was God's will that Isaac be sacrificed then of course it would be good for that to happen. What is huge is that Abraham needed to conquer himself to put himself in that greatest perspective, so that he could make an act of loving sacrifice to God.
There is still a commandment for Jews to destroy Amalek, babies and all - the arch-enemy nation of the Jews. Currently, we don't know who that nation is, we don't have a king in Israel so that commandment is not able to be fulfilled at this time. If you know your Bible, you'll remember that it was Samuel's mercy on Amalek - he was unable to kill the nation completely - that lost him his kingdom and led to King David. To ignore that part of the Bible (if you believe in the Bible) is self deceit.
Now am I capable of killing babies? Definitely not. I'm not perfect in my perspective that I can conquer all my desires. I wish I were there, and hope to be there one day, but I'm not there yet. But the point is, God makes the rules. Not us.
Thankfully, He is a good God. He has revealed that to us time and time again. He perpetuates our existence, and the existence of family and friends.
If you want a further answer to killing babies who are seemingly innocent - remember that God is all powerful. Again, asking His people to kill babies might be akin to an Abrahamic test - but no evil need be meted out upon the "innocent" babies. Perhaps the babies were soul-less, or perhaps they were sent to the world with their own divine mission. Whatever it be - if it is God's will it is good.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:God could have made the same point by teleporting them out of the way. If I were to beat my child to death for eating candy, would you say he deserved it for defying my authority?
That's a pretty facile objection, Tom. The point you're aiming for can be gotten at more directly, accurately, and in a less snide fashion without much difficulty at all, I think.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Pharoah was responsible for his land and people, and it was he who defied the authority of God after he had been warned of the consequences.
God could have made the same point by teleporting them out of the way. If I were to beat my child to death for eating candy, would you say he deserved it for defying my authority?
Wouldn't really matter what Ron would say, its up to a jury of your peers.
Which kinda implies that we should put God up in front of a jury of his peers (other deities or esteemed humans to round it out) ... say Jupiter, Ra, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, Buddha, Confucius, Laozi, and a few others to see what kind of verdict they would bring about.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Pfff. Those eight can't agree on anything.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Now am I capable of killing babies? Definitely not. I'm not perfect in my perspective that I can conquer all my desires. I wish I were there, and hope to be there one day, but I'm not there yet. But the point is, God makes the rules. Not us.
Thankfully, He is a good God. He has revealed that to us time and time again. He perpetuates our existence, and the existence of family and friends.
I would note that a) a definition of "good" which includes a standing order to kill the infants of a nation that is currently so harmless as to be totally non-existent is not one I'm willing to recognize; and b) God has done a fairly poor job of perpetuating the existence of the family and friends of Jews, as far as I can tell.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Like I said above. What you think is Good doesn't quite matter when God is staring you in the face. It's only when He isn't that you start thinking up your own moralities. Again, not that I don't see the dilemma here - I just think there is a clear answer, though one must be a master of the self to get there.
As for the poor job of perpetuating existence - in a big perspective and with pure numbers - Jewish tragedy is only part of the picture. My professors in college hated the lachrymose picture of Jewish History that many so often cling to. Yeah, we go through bad times - it's part of our gig, but it'd be foolish to overlook the centuries of kindness we receive. Not only as Jews, but as humans.
Tom, that particular point is easily answerable. Worthing Saga. Hoom.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Like I said above. What you think is Good doesn't quite matter when God is staring you in the face.
I don't mean to be crude, but how is this different from saying "What you think is Good doesn't quite matter when someone is holding a gun to your head."?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I, on the other hand, think that God wants us to become capable of making moral decisions on our own and that we are, slowly and with some discouraging back-sliding, getting better at it.
ETA: Amd that when we are looking at the face of God, we will repent for all the babies we killed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Repent for the babies "we" killed?
Wouldn't that be the babies he killed? Or even in a convoluted way, I can see (although disagree with) that someone could say that the Egyptian leaders shares responsibility for babies that were killed. But "we"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't just talking about those particular babies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: Oh, I didn't realize you were making that connection. The "we" probably threw me off even more, why "we" rather than the more obvious "people that have abortions"?
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Pfff. Those eight can't agree on anything.
Probably. But I still think the written opinions and reasoning would be incredibly fascinating.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Like I said above. What you think is Good doesn't quite matter when God is staring you in the face.
I don't mean to be crude, but how is this different from saying "What you think is Good doesn't quite matter when someone is holding a gun to your head."?
Not crude at all. Good question. When God is staring you in the face, you have absolutely no free will - it is akin to a gun to your head. That's why, I mentioned above, God made this world with opposing factors - things that make you forget, deceive yourself, and hide.
Thus, to not have God blatantly staring you in the face, but to act as if you DO have Him staring you in the face, is our struggle in this world. We happen to be focusing on the killing babies part - but 99.999 percent of the time, we (religious individuals) focus on feeling like God is staring us in the face so that we aren't tempted to cheat in business, so that we treat people with kindness and respect, that we give charity, etc.
That was always a huge part of my religious growth. I remember attending a really inspiring talk by a Rabbi/mentor of mine, and I walked out and was so excited that I had seen truth at such a young age. I was confident that I would NEVER sin again. But obviously, I did.
I was so puzzled - how could I have been in a state of such utter clarity and peace. But when my family starting pestering me about my plans for the future, when they said some hurtful things to me, i blew my lid and tried to hurt them back. It was as if I had become another person.
That's when I broadened my focus in personal growth from acquiring knowledge and truth, to obligating myself to the realities I had discovered. Knowing that God rules this world is very different than living that reality.
Since I recognize that is the struggle of the religious man - I do not think that "God wants us to make moral decision on our own." - I believe in the Jewish God, and Christians believe in Him too - He TOLD us what He wants. He gave us a lot of commandments and has already defined morality FOR us. It is up to us to humble ourselves and actually live in accordance with those moral principles.
I mean, I'm still flipping out over the commandment to honor mother and father. I keep trying and trying, but for some reason, if I get worked up enough, I just can't do it! But I'm not going to deceive myself and say that God wants me to be "normal" and family fights are normal, etc. I'm working on it. And who I was 5 years ago with my parents is totally different than who I am today. Hopefully, I'll get even better.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:God has done a fairly poor job of perpetuating the existence of the family and friends of Jews, as far as I can tell.
The question of why God allows evil is a good one, but it's hard to say He's done a bad (or even good job) unless you can show what would've happened if He hadn't done what He did. Within the religions we're talking about the intervention He's believed to have made are so significant as to render any predictions meaningless speculation, and outside of those religions of course He hasn't done anything so ...
Judging God's actions isn't irrelevant nor unimportant for those who are not believers, but the context is so radically different from what we're used to it becomes difficult to do adequately. If I ever kill a man the only thing I can be sure about when it comes to consequences is that at the end, he will be dead because of me. As has been pointed out above that's not the case for an omniscient God. Nor are our typical goals His goals. He knows exactly what's coming after this life and is (within the confines of Christianity anyways) acting to maximize happiness (well most forms, the ones I'm familiar with I guess I can't speak for all Christian religions) not just in the short run but over a literal eternity. Any judgement of God's actions would have to include what would've happened without His intervention not just in this world but for the rest of forever.
More to the point, if you look at what it is claimed God has done in the Bible you have to include the whole set. Obviously those who don't believe the Bible don't believe God ordered the killing of anyone or did any killing Himself. If they then try to determine what kind of God He is based on what the Bible claims He's done everything has to be included, the fact that some may not believe that Christ suffered and died for all mankind's sins that we may live in joy forevermore is irrelevant as those people also don't believe God parted and then unparted the Red Sea.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, not just those babies either (and I don't know how much fetuses count as babies) but the actual babies killed through starvation, war, neglect, violence.
And, of course, not just babies.
I think that when we come face to face with God, we will come face to face with our portion of the responsibility for all that we as human beings have gotten wrong - like killing anybody because we think God wants us to - and where we have fallen short.
I also believe that we will come face to face with God's infinite love and forgiveness.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sorry, I must be kinda slow today. How are you connecting that with the original criticism of God killing babies?
(And do you mean "we" in a sense that one has a marginal fractional responsibility that one has (as an example) when say a person buys a diamond thus contributing to the market for diamonds and thus making it more profitable to sell diamonds and thus marginally increasing the trade in blood diamonds and thus indirectly leading to a death ... or do you mean "we" in a different sense?)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
God didn't kill babies; people killed babies. Not just then. We (by which I mean humanity) kill babies (and children and grown ups) and justify it as something God wants all the time. Lots of babies killed during the crusades.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, really lost.
swbarnes2 originally brought up all the first-born in Egypt that were killed (which by my impression included babies). Ron answered that the Pharaoh made God kill the babies, so it was his fault. TomD asked whether the same standards would apply to him ... and so forth.
I thought your babies comment was a response to this line of conversation. Is it or is it in response to something entirely different?
[ April 17, 2009, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth, you and some others are apparently taking exception to what is said in Psalms 137:9 (speaking to Babylon): "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
As is so often the case, context is everything. The historical fact is, dashing babies against stones is what soldiers of Babylon actually did to the Hebrews in Judah. So imagine if you can, the tearful, raging, indignant heart-cry of the Psalmist as he exclaims, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Emphasis upon "thy."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus, I thought you were talking about the command to killing the babies of Amelek or the dash babies on rocks or the Pharaoh killing babies.
"God made me do it" is a lousy defense for baby (or anyone)-killing even for Pharaohs.
[ April 17, 2009, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The Psalmist is saying that it's a happy thing to bash someone's babies on rocks. That needs to be explained.
Furthermore, there are other instances in the Bible where babies are commanded to be killed - like in the case of the Amalekites.
"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3)
See?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, it is misleading to say that Pharoah or anyone else made God do anything. God proclaimed in advance what would happen. All the first-born would be killed (and this would have included adults), unless they had blood from the sacrificed lamb smeared on their door frames. Note that this applied to the Hebrews, too. When judgment is decreed, and the execution of judgment goes forth, humans have a choice whether to get out of the way of the judgment by complying with the divine conditions, or by continuing in rebellion and defiance, in which case parents would be responsible for the unnecessary deaths of their first born.
This is similar to the final destruction of the wicked depicted in Revelation 20, where all the wicked who have ever lived (including Satan and his fellow fallen-angels) are destroyed by being burned up completely in "the lake of fire." This lake of fire is the entire surface of the earth being turned into molten lava. This has to happen as the first step in re-creating the Earth in Edenic perfection. The righteous are preserved from this molten remaking of the surface of the earth, by being in the holy City, the New Jerusalem, which might be seen as a great Ark floating upon the flames of fire. The wicked are destroyed simply because they get in the way. They have not availed themselves of the opportunity given to all humans to be among those preserved in safety in the Holy City. So they are left out there among the flames that purify and refashion the surface of the earth (and atmosphere).
It is spoken of as if the wicked are consumed by God's "wrath." But unlike human wrath, God's wrath merely consists in not supernaturally intervening to keep the wicked alive. He ceases to sustain their lives, and so they cease to live. With God, wrath is a natural consequence, not an emotion. God's wrath is relative.
With humans, anger is a synonym for mad, which is a synonym for insane. But God is not like us. He never gives way to insanity, to the mindless passion of the berserker. He does what is right and necessary. Those who refuse to avail themselves of the way of deliverance God has made available to everyone, have only themselves to blame.
God cannot go on sustaining the lives of sinners forever. Ultimately the time must come when the universe has been cleansed of sin and sinners.
This, by the way, is one of the strongest objections to the idea many have that God will punish the wicked in the fires of an ever-burning hell for all eternity. That would imply that for eternity, in some terrible corner of the universe, individuals are still sinning, cursing God, and suffering torment. God is not like that. He will make an utter end.
Those few passages in the Bible that speak of ever-burning flames, or smoke that goes up forever, are idiomatic expressions, which only mean that the fires are unquenchable until they have utterly consumed all there is to consume, that the smoke continually goes up until the fires go out.
The fires that consumed Sodom and Gommorah were said to be "eternal" (Jude 1:7). But they are not burning now. God promised the faithful: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch....And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts." (Malachi 4:3)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth, I raised this point earlier. There are communities, perhaps even whole select gene-pools, where the tendency to do violence to others is universal, and for the good of the entire planet, that entire community should be removed. God who is the Creator, and the moment-by-moment sustainer of every life, and who can foresee the future, has every right to determine that this group or that shall not be perpetuated. At one point, He decided that the entire human race, except for eight people, was to be destroyed in a global flood, because they had filled the earth with violence, and the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually:
quote:Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.--Genesis 6:5-8; NKJV
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
On the other hand, there might have been a geological event to which a* people gave a theological cause.
*More than one people, actually, as there are many flood mythologies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, I thought you were talking about the command to killing the babies of Amelek or the dash babies on rocks or the Pharoah killing babies.
I was referring specifically to the incident with the Pharoah. So what *is* your take on that situation? Who killed the first-born (including babies)? Who is responsible? And how do you square that with "God didn't kill babies; people killed babies?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Prediction: kmb will disavow that part of the Bible as referring to a natural event, perhaps a plague that disproportionately struck the Egyptians, which the Hebrews explained as the intervention of their god.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, that particular point is easily answerable. Worthing Saga.
It's worth noting that the Worthing Saga only answers this point because it assumes the "gods" are not powerful enough to eliminate suffering without stunting growth. If God were not that powerful, it raises the question: why the Garden of Eden? It's also worth noting that this take on the argument invalidates Ron's take, which is that suffering is (direct or indirect) punishment for disobedience.
quote:Mucus, it is misleading to say that Pharoah or anyone else made God do anything. God proclaimed in advance what would happen.
Ron, this is roughly akin to my saying to my children, "If you eat that candy, I will kill you." Am I really not to blame for this because I warned them first?
quote:But God is not like us. He never gives way to insanity, to the mindless passion of the berserker. He does what is right and necessary.
I refuse to believe that an omnipotent God had no alternative to the death of all but a couple of the men, women, and children in the world -- especially given that He presumably knew they'd all be sinning within a couple of years, anyway. This action is fairly difficult to justify as "right" or "necessary" except among the truly unimaginative. I cannot believe that anyone who reads science fiction can't come up with more merciful, righter, and more strictly necessary solutions to the same problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus,
Are you talking about when Pharaoh ordered all the male first born children of the Israelites to be killed or are you talking about the final plague?
KoM, And do you have a problem with that? Nice to know you at least read my posts, though. Could have been poison, could have been disease, could have been lots of things.
ETA: Interpreting is not the same as disavowing.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, I thought you were talking about the command to killing the babies of Amelek or the dash babies on rocks or the Pharoah killing babies.
I was referring specifically to the incident with the Pharoah. So what *is* your take on that situation? Who killed the first-born (including babies)? Who is responsible? And how do you square that with "God didn't kill babies; people killed babies?"
God kills so many innocent people in the Bible, it can be hard to keep track.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: Oh, *thats* the source of the confusion. Oy, sorry. I didn't realise that was ambiguous.
In this thread, I've always been referring to the plague and my question is on that too.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Not to go back too far, but the whole "Yahweh on trial by a bunch of his fellow deities" would make a kickarse story.
It'd be fun to write it, at least.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, And do you have a problem with that?
Not at all; to the extent that the events of Exodus have a historical basis at all - not a large extent - this is likely what happened. My objection is when you don't apply this method consistently, and 'interpret' also those parts that happen to agree with your moral intuition. This is not belief, it's just cultural signalling.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'd like to see an argument for why Yahweh deserves to be on trial more than most of the other ones. (I'm a bit too ignorant to come up with something myself.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Infanticide, killing all male children, killing all first born male children and so forth is a common enough theme in the Bible (and other writings) that it strikes me as a literary device rather than some actually meaning first born exactly. Especially as it mirrors the killing of the first born males of the Israelites earlier.
The plagues in general could very well have been that. Bugs, disease, bad water, illness, death of especially vulnerable children. condensed into a meaningful narrative.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, And do you have a problem with that?
Not at all; to the extent that the events of Exodus have a historical basis at all - not a large extent - this is likely what happened. My objection is when you don't apply this method consistently, and 'interpret' also those parts that happen to agree with your moral intuition. This is not belief, it's just cultural signalling.
It doesn't make sense to apply the same method of interpretation to all parts of the Bible*. It makes much more sense to apply moral intuition when dealing with concepts of God.
*Did you think that it was written all at the same time or by the same people or for the same purposes or in the same style using the same conventions?
[ April 17, 2009, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth, you and some others are apparently taking exception to what is said in Psalms 137:9 (speaking to Babylon): "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
As is so often the case, context is everything. The historical fact is, dashing babies against stones is what soldiers of Babylon actually did to the Hebrews in Judah. So imagine if you can, the tearful, raging, indignant heart-cry of the Psalmist as he exclaims, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Emphasis upon "thy."
I hate to agree with Ron, but what can I do? Kabel et ha-emet mimi she-omro. Anyway, I don't get all the lather about babies. Killing a baby is worse than killing an adult human being? How, exactly?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Not to go back too far, but the whole "Yahweh on trial by a bunch of his fellow deities" would make a kickarse story.
It'd be fun to write it, at least.
I'm guessing you've never read Heinlein's JOB.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
(Edit: Responding to kmb, not Lisa.)
No. What I object to is your habit of very consistently interpreting those parts which agree with your moral intuitions, and interpreting away the ones that don't. When the god of the Bible does something supernatural you agree with, that's your god intervening in history. When the supernatural act is disagreeable, then it is a natural event which later writers put their own gloss on. And then you proceed to quote the same book as evidence for the existence of a morally superior god! Until, that is, you are pushed into a corner, and then you'll state that the Bible isn't actually evidence for your god at all, in fact there is no evidence, you just 'choose to believe'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Killing a baby is worse than killing an adult human being? How, exactly?
You have a child. I have no doubt that you can answer the question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Not to go back too far, but the whole "Yahweh on trial by a bunch of his fellow deities" would make a kickarse story.
It'd be fun to write it, at least.
I'm guessing you've never read Heinlein's JOB.
I thought the same thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I thought of JOB too, but it doesn't really fit. Sure, Satan judges his brother as a bit of an asshole, but this is hardly unexpected even within Christian mythology; and the Chairman only sits in judgement on the particular case of what is to be done with the protagonist, not Yahweh's actions and creation as a whole.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Not to go back too far, but the whole "Yahweh on trial by a bunch of his fellow deities" would make a kickarse story.
It'd be fun to write it, at least.
I thought so, the politics, the arguments, and the role-playing of each of the deities.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'd like to see an argument for why Yahweh deserves to be on trial more than most of the other ones. (I'm a bit too ignorant to come up with something myself.)
Certainly an interesting point. That was something tumbling through my head. I was under the impression that a long time ago, there used to be this dynamic among leaders where leaders would be loathe to kill each other for things like war crimes because everyone was to some extent guilty. This is no longer the case. Indeed I wonder if it ever was? I dunno.
But there should a be a similar element at play here, some of the gods on that list are also somewhat guilty of mass murder. How eager would they be to set a precedent that one of their own should go down?
But from the point of a prosecutor, one doesn't always have to start with the most guilty of criminals, sometimes one plea-bargains, sometimes one starts with easier cases to get pressure against harder ones, etc.
(Indeed, one could work in the universe where Apophis and Baal have already been handled )
Lisa and kmb: I haven't. But I'll certainly put it on the list. I daresay there's room for more than one story given the large number of assumptions that have to be fixed for any particular story.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth, you and some others are apparently taking exception to what is said in Psalms 137:9 (speaking to Babylon): "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
As is so often the case, context is everything. The historical fact is, dashing babies against stones is what soldiers of Babylon actually did to the Hebrews in Judah. So imagine if you can, the tearful, raging, indignant heart-cry of the Psalmist as he exclaims, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Emphasis upon "thy."
I hate to agree with Ron, but what can I do? Kabel et ha-emet mimi she-omro. Anyway, I don't get all the lather about babies. Killing a baby is worse than killing an adult human being? How, exactly?
Babies are a whole lot cuter. Destroying cuteness = BAD
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think babies are used as short-hand for an indisputably innocent human being. With an adult, there are conceivable arguments that they did something to deserve something ... whatever it might be.
With a baby, it should be a lot harder to argue that they deserve death since they haven't really down anything (although I'm sure there are plenty of ways for people to justify it).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa, Ron, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you mind clarifying please?
Tom - I agree. My perspective is not that all pain is a punishment for wrongdoing - it is possible that much of pain is a punishment for wrongdoing, but there is much pain that is not.
That pain is Worthing Saga pain. Now if your problem with that is that God isn't "powerful" enough to find another way of doing things - it's a bit hard to argue with. Personal strength and triumph can only blossom in the face of pain. You want to argue that God can make it so that it cannot? That's not a realm I can really argue with. Maybe God sees a benefit to moral goodness coming at a cost. ::shrug::
Point is - I agree with KoM's problems with kmboots. Once you agree that God revealed Himself to you, and once you agree that He wrote the bible - you need to deal with thins that don't align with your own moral intuition.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... The plagues in general could very well have been that. Bugs, disease, bad water, illness, death of especially vulnerable children. condensed into a meaningful narrative.
Really? So what was Moses' role in this? Just really really lucky that stuff happened when he wanted it to?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Personal strength and triumph can only blossom in the face of pain.
Because, presumably, God so wills it. Right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Point is - I agree with KoM's problems with kmboots. Once you agree that God revealed Himself to you, and once you agree that He wrote the bible - you need to deal with thins that don't align with your own moral intuition.
But I haven't agreed that God wrote the Bible. I believe that inspired but failable men wrote the Bible. And decided what inspired writings actually got to be the Bible.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Personal strength and triumph can only blossom in the face of pain.
Because, presumably, God so wills it. Right?
Yup. But if you read the Worthing Saga as:
I'll pay you 5 pain units for 5 personal strength units.
It is a perspective that makes your point stronger.
If you read Worthing Saga as:
Pain and personal strength are essentially united and are inseparable.
That is the best answer I can offer.
Your question as to why God made the world that way exists in both perspectives. From my perspective, God is good, His system is good, and even if pain is experienced, I trust the system and trust God. The fact that we can imagine alternative ways does not undermine the reality of God and that this is how He chose to relate to us. It also does not undermine my conception of Him being Good, though I appreciate the complexity and the difficulty of this question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... The plagues in general could very well have been that. Bugs, disease, bad water, illness, death of especially vulnerable children. condensed into a meaningful narrative.
Really? So what was Moses' role in this? Just really really lucky that stuff happened when he wanted it to?
Try reading it like an epic poem rather than a history book. Or like the movie version or LOTR. Some things may have been condensed as they were passed down to make a more coherent story. Those events could have taken place over months or years rather than days.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... The plagues in general could very well have been that. Bugs, disease, bad water, illness, death of especially vulnerable children. condensed into a meaningful narrative.
Really? So what was Moses' role in this? Just really really lucky that stuff happened when he wanted it to?
What makes you think Moses existed? Or look at it another way: There must have been any number of leaders among the conquered and slave populations of Egypt. No doubt many of them tried to work magic against their oppressors, calling on gods and spirits to aid them. So there would always be someone who had called down a curse in the last couple of weeks. Then when a plague happened to coincide with some particularly unbearable edict, BOOM.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It seems that human beings (and perhaps angels and other extra-terrestrial intelligences) need to be convinced that evil is really evil--and especially convinced of how horribly and completely ruinous evil is. Because of evil, babies are killed, often because of the evil choices made by adults. Because of evil, the choices made by leaders result in the ruin of whole lands, with suffering and torment and death and mayhem. This is a demonstration of the working of the principles of evil.
There are times when God intervenes in individual cases, and there are times when He intervenes a lot, to raise up a community of people who will at least to some extent witness to His righteousness in the world. But evil (also called sin) has arisen in the universe, and is now confined to earth in a sort of spiritual hazard containment lab, and God is determined to deal with it in such a comprehensive manner, that it never will arise again. That means that God must allow its true nature to be fully demonstrated.
King of Men, this thread was said to be about theological inconsistences with Christianity. So discussion of hypothetical other deities, or of whether or not Moses existed, are not really germane here.
I see no problem with input from Orthodox (or other) Jews in this discussion, since Christians and Jews share most of the same books of the Bible, hence many of the same understandings of the divine character; and from the Christian perspective, Christianity is really a continuation onward of Biblical Judaism.
I will go on and add a little further stir to the stew: The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. In fact, it was Jesus Christ who wrote the Ten Commandments on tables of stone at Mt. Sinai; it was Jesus Christ who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. It was Jesus Christ who killed Pharoah's charioteers in the Sea.
Jews, of course, will object to this; but I am speaking now to Christians who accept the New Testment. Let me show the basis for my reasoning:
1 John 4:12: "No man hath seen God at any time."
Exodus 24:9-11: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."
The only way to reconcile these two statements for Christians is to conclude as I do that Jesus Christ is the sole divine being who has ever personally represented God on earth. It is God the Father who has never been seen by man.
There is a Personality in Scripture called "the Angel of the Lord." But he is also identified as God. (see Judges 13:21, 22). He also sometimes is called simply a Man, but then is described in terms that make it clear this is God, and He accepts worship (Joshua 5:13-16) It is Jesus who is thus identified in the Old Testament.
This does not mean that Jesus is one of the angels, who are created beings (Psalms 8:5; Hebrews 1:13, 14). An angel is also a messenger. Thus the promised Messiah is called the Messenger of the Covenant in Malachi 3:1. The highest of the angels of God presently is named Gabriel. The Angel of the Lord is someone higher than Gabriel, and not literally an angel. He is the Son of God.
What this means is that we cannot make a dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the New Testament. They are one and the same. If they seem hard to reconcile, it is because we are not understanding things well enough.
The God who wrote the Ten Commandments on stone for all mankind and all eternity, also is the same Person who declared: "...'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40) Careful analysis will show that the first four of the Ten Commandments outline our duty to God; and the latter six outline our duty to man. And in summarizing the Ten Commandments this way, Jesus was quoting from Scripture (see Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18).
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Yup. But if you read the Worthing Saga as:
I'll pay you 5 pain units for 5 personal strength units.
Okay, but that's not applicable to everything we're talking about. We aren't talking about pain and punishment, we're talking about death, death of people who, by modern standards, did nothing morally wrong.
In Exodus, it's more like "I decided to kill everyone who didn't carry out this ritual, even if they didn't know about it, or couldn't have possibly carried it out, and even if they had absolutely nothing at all to do with Israelite slavery".
But back to your analogy, would you say that it would have been right for Job to sign up his family to die, so he could gain personal strength?
Would you say that God has a right to kill so many women and children so that someone else can gain personal strength? Ron thinks that God can kill anyone just beucase he wants to.
quote:Your question as to why God made the world that way exists in both perspectives. From my perspective, God is good, His system is good, and even if pain is experienced, I trust the system and trust God.
Do you think that Job's first wives and children didn't trust God? How did the system work for them?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
swbarnes2, you are not being truthful in the way you represent my position. You make it sound like I believe God is arbitrary and kills people on a whim.
Most people who die do so as a direct or indirect result of sin (evil). Even with those people whom God kills (and I am not among those who claim that God never kills), it is more appropriate to say that God chooses to stop sustaining their sinful lives any further. It is they who chose to separate themselves from the Only Source of Life, so ultimately God is giving them what they have chosen. Or even what they have chosen for their children, or other people for whom they are responsible.
Incidentally, God did not kill Job's first children, Satan did. And Job's first wife advised Job to "Just curse God and die." She may have left him, though the Bible does not say this. Nor does it say that she died.
[ April 17, 2009, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About Worthing, I don't think it supports your point, Armoth. Because consider what happens at the end: The psychics all kill themselves, and Jason Worthing states his considered opinion that this is crazy. Then the remaining female psychic at last breaks down and heals the little girl's arm, and presumably goes on to become a great healer and progenitor of a new race of psychics, who will use their gifts to heal without taking away the memory of pain and the possibility of mistakes. The point is, then, that there is a middle ground between no intervention and complete taking over of responsibility! Without pain, no Hoom, fine. But do you seriously need the grinding, soul-destroying pain that is completely routine on this Earth? Cancer for 2-year-old children? Consider it like BDSM: Plenty of people will volunteer for a spanking, even a rather severe whipping, but nobody deliberately goes for the sort of body-smashing tortures they used in the Middle Ages. Would you seriously like to argue that the amount of pain the human race has had through the ages is optimal? I read today of a cancer victim; she is 17, and unlikely to see her 18th birthday in June, and even with modern drugs her end will be dreadfully painful. Will you look her in the eye and say that this is good and necessary?
Edit: And a further point is that the Worthing psychics were not capable of changing human nature; but an omnipotent god could certainly create humans capable of growth even in the absence of pain.
[ April 17, 2009, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, this thread was said to be about theological inconsistences with Christianity. So discussion of hypothetical other deities, or of whether or not Moses existed, are not really germane here.
That's ok, I'm not talking to you anyway; you've consigned yourself to a subhuman level of existence and are not worth spending time on.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: swbarnes2, you are not being truthful in the way you represent my position. You make it sound like I believe God is arbitrary and kills people on a whim.
quote:Most people who die do so as a direct or indirect result of sin (evil).
By which you mean that many do not.
quote:Even with those people whom God kills (and I am not among those who claim that God never kills), it is more appropriate to say that God chooses to stop sustaining their sinful lives any further.
I don't see that this is much of a distinition. Babies can't sin, but the God of the Bible killed them left and right.
If you are going to say that everyone is sinful, and that it's therefore morally fine for God to end our lives at any point, for no particular transgression at all, than I don't see that I've missed your meaning.
quote:It is they who chose to separate themselves from the Only Source of Life, so ultimately God is giving them what they have chosen. Or even what they have chosen for their children, or other people for whom they are responsible.
So you claim that the prisoner chose to put responsibility for his life in Pharaoh's hands? You believe that this is even an available moral choice?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... Try reading it like an epic poem rather than a history book. Or like the movie version or LOTR. Some things may have been condensed as they were passed down to make a more coherent story. Those events could have taken place over months or years rather than days.
So in other words, there may or may not have been plagues (and they could have taken any number of natural forms) and there may or may not have been a Moses connected with these events (which may not be single events so much as ... possible events that took place over a greater period of time).
But, you are sure that God doesn't kill babies. Thus, most depictions of God killing (or ordering the killing of) babies in the Bible (including specifically this one) are wrong and must be fictional or misinterpreted.
Is that fair?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... What makes you think Moses existed?
Not much.
But thats not the purpose of my questions. I'm fairly clear on what Ron believes (or at least what he says he believes) even if he and I disagree on how to characterize it.
I'm just not clear what kmbboots believes exactly and that makes me curious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's ok, I'm not talking to you anyway; you've consigned yourself to a subhuman level of existence and are not worth spending time on.
And once again King of Men illustrates how much less interested he is in real dialogue, compared to chest-thumping 'lookit how smart I am!' rhetoric.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Edit: And a further point is that the Worthing psychics were not capable of changing human nature; but an omnipotent god could certainly create humans capable of growth even in the absence of pain.
It seems to me that this is potentially a 'can God create a stone not even He can lift?' type of question.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That's ok, I'm not talking to you anyway; you've consigned yourself to a subhuman level of existence and are not worth spending time on.
And once again King of Men illustrates how much less interested he is in real dialogue, compared to chest-thumping 'lookit how smart I am!' rhetoric.
It's not just "chest-thumping," it's abusive and hateful and a violation of the TOS. Call a spade a spade.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Edit: And a further point is that the Worthing psychics were not capable of changing human nature; but an omnipotent god could certainly create humans capable of growth even in the absence of pain.
It seems to me that this is potentially a 'can God create a stone not even He can lift?' type of question.
I don't think that is true. For a fictional example, consider the un-Fallen beings inhabiting Mars and Venus in Lewis's 'Out of the Silent Planet'. It seems clear that these beings are not lacking in growth, yet they are also lacking in pain, being untainted by original sin. It also seems true that many humans grow just by experience, not necessarily bad experience, but simply by trial and error; the error doesn't have to involve pain, just feedback.
In any case there does not seem to be a logical contradiction, as in the stone-too-heavy-to-lift case. There is nothing about a being capable of growth without pain that strikes at the initial assumption of omnipotence.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
KoM, that was out of line.
Ron, you have also pretty directly impugned the thought processes of those who disagree with you in the past (not this thread), which I expect is part of why KoM chose to put on the brass knuckles (he took off the gloves long ago). So I'd ask you to dial back a bit, too.
--PJ
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As a matter of fact, Senoj, I did.
--------
quote:It also seems true that many humans grow just by experience, not necessarily bad experience, but simply by trial and error; the error doesn't have to involve pain, just feedback.
Can you point to even one human being who has a) learned all in their life through 'feedback', or even b) a single human being who has learned their most important lessons from pain?
Bear in mind, 'feedback' if achieved through observation of the pain of another and logical avoidance naturally counts as learning and growing through pain.
Or, put another way, I'm not saying every type of growth requires pain. I'm saying/asking, "What if full growth is impossible without pain?"
quote:In any case there does not seem to be a logical contradiction, as in the stone-too-heavy-to-lift case. There is nothing about a being capable of growth without pain that strikes at the initial assumption of omnipotence.
See above. If full growth requires pain, the question is definitely a contradiction, and calls into question the initial assumption.
Posted by Geekazoid (Member # 7610) on :
quote: And here are the ones that count:
9) God, in His revelations to Us, told us that He is Good.
9a) God is the greatest good there is - the source of goodness and thus the essence of Good.
It seems to me that these are the statements that are being argued upon in this thread. People are having trouble believing this statement when they read about God doing things that they know are evil
That's how we get into the whole discussion of the cases when God kills babies for the sins of their fathers or leaders. We simply cannot see how this is just or good. How can children who have done nothing wrong (and according to Judaism are not even responsible for their actions until they are 13) be punished or in extreme cases killed for the sins of their fathers?
The case I happen to find the most troubling is the case of the children of Datan and Aviram. They are the two main allies of Korach as he rose up against Moshe and they were also swallowed up by the earth in the end along with their families and children who had done nothing.
However it is not simply the fact that the children were killed that always bothered me about this story. It is the fact that Korach's children live! Not only does it say specifically in the Bible that the children of Korach did not die, they also later wrote Psalms. In this case it seems especially wrong since it was the children of the leader who were spared while the children of the secondary leaders/allies who were killed.It simply seems so arbitrary who God chooses to punish for generations and who he punishes relatively lightly.
This case (and others) have made me question the presumption that God is good.
For those people like Armroth and Ron who do still believe in this fact, even through reading through all these pages I feel that I'm still not sure how you guys how you guys really see cases like the one I described above.
Armroth, you said,
quote:What if something doesn't FEEL good to us? Well that means:
We don't know God's plan, we are woefully ignorant and are beings of poor perspective, so cut God some slack.
Draw from your own life. In mine, i can think of times where I felt like God was being downright mean - and only a few years down the road did I realize that those supposed 'bad times' cleared the path for some of the most amazing things in the world.
In that case, I was wondering whether or not you thought it was possible for us to see the big picture in cases like the Datan and Aviram case while we are still alive. Also what do we do with cases where it seems that God is breaking the laws that he himself set out for us?
For Ron, It seems to me that you interpret that these babies are being killed because of the sins of their parents either to show how sinful the parents had acted, or that the children are somehow at fault. I feel there is something wrong with saying that in either case. How can you say that a child is born sinful when they have yet to complete any actions?
More importantly though, How can you say that child can be punished simply as a demonstration of how bad the parents were? Don't the children have the right to make their own mistakes and gain their own merits without their parents sins ruining them? It seems outlandish to claim that the death of these children can possibly be good, when the children in these cases don't yet know what good or bad are.
Overall it seems that you guys are claiming that we don't know good or evil when we see it. You seem to be saying that we have to trust God's version of what seems good more than what our guts and logic tell us when we see these events.
I'm sorry if I misconstrued either of your opinions. I am simply curious.
Posted by Abyss (Member # 3086) on :
When I read the Bible, it's like I'm reading a totally different book than most of the people who talk about it.
But, in answer to the original question, most of the apparent inconsistencies of the Bible are the result of a misconception: that because God is immortal, he is also unchanging. It makes a lot more sense if you drop that idea and think of God as a character capable of development. He's just on a longer timetable than us.
When he started out, he was young and full of verve, pinning his hopes on a little tribe and going into battle with them, smashing their enemies and demanding the foreskins of the fallen. That's what the old testament is all about, God's first big growth spurt, when he was full of testosterone and big ideas. But he settled down and had a kid. Of course he mellowed out.
And now he's retired. Clearly.
quote:This case (and others) have made me question the presumption that God is good... what do we do with cases where it seems that God is breaking the laws that he himself set out for us?
The idea that God is subject to any set of rules, or even morality, is flawed, I think. The all-powerful being that created the universe can do what he wants with it, and everything in it. In our day to day life, in events around the world today, he doesn't seem to take much personal stake in what any of us believe one way or the other -- and as deities go, his laissez faire system is working out pretty well for him, if not for us.
It's like a guy with an ant farm -- most people would just feed them and watch what they do, and maybe fry some of them indiscriminately with a magnifying glass. The real miracle is that this God took the time to communicate with us, lay down a set of rules, and care for a while whether they were followed. The idea that we can wrap our brains around the way God makes his decisions is akin to thinking that the ants can understand why the guy with the magnifying glass puts ant food into the farm.
Once you accept that God is by his nature neither good nor evil, the question of whether or not to worship him is really up to you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The idea that God is subject to any set of rules, or even morality, is flawed, I think. The all-powerful being that created the universe can do what he wants with it, and everything in it.
There are several very large assumptions that you seem to be taking as given, really only on the basis that you personally take them as given.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The idea that God is subject to any set of rules, or even morality, is flawed, I think.
I don't think so, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" and "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Seems that once God has spoken he must do as he has spoken. That implies that at least God must be honest.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Theoretically, if there was a being claiming to be God consistent with the Bible, its not as though you could just take its (or its agents) word for its own honesty.
You don't go to a GM dealer (or a better parallel, a GM brochure) to get information on a the reliability of a GM car after all.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:You don't go to a GM dealer (or a better parallel, a GM brochure) to get information on a the reliability of a GM car after all.
I'd ask Mucus about Mucus's life, or at the very least start there...
Really though if you're going to criticize God based solely on evidence in one book then I don't see how it's fair to remove the parts of that book you don't like, it's a sword that cuts two ways. KoM has been going one way (get rid of the bad stuff God does and only look at the positive message) but it's at least as inaccurate to only see the negative things He does and ignore the fact that He says He's acted for all our good and has prepared a place for us.
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's not so much about taking parts of the book out or putting them back in. The question is if you make the assumption that God exists then the book is essentially a collection of stories, facts, and themes that God wants you to know. So it's not so much "If God killed all the first-born in Egypt, then what does that tell us about God", it's more like "If God wants us to think that he's an entity that does said-killing, what does it tell us about him?"
And personally, I'd take what people say about themselves (especially on the Internet) with a very large grain of salt. We've certainly seen our fair share of sock-puppets, people lying about their backgrounds, or what not even on Hatrack.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yah but if you don't believe what He says about Himself than what's the point in the first place? Everything in the Bible is basically God's word that it happened, or at least that He caused it. If you take His word for it (via the Bible) that it was His fault that all the firstborn of Egypt died than why don't you take His word that "there is none good save one, that is, God"?
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You're still not getting it. I explicitly *don't* take his word for it that all the firstborn of Egypt died, let alone the latter statement. I only can take his word that he wants us to think that it was his fault that all the firstborn of Egypt died.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I definitely wasn't getting it, but I don't think I am now either. My understanding is that we were working from within the context of Christian beliefs. Obviously not everyone believes in the Bible but that's hardly relevant here. I guess I see your point in terms of thinking of the Bible as what God wishes we thought He was like but isn't necessarily true or accurate: is that what you're saying? And if so, I'm not sure where the switch came from working from within the context of "if the Bible is true, ...?" but of course a Christian God's actions don't make sense from within other beliefs. I guess I'm confused.
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, let's work from the beginning of this line of thought.
Abyss proposed a God that is changing, maturing, and not particularly bound by any sense of morality. In this framework, it seems that Abyss is assuming that the Bible comprises a reasonably accurate depiction of specific events (specifically tribes, smashing, foreskin demanding, etc) that occurred due to this God.
Now, BlackBlade countered that the Bible seems to contradict this God since there are agents of God that claim that at least that God is unchanging in his honesty.
I'm just saying that if you grant the premise, there's no particular reason why one should necessarily trust what these agents say about the various attributes of God. God could very well change but tell his agents to claim that he is unchanging.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, well that makes more sense though I don't know if I totally understand. A God that changes, or one that only claims certain things but doesn't actually do them... while I can't comment much as that's certainly not the God of my religion but it seems like that sitll has the same problem. If His morality is changing, or can change, how do we know He wasn't lying yesterday? And if He was, how do we know anything that's been said about Him is true? If it's not that trying to determine His morality is impossible, we can't trust anything we've heard or read. At this point I'm not trying to refute your argument, only commenting on the problem of a shifting moral famework: there's no rock on which to build (scripturally speaking), and if His morality is different today what makes us so sure that even the description of the events are accurate? I see the link, that He's always been honest but other things have changed, but that strikes me as both strange (as in I can't concieve of it being possible) and an inaccurate reading of the Bible. Of course that's what the majority of the world thinks about my beliefs, but then I don't have to defend anyone else's religion.
Hobbes Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If His morality is changing, or can change, how do we know He wasn't lying yesterday?
How, indeed? But for that matter, how do you know this anyway? Assertions of honesty are not generally of any use in determining honesty; it's a rare liar that admits to it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I know it in ways other than merely reading about someone else saying it, but I don't know that that's the point here. Once again, if the Bible is true than that's one thing, if it's not then what is the point of this thread? Or maybe more accurately, what's there to talk about?
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... while I can't comment much as that's certainly not the God of my religion ...
As far as you know anyways. An interesting question is how you can tell that that God isn't in fact your God. But thats another rabbit-hole that we can leave for later.
quote: If His morality is changing, or can change, how do we know He wasn't lying yesterday?
We don't.
quote: And if He was, how do we know anything that's been said about Him is true?
We don't.
quote: If it's not that trying to determine His morality is impossible, we can't trust anything we've heard or read.
Yep. Well, at least in the Bible.
quote: ... what makes us so sure that even the description of the events are accurate?
Not much. But that seems to be a basic assumption that Abyss brought to the table.
One could potentially reason that the events as described seem so unpalatable, so horrifying (to the extent that a portion of even its followers have to take the events as apocryphal or in kmb's analogy as reliable as the movie LOTR is to the book LOTR), why would a deity make this stuff up about itself?
But you're right, this seems to be a problem with the original scenario.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Not much. But that seems to be a basic assumption that Vyrus brought to the table. ... But you're right, this seems to be a problem with the original scenario.
Right, so I think I understand where your posts were coming from, the above quote was more my point is given that we're taking the Bible as literal in Vyrus's post, then let's take the whole thing; whether it's true or not isn't in the purview of the discussion. I thought. But I don't have a monopoly on what's right.
Hobbes Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Wow. Gone for a day and I missed a lot.
I have a lot to respond to and I'm not sure where to start, so I guess I'll just say a whole buncha things:
First, I agree that I made a lot of assumptions. I don't think this is the thread to go through demonstrating why I assume each of the assumptions that I laid out above, but I understand your point.
KoM - I also addressed your edit above. At a certain point, I don't have the tools to understand why God created a world where pain is necessary for personal growth (I actually don't like that term - humanity? Beauty? Something else...). I always explain these questions to myself as "definitional".
Why? Because that is the definition of the character of God. There is another Jewish belief that no one is king unless He has subjects. Angels and other expressions of the will of God are just that - expressions of the will of God. Only humans who were granted free will can make God king. Leaving us with another puzzle - humans MAKE God king? That doesn't quite fit with the all-powerful God. So I feel like it's pretty definitional - God is God so He created a world with humans with free will. Am I being clear at all? It's hard to wrap the mind around it much less convey the idea...That's why I said above that I understood the difficulty and complexity of the question.
On to baby killing.
I don't believe that if God revealed Himself to humanity and started causing tremendous amounts of pain and burning people and killing babies that he would be a good god. I mean, I'd be subject to him out of terror, or be defiant to the extent that he preserves my free-will, etc.
However, in my religion and in my perspective God has revealed Himself to the world as a good God. I prefer life to death - most people do. I think that is an admission that on the pleasure/pain balance sheet - pleasure outweighs pain.
I'll not deny that there is much pain in the world, but the pain makes us who we are. Including the cancer in 2 year old babies.
First let me answer KoM's perspective of Jason's children at the end of the Worthing Chronicle. I do not agree with your analysis. I don't think the point was that there can be a balance between the pain/growth and the intervening. I think the point that Card was trying to make was that he (Card/Jason) is not a monster. While In the broadest perspective, pain is healthy for our character and spirit - it is not healthy for a person to actively keep this on his mind. Card argues that if one has the ability to stop something and doesn't then he is inhuman. That's why all of Jason's Children killed themselves (cept Justice).
My Mom asked me that question when I presented this view to her. She said that if this were true, we should all accept the pain in this world, and the death in this world happily. She asked then why, in Jewish law, is there the laws of mourning? Indeed, Moses and Israel mourned for a month (I think) for the death of Aaron.
I answered that one who does not respond to tragedy with grief and empathy is obviously inhuman even according to God's standards. While the perspective that pain is good exists - that perspective is for mankind in their philosophic meditative state - the state that one is in when arguing theology on forums, and when understanding the nature of God - not for the mother who has just lost her son.
You will find many Jewish sources dealing with the limitless tragedies that befell the Jewish people over time. Many of them question God, wonder why He is cruel and harsh. I'd like to suggest that these perspectives are tolerated - temporarily - because they are expressions of grief, and indicative of a persons level of sensitivity.
Back to the baby killing. God is infinitely fair. Nothing He does is not deserved or out of place. The only time He is unfair is on the side of mercy.
So how do we explain baby killings? I mentioned a few possibilities above. We do not know the hearts of man - only God knows the hearts of man. When you believe in an afterlife, the deaths and pains of this world are not as hard to explain from the perspective of God. Someone innocent was killed? They could have been killed to speed their delivery to the next world, a world of total pleasure and no pain. Maybe they were truly evil? A baby killed? See above. Or maybe the baby was soul-less.
All I'm saying is that there is too much that convinces me that God is a good God. I am convinced that He is just, and merciful. As such, I am faithful that the examples above do not contradict His faith or mercy. I mean, what kind of God that wrote that He is unchanging, and that He abides by His own laws would put contradictions in His own bible? And if it was not God who wrote the bible, what kind of idiot author would make the same mistake?
(Same answer for Korach, Datan and Aviram).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A wall of words. Stand in front of a cancer victim and tell her that her pain makes her who she is. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All I'm saying is that there is too much that convinces me that God is a good God.
Like...? Bear in mind that you have to weigh this against things like baby-killing.
What, specifically, convinces you that God is good?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:A wall of words. Stand in front of a cancer victim and tell her that her pain makes her who she is. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
A) Not many people approach conversations in a way that would have them just blurt out of no where to a cancer victim "Your suffering makes you who you are"
B) I have personally heard cancer victims say exactly that ("The trials I had to go through with cancer helped make me who I am")
C) Try standing in front of a cancer victim and telling them there's no point to their pain and suffering nor to their life and soon they'll disappear from humanity entirely into a void of nothingness. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
Hobbes Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
KoM - I wouldn't hand a cancer victim the Worthing Saga and expect her to smile. I'd hand it to her friends a few years down the line. They'd probably cry and then understand. That's what I did.
My life perspective is frameworks within frameworks. It's like I have a relationship with someone and it is a world in itself, i can zoom out a few levels and understand that relationship in different terms. I think many people function this way.
What I'm trying to say is that I've experienced personal tragedy and loss. And while I was experiencing them, I did not zoom out. I don't think I was supposed to. But when time blunted the deep sting of the tragedy, I did zoom out and experienced the tragedy through my relationship with God. It took on a different meaning then.
Tom - this is a difficult question to answer. I could probably write a book about this answer. But succinctly and insufficiently, i will answer:
It is related to my belief in God. My belief in Orthodox Judaism. In the Jewish Bible, and in the Oral Law.
It is further related to the fact that I'd rather be living than dead. To the fact that the majority of my life has been joy rather than pain. That even when I am in pain, I have mostly had the ability, through effort, to turn that pain into joy. It is related to the fact that most people do not experience tragedy nearly as often as they experience peace and/or happiness.
I am the grandson of four holocaust survivors. They believe God is good. They believe He makes us pay, but they believe that He is good. I'm sure they did not always believe this - but at the end of their lives, living in a country they never thought would exist (Israel), surrounded by families and great-grandchildren...they believe that God is good.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM - I wouldn't hand a cancer victim the Worthing Saga and expect her to smile. I'd hand it to her friends a few years down the line. They'd probably cry and then understand. That's what I did.
So in other words, your 'philosophy' is only good for people who are not suffering the actual physical pain.
quote:Try standing in front of a cancer victim and telling them there's no point to their pain and suffering nor to their life and soon they'll disappear from humanity entirely into a void of nothingness. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
There's no symmetry here. Armoth is trying to argue that there is some comfort to be found for the pain, some sort of reason for it; I am saying that this doesn't comfort the actual victims. A comfort tht only applies to those who can sit in an easy chair and philosophise about the necessity of pain is only a rationalisaton.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A wall of words. Stand in front of a cancer victim and tell her that her pain makes her who she is. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
Wow, so you're saying that telling someone something that makes them angry or hurts them means that what you're telling them is either wrong or should be told in a different way?
I think we need a unit of measure for irony, so we can quantify just how big this one is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not so much about taking parts of the book out or putting them back in. The question is if you make the assumption that God exists then the book is essentially a collection of stories, facts, and themes that God wants you to know. So it's not so much "If God killed all the first-born in Egypt, then what does that tell us about God", it's more like "If God wants us to think that he's an entity that does said-killing, what does it tell us about him?"
It is more, for me, like, "Here are the writings of a people about their relationship with God. What can we learn about what they thought about God?"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:There's no symmetry here. Armoth is trying to argue that there is some comfort to be found for the pain, some sort of reason for it; I am saying that this doesn't comfort the actual victims. A comfort that only applies to those who can sit in an easy chair and philosophise about the necessity of pain is only a rationalization.
Maybe Armoth is but that's certainly not what I took out of it, I read it that Armoth is trying to show that this way of viewing the world is, if not true, at least possible. Thus the symmetry comes back into focus as we show that the truth of any one's beliefs don't always bring comfort to those who suffer from the consequences of the reality we all experience regardless of our reasons for it happening. Saying that there exists a deeper truth beyond the simple fact that suffering exists which explains it in such a way that not only allows for a benevolent God but actually adds purpose to the suffering isn't disproved by saying that some would be offended by its application. And even if we want to say that there was an attempt to use this to give someone comfort, I refer you back to 'A': not every application of even a helpful remedy yields fruit as an unwise physician will kill with the same tools that a more capable doctor will heal with. And 'B': it has worked for people.
Hobbes Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I understand why many people refuse atheism. There are aspects to experience that simply haven't yet been explained away by science. Will they be? Dunno.
However, the people who think that any particular religion is definitely, clearly better need to answer the following question:
What's the best explanation for why the Muslims were "allowed" to dominate the Holy Land for hundreds of years, but now have to request access from Jews/Christians?
You could come up with some tortured bullshit, or simply say "God works in mysterious ways", and leave it at that.
You could also note that the Muslims dominated trade/commerce between Asia and Europe while they controlled the Holy Land. Their dominance ended pretty soon after the Silk Road gave way to trade-by-boat. They lost most of their access to money/information. Western Christianity (and Judaism) gained much greater access to money/information, not only from trade-by-boat with Asia, but also as a result of European trade-by-boat with the Americas. This was the simple result of better shipbuilding, mapmaking, and navigation.
Which explanation fits the facts better:
1. God works in mysterious ways
2. control of the Holy Land is a result of having greater access to information and money than the other religions.
It just seems like God rewards good science, access to all types of information, and moderation and common sense far more than he rewards any type of extremism/orthodoxy. That's assuming that there is a God. I refuse to say for sure on that one.
I'm not saying I support atheism. That's as good a way to get roundly abused as any other type of extremism, as anyone can see from the way KoM gets treated here.
It looks about as smart to be an extremist for or against God/religion as it does to smoke 3 packs a day, unfiltered. It may kill you, it may not, but...what good has it done anyone?
I'm going to have to say that TomD's accusation that religion is an emotional addiction is...while harsh, somewhat true. But hey, so is extremist atheism, to a certain degree.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:However, the people who think that any particular religion is definitely, clearly better need to answer the following question...
Perhaps, but probably not in this thread. There's the challenge to religion that it's basic claims (God exists, in this case: the Bible is true, etc..) which is what you're referring to. The challenge is here is a step above (or below I suppose, depending on how you look at it), that given these basic beliefs taken as is, the superstructure of truth they create is itself contradictory and can not stand. That's a very different thing, and to my mind, far more interesting if only because we've been over the first argument so many times here on Hatrack. Not that this is completely new but it's at least a little bit fresher.
quote:I'm not saying I support atheism. That's as good a way to get roundly abused as any other type of extremism, as anyone can see from the way KoM gets treated here.
Really? You think that KoM gets treated poorly here and it's because he's an atheist? I've found a pretty consistent pattern that, for the most part, posters are responded to as they respond. Most people are quite civil to me here, and I like to flatter myself it's because I'm at least somewhat civil in return (though I can feel now that I'm quite tired and I'm afraid it's eroding some of my mental blocks on impoliteness, so I should probably go to bed after this before I do something I regret, or at least before I do something else I regret ). I make that statement in the unique position of someone whose been both an atheist (or at least a firm non-believer) and a semi-devout theist on this forum.
Hobbes Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:There's no symmetry here. Armoth is trying to argue that there is some comfort to be found for the pain, some sort of reason for it; I am saying that this doesn't comfort the actual victims. A comfort that only applies to those who can sit in an easy chair and philosophise about the necessity of pain is only a rationalization.
Maybe Armoth is but that's certainly not what I took out of it, I read it that Armoth is trying to show that this way of viewing the world is, if not true, at least possible. Thus the symmetry comes back into focus as we show that the truth of any one's beliefs don't always bring comfort to those who suffer from the consequences of the reality we all experience regardless of our reasons for it happening. Saying that there exists a deeper truth beyond the simple fact that suffering exists which explains it in such a way that not only allows for a benevolent God but actually adds purpose to the suffering isn't disproved by saying that some would be offended by its application. And even if we want to say that there was an attempt to use this to give someone comfort, I refer you back to 'A': not every application of even a helpful remedy yields fruit as an unwise physician will kill with the same tools that a more capable doctor will heal with. And 'B': it has worked for people.
Hobbes
God bless you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is related to my belief in God. My belief in Orthodox Judaism. In the Jewish Bible, and in the Oral Law.
It is further related to the fact that I'd rather be living than dead.
So because you believe what is contained in the Oral Law, and because you believe that you have God to thank for your life, you believe that God is good?
What, then, is the foundation of your belief in the Oral Law? What evidence do you have that suggests God is the architect of your existence?
(Edit: I don't mean to sound so "short," here. I'm just trying to understand the origin of this line of thinking. From my perspective, you're saying that you believe God is good because you've chosen to believe something that tells you God is good, which really only pushes the decision down one more level. Am I understanding that correctly?)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Steven, no doubt a lot of what you are saying is true.
My Rabbis/Mentors like to remind us that religion is the opiate of the masses. That a large portion of religious people, including Jews, use religion as an emotional addiction. Or, because maybe they like the structure, they use it to gain honors, or power, moral authority, etc.
I believe there is a way to do it right.
Your question on history is a good one. Probably if not for this thread, but I like to answer all the questions that I can anyways.
Perhaps the best answer I can give you is Deuteronomy chapter 28. God tells Israel about the blessings that will befall them if they are good and listen to His commandments - and about the curses that will befall them if they do not. From verse 15 and on are the curses. Jewish History 3000 years before it happened.
Short answer: Every generation that Jews did not live in Israel believed that they were still responsible. There is a prayer that begins "It is because of OUR sins..."
Even now that the new state of Israel was created, most Jews believe that we are still in exile as half the Jews in the world do no live in Israel, there is no temple, and most importantly, we are harassed by enemy nations.
But many Jews nowadays believe that they are witnessing the beginning of redemption.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It is related to my belief in God. My belief in Orthodox Judaism. In the Jewish Bible, and in the Oral Law.
It is further related to the fact that I'd rather be living than dead.
So because you believe what is contained in the Oral Law, and because you believe that you have God to thank for your life, you believe that God is good?
What, then, is the foundation of your belief in the Oral Law? What evidence do you have that suggests God is the architect of your existence?
(Edit: I don't mean to sound so "short," here. I'm just trying to understand the origin of this line of thinking. From my perspective, you're saying that you believe God is good because you've chosen to believe something that tells you God is good, which really only pushes the decision down one more level. Am I understanding that correctly?)
First, I didn't feel you were short. We're cool.
Second, you're right. that was a point I should have clarified better. I meant to say that many of the reasons why I believe in God, the Bible and in the Oral Law are many of the root reasons why I believe God is Good. The "it is related" thing was meant to convey that. I was trying to build a skeleton and have you add the meat in your head.
But seeing as you DON'T believe, I guess it was a silly idea. I didn't want to go into why I believe all that because this probably isn't the thread. Sometimes I dread writing my responses and just wanna take the person I'm talking to out for coffee.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Really? You think that KoM gets treated poorly here and it's because he's an atheist?"
I think that, if he said the same things about religion on, for instance, an atheist forum, instead of Hatrack, he'd receive far less abuse than he has here. The abuse is largely the result of the forum he has chosen to say those things in. Maybe not entirely, but it's definitely the largest part.
It reminds me of when I was a teenager. This girl in my class remarked that another girl's dad "doesn't know how to smoke." She thought his smoking style was somehow incompetent.
I feel that spending time and energy focusing on something like that is equally as worthwhile as intense focus over the question of the existence of God or WHICH religion is correct. It's a waste.
"Perhaps, but probably not in this thread. There's the challenge to religion that it's basic claims (God exists, in this case: the Bible is true, etc..) which is what you're referring to. The challenge is here is a step above (or below I suppose, depending on how you look at it), that given these basic beliefs taken as is, the superstructure of truth they create is itself contradictory and can not stand. That's a very different thing, and to my mind, far more interesting if only because we've been over the first argument so many times here on Hatrack. Not that this is completely new but it's at least a little bit fresher."
If other people find this question interesting, I'd be happy to start and/or discuss this in a new thread. It's something I've been thinking about for a couple of years now, and have considered starting a thread here about it for about that long. I use that argument regularly when Christians, IRL, get a little too pro-Christian for my patience. I have a 100% win ratio with that argument. I imagine it has a similar win ratio with Jews and Muslims. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is there a better thread for it? I would love to hear why you believe "all that," sincerely.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"But many Jews nowadays believe that they are witnessing the beginning of redemption."
What would that be based on, exactly? Which commandments are Jews now following more? In comparison to when Muslims ran the Holy Land, is what I mean. If anything, Jews today are probably more secular.
See, this is exactly the "tortured bullshit" I was referring to. I know you mean well, and are a nice person. However, I have clearly beaten the ever-loving heck out of any argument that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are automatically better than each other.
Now I'm waiting for you to figure that out. Patiently, oh so patiently...
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Steven,
KoM's posts are documented on the site. I have usually found him to be harsh and abrasive. Of course this is a board populated with many believers - but that means you need to talk maturely and sensitively.
Personally, my experience with KoM on this thread has been fine, but I've had an experience in the past that was unpleasant. You have 2279 posts so I feel like explaining this is silly. You should be able to tell that KoM is not being "persecuted" because of his "beliefs." Plus, i think he enjoys his notoriety.
Tom: I'd be happy to explain why I believe whatever I believe. It will take some time on my end, though I'm sure I can summon up some old conversations I've had that I could just edit a bit. Just be patient with me. I'm not sure that I'll have the time today to sit down and write the response I should. But you can hold me to it - I'll make the time.
I'd prefer you start a new post, post to "Ask the Rebbetzin" or "Q/A with Judaism"
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "But many Jews nowadays believe that they are witnessing the beginning of redemption."
What would that be based on, exactly? Which commandments are Jews now following more? In comparison to when Muslims ran the Holy Land, is what I mean. If anything, Jews today are probably more secular.
See, this is exactly the "tortured bullshit" I was referring to. I know you mean well, and are a nice person. However, I have clearly beaten the ever-loving heck out of any argument that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are automatically better than each other.
Now I'm waiting for you to figure that out. Patiently, oh so patiently...
Beating the heck? ::shrug::
First, let me say that I have never claimed that Judaism one-ups Islam or Christianity on the basis of history. I do not presume to know why things turned out the way they did. Jews have been at the mercy of both Christians and Muslims, and it has never been the other way around. That's very humbling for a nation that calls itself the chosen people. Maybe that is what Jews needed - who knows.
Are Jews more secular now than ever? Sure. I don't know that it is a numbers game. Perhaps there is a small minority that is more righteous than earlier points during the exile. Perhaps that though they are secular, they exhibit a level of decency that was greater than earlier generations?
My personal view is that we aren't supposed to compare ourselves against previous generations, but against our own potential. I think that since most Jews are secular and do not have the education necessary to follow every detail of Orthodox Judaism, that they are judged on a more proportionate scale. I also think that it's possible that we probably earned Israel as a "second chance." Not because are better or anything, but as a test.
We are in the spotlight of the world, circumstances are such where we have tough moral decisions to make in the public view. Will we attribute our successes to the sweat of our own brow? Or to the grace of God? ::shrug::
My belief that Judaism is true over Christianity or Islam would probably come out in Tom's thread. But just to throw out there - both Christianity and Islam believe in Judaism to an extent - they just believe Jews are bad and so God extended/changed his covenant. This basically puts Jews on a more easier defense of "No he didn't."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Armoth--I'd like to say that I enjoy talking to you. I find you reasonable, humane and likeable. I've been wanting to say that.
I agree that KoM has been abrasive here. No question. Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.
Again, I'd just like to say that I find you very likeable. Honestly, I think I find you easier to deal with as a person than people who agree with me a lot more that you do regarding religion.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Are Jews more secular now than ever? Sure. I don't know that it is a numbers game. Perhaps there is a small minority that is more righteous than earlier points during the exile. Perhaps that though they are secular, they exhibit a level of decency that was greater than earlier generations?
My personal view is that we aren't supposed to compare ourselves against previous generations, but against our own potential. I think that since most Jews are secular and do not have the education necessary to follow every detail of Orthodox Judaism, that they are judged on a more proportionate scale. I also think that it's possible that we probably earned Israel as a "second chance." Not because are better or anything, but as a test."
Let's look at that first statement that I bolded. I don't agree with the general point there, but clearly your brain is functional.
It sounds like you're saying that "well, the Jews are doing a better job (from God's POV) with the lot they've currently been handed than, say, the Muslims." If that is your point, then heck yes, I agree. The difference between us, though, is that I think that open-mindedness (assuming God exists, etc.), tolerance, etc. are pretty much always synonymous with better access to information. Better access to information (than Muslims)is exactly what Jews, generally speaking, have had for about 400 years now. I think it's EXACTLY that better access to information that allows Jews/Christians to keep beating the holy heck out of the Muslims.
You're talking about "this generation, that generation." The Jews/Christians have been dominating the Middle east for 60 years now. It doesn't appear to be stopping anytime soon, and, any way you look at it, there's multiple generations involved. Indeed, Jews and Christians have been more prosperous (and dominant, economically) than Muslims for hundreds of years. Islam is 100% dependent on Jew-and-Christian-controlled economies for their very sustenance. Bin Laden's kids wouldn't even eat if we all went to non-oil-based fuels. They depend on our economies for their very lives.
This is a multi-generational thing, any way you look at it, no? Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Thanks Steven! I really appreciate you saying that. Sometimes I find that I appreciate the logic of atheists more than that of my coreligionists, so the feeling is mutual ;-)
As to your second post - I was going to say that. That Jews now have access to information. I was throwing out possibilities - you asked a question through the lens of history about the superiority of the different religions and I was giving you different theological responses.
It's rough telling you that we are a better generation than the ones before. I really can't make that determination. The amount of self-knowledge it takes for me to claim that I am a better person than I was 5 years ago, and the guy 5 years ago is better than the 10 years ago version, is immense. And I'd like to believe that on a personal level. To judge generations? ::shrug:: But yea, that's why I said from God's POV.
And yes - this has involved more than one generation. And the test of every generation is different than the one before it. My grandparents were holocaust survivors. That did a number on the psyche of my parents - growing up, the children of a nation of holocaust survivors, defending their newborn country from repeated attack, building its economy, etc.
My generation takes things for granted. It's hard. We have comfortable lives, the ability to travel to or live in Israel, etc. Our generation needs to remember to have a sense of history, to have overwhelming gratitude to our parents, grandparents, and ultimately to God.
Yea, it's a multi-generational thing on multiple levels.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I agree that KoM has been abrasive here. No question. Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.
I agree, but then I think if I went to an all Democrat forum I could get away with some pretty nasty comments on Republicans which wouldn't prove that when I went to a mixed use forum and those same comments weren't responded to with applause that I was being targeted for my beliefs. I'm not trying to accuse KoM or anything nor get into a big thing over this, I'm just saying that though there are always rude people available people are treated as the treat others here for the most part.
quote:If other people find this question interesting, I'd be happy to start and/or discuss this in a new thread. It's something I've been thinking about for a couple of years now, and have considered starting a thread here about it for about that long.
I didn't mean to turn into some kind of militant thread moderator, so I apologize if I did do that. I don't guarantee I'd participate in such a thread (I might, but I might not Depends on how much energy I feel like putting that direction) but I'm sure that plenty of people would. I'm sure it would be interesting, and it seems like a good idea.
Hobbes Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Speaking of the Holocaust----My guess is that there were plenty of infant Jews murdered during the Holocaust. My guess is also that there were some really fine human beings of the Jewish persuasion that also died during the Holocaust. Probably some of them were more Orthodox-ish than others. My guess is also that some majorly awful human beings survived the Holocaust. This is just common sense. What does living versus dying have to do with God's judgment? Plenty of Jews in the US survived the Holocaust. Common sense tells us that there were wonderful and awful humans among them, Orthodox and not. Are you saying that somehow the US Jews of the 30s and 40s, born and raised here, were somehow better than the European Jews of that time that were born and raised in Europe?
Here's my theory. There are trends that are far larger than any generation/religion/country/person. These trends are huge. They are also NOT self-aware. Nothing in what happened to Jews during the Holocaust indicates very much self-awareness on that large a level. I submit that, even if there is an unpredictable spiritual aspect to the Universe, it is not (yet, anyway) fully self-aware, or anywhere even close. Not yet. Someone once said (I'm paraphrasing) "If there is a God, he is the Devil." I don't agree with that. I'd say, "If there is a God, he's not self-aware to any great degree, at least not yet."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Like I said, I can't presume to explain why the people who died in the holocaust died, or why the people who survived survived.
I know that my grandparents and my parents feel a heavy burden of responsibility - they feel like they were chosen - they have guilt that they survived and the rest of their family died. I know many people from my parents' generation who believe that they need to do something great in their lives for that very reason.
But that's a natural feeling and it may or may not be warranted.
What I DO want to stress is that there are a lot of Orthodox Jews who are not good people. A lot of non-Orthodox Jews are wonderful people. I believe God gave humanity a standard of living (7 commandments for non-Jews and the Torah for Jews). But I also believe God gave everyone more or less potential to actually fulfill His commandments, or intuit morality if you are never even exposed to His commandments. The more or less a person fulfills his potential is the yardstick for how good a person he is.
I think we all intuit this perspective. That's where the whole walking around in other people's shoes come from. That's what I think the field of psychology is largely about. We all have our baggage, and our accomplishments are largely measured in light of how far we are able to go despite our burdens.
My best friend is a gay atheist. Many of my friends are deeply religious and cannot fathom how I can possibly relate to him. But I have so much more respect for him than I do for many of my "friends." I admire his courage to step outside a society he was raised in, to do it while abandoned by family and friends, while I am surrounded by people who have never challenged themselves or their choices once in their lives.
So...yea. Even with all that intro I'm not going to say that the survivors were righteous and that the dead are not. Maybe some of the dead were evil, and maybe some of them were great, and God is rewarding them for their sacrifice in the next world. Maybe God is punishing the survivors by making them lives without families, broken and scarred. I don't know, but in the grand scheme of things, the fact that there are possible explanations coupled with the loyalty to God that I believe He has earned from me, I'm sure that whatever happened was ultimately good.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Of course I'm not being 'persecuted' because I'm an atheist. That's ridiculous. People dislike me because yes, I am more abrasive than would be optimal and I do skirt the edge of the forum rules. And the reason for that, in turn, is that theist rationalisation annoys me more than I can readily express without getting a warning. It's like seeing someone with an industrial-strength lathe using it as a hammer. There's such a total mismatch between what these people are plainly capable of, and what they actually do, it grates like sandpaper.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:And the reason for that, in turn, is that theist rationalisation annoys me more than I can readily express without getting a warning. It's like seeing someone with an industrial-strength lathe using it as a hammer. There's such a total mismatch between what these people are plainly capable of, and what they actually do, it grates like sandpaper.
But if this is what bothers you, you are responding it in a way that's only going to increase the amount of "theist rationalization" you'll hear.
Christianity really isn't about coming up with rational explanations for inconsistencies between verses of the Bible. Christians don't often go to church to discuss how to rationalize the killing of babies in Egypt or whether God can create a rock God can't lift. That sort of rationalization misses the point of Christianity. Instead it mostly happens in response to arguments from outside Christianity (such as from atheists) against Christianity. Such arguments are usually ineffective at changing the minds of Christians because, again, being able to answer such questions is not the point of Christianity. But it does usually bother Christians enough that they feel compelled to answer them. So, if you hear a lot of Christians rationalizing, I suspect the reason is because you keep trying to disprove their religion. I suspect it is similar for other theist religions.
I think if you ask people who became religious why they became religious, you'll find their reason is not so much rationalizations they've heard or any sort of logic that "proved" their religion, and more because of personal experiences they've had.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I disagree with Xaposert's perspective vehemently.
My mentors, and I believe my religion exhorts its followers to serve God with "all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut 6:5)." I was taught that if you have brains and logic, those are tools God gave you and you are meant to use them to the utmost.
I was taught to grapple with questions, to be intellectually honest. The foundations of belief need to be strong. What is admirable about self-deceit? I admire an atheist who has searched more than a theist who has not.
That isn't to say that you will be able to answer every problem that comes your way. Only that your reasons for belief be so fundamental and rooted that a contradiction can be explained away by the limits of your knowledge, and not by the limits of the religion itself.
I've said this before on another thread. I think we were given both heart and mind. Mind to find the truth, and heart to actually live it. Just because you have heart, and most religions have heart, does not mean you have truth.
So...yeah..questions = good. At least in my mind.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I don't know, I didn't read Xaposert as saying that Christians can't or shouldn't use their minds, but rather that the foundation of the Christian faith lies not in reason but in revelation, a perfectly sound claim (1 Corinthians 1:20 specifically comes to mind, as well as 2:1 and 2:6). It sounds like you, Armoth, are more in the Cambridge Platonist vein, where reason and revelation are not mutually exclusive at all, but instead revelation can/should be ascertained via reason. And, if I'm not mistaken, there lies KoM's angst: That intelligent peoples reason should be applied to what he sees as so useless and pointless an endeavor as discerning "divine revelation."
Or I may be way off base.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.
It all depends on the forum. If peopled with people of like mind and temperament as KoM, then by his own admission reactions would probably be quite a bit worse.
quote:There's such a total mismatch between what these people are plainly capable of, and what they actually do, it grates like sandpaper.
Then it should be a lot easier for you than it apparently is to understand how frustrating and downright aggravating, not to mention often anger-inducing, to see an intelligent and articulate person so often abuse their capacity by being an offensive prick simply because he really doesn't like what someone else says.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:My mentors, and I believe my religion exhorts its followers to serve God with "all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut 6:5)." I was taught that if you have brains and logic, those are tools God gave you and you are meant to use them to the utmost.
I was taught to grapple with questions, to be intellectually honest. The foundations of belief need to be strong. What is admirable about self-deceit? I admire an atheist who has searched more than a theist who has not.
There's nothing intellectually dishonest about saying "I don't know". That's the real answer to these questions - I don't know why God allowed babies to die in the Bible, I don't know God's full plan, I don't know whether He can create a stone He can't lift, etc. These questions are often posed with the suggestion that we need to answer them in order to be confident in our religion. That's why the rationalization arises, as an attempt to offer answers to things we really don't know. But the truth is that any answer I'd give is only a guess; religion asks us to accept the answer of "I don't know" to many of these questions but adds that we should have faith anyway, because the driving force behind religion is not the ability to answer all the questions.
The driving force behind religion is a sort of evidence that is more compelling than the ability to answer inconsistencies from the Bible. I hesitate to call it revelation, because that brings up the image of the God telling us the answers directly, and I think that's not really the right way to describe it. It's more personal experience and observation. I'd consider it to be evidence-based and rational, in the same sense that one might say it is rational to accept something you see, feel, hear, and touch every day even before you can figure out how to fully explain it logically, simply because you know you can see, feel, hear, and touch it. Reason isn't about using one's mind in isolation; it's about using it in conjunction with one's eyes, ears, and other powers of perception.
So, the skeptic trying to undermine religion with theological inconsistencies is inevitably going to end up a bit like the Grinch in that one scene after he's taken the presents only to discover that the Whos are still singing. Christmas isn't fundamentally about the presents, and religion isn't fundamentally about having answers to questions like that. Having said that... I do like presents, and answers, and difficult questions.
[ April 20, 2009, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd consider it to be evidence-based and rational...
Yeah, but you believe in the reality of qualia, so we need to take that with a big ol' grain of salt.
quote:religion isn't fundamentally about having answers to questions like that
It's fairly rare to hear people admit that religion is about feeling good about things whether or not your reasons for doing so are based on reality. *grin*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Almost everyone believes in the reality of qualia, although most don't understand what it means to describe it in those words. A better way to ask people is "Have you ever felt pain?" Almost everyone would say yes. Only the rare few would say "No, I sometimes report to myself that I feel pain, but I don't really." But that'd be a tangent, wouldn't it?
Besides... I'm working on the assumption that most people here already take what I'm saying with quite a few grains of salt. I'd prefer it that way. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I was taught to grapple with questions, to be intellectually honest.
No you weren't. You were taught to say "This is a question, and oh dear, it is a good question - but fortunately we have this excellent answer to it." And then pat yourself on the back for being such an honest questioner of your faith. It's not doubt unless it could genuinely go either way; but it's an excellent mental barrier against real inquiry, to say that "well, I've already doubted, so I've done my duty."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:religion isn't fundamentally about having answers to questions like that
It's fairly rare to hear people admit that religion is about feeling good about things whether or not your reasons for doing so are based on reality. *grin*
I've heard this kind of thing more often in Richard Dawkins UK appearances rather than in America. In America, the questions are more often something like "Is religion/creationism true?" whereas in UK it often becomes "Well, who knows if religion is true, but doesn't it make people feel better/comfort them/provide for a better society?"
I can only theorize that this is due to a larger population of agnostics and less fervent theists, but it is an interesting difference.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I agree that KoM has been abrasive here. No question. Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.
<snort> Of course they would. Why would anyone think that atheist statements would be anything but praised on an atheist forum?
But if you meant that comments like Armoth's would be treated with more patience on an atheist forum than KoM's are here, you're delusional.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No you weren't. You were taught to say "This is a question, and oh dear, it is a good question - but fortunately we have this excellent answer to it." And then pat yourself on the back for being such an honest questioner of your faith. It's not doubt unless it could genuinely go either way; but it's an excellent mental barrier against real inquiry, to say that "well, I've already doubted, so I've done my duty."
Since you've no idea whether or not the question, for Amroth, really could have gone either way or not, your response is - once again - very amusing.
If you'd inject some of the doubt you're preaching now into your dealings with religious people, you might at least appear to be doing something more than ranting about how stupid they are.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If the question were really in doubt, he'd have come down on the true side.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
You must really hate that I didn't side with you, huh?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If the question were really in doubt, he'd have come down on the true side.
So when a question is in doubt, it's impossible for an honest, thorough person to arrive at the incorrect conclusion and still be honest and thorough?
'Doubt' doesn't seem to be the correct word in that case.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not in general. In the case of theism, yes.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I thought I'd post this because it just appeared today in the Rhino Times, where OSC's columns appear (this is not by OSC):
quote:Several years ago, when I was teaching a lot, I taught philosophy to college students during the year, and then, during the summer, I would teach gifted and talented high school students from all over the state in a six-week summer program at Salem College.
One day our class of about 15 students was talking about whether or not God existed and about whether or not the design of the world made any sense.
The discussion was taking place right after two students had been sent home. Students in the program are juniors and seniors in high school, and the boys were not allowed in the girls' dorms at night and vice versa. However, one guy and girl student had broken that rule and gotten together and been kicked out. So, in class, we were talking about those two and I said, right there's a good example: "God creates your body in such a way that – especially at your age – hormones are raging, and there is sex on the brain all the time, and it's this incredibly powerful drive God instilled in you – and then, after putting that drive in you, He instructs you: 'Don't do it! If you're not married, it's a sin! In fact, if you even think about doing it, you're sinning.'"
Now, that made no sense to me, and it seemed horribly unfair; on the surface, at least, it looks like God was being outright cruel when He created that situation.
No one had a good answer for my question but then, after a moment, one guy raised his hand and, when he spoke, he gave what was not only the best answer to that question I've ever heard, but also one of the best answers to any question I'd ever heard in years of teaching.
Here's what he said: "God gives us this incredible gift – sex – you know, maybe the best thing He ever gave us. And, as wonderful as it is, as fantastic as it is, before He gave it to us, I think He thought to Himself, 'Wait a minute, how can I make it even better?' And then He thought: 'I know – I'll make it forbidden too.'"
And I was just blown away.
I thought that was a beautiful answer. I'm not saying the answer is firmly grounded in accepted doctrine or that it's the right one. I'm just saying there's something about his answer that's very beautiful.
Because look at what this guy is doing: Rather than leaping straight away, as many people do, to the conclusion that it's a good reason to be cynical about God – this student is choosing to give God the benefit of the doubt.
His answer shows his faith because it assumes from the start that God loves us and, whatever the explanation, he assumes, it must be rooted in God's love for us. And, for all I know, that student's solution to the paradox is right on the money.
Here's the thing: Yes, if you come at Christianity and the world and the Bible with only logic, reason and common sense – you'll find the Bible is full of contradictions and the world can be nonsensical.
However, when you simply allow yourself to give God the benefit of the doubt, and you approach all these questions with love and faith, it all makes perfect sense – even at those times when it makes no sense at all.
I just thought this was cleverly stated. Of course, it's not clear how you get enough evidence for God for God to get the benefit of the doubt the rest of the time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, right. If you only let go of logic, reason, and common sense, why then theism makes perfect sense! Of course! Well, this is what I've been saying all along, and in some sense I'm glad the writer agrees; now if only he would take the consequence of his words, and realise that this is not a good thing.
Edit: And incidentally, if those are really the best arguments the writer can conceive of for the Universe being badly designed, he should give up on columns and start selling those natty little straw hats; he'd make a fortune. This is exactly what I meant by 'having done one's duty' by questioning: He is very carefully selecting some extremely weak questions, which he can - such a coincidence! - easily answer. Seriously, Christian rock? Let's see him explain cancer with his cheerful little metaphors.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Read more carefully... He does not suggest letting go of logic, reason, and common sense. He suggests coming at the questions with "love and faith" in addition to logic, reason and common sense.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Love and faith are methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions. If you want to know whats true, you'd never use them to answer questions. If you want to reinforce pre-conceived notions, then they are great.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Read more carefully... He does not suggest letting go of logic, reason, and common sense. He suggests coming at the questions with "love and faith" in addition to logic, reason and common sense.
No, what he's saying is that when reason and common sense tell you something that you do not like, ignore that, and believe whatever the hell you want to believe, and label that "love and faith".
That is exactly what letting go of reason and evidence means.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Logic, reason and common sense are also methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions. Logic and reason depend entirely upon the assumptions fed into them (garbage in, garbage out) and are very difficult to use precisely and correctly if you aren't a computer. Common sense is just a set of assumptions which could easily be wrong.
I'm sure you could set up an experiment to get some idea of which method of information processing leads to the best conclusions. Get together a bunch of average adults and give them a test with various types of questions - and then ask them how they determined the answer to each question. My guess is that the MOST mistakes would come from questions where the adults tried to logically deduce the answer at test time, and the least mistakes would come from questions where the adults trust some expert who had told them the answer in the past. (Actually, this sounds similar to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - do you think people do better putting faith in a phoned friend or trying to logically deduce the answer on their own?)
My guess is that the best method of information processing involves using many of the methods together.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Logic, reason and common sense are also methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions. Logic and reason depend entirely upon the assumptions fed into them (garbage in, garbage out) and are very difficult to use precisely and correctly if you aren't a computer. Common sense is just a set of assumptions which could easily be wrong.
But we have a good way of determining if our assumptions are right or wrong...we reality test them, and we throw them away when they fail reality testing.
What kind of reality testing can you submit the belief "Jesus died for my sins" to?
Or what about "That baby has no soul"?
quote:I'm sure you could set up an experiment to see which method of information processing leads to the best conclusions. Get together a bunch of average adults and give them a test with various types of questions - and then ask them how they determined the answer to each question. My guess is that the MOST mistakes would come from questions where the adults tried to logically deduce the answer at test time, and the least mistakes would come from questions where the adults trust some expert who had told them the answer in the past.
This tells us a great deal more about you than it does other people.
But sure...why don't you find two groups of people who've never heard of the Monty Hall problem. One group you give an accurate simulator, and ask them what the simulation reveals about whether to stay or switch, and the other group will pray for a minute.
Which group do you think will have the right answer more often?
Or another one...there are four chicks in a nest. Which is more likely...that there are 2 males and 2 females, or that the ratio is something else? One group goes prays for a minute, the other writes out all the possible permutations of chicks.
Which group do you think will have the right answer more often?
But how about this test...we've had really rigorous evidenced-based reasosning for a few hundred years now, faith and love for millenia.
How many children were cured of malaria using faith, versus how many have been cured by evidenced-backed reasoning?
If your adult child had cancer, and your son or daughter-in-law said that they were rejecting evidence-based medicine in favor of nothing but love and faith, would you honestly be okay with that? Woud you expect the optimal health outcome from that course of action?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:How many children were cured of malaria using faith, versus how many have been cured by evidenced-backed reasoning?
My guess is that very few parents tried to use evidence-backed reasoning to deduce a method of protecting their child from malaria, and most that did probably failed. In contrast, most parents (at least in this country) successfully protected their child from malaria by having faith in their doctor.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:How many children were cured of malaria using faith, versus how many have been cured by evidenced-backed reasoning?
My guess is that very few parents tried to use evidence-backed reasoning to deduce a method of protecting their child from malaria, and most that did probably failed. In contrast, most parents (at least in this country) successfully protected their child from malaria by having faith in their doctor.
But its not faith, not really. It's supported by evidence and reason. Faith by definition is not adequately supported by the evidence, and the evidence is that medical treatment works better than prayer at curing malaria.
And you still refuse to answer anything else I wrote, and I think it's pretty clear why. I imagine that if you were seriously hurt by someone because they ignored what the evidence told them, and did what their faith, or gut told them, you would be livid. If you lost your house, or your life savings, or someone you loved, you wouldn't accept "Well, the evidence told me that something terrible would happen, but my gut said it would all be fine, and I went with my gut, wasn't that the right thing to do?" as an explanation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Here's what he said: "God gives us this incredible gift – sex – you know, maybe the best thing He ever gave us. And, as wonderful as it is, as fantastic as it is, before He gave it to us, I think He thought to Himself, 'Wait a minute, how can I make it even better?' And then He thought: 'I know – I'll make it forbidden too.'"
In what warped way does being forbidden make something better?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Fruit
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's not the point. The point is that the kid was willing to exercise some tortured logic in a post-facto attempt to justify God's behavior, having started from the assumptions that a) God exists; b) God is all-powerful; and c) God is benevolent. The author found this charming; I find it sort of sad.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's not the point. The point is that the kid was willing to exercise some tortured logic in a post-facto attempt to justify God's behavior, having started from the assumptions that a) God exists; b) God is all-powerful; and c) God is benevolent. The author found this charming; I find it sort of sad.
IMO, where the kid got it wrong was in assuming that he understood God's position on sex. When I was faced with that particular conundrum (at about puberty,) it took me approximately 12 seconds to figure out which assumption to discard.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, of course. Certainly your god couldn't object to any impulse of yours, unless the impulse were socially unacceptable; that would be unpleasant, and we can't have that, can we now?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
quote:Not in general. In the case of theism, yes.
Well of course. It'd have to for you, wouldn't it?
ETA:
quote:Well, of course. Certainly your god couldn't object to any impulse of yours; that would be unpleasant, and we can't have that, can we now?
Heh!
We can't have you injecting a little doubt (even if it's only for the sake of argument) into your dealings with the idiotic theists. That would involve ceding that you are completely, utterly right about the matter, and we can't have that, can we now?
---
Paul,
quote:Love and faith are methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions.
If they are used exclusively, then of course. Just as the total absence of those considerations is a very easy way to lead someone to awful but true conclusions.
If you actually do believe that love is an idea which can only be used to lead one away from the correct conclusions, well, that's really a regrettable thing to believe in my opinion. But I suspect that's not quite what you believe, rather that you were speaking generally about something quite specific.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.
See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.
See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Oooo! Maybe we're (as I have suggested) getting better at figuring out what God really wants for us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
I vaguely recall something about her faith being built on belief in and following the teachings of (as she sees them, of course) someone who was very, very radically out of step with the current fashionable morality of the time.
Strange!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The time, not necessarily her time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is plenty that is radically different from this time as well - even radically different from most current liberals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is plenty that is radically different from this time as well - even radically different from most current liberals.
Kate is pretty accurate in this statement. It's why I find it so strange that Christian conservatives get such a rotten taste in their mouth when socialism is mentioned. Jesus brought it up almost 2000 years ago.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.
See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Oooo! Maybe we're (as I have suggested) getting better at figuring out what God really wants for us.
And this is the particular time in history when we've figured everything out, and there aren't any differences between social morality in your part of the world and the Truths That Are Written In The Stars? Such a coincidence!
quote:I vaguely recall something about her faith being built on belief in and following the teachings of (as she sees them, of course) someone who was very, very radically out of step with the current fashionable morality of the time.
And if any part of that person's teachings should differ from what kmb's intuition tells her, why then, that part was misunderstood by the scribes at the time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The time, not necessarily her time.
Tom, surely this becomes more laughable than incisive when said to a Christian of Christianity. Because whatever else you say about the many, many flaws of Christianity, it certainly didn't start as a religion that appealed to the moral mores of its day.
Furthermore, can you name me a Christian church or denomination that is satisfied with the status quo? That says, "American culture's views on morality are in line with God's views of morality." Betcha can't.
Of course then you or he will get into specifics about what was meant was that the religion is in line with that culture's views on morality...but that's not what was said, and it's untrue of Christianity again as well, to use an example.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The United States is many cultures, and doesn't have 'a' view on morality. Churches that are in line with their own locality's views on such, though - well, I challenge you to find a counterexample.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And if any part of that person's teachings should differ from what kmb's intuition tells her, why then, that part was misunderstood by the scribes at the time.
So your indictment is of kmb specifically, not Christians in general?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The United States is many cultures, and doesn't have 'a' view on morality. Churches that are in line with their own locality's views on such, though - well, I challenge you to find a counterexample.
Since you haven't provided an example, I fail to see why you're asking for a counterexample.
And while there certainly isn't one specifically codified view on morality, there certainly are some themes accepted that bear on morality. Here's an easy one: divorce. Very, very acceptable by American standards (using American divorce rates as an example), but I don't hear a lot of churches pointing out how it's acceptable for Christianity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.
See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Oooo! Maybe we're (as I have suggested) getting better at figuring out what God really wants for us.
And this is the particular time in history when we've figured everything out, and there aren't any differences between social morality in your part of the world and the Truths That Are Written In The Stars? Such a coincidence!
quote:I vaguely recall something about her faith being built on belief in and following the teachings of (as she sees them, of course) someone who was very, very radically out of step with the current fashionable morality of the time.
And if any part of that person's teachings should differ from what kmb's intuition tells her, why then, that part was misunderstood by the scribes at the time.
And 1000 years from now, people will have figured out what we misunderstood. I said we were getting better, not that we were done.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It seems to me that this is potentially a 'can God create a stone not even He can lift?' type of question....
In any case there does not seem to be a logical contradiction, as in the stone-too-heavy-to-lift case.
Just because it was brought up again: the paradox of the stone comes about only because the meaning of 'omnipotent' shifts. If the meaning is held constant then there is no paradox.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The United States is many cultures, and doesn't have 'a' view on morality. Churches that are in line with their own locality's views on such, though - well, I challenge you to find a counterexample.
Since you haven't provided an example, I fail to see why you're asking for a counterexample.
And while there certainly isn't one specifically codified view on morality, there certainly are some themes accepted that bear on morality. Here's an easy one: divorce. Very, very acceptable by American standards (using American divorce rates as an example), but I don't hear a lot of churches pointing out how it's acceptable for Christianity.
quote:Official Stance on Divorce: "Unitarian Universalists hold that divorce is entirely a matter for conscientious decision on the part of the persons involved."
As for the counterexample, I don't feel obliged to give an example of a straw man, or church in this case; but reducing the claim to what I actually said, I do not think you will find a counterexample.
quote:So your indictment is of kmb specifically, not Christians in general?
kmb is the most egregious example I'm aware of, but a lot of Christians do this. Not all.
quote:And 1000 years from now, people will have figured out what we misunderstood. I said we were getting better, not that we were done.
And yet you apparently cannot give a single example of a question where your intuition disagrees with moderately liberal mainstream thought of today! You who have prayed and 'thought deeply' on these issues! How can you seriously claim that this is inspiration from outside your social circle?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well for starters, it hasn't always been my social circle. I used to be considerably more on the libertarian end of the political and social spectrum. Also, a fairly small percentage of my social circle is at all religious.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The time, not necessarily her time.
Because whatever else you say about the many, many flaws of Christianity, it certainly didn't start as a religion that appealed to the moral mores of its day.
Wasn't this precisely Tom's point?
Posted by Geekazoid (Member # 7610) on :
quote: Oh, right. If you only let go of logic, reason, and common sense, why then theism makes perfect sense! Of course! Well, this is what I've been saying all along, and in some sense I'm glad the writer agrees; now if only he would take the consequence of his words, and realise that this is not a good thing.
KoM: The one thing that you, as a man of logic haven't noticed is that logic is also based on faith. In fact, religion is just as logical as science and common sense, it just starts of with a different axiom.
All logic is based on axioms, unprovable facts that we presume are true for no reason, or that we consider true by definition. In science that axiom is that we can trust what we observe.
This belief is also has many things that go against it. Things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and the double slit experiment show that the act of observing something changes it. Therefore, how can we trust what we observe when observation affects the results? Science also has flaws because it is based on an unprovable axiom Science is also based on belief.
The axiom of most religions is that God exists. everything else about the world is looked at starting with that belief, just as everything in the way that science looks at the world starts from the belief that you can trust your senses. Religious people build their lives around the idea that God created the world for us and therefore every single bit of information or question they receive goes through that filter and therefore they use logic to reach answers to your questions by looking towards God for an answer.
These are each only one axiom for each. Both science and religion have many more axioms
KoM: you seem to get really angry at these people who believe simply because they turn towards their axiom instead of yours. However, if someone tried to tell you that we couldn't trust that the speed of light is constant because we can't trust observation, you'd turn to your axiom and say that people should do more experiments to find out rather than say that science is completely wrong.
These people are using logic just as much as you are because they are using their axioms to logically build up an answer to the question asked. Not only that, you guys are using the exact same logic because just as they start off with the axiom of their religion, you start off with the axiom of your religion. You start off with the fact that God doesn't exist and you see everything through that filter because no matter what you say, there is no proof to whether or not God exists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you got sick, which would you rather do: Pray, or take medicine? Unless you genuinely are indifferent between these two options, you don't believe what you are saying, you're just putting up a wall of rationalisation. Science (not 'logic') and religion both make claims about the Universe. Science works. Religion doesn't. Deal.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Geekazoid,
The fact that an axiom is not provable does not mean it is presumed true "for no reason" or is thought to be "true by definition". Axioms in science normally have ample empirical justification. Furthermore they are continually tested. Is the same true for theistic axioms?
FYI you appear to be using science and logic interchangeably in places.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geekazoid: ... The axiom of most religions is that God exists. everything else about the world is looked at starting with that belief
Nope, they usually have multiple ones and they usually call them something else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So your indictment is of kmb specifically, not Christians in general?
Kate frustrates KoM because her God is not recognizable as God at all; He's basically whatever she's decided to believe. There are no strictures to her religions, no beliefs, that she has not -- from KoM's point of view -- already decided to believe. In other words, as he sees it, she took a moral framework and squeezed a god into it.
His criticism -- that her God perfectly reflects her morals -- is meant to apply to her specifically and to what I call mushy religion in broad strokes.
=========
quote:The axiom of most religions is that God exists.
This is a very silly axiom for a number of reasons. For one thing, it's very high-order for an axiom; it'd be like me saying "I am the King of the World, entitled to indulge my every whim" -- and then declaring that I'm being perfectly rational, since that's axiomatic.
Besides, I don't think most religious people do take "God exists" as axiomatic. I think there are other axioms that lead them to belief, but which do not necessarily presuppose the existence of a deity.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] but I don't hear a lot of churches pointing out how it's acceptable for Christianity.
quote:Official Stance on Divorce: "Unitarian Universalists hold that divorce is entirely a matter for conscientious decision on the part of the persons involved."
Point of Order: Unitarian Universalism is not Christianity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't know how it'd be possible to tell. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
I thought you'd return with Unitarian Universalists. You have indeed found a church that...well, doesn't quite endorse divorce, but leaves it up to individual choice.
Care to speculate as to what percentage of all Christians in the USA are Unitarian Universalists?
quote:As for the counterexample, I don't feel obliged to give an example of a straw man, or church in this case; but reducing the claim to what I actually said, I do not think you will find a counterexample.
What you actually said was that religion exists because it embraces the moral views of the time. That is not, in fact, true. I responded with divorce. You responded with Unitarian Universalists, a very small minority of Christians in the United States.
Your example remains unproven.
------
quote:Wasn't this precisely Tom's point?
How do you figure?
------
quote:Kate frustrates KoM because her God is not recognizable as God at all; He's basically whatever she's decided to believe. There are no strictures to her religions, no beliefs, that she has not -- from KoM's point of view -- already decided to believe. In other words, as he sees it, she took a moral framework and squeezed a god into it.
Far be it from me to deny that kmbboots's statements on God, religion, and the impact of both on politics and culture and daily living haven't frequently confused, baffled, or even frustrated me...
But exactly who are you, Tom, much less KoM, who is about as fair-minded and objective a judge on such matters as a Southern jury in a civil rights case fifty years ago, to say that she had these pre-conceived notions first and squeezed God into it?
Which existed first, the framework or the religion? Why are the two of you so comfortable in speaking so authoritatively which came first? Well, actually, I have a pretty good idea why, but I'm wondering what your answer would be.
------
ETA:
quote:Point of Order: Unitarian Universalism is not Christianity.
Also true, of course. But even if it was, KoM's larger point remains just out-of-backside talking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: "Wasn't this precisely Tom's point?" How do you figure?
This was precisely my point. Christianity may not have reflected the morals of its time, but it closely reflects the morals of Kate's time -- and her version of it reflects her personal morality even more closely.
quote:But exactly who are you, Tom...to say that she had these pre-conceived notions first and squeezed God into it?
Well, for one thing, that's how she's said it works. When she considers a bit of Scripture or doctrine, she sits down and thinks, "Does this make sense with what I think is good?" If it doesn't, she concludes that it's not real doctrine.
For another thing, I am just that cool. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This was precisely my point. Christianity may not have reflected the morals of its time, but it closely reflects the morals of Kate's time -- and her version of it reflects her personal morality even more closely.
Sorry, I was mixing you and KoM's responses up there a bit. KoM's statements have been about religion as a whole.
quote:Well, for one thing, that's how she's said it works. When she considers a bit of Scripture or doctrine, she sits down and thinks, "Does this make sense with what I think is good?" If it doesn't, she concludes that it's not real doctrine.
It seems a very subjective matter to me. Unless one is a biblical literalist who believes everything is translated and transcribed and published with total divine accuracy, there is always some of that internally-fueled analysis. I mean, from the perspective of the theist, not just from an outside perspective which concludes that it's all internally fueled analysis.
Anyway, my point is, suppose she believes God wants her to do what is good instead of what is expedient, and deciding to adhere to that, she then asks herself that question? Well, then, your phrasing of how it happens is very flawed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Crucially, however, it means that God will never ask of Kate something that she does not already believe is right.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
[qute]What you actually said was that religion exists because it embraces the moral views of the time. That is not, in fact, true. [/qute]
You're right, it isn't, but neither is that what I said. I make two claims, one strong and specific, the other weaker but more general. The strong claim is that the 'outside' source of kmb's morality is strictly "what kmb decides her god would want". The weaker claim is that churches reflect the morals of their communities, not the other way round.
And on the subject of divorce: Just how large do you think the mismatch is? I doubt there are many Americans who actively approve of divorce, although most would probably say that it is better than staying in a marriage which is really not working. This seems to me to be the attitude of most mainstream churches as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If you got sick, which would you rather do: Pray, or take medicine?
Both. And neither one alone is as effective as both.
Testing that properly would be an ethics violation. Although there was that one really irritating teacher I had in junior high . . .
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:And you still refuse to answer anything else I wrote, and I think it's pretty clear why.
It's mostly because in the past whenever I've written on this topic, you seem to skip over the details of whatever reasoning I give, instead substituting irrational strawman arguments into my words, so I'm unsure of how to respond in a way that would communicate across my true viewpoint.
quote:
quote:If you got sick, which would you rather do: Pray, or take medicine?
Both. And neither one alone is as effective as both.
Exactly.
But it should also be noted that religion (or at least Judeo-christian religion) isn't really suited very well for curing diseases. That's not the main purpose. A better question might be "If you aren't living a good or joyful life, which would you rather do: Start going to church or take some medicine?"
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, I don't know of any pill that gets you a job; nor do I think that going to church will get you a job. But if the reason my life sucks is due to chemical imbalances in my brain preventing me from achieving what I want, then I'd go see a psychiatrist and probably take some medication. Not sure how going to church is supposed to "cure" this, except by "escaping" from reality, which would be pretty much like doing drugs: not the answer, an attempt to avoid the answer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Chemical imbalances are not the only or even primary cause of unhappiness, however.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Crucially, however, it means that God will never ask of Kate something that she does not already believe is right.
That's not exactly true. Even if Kate acts as you say she does, it would still be possible for her to not realize something is right, but after studying a piece of scripture realize it is right. In that case, God would be asking her to do something that she didn't believe was right beforehand, and only came to believe is right with God's help.
[ April 21, 2009, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Well, I don't know of any pill that gets you a job; nor do I think that going to church will get you a job. But if the reason my life sucks is due to chemical imbalances in my brain preventing me from achieving what I want, then I'd go see a psychiatrist and probably take some medication. Not sure how going to church is supposed to "cure" this, except by "escaping" from reality, which would be pretty much like doing drugs: not the answer, an attempt to avoid the answer.
Many, many people can testify that they found going to church or accepting a given religion did "cure" the lack of joy in their life. For one thing, it usually does help you get a job - although one might more accurately call it a "purpose" since it doesn't necessarily pay in money.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Chemical imbalances are not the only or even primary cause of unhappiness, however.
Yeah, I know. I was giving a few examples of how or why a life would suck. I can't come up with an exhaustive list.
And I was wrong in the previous post: I can actually see how being in an organized community could help in certain situations. I doubt that anyone could prove that being helped by people from a church is better than being helped by non religious friends though.
So this: "If you aren't living a good or joyful life, which would you rather do: Start going to church or take some medicine?" is not really the question, is it? That one could apply to chemical imbalances (which is what I answered) but not to things that no pill would help. Non-religious help does not come only in the form of pills.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You could say that a church is no better than a durable organized group with open membership of non-religious people who feel strong moral and social ties to the group and an obligation to help each other.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what makes that a non-religious group.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not sure what makes that a non-religious group.
The lack of unnecessary superstition and appeals to imagined higher moral authorities?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Many of those who found their lives bettered significantly by joining a religion would say that it is their relationship with God that helped them, rather than their relationship with other people. This is something I've heard many say. That's a sort of help that's very specifically religious.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You think that kind of long-term organization won't have its own share of human traditions? You've been in SCA - you should have choked on your words. And have you SEEN what people wear to football games?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You think that kind of long-term organization won't have its own share of human traditions?
I don't recall using the word "tradition" at any point. Can you not distinguish between religious ritual and tradition? I mean, do you believe that the only effect your baptism had on you was to make you fit in better, and maybe make you and your in-group happy for a bit? Or do you believe that your baptism had an unverifiable mystic effect?
----------
quote:Many of those who found their lives bettered significantly by joining a religion would say that it is their relationship with God that helped them, rather than their relationship with other people.
I'm sure they would. Often, relationships with real people can disappoint in a way that imaginary relationships with imaginary gods cannot.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A couple of clarifications:
Sometimes when something doesn't make intuitive sense at first, after some thought and some study and some prayer, it does make sense. It is possible for me to actually learn new things and occasionally change my mind.
If after prayer and study and thought it still doesn't make sense with what I already know about God, then the disconnect is probably elsewhere.
Religion does not always make me feel good. Nor is it a reflection of how I feel. If my religion depended on how I felt, I would be pretty agnostic this week.
My relationship with God is often disappointing. Usually it turns out to be my fault.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is possible for me to actually learn new things and occasionally change my mind.
Can you provide an example of a moral opinion you hold now that you would not hold if you were not Catholic?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You do know that I wasn't always Catholic, right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does it matter?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm just not sure how the question is relevant? It is sort of like asking if there is a moral position I would hold that I wouldn't hold if I believed something different? How does that make sense?
There are places where I differ from some if not most other Catholics, but I chose Catholicism because it is the best "fit". Why would I have chosen something that didn't fit?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why would I have chosen something that didn't fit?
That is an excellent question. Why do people choose religions which conflict with their moral values (edit: besides being born into them, which is the lazy answer)? Why doesn't everyone find a religion that best reflects what they believe about morality and human nature, and join that one?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If you got sick, which would you rather do: Pray, or take medicine?
Both. And neither one alone is as effective as both.
Testing that properly would be an ethics violation. Although there was that one really irritating teacher I had in junior high . . .
Actually, it has been tested. And the result is that prayer has no effect, with or without medicine; while medicine has a huge effect, with or without prayer. You must know this. Why are you lying?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why would I have chosen something that didn't fit?
That is an excellent question. Why do people choose religions which conflict with their moral values (edit: besides being born into them, which is the lazy answer)? Why doesn't everyone find a religion that best reflects what they believe about morality and human nature, and join that one?
I dunno. Believing something that you don't believe because it is your religion has never made sense to me. I don't know how you beleive something you don't believe.
Now. That is different from never testing and examining your beliefs to see if they really do make sense and exploring new beliefs to see if they make even more sense.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There are places where I differ from some if not most other Catholics, but I chose Catholicism because it is the best "fit". Why would I have chosen something that didn't fit?
Because if it were really true, then it would be something outside yourself; and there is no particular reason why the Truth Written In The Stars should fit precisely with the intuition written in your head. By your reasoning, you would reject both quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Crucially, however, it means that God will never ask of Kate something that she does not already believe is right.
God is a Rorschach test. What you see in God is a reflection of who you are on the inside.
I think Boots' view of God is beautiful. I think she sees God in the way she does because Boots is a beautiful person.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pixie, you are way too kind. I am not anywhere near as good a person as you think I am. I love that you think so, though. Thank you.
KoM, why do you think that God is purely external? And why do you think that I am incapable of believing that things I cannot understand - quantum mechanics for example - can exist and even be understood by people who know more than I do?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, why do you think that God is purely external?
That is the usual sense of the term in English usage. It doesnot surprise me that you have your own private language, to be sure. But I will ask you the same question I asked back on page 2: To the extent that this concept is internal to your brain, what the devil is the use of calling it 'God', with all the connotations of that word? Refer to it as 'my moral intuition' and then we won't have to fight over whether it exists or not.
quote:And why do you think that I am incapable of believing that things I cannot understand - quantum mechanics for example - can exist and even be understood by people who know more than I do?
Because when it comes to things you care about, you actually don't. Your god reflects only and exactly your own intuition.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:And you still refuse to answer anything else I wrote, and I think it's pretty clear why.
It's mostly because in the past whenever I've written on this topic, you seem to skip over the details of whatever reasoning I give, instead substituting irrational strawman arguments into my words, so I'm unsure of how to respond in a way that would communicate across my true viewpoint.
Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I've never seen you give an answer that was even close to straight-forward to that question. You know like "I would be devestated and justifiably outraged if my child died because some moron decided to pray rather than give medically indicated treatment. I would be angry, and rightfully so, if I was injured in any way, because some fool had every reason in the world to know that his actions were going to harm me, but did them anyway because he thought that his religious sensibilities trumped the evidence."
See, I don't think you can say this straightforwardly, because you've strongly defended your right to do just that.
quote:
quote:
quote:If you got sick, which would you rather do: Pray, or take medicine?
Both. And neither one alone is as effective as both.
Exactly.
Really?
Show me the evidence. A study where strangers praying over people gave them statistically better outcomes than people who thought strangers were praying over them but weren't.
If prayer were really effective medical treatment, why don't Catholic hospitals pay people to do nothing but pray over patients? Why don't Catholic universities set up studies about how prayer can help cure cancer, or malaria? Why don't Catholic hospitals advertise that have better outcome than secular hospitals, due to all the prayers? Why don't insurence companies send sick people to faith healers instead of paying for expensive procedures?
If you think that praying yields statistically better outcome, do you think that cursing is effective too?
quote:But it should also be noted that religion (or at least Judeo-christian religion) isn't really suited very well for curing diseases.
Well, I'd love to hear which religion you think is.
But why do you think that is? Could it be that curing disease requires one to use reason and evidnece to find out what's wrong, and what works to fix it, and that ignoring the data when your religious sensibilities are offended by the evidence, or rejecting the conclusion because one's heart dislikes it is not a good way to actually cure people?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:KoM, why do you think that God is purely external?
That is the usual sense of the term in English usage. It doesnot surprise me that you have your own private language, to be sure. But I will ask you the same question I asked back on page 2: To the extent that this concept is internal to your brain, what the devil is the use of calling it 'God', with all the connotations of that word? Refer to it as 'my moral intuition' and then we won't have to fight over whether it exists or not.
quote:And why do you think that I am incapable of believing that things I cannot understand - quantum mechanics for example - can exist and even be understood by people who know more than I do?
Because when it comes to things you care about, you actually don't. Your god reflects only and exactly your own intuition.
Well, no. You are ignoring the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit, which is God and which is internal.
When it comes to things I care about (and what makes you think I don't care about quantum mechanics?) I would hope that my intuition (and study and prayer and so forth) would more and more exactly and only reflect God.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Why do people choose religions which conflict with their moral values (edit: besides being born into them, which is the lazy answer)?
I'm not sure people do. Does anyone here belong to a religion that conflicts with their moral values?
quote:Because if it were really true, then it would be something outside yourself; and there is no particular reason why the Truth Written In The Stars should fit precisely with the intuition written in your head.
This statement reflects assumptions you are bringing into this discussion, KoM, which are not shared by most religious people. Where in the stars do you believe the truth about morality to be written?
Many religious groups believe certain truths are written on our souls, not in the stars. Morality is often one of those truths. I'm not sure where else it would be written.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Many religious groups believe certain truths are written on our souls, not in the stars.
If that were the case, religions couldn't help people be better than they already are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know that religion can help people be better than they can be but we aren't generally as good as we can be.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I've never seen you give an answer that was even close to straight-forward to that question. You know like "I would be devestated and justifiably outraged if my child died because some moron decided to pray rather than give medically indicated treatment. I would be angry, and rightfully so, if I was injured in any way, because some fool had every reason in the world to know that his actions were going to harm me, but did them anyway because he thought that his religious sensibilities trumped the evidence."
See, I don't think you can say this straightforwardly, because you've strongly defended your right to do just that.
I'd be devestated if someone prayed for my child rather than give him medicine and he died as a result. I'd be happy if someone prayed for my child rather than give him medicine and he healed.
I'd be devestated if someone gave medicine to my child rather than pray and he died as a result. I'd be happy if someone gave medicine to my child rather than pray and he healed.
In all cases, I'd have justification to be outraged if the person trying to help my child did not do what they believed to be best, or if the person trying to help my child was an expert who is supposed to be able to save him and failed. If its a doctor who is supposed to know that medicine X will save him, and he doesn't give him medicine X, I'd have reason to be outraged.
Is that straightforward enough?
quote:Could it be that curing disease requires one to use reason and evidnece to find out what's wrong, and what works to fix it, and that ignoring the data when your religious sensibilities are offended by the evidence, or rejecting the conclusion because one's heart dislikes it is not a good way to actually cure people?
Yes, that is likely true. Similarly, discovering your purpose in life may require meditation, introspection, and religious help - in contrast, trying to do a scientific study on it is not a good way to actually discover your purpose in life.
Certain types of evidence are better at answering certain types of questions.
[ April 21, 2009, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If that were the case, religions couldn't help people be better than they already are.
Having a truth "within you" is not the same thing as knowing that truth. I think "1+1=2" is a truth that was "within me" from the beginning, but there was a point where I didn't realize its truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think "1+1=2" is a truth that was "within me" from the beginning
But that truth is not within you. If you die, 1+1=2 remains true in all cases. It's actually a perfect example of an external truth.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Just because it exists outside me doesn't mean it doesn't exist within me. After all, if the entire external world disappeared and only I remained, 1+1=2 would still remain true.
In the case of religious truths, I'd assume that a "truth" that exists in me also exists outside me, even if just within other people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, no. You are ignoring the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit, which is God and which is internal.
'The' Christian idea? Pff. In any case the point remains, which you did not answer: Why call it 'God'?
quote:When it comes to things I care about (and what makes you think I don't care about quantum mechanics?)
If you did, you would make an effort to understand it.
quote:I would hope that my intuition (and study and prayer and so forth) would more and more exactly and only reflect God.
But my point is rather that your god is exactly reflecting the intuitions of your segment of society.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, no. You are ignoring the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit, which is God and which is internal.
'The' Christian idea? Pff. In any case the point remains, which you did not answer: Why call it 'God'?
quote:When it comes to things I care about (and what makes you think I don't care about quantum mechanics?)
If you did, you would make an effort to understand it.
quote:I would hope that my intuition (and study and prayer and so forth) would more and more exactly and only reflect God.
But my point is rather that your god is exactly reflecting the intuitions of your segment of society.
Well not just Christian or all Christian, but most Christians believe in a triune God, one part of which is the Holy Spirit. We call it God, because it is.
What, exactly, do you suppose my "segment of society" is or intuits about God?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:I've never seen you give an answer that was even close to straight-forward to that question. You know like "I would be devestated and justifiably outraged if my child died because some moron decided to pray rather than give medically indicated treatment. I would be angry, and rightfully so, if I was injured in any way, because some fool had every reason in the world to know that his actions were going to harm me, but did them anyway because he thought that his religious sensibilities trumped the evidence."
See, I don't think you can say this straightforwardly, because you've strongly defended your right to do just that.
I'd be devestated if someone prayed for my child rather than give him medicine and he died as a result. I'd be happy if someone prayed for my child rather than give him medicine and he healed.
So someone tells you "The evidence says that your child will die without medicine, but my gut says that all he needs is prayer. Either way, we'll know tomorrow". You are saying that you would do nothing, and just wait for that to unfold?
quote:In all cases, I'd have justification to be outraged if the person trying to help my child did not do what they believed to be best,
It's the "believed to be best" part that's so bizzarre. I have no medical knowledge at all. Reason and evidence clearly dictate that I will kill whomever I operate on. But if I were stupid enough to think that I was some magical religiously-blessed exception, and I operated on your child, and killed her, you would be fine with that, because I did my best, and my best was predictably lethal to someone you loved?
I brought up the orignal question in order to elict the response "Yeah, I guess when things really do matter, matter a lot, I go with what reason and evidence say, because you get better outcomes". But you obviously don't think like this. You don't care much about trying to get the best outcome, you only care if people try their best? This is an attitude appropriate for 6 year olds in sports leagues. Not grown-ups.
quote:or if the person trying to help my child was an expert who is supposed to be able to save him and failed. If its a doctor who is supposed to know that medicine X will save him, and he doesn't give him medicine X, I'd have reason to be outraged.
But the doctor is perfectly aware of all the evidence that treatment X would have saved your child. But his religious sensibilities told him that it wasn't necessary. So he ignoered the evidence, and went with his gut instead. That's the whole point of the question.
quote:Similarly, discovering your purpose in life may require meditation, introspection, and religious help - in contrast, trying to do a scientific study on it is not a good way to actually discover your purpose in life.
Don't you think that all those priests who molested children meditated and prayed long and hard about whether the priesthood was the right place for them?
I bet they did. And I bet the priests who covered up for them prayed long and hard too. And the guys who tortured people during the inquisition did too. And the torturers concluded at the end of their introspection that they were doing God's work, for the greater good.
quote:Certain types of evidence are better at answering certain types of questions.
Okay, and apparently medicine on the border? Let me guess...when the answer given by evidence and reason doesn't suit you, that's the wrong kind of question for reason and evidence.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So someone tells you "The evidence says that your child will die without medicine, but my gut says that all he needs is prayer. Either way, we'll know tomorrow". You are saying that you would do nothing, and just wait for that to unfold?
See, this is what I was talking about when I said you put strawman arguments into my mouth. No, I am definitely not saying I'd do nothing while my child dies. I'd probably ask for him to get the medicine AND the prayer.
quote:It's the "believed to be best" part that's so bizzarre. I have no medical knowledge at all. Reason and evidence clearly dictate that I will kill whomever I operate on. But if I were stupid enough to think that I was some magical religiously-blessed exception, and I operated on your child, and killed her, you would be fine with that, because I did my best, and my best was predictably lethal to someone you loved?
I brought up the orignal question in order to elict the response "Yeah, I guess when things really do matter, matter a lot, I go with what reason and evidence say, because you get better outcomes". But you obviously don't think like this. You don't care much about trying to get the best outcome, you only care if people try their best? This is an attitude appropriate for 6 year olds in sports leagues. Not grown-ups.
I said I'd be devastated if my child died. So no, I would not "be fine" with you killing my child. And no, I don't only care if people try their best.
All I said is that I would not be justified in being furious with a person who did their best to save my child and failed. If I put my child's life in the hands of someone whose best isn't good enough, then the person I should be furious with is myself. This IS an attitude appropriate for grown-ups; in fact, it's the only attitude correct for grown-ups.
quote:But the doctor is perfectly aware of all the evidence that treatment X would have saved your child. But his religious sensibilities told him that it wasn't necessary. So he ignoered the evidence, and went with his gut instead. That's the whole point of the question.
Why doesn't he give both prayer AND treatment X? If he goes with his gut and it works, then I'm fine. But otherwise, I'd expect him to take the safest course, rather than doing the minimum he felt was "necessary".
My personal religious view is that prayer does not act to reliably cure diseases. So, I'd be unlikely to go to a doctor that says he will treat my child based on prayer. But if my child ended up being treated by such a doctor, and if it worked, I'd have no complaints. And if my child went to such a doctor and it failed, I'd be very upset - but probably no more upset than if I went to a doctor that gave my child medicine that failed.
[ April 21, 2009, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
My internet's been out for a week, and I didn't have access to one (library or otherwise) so please forgive me for not replying--I wasn't merely avoiding you fine folks.
Just give me a short while to read the thread, and then start replying.
Edit: Because I started this thread, and then was not there to answer all of your replies, comments, etc., I feel it is my duty to at least do you the honor of answering questions, giving my own opinions, retorts, etc.
Of course I'll do so with the mind that posts develop over time, and will to try to stay with the concurrent themes that have recently been discussed, along with the ones from several days ago.
I'll try to do so concisely and accurately.
Also, a disclaimer: I feel you all were right about not doing my research as well as I should've, not presenting my points of query in a more organized, thorough format, and should've clearly noted which parts were inconsistencies between law and practice in Christianity, and which parts were my impressions of them.
This lackadaisical approach diminished the effectiveness of conveying any point I was trying to make, and bastardized the original query of my piece, which was less "Can you explain the difference between why you say this and do this? Please? It's kind of dumb." and more "From these certain points of Scripture, and how it differs from the average Christian practices, what they say about God, etc., I feel that Christianity conveys itself a falsities wrought on..." etc.
With this in mind, I read.
[ April 21, 2009, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Vyrus ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I selected that particular adjective deliberately. But I shouldn't have bothered -- I knew how this would go. I was hoping the name-calling wouldn't happen that quickly, but silly me.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: If I put my child's life in the hands of someone whose best isn't good enough, then the person I should be furious with is myself. This is an attitude appropriate for grown-ups; in fact, it's the only attitude correct for grown-ups.
The point is that you don't get to choose.
If anyone gets to allow their religous sensibilitites to trump reason and evidence at any time, then they can do so without your approval.
quote:
quote:But the doctor is perfectly aware of all the evidence that treatment X would have saved your child. But his religious sensibilities told him that it wasn't necessary. So he ignoered the evidence, and went with his gut instead. That's the whole point of the question.
Why doesn't he give both prayer AND treatment X?
Because his religous sensibility tells him not to.
Sure, you think that it's reasonable to do both, but he's letting his religous sensibility trump reason, remember? That's the whole point of the question. How can you not understand it after all this time?
quote:If he goes with his gut and it works, then I'm fine.
Sorry, this just astonishes me. You'd allow your child's life to be put at serious risk of death, just to humor the religious foibles of a stranger? You wouldn't say "Hell no, I'm not risking my child's life because your gut says that proven medical techniques shouldn't be tried"?
I'm curious...if you, say, took another person's child street racing with you, do you think that most parents would be fine with that, so long as you didn't crash that time?
If you took another person's child with you to swim the English channel in winter, or go on walkabout in Austraila with nothing but a canteen and a knife, do you think that most parents would wait until you got back before they knew if they approved of your behavior or not?
Becuase your attitide of "It's fine if people take ridiculous risks with the life of my child" is not common in my experience.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: The point is that you don't get to choose.
Of course he does. Tres has already said that he wouldn't take his child to a doctor who used prayer instead of medicine, so your repeated insistence that he's willing to risk his hypothetical child is misplaced.
And, really, the number of religious people of any stripe who believe that prayer is a substitute for medical care is so low as to make this a really pointless argument. The idea that all of a sudden a doctor's "religious sensibilites" are going to trump her medical training in the way you describe is as likely as an atheist doctor suddenly deciding that her asthetic sensibilities argue that antibiotics aren't elegant enough to use on a patient.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But that's just the point! Practically nobody uses prayer instead of medicine, or more generally religion instead of science, when the real-world outcome is actually important. And that is because science works and religion doesn't.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
My religion doesn't tell me to pray to heal. It's like that classic story about the dude who wanted to get saved from the flood and a boat comes by and he's all "God will save me", and then a whole bunch of other stuff including a helicopter comes and he is all "God will save me." And he dies and goes to heaven and gets upset at God and God is all "I sent you a boat, and some other dudes and a helicopter!"
The point being - God created this world. My religion teaches me to use the physical world but to recognize that it is His. To pray and to use medicine - not because the prayer will "work", but because the prayer is a recognition that the only reason why this precise combination of chemicals works to heal is because God created the world that way.
It's like living under your parents roof and not thanking them for the food, clothing, and the four walls that surround you. Most kids take that for granted. As we take the world for granted.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But that's just the point! Practically nobody uses prayer instead of medicine, or more generally religion instead of science, when the real-world outcome is actually important. And that is because science works and religion doesn't.
Nobody uses antibiotics to fix their automobile or ballet to catch fish either. And that is because that isn't their purpose.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Precisely my point: Religion is not useful.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Nobody uses antibiotics to fix their automobile or ballet to catch fish either.
Your precise point seems to keep changing KoM, and I think you know as well as the religious that to many people religion does have a point even if it doesn't fix your fever.
Hobbes Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am a man of many points, and the theists keep changing which of their many confusions is manifested in the latest post. To summarise a bit, in no particular order:
Beliefs should be backed by evidence.
Theists agree with this when real-world outcomes actually matter to them; 'faith' is only acceptable when dealing with things whose truth has no consequences.
Labeling things internal to the human mind 'God' is confusing, misleading, and harmful.
Cherry-picking only the parts you agree with doesn't even qualify as faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: Labeling things internal to the human mind 'God' is confusing, misleading, and harmful.
I think you mean it confuses you and is harmful to your arguments? I'm okay with that. A little research would have informed you that the Holy Spirit has been, by definition, God for most Christians for quite some time.
quote: Cherry-picking only the parts you agree with doesn't even qualify as faith.
So you mean I have to let someone else decide what I believe for it to count as faith? Why?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because your 'faith' eventually boils down to "I believe this because it feels good". Its only reference point is your own mind. You must know that this is not how one arrives at truth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: My religion doesn't tell me to use prayer alone to heal.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Because your 'faith' eventually boils down to "I believe this because it feels good". Its only reference point is your own mind. You must know that this is not how one arrives at truth.
I have said many times that my faith is not just or even primarily about feelings.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Quite so. You have yet to say so convincingly. Even the other theists here don't believe you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Quite so. You have yet to say so convincingly. Even the other theists here don't believe you.
And once again my reservations about gathering and collectively choosing KoM as the theist spokesman are validated.
As for points changing, yours have changed sharply on at least two occasions that I recall. One was when you believed that people could be honest and thorough and still arrive at a mistaken conclusion, until the question became about theists. Another was when you were suggesting the approach and phrasing of an argument were important, except when it's you we're talking about and you're talking to theists.
'Man of many points', when used to describe you, seems to really mean 'hypocrite'.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: My religion doesn't tell me to use prayer alone to heal.
Fixed that for you.
Bah.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's a significant and important distinction. Or shall we discuss Miriam haNeviah? Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm not disagreeing. I just didn't think it was an important distinction to make in this thread.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Except that as you originally stated it, the sentence was untrue.
As far as this thread, it is as pointless as almost every thread currently at 5+ pages on Hatrack. Rehashing the same arguments, over and over, and the main difference is the level of nastiness increases with each iteration.
Bah indeed.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::shrug:: I pretty much stopped arguing a while ago. I just didn't want KoM's arguments to stand against ALL theists.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Rivka did you know that you are member 4859 and I am member 4752?! I've never found anyone else that close in number.
Yet I distinctly remember joining because I saw your "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. I guess I had already joined. Maybe to ask a question on the other forum...yea...that sounds about right...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Quite so. You have yet to say so convincingly. Even the other theists here don't believe you.
And once again my reservations about gathering and collectively choosing KoM as the theist spokesman are validated.
I think you ought to reverse the polarity of this sentence lest we all be sucked into an alternate universe where Lisa is a communist, Blayne is a responsible father frustrated by his slacker teenaged son, and OSC posts screeds about the utter evil of the Bush years and the hypocrisy of those who cannot see the greatness of Obama.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Rivka did you know that you are member 4859 and I am member 4752?! I've never found anyone else that close in number.
And our posts counts are almost the same too.
(BTW, that smiley was a link.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::grin:: thanks for that
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because your 'faith' eventually boils down to "I believe this because it feels good". Its only reference point is your own mind. You must know that this is not how one arrives at truth.
This only demonstrates a misunderstanding of faith, KoM. "Faith" doesn't boil down to "I believe this because it feels good."
I'll repeat the point I made earlier... I'd bet that if you compared beliefs a given individual accepts based on faith in something vs. beliefs a given individual has attempted to logically derive himself, you'll find the beliefs based on faith tend to be more often correct. When I get sick, I rely on faith in my doctor rather than trying to deduce how to heal myself based on the evidence. When I studied in school, I generally relied on faith in my teacher and my textbook that the answers they were giving me were true, rather than trying to deduce everything myself. And so on.... It varies by subject, but it is often more successful to trust someone who (or something that) can testify as an expert rather than try to figure everything out yourself from the evidence.
[ April 23, 2009, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This only demonstrates a misunderstanding of faith, KoM.
You'll note he was speaking specifically to Kate. I think it's a pretty accurate description of Kate's faith.
Your definition of "faith" -- believing someone who is supported as an external authority on a given issue -- is interesting, but not relevant to KoM's initial complaint. Nor do I think it's a particularly common or useful definition of "faith." (It also makes for a bad analogy, since it's not like you're demanding regular certification of your religious leaders to prove they know God better than a layman, whereas doctors, lawyers, scientists, and teachers all have to regularly deal with external certification based on generally rigorous, verifiable standards.)
---------
quote:One was when you believed that people could be honest and thorough and still arrive at a mistaken conclusion, until the question became about theists.
As I said elsewhere, this isn't hypocritical of KoM, as his definition of "thoroughness" excludes exactly what distinguishes "faith" from "fact." If you're thorough and honest, by his logic, you can't be a theist; there's nothing inconsistent in this, although I certainly understand why someone with a different definition of "thorough" might initially be offended.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
To Tres: Provided you can test that evidence or have had the experience that relying on the expert leads to a good outcome. Just because a priest prayed more doesn't mean he's more of an expert on God (and God's will) than me. He's more of an expert in his religion; meaning if he says "my religion says you should do this" I'll believe him that that's what his religion says. I'd have no reason to believe him that I should actually do what he says.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For most denominations, becoming a member of the clergy requires schooling beyond a bachelor's degree.
Tom, KoM, I am trying to figure out what, exactly, you think faith should be. If I believed things that didn't make sense to me, would that count as faith? Or believed things that I didn't really believe?
And again (though you just call me a liar) religion doesn't spring from or reliably produce "good feelings".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For most denominations, becoming a member of the clergy requires schooling beyond a bachelor's degree.
Sure. This makes them an authority on the history and principles of their religion. Do you believe it makes them an authority on God? Does any religion even claim that it does?
quote:Tom, KoM, I am trying to figure out what, exactly, you think faith should be.
The reason KoM has to specifically address you is that you put the cart before the horse relative to many other religious people. Most people with whom KoM has these conversations say: "I believe in God, and God says X is good. Therefore I believe X is good." You, on the other hand, say: "I believe in good, and I believe X is good. I also choose to believe in God because I believe it is good to have a good God. And because I believe X is good and I believe God is good, I believe God believes X is good."
I can't necessarily speak for KoM on this point, but what amazes me about the latter position is that your belief in God doesn't actually appear to have any functional utility. None of your decision-making processes depend upon faith or reference to your religion's dogma; you do not use religion for epistemology.
Now, I'm actually okay with that. I wish more religious people were like you in that regard. But it does leave me wondering why you bother to insert God in there at all, particularly the god of a specific, dogma-heavy religion. My own conclusion is that you find the social advantages and long traditions of liberal Catholicism comforting in themselves, and find using "God" as a framework to be convenient for you in lieu of relying on other philosophies that strike as you potentially more problematic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As I said elsewhere, this isn't hypocritical of KoM, as his definition of "thoroughness" excludes exactly what distinguishes "faith" from "fact." If you're thorough and honest, by his logic, you can't be a theist; there's nothing inconsistent in this, although I certainly understand why someone with a different definition of "thorough" might initially be offended.
As I replied elsewhere, I believe it's hypocritical because of his definition of 'thoroughness'. Especially since he seems to conflate that with honesty as well.
If someone else were to approach the discussion that way, to pose that condition, I might be inclined to think that maybe they weren't being hypocritical. But KoM has always been such a bad-faith participant in such discussions that you're asking me to believe his thought processes and intentions are as academic and sterile as you're claiming, despite the long-term and frequent evidence to the contrary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, that basically is my definition of "thorough," as well; I can't actually conceive of a definition of "thorough" that would permit another conclusion while still remaining a useful definition.
The only reason it hasn't been an issue for me is that I don't harp about how it's not possible to be intellectually honest and intellectually thorough while remaining a theist, even though this is absolutely what I believe (and what I think most atheists believe, for that matter.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Is there anything you don't believe that you think an intellectually honest and intellectually thorough person could believe?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It becomes a question of how important and reliable one deems their own mind and memory then, doesn't it?
To KoM, and apparently you, no matter how much time-proven trust one has in their rationality and the memory of their own lives and experiences, if one day they tot up reality and start coming up 'Theism!', that conclusion and all the things which led up to it must be scrapped and labeled 'inconclusive or irrelevant' in order to be intellectually honest and intellectually thorough.
Or, put another way, to have trust (faith) in their own minds only so far as they come up with a specific set of conclusions. 'Honest' and 'thorough' don't to me seem very appropriate words for that style of thinking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:For most denominations, becoming a member of the clergy requires schooling beyond a bachelor's degree.
Sure. This makes them an authority on the history and principles of their religion. Do you believe it makes them an authority on God? Does any religion even claim that it does?
The same was any education makes anyone an authority on intangibles. Someone with a doctorate in theatre criticism, for example, has studied the accumulated thinking about theatre throughout history. Their opinion on a play is going to be a more informed opinion. There is room, though, for the validity of less informed but still authentic responses to a performance.
Someone who has studied theology will have gathered to themselves the accumulated thinking about God (and there is a lot of it) so has better tools for more informed opinions about God, but still leaving room for less informed but authentic responses to God.
quote:
quote:Tom, KoM, I am trying to figure out what, exactly, you think faith should be.
The reason KoM has to specifically address you is that you put the cart before the horse relative to many other religious people. Most people with whom KoM has these conversations say: "I believe in God, and God says X is good. Therefore I believe X is good." You, on the other hand, say: "I believe in good, and I believe X is good. I also choose to believe in God because I believe it is good to have a good God. And because I believe X is good and I believe God is good, I believe God believes X is good."
Not exactly. More like: I believe God is good. I believe X is good. Let me use the brain God gave me to see if I am missing why X is not good. No? Okay. Let me see if there is a likely reason that other people might be wrong about thinking X is not good. Hmmm...that makes sense. Are there experts I trust who agree with me about X being good? There are! Okay, so I can be reasonably confident in believing that X is good and God is okay with X.
Or: God is good. X is something that any rational person would think is bad. Does it make sense that God would endorse X. It does not. Let's look into this. Nope. Still doesn't make sense. Are there reasons that the people who think God endorses X are/were likely to be misled. There are!
And so forth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is there anything you don't believe that you think an intellectually honest and intellectually thorough person could believe?
Certainly. I don't, for example, believe in super-string theory. I don't believe there is only one universe. I don't believe that Bono is being sincere when he complains about how he'd rather not be famous. I'm absolutely confident that intellectually honest and thorough people can come to another conclusion, however.
Theism, however, is unsupportable by evidence and by logic. As a position, it requires that someone first renounce a need for supporting evidence and logic in order to hold it, thus violating my definition of "thorough."
(Lest you disagree, citing personal experience of the divine, let me point out that it is enormously more likely that you are wrong about the meaning of your experience than it is that you are correct and everyone who has had a similar experience but attributes it to another (contradictory) cause happens to be wrong. Especially since the things you might conclude to also be true if your interpretation is true, when testable, repeatedly fail to prove themselves true. It's like I once told a Wiccan friend: if there were anything to magic, why do most Wiccans live in trailers and do nothing with their lives? )
----------
Kate, I don't actually see any substantive difference between your restatement and my own original statement. Where do you think the two diverge? (Especially since there has apparently never been a situation where you have concluded that "any rational person thinks X is good and Y is bad, but God thinks Y is good, so therefore I should change my mind?")
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You suppose a particular reason for my belief that God exists and is good, that isn't quite accurate and I think you discount the consideration I give to other opinions about what God thinks is good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I do discount that, I'm afraid. You could show me I'm wrong to do so by discussing a time when you changed your mind about what was good based on reading other people's opinions of what God wanted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are a lot of things that I think about differently because of my religion. Beggars, for example. I dislike giving money to panhandlers. It makes me cranky. I do it because I think there is a fairly clear mandate to do so. I have had to revise my thinking about what is "fair" and am still struggling with that. I think I am struggling toward something better, but I don't like it and it is a clear departure from what I used to believe.
You may think I have always been a liberal Catholic progressive, but not so!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I stand corrected, then. Thanks. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Certainly. I don't, for example, believe in super-string theory. I don't believe there is only one universe. I don't believe that Bono is being sincere when he complains about how he'd rather not be famous. I'm absolutely confident that intellectually honest and thorough people can come to another conclusion, however.
Theism, however, is unsupportable by evidence and by logic. As a position, it requires that someone first renounce a need for supporting evidence and logic in order to hold it, thus violating my definition of "thorough."
What evidence is there that there's only one universe? What evidence is there that Bono's being sincere? Particularly for the average person who knows little about physics and doesn't personally know Bono, I'm not sure how you can say there's more evidence available for these issues than there is for the existence of God.
After all, with God we do have eyewitness accounts - both historical accounts in the Bible of events that if true seem inconsistent with anything other than theism, and personal testimony from a lot of currently living people who say they've seen/heard God in a direct way. Sure, they could ALL be lying, but you're saying that their testimony doesn't even count as any evidence at all? It's more evidence than I have available about Bono.
quote:Lest you disagree, citing personal experience of the divine, let me point out that it is enormously more likely that you are wrong about the meaning of your experience than it is that you are correct and everyone who has had a similar experience but attributes it to another (contradictory) cause happens to be wrong.
Why would that be true? If everyone else believes cold air causes the common cold, that doesn't make it enormously unlikely that I'm wrong in thinking a virus causes the common cold.
But as an aside, I haven't really had a personal experience that I clearly understood to be a direct experience of God. My belief in such experiences mostly comes from the testimony of others, whom I have no real reason to doubt.
quote:Especially since the things you might conclude to also be true if your interpretation is true, when testable, repeatedly fail to prove themselves true. It's like I once told a Wiccan friend: if there were anything to magic, why do most Wiccans live in trailers and do nothing with their lives?
The main testable (at least in this world) element of Christianity is the notion that if you follow Christ's teachings, you will live a good life. I have found that to hold consistently true, among people I know and in my own life. That's the primary reason I accept that religion.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what testable earthly claims one can expect from God. I don't believe we've been given reason to expect Him to appear on cue or heal people on demand, and I don't think that's the point of religion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My belief in such experiences mostly comes from the testimony of others, whom I have no real reason to doubt.
Why don't you? Is it that you believe there are no real consequences of being wrong?
quote:The main testable (at least in this world) element of Christianity is the notion that if you follow Christ's teachings, you will live a good life.
Ah. So we're going to define "main element" to serve our purposes, here? Go ahead, but be aware that as you do so, you're only proving my point for me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As an aside, I attended the Parliament of World Religions in 1993. One of the big events was a celebration of religious performing arts - a gospel choir, Jainist poetry, religious dance and so forth. The Wiccans had by far the coolest presentation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What'd they present?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They acted out this story about a winter queen and the prince of spring - there was some sexual content implied. It had magic tricks! At one point the main actor tore up what must have been flash paper and suspended the pieces in the air for a really long time with some elegant fan work so it looked like snowfall. Then he somehow lit the paper so all the snowflakes became stars for an instant. It was very pretty.
(Much more fun, to my taste, than the recitation from the Banarasavilasa.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: (Lest you disagree, citing personal experience of the divine, let me point out that it is enormously more likely that you are wrong about the meaning of your experience than it is that you are correct and everyone who has had a similar experience but attributes it to another (contradictory) cause happens to be wrong. Especially since the things you might conclude to also be true if your interpretation is true, when testable, repeatedly fail to prove themselves true. It's like I once told a Wiccan friend: if there were anything to magic, why do most Wiccans live in trailers and do nothing with their lives? )
So you're withdrawing 'evidence' from your list then, Tom? Or qualifying that with 'reliability'?
Anyway, I do believe that it's enormously unlikely theists, myself included of course, aren't right about our experiences. How could we be? Us meatbags have a hard time grasping the simplest concepts, moral and scientific both.
That's very different from concluding that we must be completely wrong. As for all those Wiccans you mention, there is another possibility: maybe they've got the right idea, but they're also losers.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'll repeat the point I made earlier... I'd bet that if you compared beliefs a given individual accepts based on faith in something vs. beliefs a given individual has attempted to logically derive himself, you'll find the beliefs based on faith tend to be more often correct.
Repeating it doesn't make it true.
I'm sure there have been discussions of Monty Hall problem somewhere in Hatrack. How many of the people who actually simulated it got it wrong, versus the numebr of people who went with their gut?
Do you think that we might find some people who correctly simulated it, and decided that their gut understanding was superior, and therefore wrongly rejected what the evidence was telling them?
quote:When I get sick, I rely on faith in my doctor rather than trying to deduce how to heal myself based on the evidence.
But it's not "faith"! There's lots of evidence that the body of techniques used by doctors work.
quote:It varies by subject, but it is often more successful to trust someone who (or something that) can testify as an expert rather than try to figure everything out yourself from the evidence.
But the experts are working based on evidence. Trusting in them isn't blind faith if their techniques are validated by the real world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So you're withdrawing 'evidence' from your list then, Tom? Or qualifying that with 'reliability'?
That is precisely why the word "thorough" is in there, you realize. It's intellectually honest enough to say "I have felt something that I choose to interpret as the hand of God." It's just not thorough.
quote:As for all those Wiccans you mention, there is another possibility: maybe they've got the right idea, but they're also losers.
But here's the thing: the things Wicca is supposed to do for you would normally preclude loserdom.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: But the experts are working based on evidence. Trusting in them isn't blind faith if their techniques are validated by the real world.
Sure. Some experts. Experts in science, sure. But what about experts in art or music? What evidence is there that Michaelangelo was a good or important artist?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, that actually raises an interesting topic. The subjective evaluation of quality -- and, as a consequence, our ability to evaluate the people who do those evaluations -- is always constantly changing. It's one of the reasons that fashion goes in and out of vogue. Michaelangelo is at least partly an important artist because people who say they are experts say that other people are experts who say that Michaelangelo is important.
But even there, there is this: we can produce standards for an "important" artist, and we can look to see whether Michaelangelo meets them or not.
What standards should we use for God?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: That is precisely why the word "thorough" is in there, you realize. It's intellectually honest enough to say "I have felt something that I choose to interpret as the hand of God." It's just not thorough.
My mistake. You were listing some things separately, or rather not as a comma'd list, so I was reading tone differently.
Anyway, why isn't it thorough? You're in no position to evaluate a) how potent the feeling or feelings were in the first place, or b) how reliable that person's feelings and experiences and mind have proven him in the past.
quote:But here's the thing: the things Wicca is supposed to do for you would normally preclude loserdom.
I don't know much about Wiccans, but I'll bet one of its tenets isn't, "Call yourself a Wiccan, and you'll stop being a loser."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know what you mean by standards for God*? I think that we can have some standards for "experts" on God.
*though, like Michaelangelo, God does seem to be standing the test of time.
ETA: Also, Tom, you are assuming that Wiccans are getting Wicca right.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:My belief in such experiences mostly comes from the testimony of others, whom I have no real reason to doubt.
Why don't you? Is it that you believe there are no real consequences of being wrong?
Why don't I have reason to doubt them? The same reason why the court system doesn't assume all witness are lying about everything....
I'm not going to reject someone's testimony just for the heck of it. That's irrational.
quote:Ah. So we're going to define "main element" to serve our purposes, here? Go ahead, but be aware that as you do so, you're only proving my point for me.
I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't defined the main testable earthly element of Christianity to serve any purpose. I'm just telling you what I think it actually is.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I bet all the good Wiccans keep it quiet so people don't steal their spells.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're in no position to evaluate a) how potent the feeling or feelings were in the first place, or b) how reliable that person's feelings and experiences and mind have proven him in the past.
The potency of the feeling has no effect on the validity of the interpretation. Potency, as an attribute of a subjective internal feeling, doesn't make a feeling any less subjective or internal. Mental reliability might be evidence, except that there's not really anything to suggest that someone who has never previously experienced a delusion is less likely than the average person to experience a delusion at some point.
quote:I'll bet one of its tenets isn't, "Call yourself a Wiccan, and you'll stop being a loser."
In the same way that Mormon garments are broadly supposed to protect you from harm, the practice of Wicca is broadly supposed to stop you from being a loser. Sadly, both of these things are essentially untestable due to the refusal of believers to actually define terms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The potency of the feeling has no effect on the validity of the interpretation.
None at all? Feeling something strongly, in and of itself, is I agree totally insufficient for a reasonable person to conclude anything.
quote:Mental reliability might be evidence, except that there's not really anything to suggest that someone who has never previously experienced a delusion is less likely than the average person to experience a delusion at some point.
So now it's, "No matter how rational, wise, and clear-headed someone is, if he believes something that he can't prove to me, he's nuts."
quote:Sadly, both of these things are essentially untestable due to the refusal of believers to actually define terms.
Yeah, because after all it's a good idea to define subjective terms. Works out great:)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So now it's, "No matter how rational, wise, and clear-headed someone is, if he believes something that he can't prove to me, he's nuts."
I would say that such a person is neither rational nor clear-headed, although not because he can't prove it to me.
quote:Yeah, because after all it's a good idea to define subjective terms.
Well, one obvious advantage is that it makes them testable. If your garments protect you in some specific way, you could quantify that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmmm...
*Forms plan to infiltrate the Mormon church, steal blessed garments, form study group using expendable theist targets. If the garments work we can sell them to the US army, if not we're out some theists. A win-win FOR SCIENCE!*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I doubt the special undergarments work for just any theist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No worries, just another variable for the study design. By this point I could practically do another PhD in 'adding stuff to the systematics study'. My advisor's catchphrase is "in addition to".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would ask that y'all be respectful and not discuss garments on this forum.
No, I can't make you. But I'm asking you to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is anyone claiming that, whatever they do, they work for just any theist?
You might try disproving things that someone actually claims. It might be more fun for you.
ETA: Sorry, posted before I read kat's. I'm done.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So one of the target groups is Mormons in good standing. I don't understand the problem.
Posted by Team 2012 (Member # 12025) on :
quote: "No matter how rational, wise, and clear-headed someone is, if he believes something that he can't prove to me, he's nuts."
MOST people believe things they can't prove. (Let's leave the "to me" out of it for now). Can you prove evolution? How? Or do you just rely on books written by wiser people over the years? How about quantum theory? Or what some guy did in China last week?
Science class in school tells you that there are no two identical snowflakes. You realize that any given sample used to prove that would be so statistically insignificant that Carl Sagan would have to have invented new teensy numbers to express it? They show you pictures of dinosaurs with pretty colors, which they have no way of knowing of proving.
Actually, your personal belief system is a rickety structure of heresay. Like everybody else's.
The difference is religion KNOWS it can't prove what it says. (Well, if they don't know that steer clear).
Anybody who thinks they've "got the facts" is a pratfall waiting to happen.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.
Why is it necessary to make up your minds on such esoteric questions right now? We'll almost certainly know in 20 or 40 years. Moore's Law will see to that, I feel sure. That's my thought, anyway.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Team 2012: The difference is religion KNOWS it can't prove what it says. (Well, if they don't know that steer clear).
Evolution has predicted a number of things that have since been found to be true. Same with quantum theory. The fact that it was not me who proved them does not make it false, no? At some point you have to trust other people as you won't be able to literally test everything! But that's far from not being able to test anything about the "God theory".
So why, if we require proof from any theory, is it normal not to require proof from religion? And why do we go even further and accept this as a quality?! The fact that some religious people live a good life because they follow a particular religion means that the principles they take from that religion work. But those principles can come from a non-religious moral frame and still work. Or from a different religion. You haven't in any way proved that there is a God (which God?) any more than you have proved that there isn't a God because of this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.
Hrm. I'd say that these are actually the people who think they're the least likely to act like jerks. There's plenty of jerkiness among stinkin' neutrals, too.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.
That's funny. The jerkiest thing I've ever seen at Hatrack was done by someone who probably considers themselves one of these noble agnostics. See if you can guess who that might be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.
That's funny. The jerkiest thing I've ever seen at Hatrack was done by someone who probably considers themselves one of these noble agnostics. See if you can guess who that might be.
Look! How many times do I have to apologize for that!?!?!?!?!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: So why, if we require proof from any theory, is it normal not to require proof from religion? And why do we go even further and accept this as a quality?!
Because religion is not a science. That some religious people think that religion is a replacement for science is a sad fact. You don't have to make the same mistake. They are wrong to do so. It is an understandable mistake; both are methods for understanding our universe and our experience within it. And it the early days of science there was more overlap than not. But science and religion have different goals and, rightly, different methods.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: both are methods for understanding our universe and our experience within it.
I guess that's where we agree to disagree. :shrug: As you say, religion is not there to explain what science can. But I go a bit further and I say that religion, as a method of understanding, is not able to explain anything. There's always a step - appeal to God - that has no reason to be there. Even if you take that step there's the problem that accepting a god or another as the "expert" can be used to prove an idea or its opposite.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What is the use of an 'understanding' that has no testable consequences?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For many areas of my life, I am looking for ways to think about it rather than concrete answers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Look! How many times do I have to apologize for that!?!?!?!?!
Until you mean it, damn it! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For many areas of my life, I am looking for ways to think about it rather than concrete answers.
Then if you don't mind, stop calling what you have 'understanding', since it is nothing of the kind. But even with this more limited goal, I would suggest you consider that there are productive and unproductive ways of thinking. In 2000 years Christianity has produced some philosophy about purely hypothetical beings. In 300, science has produced - well, fill in whatever accomplishment makes you happiest. And I do not exempt the moral sphere. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the sick, and burying the dead, science has done better than religion everywhere. Isn't it about time you started thinking in a way that demonstrably helps people?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And again, Kom, you assume that I have to pick one or the other. Understood properly, they are complementary not contradictory.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wrong. Unless your 'understanding' has led to there being more than 24 hours in your day, every minute you spend 'thinking' (using the term loosely) in religious ways is wasted, and indeed actively harmful, since it's very hard to dislodge the bad habits that come with sloppy mind-activity.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
KoM, Science is a tool in a rational person's toolbox, but only a highly irrational person would use only scientific thinking in life. A rational person uses many different methods of reasoning, including faith, because different methods answer different types of questions better than others. When people feed the hungry, it is often because science tells them how to produce food and religion/morality motivates them to want to produce food for others, not to mention how other types of knowledge come into play, such as knowledge of farmers passed on dogmaticly from one generation to the next, skills gained purely from experience, etc. These are complementary.
Your own behavior is evidence of the same thing. You spent this thread, and other threads, making mostly claims that are unsupported by and beyond the bounds of science. Some are assertions not based on any material evidence whatsoever, such as definitions of terms or moral declarations about what is productive or what is a waste of time. It is very apparent that you have a very strong faith in a set of atheist assumptions which shape your opinions. And to be clear, by "faith" here I mean these are ideas which you cannot prove but accept as virtually certain in your mind. Certainly, you'd don't restrict yourself to scientific thinking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:different methods answer different types of questions better than others
I cannot think of a single thing that a religious epistemology provably answers better than, well, almost any other epistemology.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That's because you put the word "provably" in there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If it's not provable, how do you know it's any better of an answer than anything else?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, it is about the questions as much as the answers.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't know it's better, but it is better. You don't have to be able to prove something in order to be correct about it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't know it's better, but it is better. You don't have to be able to prove something in order to be correct about it.
But you are very likely to be wrong about it if you can't.
It's just human nature. People make mistakes.
If you don't know based on reason and evidence that you are right, you probably aren't. This is triply true if it's something that you can't prove, but really want to be true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me, it is about the questions as much as the answers.
But then you insist on giving an answer! Which indeed demonstrates the problem with this attitude: Humans don't actually act that way. If you can just post about a moral dilemma on Hatrack, then sure, you'll be all "Oh I don't know, who can tell what is right?" But if you had to actually do something, you would give a dang answer, already.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A concrete answer or a subjective answer?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know it's better, but it is better.
Demonstrate its better-ness. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't know it's better, but it is better."
Its worse.
Ok. Now we have two positions. Demonstrate that yours is correct.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A concrete answer or a subjective answer?
I am not sure what you are asking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure what answers you are looking for.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not, I'm saying that if faced with an actual moral dilemma - say, a choice between rescuing a baby from a burning building, or admiring some flowers - then you would not sit about being more interested in the question. You would either rescue the baby or sniff the roses. Which I suppose is concrete, so perhaps that answers your question. But I wasn't asking one, I was making a claim of fact.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I thought I raised an interesting point about Moore's Law. Any takers on that one? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ok. Now we have two positions. Demonstrate that yours is correct.
Demonstrate that yours is.
That's y'alls thing, right? Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Not quite. He countered an unprovable assertion with another unprovable one specificly to show how little value either one of those assertions actually has.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I thought I raised an interesting point about Moore's Law. Any takers on that one?
I don't buy it. You can increase calculation power million-fold, you still won't be able to prove things that are defined so as to be unprovable. And we've seen that logical proof has nothing to do with people's acceptance of religions/God. Why should more of the same make a difference?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
I have read the thread. There are plenty of scientists that are also religious. The two, scientific inquiry and religion, is not a paradox for everyone. The scientist that believes that everything, that has been created, is the handiwork of God is not by necessity conflicted. If a religious scientist arrives at a scientific proof it just as scientifically valid as one arrived at by an atheist. Everything is relative, so that the religious scientist would praise God for his handiwork and the atheist may find that the new scientific proof validates his own subjective truth that God does not exist.
Christ said: “I come to bear witness to the truth.” Pontius Pilot replied: “What is truth am I a Jew?” Christians believe that Jesus is the Word of God through whom all things were made. Therefore only He knows, objectively, what truth is and so what He revealed is called revelation. Christ revealed Truth that cannot be arrived at through human reason or scientific inquiry. So, nothing has changed, some stand with Pilot some with Christ.
As for a conflict between the Old Testament and New I see none. The old, is truth written in stone and blood. The New is truth written in spirit. The transgressions that brought physical death in the Old Testament are the same transgressions that bring spiritual death in the New. I see balance between the two. Eve said no to God, Mary said yes and became the new Eve and Mother of all the Living. Adam and Eve in disobedience ate from a tree that brought spiritual separation and death to mankind. Christ in obedience to God the Father died on a tree whose fruit brought life to mankind and made it possible for all to become children of God. As to physical death that is just a change of state. Life and death was the main language that people understood in those days.
Everyone can talk about killing babies; we kill plenty of them in this society of ours and say it is good because it is law. I am old enough that back in the day, when there was no law against it, I put down pets. If I said that at one time I stomped on the head of a kitten you would be horrified because you can humanize a kitten but dehumanize a baby by labeling him/her a fetus which I am horrified that is killed. Scientific evidence would show that I have killed a cat and also show that humans are killed in abortion. Everything is relative; I can still feel the little skull crushing under my heel and see the bit off tongue wiggling in the dirt. (I regret that act) I wonder what the ex-mothers and abortion doctors feel, if anything. It can be argued that the only objective (concrete) truth is that a cat and a human were killed, the rest is subjective.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Testify!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Tom, that's the second time you've done that in my memory. You're being an ass.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
man, if that's all it takes to be an ass around here, that must make me a raging sociopath on the hatrack scale
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not quite. He countered an unprovable assertion with another unprovable one specificly to show how little value either one of those assertions actually has.
That may be why made that statement specifically, but my response still stands.
"You shouldn't believe in religion because it's an unprovable assertion, and unprovable assertions aren't worthwhile."
Which is a pretty funny thing to say, which was my point.
--
quote:man, if that's all it takes to be an ass around here, that must make me a raging sociopath on the hatrack scale
Well, sometimes you can be pretty assholier-than-thou, and you seem to enjoy it. So yeah:p
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, that's the second time you've done that in my memory. You're being an ass.
Well, I could have pointed out how brainless Oshki's entire post was, but instead I just pointed out how he was, essentially, preaching to the choir and the choir alone. Personally, I think that was far more charitable of me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When the larger message is easily discernible in the one-word post, there really ain't much air between `em.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
FWIW, Tom's response was milder than mine would have been.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I don't buy it. You can increase calculation power million-fold, you still won't be able to prove things that are defined so as to be unprovable. And we've seen that logical proof has nothing to do with people's acceptance of religions/God. Why should more of the same make a difference?"
Eventually we'll almost certainly have a Grand Unified Theory. Physics experiments won't require anything other than a computer, and, if there's room in the math for "spooky action at a distance", then that's that, period. To put it another way, I think that, at some point, religion stops being something that people kill each other over. I think it probably even stops being something that people call each other names like "ass" over. I do believe in the "supernatural", but I think it's like any other area in life--some people have more natural ability with it than others. I think that increasing technology makes all inborn gifts less important. It used to be a matter of life and death as to whether or not you could outrun the hungry lions. Not so much, now, though, is it? Think about these 2 cases. Assume for the sake of argument that some people do have "psychic gifts":
1. It's the year 2008. Plenty of Uri Gellers, Sylvia Brownes, etc., are famous. Most are probably frauds, but a few may have some real ability in their area. They can become rich and famous as a result, making it so that, if they manage their money well, they'll never have to work another day in their lives. Their gift has made them more wealthy/secure than others. There are also plenty of gifted athletes who are tremendously wealthy because of their inborn gifts.
2. It's the year 2058. We can manipulate DNA so that any of us can have any particular gift. Nobody has any real advantage that is the result of inborn gifts any longer.
Most religions base their claims on SOME type of supernatural occurrence/ability/connection--the burning bush, raising Lazarus from the dead, turning water into wine, leaping to heaven from a rock (or other type of ascension), etc., etc. When either A. these things are all proven to be impossible, B. they are proven possible, but not controllable, or C. (most likely, in my view) they are possible for anyone with sufficient access to technology, then there can be nothing supernatural-based to hate someone over.
Or not. Heck, I don't know. What I do hope, though, is that I live long enough to see for myself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:FWIW, Tom's response was milder than mine would have been.
Oh, I'm not suggesting approval of Oshki's post, which was pretty trivial IMO.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Demonstrate its better-ness.
I will try. But the success of a demonstration is in the eye of the beholder. There are people whose lives have demonstrated it far better than anything I ever do will, and yet were unable to convince skeptics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lives don't count as demonstrations, unless you're somehow able to produce a control life.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
As I said, unfortunately the success of a demonstration is in the eye of the beholder. If you're going to insist that a demonstration be scientific in order to "count", then I think it's rather obvious you're going to be unable to find any demonstrable value in non-scientific epistemologies.
That doesn't mean such epistemlogies aren't sometimes better. It just means you've defined things in such a way that you won't be able to see when they're better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Lives don't count as demonstrations, unless you're somehow able to produce a control life.
That's a completely arbitrary precondition.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"That's a completely arbitrary precondition."
I'd say it depends on sample size. No religion has shown itself perfect in every member's case, so far as I can tell. There are plenty of people who are born and raised in the Mormon faith (by good parents in very devout families) who are excommunicated and/or quit the church; simultaneously, there are plenty of converts to LDS who were raised in a very non-Christian environment (by terrible parents, in some cases) who are never excommunicated and are happy members-in-good-standing for the remainder of their lives.
I'm not picking on LDS any more than any other faith, though. Everything I just said applies to all the major Western faiths, and (I suppose, though it's less clear, for various reasons) the Eastern ones as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you're going to insist that a demonstration be scientific in order to "count", then I think it's rather obvious you're going to be unable to find any demonstrable value in non-scientific epistemologies.
Which, of course, brings us to the problem: you cannot truly demonstrate value with non-scientific epistemologies, because only scientific epistemologies actually allow effective demonstrations.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No religion has shown itself perfect in every member's case, so far as I can tell.
I fail to see how absolute perfection would be somehow tied to the validity or invalidity of any 'demonstrations'.
That's not true, either. Scientific demonstrations are the most effective, I don't deny, when it comes to proving truth to others. But they're not the only means.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You're equivocating on 'proof'. It's true that humans, unfortunately, are convinceable of untrue things through non-scientific demonstrations. This is why Dark Side epistemology is powerful. But that doesn't make such convictions into 'proof', or even (a better word) evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But they're not the only means.
Can you suggest another method that is not scientific that can be said to provide proof to a third party?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Could we please tone down the use of 'proof'? Proofs exist in mathematics and not otherwise. What we have outside math is either "evidence convincing to a large majority of neutral third parties" or else "evidence applicable to fighting wars and/or expanding the economy", which are sort of the final Darwinian test.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You're equivocating on 'proof'. It's true that humans, unfortunately, are convinceable of untrue things through non-scientific demonstrations. This is why Dark Side epistemology is powerful. But that doesn't make such convictions into 'proof', or even (a better word) evidence.
Well, 'proof' is a sticking point for me, but so is 'evidence'. Humans are also capable of being convinced of true things through non-scientific means. That is, in fact, the method by which most humans are convinced of anything, anywhere on the planet.
However, 'evidence'? 'Evidence' is a word with several definitions. Your argument is only valid if you accept the 'correct' definition. Should we accept that definition as the one we must use in all cases is the real question. You're not going to get anywhere on anything else until you resolve that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The scientific method is not the only valid method for ascertaining truth. In many areas of life and reality, we have to use forensic and judicial methods, which involve the testimony of eyewitnesses, and weighing and ascertaining the reliability of these witnesses.
But in all cases, both scientific and forensic/judicial, another element that enters in, as Rakeesh intimates, is interpretation. All facts must be interpreted--even test results. Thus even in hard science, you cannot completely remove the human element.
That said, it must also be noted that at times, the majority of the most reliable witnesses or other "experts," have later been found to be mistaken.
Even "pure" mathematics cannot be relied upon to provide completely objective proof of truth. Some kinds of math prohibit the existence of the square root of a minus 1. Yet it can be graphed. What this really tells us is that our accepted rules of mathematics are not perfect, and at some points, deny reality.
So, can we ever be absolutely certain of anything? Maybe not, even in hard science. The best we can do is optimize our chances for being right. This means that ultimately, no rational mind can operate without some degree of faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, can someone give me some concrete examples?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I will try. But the success of a demonstration is in the eye of the beholder. There are people whose lives have demonstrated it far better than anything I ever do will, and yet were unable to convince skeptics. "
You aren't demonstrating better-ness by showing that people have lived successful lives. "Better" is a comparative term, and so only has meaning in the context of an alternative. Since, if a person lives his life, there is no other alternative, you cannot show that the person has lived his life "better," than he would have otherwise.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I fail to see how absolute perfection would be somehow tied to the validity or invalidity of any 'demonstrations'."
Religions make statements like "souls have gender" or "God was born a man named Jesus" or "the Jews are God's chosen people, better than all the rest" with the SAME certainty that people put forth statements like "1+1=2". That, brother, is how.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "the Jews are God's chosen people,
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by steven: better than all the rest"
No.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by steven: "the Jews are God's chosen people,
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by steven: better than all the rest"
No.
QFT
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
If I were to tell everybody here that the Supreme Being has made me the Chosen Person...
A. Most of you would think I am crazy.
B. You'd also agree with the statement that "steven thinks he's better than the rest of us, at this point."
No?
Just sayin'. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That would depend on what you were chosen for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The scientific method is not the only valid method for ascertaining truth. In many areas of life and reality, we have to use forensic and judicial methods, which involve the testimony of eyewitnesses, and weighing and ascertaining the reliability of these witnesses.
I do think the scientific method is the best method for ascertaining truth, better than any other method that exists.
I don't think that the scientific method is one which can be brought to bear on all questions. I also don't believe that the correct thing to do in areas where the scientific method can't be brought to bear is simply to say, "OK, don't believe anything if nothing can be scientifically believed."
So Tom, your repeated requests for concrete examples don't really have much impact, at least not with me. Nor many religious people, I think. I even suspect that it doesn't really have much impact with you, because I very much doubt you guide your life entirely by the scientific method.
---------
quote:You aren't demonstrating better-ness by showing that people have lived successful lives. "Better" is a comparative term, and so only has meaning in the context of an alternative. Since, if a person lives his life, there is no other alternative, you cannot show that the person has lived his life "better," than he would have otherwise.
The same applies in both directions, Paul, except that you're the one insisting on proofs and evidence and demonstrations. All of those things, you can't provide either.
Steven, someone might ask, "Chosen for what?"
ETA: When I saw dkw's post, I was hoping for an instant, "Let them be simultaneous, then I won't look as silly." Alas.
[ April 26, 2009, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The same applies in both directions, Paul, except that you're the one insisting on proofs and evidence and demonstrations.
In order to define "better" so that Paul can demonstrate better-ness, you are going to have to quantify "better." The instant you do that, I guarantee you that Paul can demonstrate the "better-ness" of the scientific method for any given criteria by which you might measure acquired knowledge.
I understand that you must find this frustrating; it is tantamount to admitting defeat in pretty much any debate, ever, for all time. That you refuse to admit defeat, and instead insist on the existence of an invisible playground on which you imagine yourself to be winning, is the inevitable result of a philosophy that asserts superiority despite lacking any measurable way of gauging its earthly success.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:In order to define "better" so that Paul can demonstrate better-ness, you are going to have to quantify "better." The instant you do that, I guarantee you that Paul can demonstrate the "better-ness" of the scientific method for any given criteria by which you might measure acquired knowledge.
Even Paul is saying that 'better' here can't be quantified. But if it's so easily guaranteed, Tom, why don't you pick a definition of 'better', just for the sake of argument?
quote:I understand that you must find this frustrating; it is tantamount to admitting defeat in pretty much any debate, ever, for all time. That you refuse to admit defeat, and instead insist on the existence of an invisible playground on which you imagine yourself to be winning, is the inevitable result of a philosophy that asserts superiority despite lacking any measurable way of gauging its earthly success.
'Admit defeat'? You're saying, "Prove it," to people who specifically, from the outset, don't think it can be proven. And while you're doing that, you're asserting the superiority of beliefs that can be proven, while simultaneously failing to provide proof yourself.
Yes, truly your insight is staggering, Tom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: That would depend on what you were chosen for.
Precisely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're saying, "Prove it," to people who specifically, from the outset, don't think it can be proven.
Specifically, what I'm saying is that if an action's effect cannot be detected, the action cannot be said to have occurred.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Tom, you are missing the point. The point is that I cannot offer you proof of religion's "better-ness" as an epistemological method, but it is nevertheless better in many cases. I can demonstrate it, but since that demonstration will not consist of a proof, it's going to rely on you making a judgement call. If one closes their mind and insists on concluding that religion is never useful, then one is never going to be forced to see otherwise by such a demonstration. So if you are looking for something from me (or anyone else here) that is going to logically force you to accept the value of religion, you should probably stop looking.
Religion does not exist to win debates. If you want to win debates, science is not the best position either. If you want to win such a debate, you should accept the position of radical skepticism - that nobody really knows anything about anything ever. If you stick to your guns on that position, you'll never be proven wrong. All logical reasoning is based on assumptions which, in order to proven, must be then built upon further assumptions. There is no way around this, meaning that unless you agree to accept some basic starting assumption, nobody can prove anything. So if you really really want to win debates, to the point where you won't grant the other side anything at all, then all other positions will lose to radical skepticism.
On the other hand, if you are interested in the truth or if you are interesting in living your life well, I'd suggest you be open to knowledge that isn't provable. If a person is trying to decide whether to get married, I'd suggest they don't wait until they can logically prove that they should. If a person is trying to figure out whether its worth spending time watching their daughter's soccer game, I'd suggest not waiting until they can find logical proof that its a valuable use of time. And if you are interested in actually finding out for real if there's value in religion as an epistemology, then I'd suggest stop waiting for someone to logically force you to accept it and instead go observe real people who use religious thinking.
I think you'll find many people who misuse religious thinking - as I've said, it isn't an epistemology that's good for everything, and there's certainly many people who end up using religion in ways that damage their lives and the lives of others. But at the same, I think you'll find many people who use religious thinking in a way that consistently and significantly improves their lives. I think you'll find some great human beings who owe their virtue mostly to religious thought. It is these people who I would offer as my demonstration as the value of religion as an epistemology. It is possible you won't see it the same way I do. But that's how it goes.
But I will add that if you want to offer a persuasive argument against religion, you should keep in mind that many many religious folks DO see such lives as a demonstration of the value of religious thinking. Arguing that nothing has been techincally proven will not be any more persuasive than when I argue that technically nobody can prove the existence of the physical world. You'll still believe in the physical world, just as they'll still believe in religion - because proof is not necessary to be convinced of a belief, even among the completely rational.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The point is that I cannot offer you proof of religion's "better-ness" as an epistemological method, but it is nevertheless better in many cases. I can demonstrate it, but since that demonstration will not consist of a proof, it's going to rely on you making a judgement call.
Specifically, what you're saying is that you can say religion is "better" in some way, but you cannot demonstrate that it is better in any way that amounts to more than your saying "this is better" and hoping I agree.
Whereas when we're talking about science, I can ask you to define some criteria for "better," and then use that to evaluate which of two options is better by the definition we've agreed upon.
I submit that this latter process is the only method discussed so far in this thread that is actually capable of demonstrating something.
quote: If a person is trying to decide whether to get married, I'd suggest they don't wait until they can logically prove that they should.
But even here, religion is less help than simple observation and basic hypotheses. Asking God if you should get married doesn't appear to actually improve the success rate of marriages, while observing yourself with your spouse -- certainly an application of observational science, if not the full "scientific method" -- appears to make a difference.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I submit that this latter process is the only method discussed so far in this thread that is actually capable of demonstrating something.
And I submit that it's not. Can you demonstrate that it is using your own method?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Can you demonstrate that it is using your own method?
So you're asking me to prove that something cannot do something?
I can certainly demonstrate that mine can. You have conceded that you cannot demonstrate that yours can. Is more necessary?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I said that mine CAN demonstrate that religious epistemology is useful. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it cannot, using your own method.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A point to notice: No religion claims that its foundation lies in faith. The foundational claims are always clams of the sort of evidence that would convince anyone; golden plates, raising the dead, smiting entire armies, that sort of thing. In fact, the earliest known scientific experiment is recounted in the Bible; it has a control group and everything, and if the account is accepted as true, then it is powerful evidence in favour of Jehovah's existence. And the Jews accept it as such:
quote:And then the people haul the 450 priests of Baal down to the river Kishon and slit their throats. This is stern, but necessary. You must firmly discard the falsified hypothesis, and do so swiftly, before it can generate excuses to protect itself. If the priests of Baal are allowed to survive, they will start babbling about how religion is a separate magisterium which can be neither proven nor disproven.
It is only when someone has the nerve to point out that this purported evidence all seems to take place long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away that theists get defensive and try to argue for the virtues of faith as a epistemology. (I make an exception for kmb, who doesn't have an epistemology or any beliefs as such, just a set of socially acceptable phrases for cocktail parties.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I said that mine CAN demonstrate that religious epistemology is useful.
To my standards? Or to my definition of "useful?" You've already said you can't do either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Specifically, what I'm saying is that if an action's effect cannot be detected, the action cannot be said to have occurred.
Well, no, that's not exactly what you're saying. What you're saying is that if an action cannot be detected by scientific means, it cannot be said to have occurred. That's part of what you're saying, at least.
quote:Asking God if you should get married doesn't appear to actually improve the success rate of marriages, while observing yourself with your spouse -- certainly an application of observational science, if not the full "scientific method" -- appears to make a difference.
*grin* I'd certainly be interested in some scientific data that backs up those very specific claims, Tom.
quote:I can certainly demonstrate that mine can. You have conceded that you cannot demonstrate that yours can. Is more necessary?
No, but saying, "You can't prove it happened to you, so my measure that can prove an entirely different kind of event or idea is better than yours," is rather odd.
"God speaks to me." "Oh, yeah? Well, the Earth revolves around the sun, and I can prove it, so science is better!"
Strange.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: "God speaks to me." "Oh, yeah? Well, the Earth revolves around the sun, and I can prove it, so science is better!"
Not quite.
"God speaks to me!" "What does he tell you?" "Marvelous things!" "Things you wouldn't otherwise know? Things that make your life empirically and detectably better? Things that avert misfortune in a statistically measurable way?" "No." "What does He say, specifically?" "Usually it's just a feeling. But I'm pretty sure He's telling me to like the religion I'm in." "Does it bother you that other people say God tells them to like the religion they're in?" "No. Why should it? They're clearly not speaking to God."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To my standards? Or to my definition of "useful?" You've already said you can't do either.
No, you said your method involved asking ME to define the criteria and then using that to evaluate which of two options is better by the definition we've agreed upon.
The criteria I propose for useful is that something is useful if it facilitates them achieving some goal of theirs, whether that be a well-defined goal like getting a job or a vague goal like being happy or living a meaningful life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Straw men are fun!
quote: "God speaks to me!" "What does he tell you?" "Marvelous things!" "Things you wouldn't otherwise know? Things that make your life empirically and detectably better? Things that avert misfortune in a statistically measurable way?" "How can I possibly say whether I would otherwise know something? All I can say for certain is that I learned things I didn't know before. My life has been better since I began to listen closely to what God was saying to me. Yes, God tells me to do things that avert misfortune in statistically measurable ways." "What does He say, specifically?" "'Specifically' isn't as easy as you're suggesting, but there are some specific things, yes."*See that religion's specific doctrines, for example* "I've prayed and been answered repeatedly to continue to seek answers in the religion I'm in." "Does it bother you that other people say God tells them to like the religion they're in?" "Why should I be bothered if someone else is mistaken? I'm mistaken about a great many things, just like everyone else is, and even though I think I'm on the right track, I'm nowhere near free from error."
Can we make snowmen next, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The criteria I propose for useful is that something is useful if it facilitates them achieving some goal of theirs, whether that be a well-defined goal like getting a job or a vague goal like being happy or living a meaningful life.
And how do you plan to distinguish a valid philosophical epistemology from the religious trappings around it to make that determination?
quote:Yes, God tells me to do things that avert misfortune in statistically measurable ways?
Like...? How would you measure these ways? And why has no one done it? (Or are we resorting to the old saws, like how Jews and Muslims face a relatively low risk for trichinosis?)
quote:Why should I be bothered if someone else is mistaken?
Because they have exactly the same evidence you have of their rightness.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And how do you plan to distinguish a valid philosophical epistemology from the religious trappings around it to make that determination?
I'm not - you are. You are the one arguing that you have a proof.
Or we can agree that you have no such proof that your proposed process is the ONLY process in this thread capable of demonstrating anything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:Like...? How would you measure these ways? And why has no one done it? (Or are we resorting to the old saws, like how Jews and Muslims face a relatively low risk for trichinosis?)
Don't drink, don't smoke, don't do violence, don't be mean to other people, don't...etc. etc., Tom.
quote:Because they have exactly the same evidence you have of their rightness.
From your perspective, certainly. Strange as it might seem, though, that isn't the only one out there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or we can agree that you have no such proof that your proposed process is the ONLY process in this thread capable of demonstrating anything.
Not quite. I have a process that can demonstrate things. You have a process that, by your own admission, cannot demonstrate things. As there are no other processes in this thread, I think I'm close enough for government work.
quote:From your perspective, certainly. Strange as it might seem, though, that isn't the only one out there.
No, that's true. From the perspective of some Baptists, for example, you have less reason to think you're actually talking to God than they do.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Even Paul is saying that 'better' here can't be quantified"
Actually, I'm not. Tres asserted that he could basically use examples of people who have lived lives as a demonstration that his way of living is better. He could do that if
a) He defined "better" in a quantifiable way b) Compared one group of people to another group of people c) Quantitatively evaluated how the groups did on his betterness scale.
But tres has specifically asserted he can't do that, so he'll not be able to demonstrate his way of living is better than another way.
I, on the other hand, would be willing to go through that process to demonstrate that my way of living is better. Tres would not take the results of such a study as meaningful if they did show that, for example, atheism is better than mormonism for the given definition of "better."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Not quite. I have a process that can demonstrate things. You have a process that, by your own admission, cannot demonstrate things. As there are no other processes in this thread, I think I'm close enough for government work.
No, look closer at what's been admitted: I have a process that can demonstrate things, under a meaning of "demonstrate" that I've offered. You have a process that can demonstrate things, under a meaning of "demonstrate" that you've offered. Both of these processes are used in practical life by most people to demonstrate things. However, neither method can logically prove things; neither method can logically force an unwilling debate participant to accept a conclusion that he or she doesn't want to.
If you want to play a debating game, I am allowed to be as stubborn in my terms as you are being in your terms. You have not allowed "close enough for government work" to suffice for me, so it doesn't suffice for you either. If you want proof from me, I'll expect proof from you. And I can tell you beforehand that if you want to run through the motions, you're not going to be able to offer any true proof of the sorts of claims you've been making in this thread. Actual proof is hard to come by when you aren't talking about math.
On the other hand, if you're actually interested in the truth, I've offered a demonstration of the value of religion, which I think will be convincing to most people who approach it with an open mind. You can decide whether you accept it or reject it as convincing. Just don't try to tell me it doesn't "count" as a demonstration at all, and that all your beliefs and claims can be demonstrated in some categorically superior way.
quote:Actually, I'm not. Tres asserted that he could basically use examples of people who have lived lives as a demonstration that his way of living is better. He could do that if
a) He defined "better" in a quantifiable way b) Compared one group of people to another group of people c) Quantitatively evaluated how the groups did on his betterness scale.
But tres has specifically asserted he can't do that, so he'll not be able to demonstrate his way of living is better than another way.
But this doesn't constitute "proof" any more than my earlier arguments did. Tom could just argue that studying "happiness" is not a good measure of "better", and I'm not going to be able to prove that it is. It's all going to come down to a judgement call by him as to whether or not it is convincing as a demonstration. And in truth, while I think studies like this are interesting evidence, I think observing the lives of those individuals who have found benefit in religion is more convincing.
(Incidently, to clarify positions, I didn't argue I thought my "way of life" was better overall. If you go back, what we are discussing is whether religious thinking is in some situations better or more useful as an epistemology than other ways of processing information. That came up when Tom asserted that there is no question that religion can answer better than other epistemologies.)
[ April 27, 2009, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Studies show that those who are religious are measurably more happy than those who aren't.
And, again, how do you intend to control here for the effects of community, self-satisfaction, etc...? Remember, we're trying to demonstrate the value of religious epistemology -- i.e. coming to "know" things based on religion instead of rational thought. Saying that "X" members of a club -- especially a number of mutually exclusive clubs -- are happier than those who aren't in those clubs does not mean that the themes of the clubs themselves produce happiness.
What we're looking for is evidence that using religious epistemology to process information produces better results in any case than using a more rational epistemology. Saying "people who say they're religious also say they're happier" doesn't come close to touching on that point.
Get back to me when you've got an answer for that one. And I'm being serious. I'd sincerely like that data.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
*Points to above post* That's why I didn't think the quantitative approach would be very convincing. As someone who is not an expert at making studies like these, I can't offer you data that is controlled for all variables, and even if I could it would still not establish that happiness equals better or more correct. I'd think looking in detail at individual lives that have been bettered by religious thought is a better demonstration. Either way, it's still up to you to decide whether or not you're convinced; I can't logically force you to accept my conclusion.
But if I do come across a study that seems controlled for all applicable variables, I'll post it and then we can see if it is any more convincing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with individual lives: how do we know what their lives would have been like had they chosen a different religion, or none at all?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The problem with individual lives: how do we know what their lives would have been like had they chosen a different religion, or none at all?
Exactly, Tom.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
What you can do, Rakeesh, with enough good data, is show that living one type of life produces statistically different outcomes than another type of life. But one life is just an anecdote. And the plural of anecdote is not data.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The demand of some here for "proof," or some kind of demonstration, does not seem to be what the Bible upholds as being really important for providing the necessary basis for faith.
After His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. These were probably Clophas and his wife, Mary. (Compare John 19:25; Luke 24:18.) Jesus found them very distraught, for they were believers in Jesus, and thought their hopes had been dashed with the Crucifixion of Jesus.
The test says that they were prevented somehow from recognizing Him immediately. Now, you might think that He would have simply shown them the scars in His hands (wrists) and said to them something like, "Look, it's Me, I've risen from the dead." But that is not what He did.
The text tells us: "...beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).
This seems to indicate that Jesus felt that the faith of His believers needs to be based on the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, and that is more important even than the direct evidence of the senses.
Why did He choose this? Evidently because the senses can be deceived, logic can be twisted. But only the One True God who knows the end from the beginning has the power to outline the events of history exactly and unerringly for centuries and even millennia in advance. This is one thing Satan cannot counterfeit. Placing our faith on this basis is placing our faith on something that is objective, outside of us, and unshakeable by any power of earth. Thus our faith in the Bible as God's Word is established, and so also is faith in Jesus established, when it is based on Bible prophecy.
This is the proof I always give whenever anyone wishes to challenge the validity of the Christian faith. This is the argument Jesus Himself preferred.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't follow. We should place faith in something that is outside of us and is objective.
How does this prove Christianity more than it proves Judaism or any other religion?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Arguments from the Bible are remarkably unpersuasive when it is the truth of the Bible that is in question. And incidentally, just what are the Gospels worth if Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead? Without this miracle, it's just so much ethics-talk by a persuasive preacher. And that miracle would, in fact, be powerful evidence, if one were at all convinced it had taken place. Likewise, accurate prophecy is powerful evidence. Such a pity the words of the Bible have to be twisted and chopped to make Jesus fit them even badly.
There is no need for faith if you have these actual miracles. That's convincing evidence, right there! It's just that the evidence for the miracles is exceeding weak.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The demand of some here for "proof," or some kind of demonstration, does not seem to be what the Bible upholds as being really important for providing the necessary basis for faith.
...
This is the proof I always give whenever anyone wishes to challenge the validity of the Christian faith. This is the argument Jesus Himself preferred.
But this is exactly the problem... This may be "proof" to someone who already believes but is meaningless otherwise. It's circular... you're using faith (in the Bible and in Jesus) to prove that faith.
I believe in God. I can't prove he exists but I believe anyway. Maybe in the same was I believed I would pass a test without studying - just blind belief because I like the way it comforts me - but that's OK. I 'm OK with that and I don't see any reason anyone else should care.
But I don't tell anyone else what to believe, and I don't have a problem with people who don't believe what I do. I don't believe that those who believe differently are going to hell, and I don't even claim that my belief is the right one for anyone else.
So, to those questioning belief: Why do you care what someone else believes? Why do you need them to prove something? Who cares if they're deluding themselves... you're not responsible for them.
And to those who believe: When you are accused of just believing without "proof" etc, why not just say "yup, that's exactly what I'm doing... what's it to you?" Why do you need to justify yourself? Why do some of you seem to feel you need to make the unbelievers "see the light"... you're not responsible for them either...
Just my $.02...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But I don't tell anyone else what to believe, and I don't have a problem with people who don't believe what I do. I don't believe that those who believe differently are going to hell, and I don't even claim that my belief is the right one for anyone else.
In this case I have to question what you mean by 'belief'. What would be different about the world if the god you 'believe' in did not exist?
quote:So, to those questioning belief: Why do you care what someone else believes? Why do you need them to prove something? Who cares if they're deluding themselves... you're not responsible for them.
No, but theistic beliefs are strongly correlated with a bunch of destructive behaviours, up to and including crashing airliners into skyscrapers. And the half-hearted believers like yourself are enablers for the fundamentalist fanatics.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So, to those questioning belief: Why do you care what someone else believes? Why do you need them to prove something? Who cares if they're deluding themselves... you're not responsible for them.
I largely don't care. But in many cases these beliefs are used to justify actions I disapprove of.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is also the point that truth is actually quite important. People should believe what is true, quite apart from the actions they take based on their beliefs.
Posted by Geekazoid (Member # 7610) on :
Except for the fact that none of us know what is true, not even you.
It is impossible to know the truth, we simply have opinions.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, but theistic beliefs are strongly correlated with a bunch of destructive behaviours, up to and including crashing airliners into skyscrapers. And the half-hearted believers like yourself are enablers for the fundamentalist fanatics.
That's ridiculous. It isn't religion that leads to violence and destructive behaviors. It's passion. Be it religion, nationalism, communism, nazism, anarchy or what have you - it is passion, not religion that leads to destructive behavior.
Unfortunately, passion is also what defines us. I don't think anyone wants to be alive without a goal or sense of purpose - atheists included.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The correlation between "Strong religious beliefs" and "Suicide attacks" is 100%.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Which strong religious beliefs did the suicidal Japanese soldiers of WWII have?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Which strong religious beliefs did the suicidal Japanese soldiers of WWII have?
Exactly. KoM, You have great argumentative prowess. You can explain to yourself why your argument is silly.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"In 1944-45, the Japanese were heavily influenced by Shinto beliefs. Among other things, Emperor worship was stressed after Shinto was established as a state religion during the Meiji Restoration. As time went on, Shinto was used increasingly in the promotion of nationalist sentiment. In 1890, the Imperial Rescript on Education was passed, under which students were required to ritually recite its oath to offer themselves "courageously to the State" as well as protect the Imperial family. The ultimate offering was to give up one’s life. It was an honor to die for Japan and the Emperor. Axell and Kase pointed out: "The fact is that innumerable soldiers, sailors and pilots were determined to die, to become eirei, that is ‘guardian spirits’ of the country. [...] Many Japanese felt that to be enshrined at Yasukuni was a special honour because the Emperor twice a year visited the shrine to pay homage. Yasukuni is the only shrine, deifying common men, which the Emperor would visit to pay his respects".[28] Young Japanese people were indoctrinated from an earliest age with these ideals."
Wiki
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Paul, there is also a 100% correlation between human sacrifice and religion.
But there is not a 100% correlation between evil in humanity and religion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Paul, there is also a 100% correlation between human sacrifice and religion.
But there is not a 100% correlation between evil in humanity and religion.
So, because religion isn't responsible for all of the evil in the world, we shouldn't address the evil it is responsible for?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Paul, there is also a 100% correlation between human sacrifice and religion.
But there is not a 100% correlation between evil in humanity and religion.
So, because religion isn't responsible for all of the evil in the world, we shouldn't address the evil it is responsible for?
No. I'm just advocating for sound logic.
1) There is evil in the world 2) Some of that evil is done by religious people
= Religion is evil.
That is ridiculous logic.
1) There is evil in the world 2) ALL of that evil is done by passionate people 3) Religion is a product of passion
= Passion is evil.
That's cool. Let's surgically remove passion from society.
1) No passion in society. 2) I am bored. Life isn't worth living.
= Sadly, I don't think anyone wants to remove passion, so we're gonna have to find some other blanket cause of evil and root that one out instead.
Let's not forget that:
1) There is good in the world 2) Many of the good acts in the world are motivated by religion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, there is also a 100% correlation between human sacrifice and religion.
But there is not a 100% correlation between evil in humanity and religion. "
I didn't say there was. I answered the question about which religion was responsible for the kamikaze bombers.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Sorry then. Was addressing the larger point.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sure.
The larger point is that there's no rational reason to believe in god, there's no rational reason to believe that believing in god promotes better people, and to the extent that rationality is a good thing and irrationality a bad thing, religion is worse than non-religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And further, there is reason to believe that god-beliefs promotes worse people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But only the One True God who knows the end from the beginning has the power to outline the events of history exactly and unerringly for centuries and even millennia in advance.
Funny, then, that He didn't. Even a "Hey, the Cubs will go a hundred years without a World Series" would have gone a long way towards demonstrating that kind of thing.
But the hit/miss ratio of Biblical prophecy is pretty poor, and even the "hits" -- and even if you generously assume that they're actual predictions and not after-the-fact edits -- are remarkably uninfluential and meaningless.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I agree.
Irrationality is bad. Irrational religion is bad as well. But the reason I think it is bad is not because I worship the God of rationality.
To me, rationality is a tool. It allows me to discern reality. If I am observing something and cannot tell if it is reality or not, I may be vulnerable to harm that might come from not seeing the truth.
Say I trusted a person, who in reality, will use me and discard me as needed. I need to be rational in observing them and their habits to come to a decision as to whether or not to be around them.
So yea - the reason why rationality is good is because it is important to know reality in order to benefit/prevent harm.
The preface was just to establish that irrationality is not, in itself, bad.
Now, you say that it is irrational to believe in God. I disagree.
God cannot be proven. But He cannot be disproved. For that matter, the fact that you are speaking to a human and not dreaming this conversation up cannot be proven or disproved. Your entire life could be the machinations of a sophisticated computer program that your paralyzed body is plugged into. ::shrug:: You can't prove otherwise.
But we don't make decisions based on what we can prove, and what we cannot prove. We make decisions based on what is reasonable to believe and what is not reasonable.
We live in a world governed by such complexity it is difficult to deny a creator. Evolution and all the conditions it takes for us to be fortunate to exist in this state take assume ideas of infinite time to account for what is seemingly so unlikely. Pit the idea of a creator vs. the idea of infinite time, an unexplained origin of energy, and some solid principles that led up to this point, and creator makes more sense to me. That is indeed a rational choice.
Couple that with the fact that Judaism traces its origins to a text that records a mass revelation of an entire people hearing from God personally, and from an entire people witnessing miraculous events on a national scale. I find it difficult to understand how such a religion whose text is full of arduous obligation and seemingly irrational commandments (the prohibition from eating pork, wearing a cloth of wool and linen, incredibly tedious laws of purity and such), could possibly have spread if it were not true.
Let's imagine how it spread. A dude named Moses walks up to some desert nation and is all - hey God spoke to all of you, remember?
or
Some other dude walks up to a random group of people and says - God took your ancestors out of Egypt, spoke to them personally, and gave you a whole bunch of annoying commandments. Remember?
Scholars grapple with this question and there's a whole lotta theory on how to deal with the question of a mass revelation. But I find the mass revelation and the tradition to that very event to be strong and compelling.
Two, very rational, reasons to believe. Proofs? No. Reasons? So much to stake my life on them? Well this was a cursory investigation of those two reasons, but after my own investigation of them, and other corroborating evidence. Definitely yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It isn't religion that leads to violence and destructive behaviors. It's passion.
Armoth: Except that religion does one thing that science doesn't: it claims to know, based on an untestable and unimpeachable authority, what is the "right" thing to do -- even if all the observable consequences of that thing appear to be terrible.
Under a religious epistemology, it can be the "right thing" to kill every man, woman and child in a given tribe, even if you see no benefit from it and can muster no argument for it. Science -- as distinct from false appeals to science -- does not permit this mechanism.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The larger point is that there's no rational reason to believe in god, there's no rational reason to believe that believing in god promotes better people, and to the extent that rationality is a good thing and irrationality a bad thing, religion is worse than non-religion.
Also to the extent that the question of rationality is the only factor worth considering. Which is a pretty short extent.
If an individual finds that, in his subjective experience, believing in God DOES make him a better person, does it matter what he can prove about its broader statistical relevance?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: If an individual finds that, in his subjective experience, believing in God DOES make him a better person, does it matter what he can prove about its broader statistical relevance?
Depends entirely on what that individual thinks his god wants him to do to be a better person.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Tom you don't believe in science. It's a tool. A discipline. And I recognize it as such the same way you do.
We're talking about passion. Passion inspires motivation.
You can use your disciplines for one thing, and I for another. The question is - why did we make different decisions? And the answer will be, our motivation.
Religion can lead some people to use disciplines and other tools for negative reasons.
So can Nationalism.
And yes, I can muster a reason for it.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Under a religious epistemology, it can be the "right thing" to kill every man, woman and child in a given tribe, even if you see no benefit from it and can muster no argument for it. Science -- as distinct from false appeals to science -- does not permit this mechanism.
It also doesn't provide a replacement for it. People do need a means of establishing a shared moral perspective on what "should" or "should not" be done. Rather than seeking ways to eliminate religion, I'd rather seek ways to improve it, and check against its potential downsides.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If an individual finds that, in his subjective experience, believing in God DOES make him a better person, does it matter what he can prove about its broader statistical relevance?
To whom? To the people his decisions affect? To him, years later, grappling with a decision that God doesn't appear to be answering in a useful way?
I certainly don't deny that religious belief can be a useful crutch and a handy comfort. But relying on that sort of crutch has consequences.
--------
quote:yes, I can muster a reason for it.
Abraham's reason for sacrificing his son -- or trying to -- was that he believed God asked him to do it. Would you accept that rationale in a court of law today? Or from a good friend?
What if the Jews, as a people, all suddenly decided that God wanted them to kill all the Syrians? Would that make it less monstrous?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Paul,
quote:What you can do, Rakeesh, with enough good data, is show that living one type of life produces statistically different outcomes than another type of life. But one life is just an anecdote. And the plural of anecdote is not data.
You're free of course to produce sufficient good data to conclude that living an agnostic or atheist 'lifestyle' (insofar as there is such a thing) at your convenience, of course.
I don't think you can, though, which is a sharp criticism of someone whose criticism of theistic 'lifestyles' is founded on their unprovability.
quote:I didn't say there was. I answered the question about which religion was responsible for the kamikaze bombers.
You're definitely right about this much, at least. Except for the 'responsible' part, that's a much stickier matter. But to suggest that religion played no role in kamikaze fliers is mistaken.
quote: The larger point is that there's no rational reason to believe in god, there's no rational reason to believe that believing in god promotes better people, and to the extent that rationality is a good thing and irrationality a bad thing, religion is worse than non-religion.
I wasn't aware that the definition of 'rational' included 'provable to others'.
------
quote:No, but theistic beliefs are strongly correlated with a bunch of destructive behaviours, up to and including crashing airliners into skyscrapers. And the half-hearted believers like yourself are enablers for the fundamentalist fanatics.
Nonsense. 'Strongly correlated'? By who, and how, exactly? 'Correlation'? Pff. What you can say is, "Extreme zealous belief in something can produce dangerous outcomes." That's all you can say.
Unless, of course, you'd also admit there was 'strong correlation' between theistic beliefs and plenty of good behaviors, as well. But I doubt you will.
quote:The correlation between "Strong religious beliefs" and "Suicide attacks" is 100%.
Correlation is such a valid argument!
Since your arguments are already so inflammatory and stupid on this particular issue, KoM, here's another correlation for you. The correlation between 'white' and 'Nazi' is very close to 100% as well.
quote:And further, there is reason to believe that god-beliefs promotes worse people.
In the same way that choirs will believe what is being preached there's reason, yes.
------
quote:I largely don't care. But in many cases these beliefs are used to justify actions I disapprove of.
In this way theistic beliefs aren't even slightly different from other human beliefs in things, such as much of politics.
------
quote:So, because religion isn't responsible for all of the evil in the world, we shouldn't address the evil it is responsible for?
Feel free to point to someone's post that has said or suggested that, Javert. No, because religion isn't responsible for all of the evil in the world, we shouldn't speak as though it is.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't understand your questions.
There is no prophecy in our time. I wouldn't believe a dude named Abraham if he tried the same thing nowadays. And no court of law, nor religious court (Jews hold these for civil cases, not really in these situations anymore), would believe him.
Thank God I don't have the testimony of one or a bunch of individuals as the foundation of my religion. See "Mass Revelation" above.
Same goes for your question on the Syrians. My religion doesn't say it's okay for a nation to arbitrarily butcher another nation. So...I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My religion doesn't say it's okay for a nation to arbitrarily butcher another nation.
Until it suddenly does. You'll forgive me if I, as an outsider, don't consider "we currently don't believe this particular unprovable thing" to be a good defense.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There is no prophecy in our time.
So the criticism is valid for religions with modern revelation? A Mormon who believes God wants him to kill his son is justified in doing so?
[ April 27, 2009, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why do some of you seem to feel you need to make the unbelievers "see the light"... you're not responsible for them either...
Actually, in truth, I think we are responsible for them. Or, more accurately, we are responsible for at least trying (within reason) to help them. And vice versa.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:We live in a world governed by such complexity it is difficult to deny a creator. Evolution and all the conditions it takes for us to be fortunate to exist in this state take assume ideas of infinite time to account for what is seemingly so unlikely.
Come now, Armoth. You have got to have run into the obvious counterargument for this, to wit, the creator has to be even more complex, so it is even more unlikely to arise by chance. Whatever reason you give for the creator to arise are just as applicable to the universe. Why are you ignoring this?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, but theistic beliefs are strongly correlated with a bunch of destructive behaviours, up to and including crashing airliners into skyscrapers. And the half-hearted believers like yourself are enablers for the fundamentalist fanatics.
This has got to be the single most ridiculous thing I have ever read you say.
Somehow people like me... people who believe that God exists but generally scoff at the very religious and believe we have the ability to think logically for a reason... we're the enablers
So what you seem to be saying is that the only acceptable answer is to wipe religion from the face of the earth... because then all evil will go with it. Because no one has ever used anything other than religion as a reason to do something bad, right...
The point is that my personal beliefs don't affect you in any way at all. I'm not saying that goes for everyone who is "religious" because we all know that isn't true, but what the reasonable among us also know is that it doesn't go 100% the other way either. And for you to try and draw a correlation from my personal (and it is personal, most people don't have any inkling of what I believe because I don't talk about it) belief to anything else you wish to blame religion for is just, well, stupid.
So, if you want to lay a load of crap like the above at the feat of "radical fundamentalist religious types" you go right ahead and I'll probably even agree with you, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Incidentally, evolution and all the conditions it takes for us to exist don't at all assume ideas of infinite time.
That's a blatant falsehood.
It appears, actually, from the information I've read, that life, at least on this planet, appeared almost immediately (geologically speaking, that is) after it was possible for it to do so. That is, once the earth was no longer a molten ball of whatever the heck you'd call it.
Furthermore, considering the vast size of the universe, and the fact that we're discovering so many planets even with our simple skills, and at such a rate to suggest that there's a huge number out there, you should note that even if the chances of a planet being in such a location, and with such conditions needed to support life were a billion stars to one, you'd have, well. There are between half a trillion and a trillion stars in this galaxy. The average is apparently about a hundred billion... and there are possibly hundreds of billions (maybe more) of galaxies out there.
Well, the odds, when it comes to the observed number of stars, even if it is a billion to one, seems to suggest that there'd be a lot of planets with life, even intelligent life, on them.
To imagine, in a universe as vast and with as many factors at play as our universe does, that the only likely way for at least one planet around at least one star (out of so many quadrillions, probably that's too small a number) to have intelligent life is that some outside power intervened and either created the planet special, or planted life here specially, is silly.
It's like saying someone winning a lottery whose winning numbers are really chosen fairly randomly, like out of a spinning thing of balls with numbers of them, is only possible if a supernatural being chose this person specifically.
However, if life, at least complex life, turns out to be impossible to find coming about on its own, then you have a different story.
That's where intelligent design kicks in. However, though some people here will disagree with me, as far as I've seen (and I've looked at a fair bit, including some of the most popular books supporting it!) there's no decent evidence supporting that view.
Of course, none of that suggests that God isn't responsible. Just that it looks less than likely to our imperfect instruments that if God did tamper with things directly, he did so in any way discernible from nature.
Now, if you posit that God made the rules of nature specifically to create us, well, that's quite a lot of effort to go through, but who am I to question God if He felt like writing laws of nature for the sake of, at minimum, a single small group of intelligent organisms on a single planet among quintillions? Oh, and to question Him if He exists.
Well, I would, just out of friendly curiosity. But that's another matter.
Now,
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Incidentally, evolution and all the conditions it takes for us to exist don't at all assume ideas of infinite time.
That's a blatant falsehood.
It appears, actually, from the information I've read, that life, at least on this planet, appeared almost immediately (geologically speaking, that is) after it was possible for it to do so. That is, once the earth was no longer a molten ball of whatever the heck you'd call it.
Furthermore, considering the vast size of the universe, and the fact that we're discovering so many planets even with our simple skills, and at such a rate to suggest that there's a huge number out there, you should note that even if the chances of a planet being in such a location, and with such conditions needed to support life were a billion stars to one, you'd have, well. There are between half a trillion and a trillion stars in this galaxy. The average is apparently about a hundred billion... and there are possibly hundreds of billions (maybe more) of galaxies out there.
Well, the odds, when it comes to the observed number of stars, even if it is a billion to one, seems to suggest that there'd be a lot of planets with life, even intelligent life, on them.
To imagine, in a universe as vast and with as many factors at play as our universe does, that the only likely way for at least one planet around at least one star (out of so many quadrillions, probably that's too small a number) to have intelligent life is that some outside power intervened and either created the planet special, or planted life here specially, is silly.
It's like saying someone winning a lottery whose winning numbers are really chosen fairly randomly, like out of a spinning thing of balls with numbers of them, is only possible if a supernatural being chose this person specifically.
However, if life, at least complex life, turns out to be impossible to find coming about on its own, then you have a different story.
That's where intelligent design kicks in. However, though some people here will disagree with me, as far as I've seen (and I've looked at a fair bit, including some of the most popular books supporting it!) there's no decent evidence supporting that view.
Of course, none of that suggests that God isn't responsible. Just that it looks less than likely to our imperfect instruments that if God did tamper with things directly, he did so in any way discernible from nature.
Now, if you posit that God made the rules of nature specifically to create us, well, that's quite a lot of effort to go through, but who am I to question God if He felt like writing laws of nature for the sake of, at minimum, a single small group of intelligent organisms on a single planet among quintillions? Oh, and to question Him if He exists.
Well, I would, just out of friendly curiosity. But that's another matter.
Now,
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I answered the question about which religion was responsible for the kamikaze bombers.
Which I'm not buying. Kamikaze and banzai had far more to do with the centuries-old bushido tradition than with any religion.
As Armoth said: Nationalism (and other passions) can cause this sort of thing as well as religion can. And nationalism, codes of honor, and other such collective passions, are not especially rational either.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Nationalism (and other passions) can cause this sort of thing as well as religion can. And nationalism, codes of honor, and other such collective passions, are not especially rational either."
IIRC, Hitler was all about the Fatherland. Stalin was all about Russian pride. The list goes on. "I have a right to kill you because of ----" is a beverage drunk from all kinds of glasses, a dish eaten from all types of plates. Who among us is never in danger of it? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And nationalism, codes of honor, and other such collective passions, are not especially rational either.
So we're agreed that irrational appeals to collectivized passions are dangerous?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Potentially, sure.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:We live in a world governed by such complexity it is difficult to deny a creator. Evolution and all the conditions it takes for us to be fortunate to exist in this state take assume ideas of infinite time to account for what is seemingly so unlikely.
Come now, Armoth. You have got to have run into the obvious counterargument for this, to wit, the creator has to be even more complex, so it is even more unlikely to arise by chance. Whatever reason you give for the creator to arise are just as applicable to the universe. Why are you ignoring this?
Who says I'm ignoring it? Present your questions, I'll present my counter-arguments.
I'm sure you know all about non-overlapping magisteria ala Stephen Jay Gould. In order to explain the universe via a creator, you need to posit a creator that is beyond the rules of this universe. Judaism's Creator has no form, no body, no physical qualities, and is not subject to the laws of time (See - The preservation of free will if God knows what choices you will make). He is outside of this universe as He created it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Megabyte. I'm not sure how what you said explained how you do not require infinite time, how it explained the first moments of the universe, the existence of energy, and the massive complexity of the principles in place that caused the outward expansion of the universe, the formation of planets, the formation of our solar system, the unique placement of Earth at an exact spot in which life could potentially arise, etc.
I should have been more clear as well. I have little problem believing in evolution, but I believe that God created the world through natural means. Kinda like guided evolution.
So to summarize - I think that I made rational choice on what I think is the most plausible explanation for the creation of the universe and the existence of religion.
To explain the other questions:
I am not evaluating a religion by what it says and then deciding to join it. I'm evaluating a religion that makes the most sense to have happened. Or if it makes sense for it not to have happened at all. I reached the conclusion that Judaism...er...happened.
Now, once we reach that step, that means there is a God and good and bad are defined by Him. We discussed this much earlier in the thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the unique placement of Earth at an exact spot in which life could potentially arise, etc
I think you're putting the cart before the horse, here. There exist in the universe -- especially over the billions of years this universe has existed and will exist -- lots of places in which life could exist. These places are outnumbered by places in which life could not exist.
However, that life has arisen somewhere life could exist doesn't prove anything special. Heck, it's practically a tautology; we know Earth is a place life can exist because life exists here.
quote:I think that I made rational choice on what I think is the most plausible explanation for the creation of the universe and the existence of religion.
Why is it more plausible to imagine an invisible Creator? How does that increase the likelihood of your scenario?
quote:I reached the conclusion that Judaism...er...happened.
Lucky, really, that you were born a Jew. Otherwise you might have concluded that Islam happened.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My religion doesn't say it's okay for a nation to arbitrarily butcher another nation.
Until it suddenly does. You'll forgive me if I, as an outsider, don't consider "we currently don't believe this particular unprovable thing" to be a good defense.
Oh, I don't know if I clearly addressed this.
But the point is still silly. If I am delving into your point, you seem to be saying that you deny a moral authority outside of yourself because what if that moral authority tells you to do something immoral.
Again, if you've taken rational steps to conclude that there is a God and that He has given you a moral code, you define good and evil based on that God. That means that the evidence for that God needs to be more compelling than your moral intuition. For me, it is.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the unique placement of Earth at an exact spot in which life could potentially arise, etc
I think you're putting the cart before the horse, here. There exist in the universe -- especially over the billions of years this universe has existed and will exist -- lots of places in which life could exist. These places are outnumbered by places in which life could not exist.
However, that life has arisen somewhere life could exist doesn't prove anything special. Heck, it's practically a tautology; we know Earth is a place life can exist because life exists here.
quote:I think that I made rational choice on what I think is the most plausible explanation for the creation of the universe and the existence of religion.
Why is it more plausible to imagine an invisible Creator? How does that increase the likelihood of your scenario?
quote:I reached the conclusion that Judaism...er...happened.
Lucky, really, that you were born a Jew. Otherwise you might have concluded that Islam happened.
Forget about life. What about planets, energy, etc.?
But even life itself - it's still incredibly unlikely for events to have come about as they have.
And yes - I am lucky to have been born a Jew. The only religion that has a mass revalation, the father of Western religions. Jews are .02 percent of the world population. So yes, I consider myself very lucky.
The only thing I can do to remove the stigma of a person who is merely born into a religion is to think for myself. I hope I continue to do that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you seem to be saying that you deny a moral authority outside of yourself because what if that moral authority tells you to do something immoral
Specifically, I deny the existence of an unimpeachable, unquestionable moral authority.
----------
quote:it's still incredibly unlikely for events to have come about as they have
In all seriousness, are you familiar with the increasingly-popular "multiverse" theory? It dispenses with your argument without requiring the intervention of a sentient creator.
quote:The only religion that has a mass revalation...
More accurately, Jews claim to have had a mass revelation. (They aren't really the only religion that claims to have had one, either, depending on what you mean by "mass.") I wouldn't put too much weight on that as evidence of anything useful.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Megabyte. I'm not sure how what you said explained how you do not require infinite time, how it explained the first moments of the universe, the existence of energy, and the massive complexity of the principles in place that caused the outward expansion of the universe, the formation of planets, the formation of our solar system, the unique placement of Earth at an exact spot in which life could potentially arise, etc."
From what do you assume that infinite time is needed? We have both a large number of solar systems in the universe, and sufficient, not infinite, time.
As I said, from the evidence, it appears life began in its early stages on Earth quite early. Almost as soon as the Earth wasn't ridiculously hot any longer. How does "life starting as soon as it's able, to all appearances" translate into infinite time needed?
A few billion years is not a lot of time. The universe itself is about 14 billion, and the sun and earth are about 5-6 billion, if I remember correctly. You know, to current measurements and whatnot.
Now, as to the Earth's position, it's not so magical as you seem to think.
You do realize how many planets are out there, right? How many stars?
Now, we know that the conditions on Earth are the kind that allow life to occur. What do you think the odds are that at least one planet would have such conditions, when we've already found planets within the habitable zones of other stars? Even ones that are only a few times bigger than Earth?
Heck, there's no guarantee that life is all that unusual a thing. It could occur in other kinds of environments too, possibly. There's no guarantee this is the only kind of life that can exist, just the only kind we've seen.
And even if the odds to have a planet like this are one in a billion, even one in a trillion, there are so many planets that the odds suggest so many planets with this possibility that to think it's impossible or somehow special is no less silly than thinking it takes divine intervention for someone to win the lottery.
I mean, keep in mind, we've already found planets in the habitable zones, that is, the zone where liquid water can exist, of other stars. And we haven't been looking long, and we can only see a small number of the planets out there with our current measurements.
How does that scream such unlikelihood that it's more reasonable that someone placed the planet here especially, through divine power, than our planet simply being one of the thousands or millions of planets that would statistically end up in the proper position naturally?
Now, of course it didn't explain the first moment of the universe. That isn't answered yet, but the proper answer isn't to simply say "God did it" just because you don't know the way you know the second immediately afterwards.
Now, the question about energy is, what makes you think there needs to be some source for it? I'm not an expert, but it might very well be that matter and energy are simply quantum variations or something, slight inequalities that came from the way the universe works. Or it all evens out to zero, both matter/energy, and the vacuum or whatever else, that it is simply all borrowing from the vacuum due to the variations between areas. I don't know. But there are plenty of possible answers, and just because neither of us know the answer doesn't mean that the proper response is to say "God did it."
Just because you and I don't understand it yet doesn't mean that there's no good explanation. I'd rather pursue all avenues to figure it out first, you know?
The reasons for the rules of nature aren't perfectly understood, either, but that improves with time. Gravity used to be thought of as some strange force pulling a things somehow. But now we know it's an effect of how concentrations of mass bend space-time, and the pulling is more an illusion than anything else. We'll probably figure out more of how that works, and why the universe is the way it is more and more clearly as time goes on.
But the rational thing is to try to figure it out, not answer "God did it, see? It's mysterious, and we don't know!"
"I should have been more clear as well. I have little problem believing in evolution, but I believe that God created the world through natural means. Kinda like guided evolution."
Possible. As I even said, God making the laws of the universe in such a way as this was all possible is not really contradictory to the models I've seen.
But there's no evidence to suggest this as more likely than blind chance, is what I've also noticed.
There's even less chance that the entity that created the universe, if there was such a being, is the one you worship.
"So to summarize - I think that I made rational choice on what I think is the most plausible explanation for the creation of the universe and the existence of religion."
So, the most plausible answer is "God did it"?
I mean, also, if the universe is so strange and wondrous that it needs to be explained by some higher power, why doesn't a God that's even more strange and wondrous?
If the universe and creation is so special that it requires an outside force, what about the god that created it? Where did God come from then? All this does is just push the explanation farther back.
And if God doesn't need any explanation, if "God just is" is sufficient, why isn't that enough for a universe that seems more likely to come into being as a mechanical whole than an intelligent entity coming out of nowhere?
As for religion, well. Humans seek answers. Which seems more plausible? That over the millenia, people telling stories, creating myths as we've seen them do in modern times (look at urban legends that people take for granted over the internet, for goodness' sakes!) explaining things with their stories that they don't know the true answer to, which we also see in modern times and throughout history (the cause of the black plague? The Jews caused it through their evil intent! Remember that bit? Not suggesting that all such things are so... vile, but it's an example nevertheless.) combined with the strength of authority figures, up to castes of rulers and priests, as seem to happen in even the smallest of tribes and nations, all through time growing more and more complex and intricate until they created the sort of religions you see today throughout the world, or some supernatural deity came down from on high and gave the seeds to all these disparate religions to humans, and further gave the absolute truth to your people, and somehow let everyone else go about their business and go astray?
"To explain the other questions:
I am not evaluating a religion by what it says and then deciding to join it. I'm evaluating a religion that makes the most sense to have happened. Or if it makes sense for it not to have happened at all. I reached the conclusion that Judaism...er...happened."
Obviously Judaism happened. But it seems more likely to you that this faith, which clearly developed over time even as shown in the Bible itself, was something God brought down, than something that developed the same way all these other religions developed?
"Now, once we reach that step, that means there is a God and good and bad are defined by Him. We discussed this much earlier in the thread."
Eh? Even if I hadn't given my objections to anything you said, nothing in any of that suggests that God defines good and evil, or anything like that.
If God can exist without cause, but created the universe, why can't Good and Evil exist without cause too, again?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So we're agreed that irrational appeals to collectivized passions are dangerous?
We definitely haven't agreed that religion is irrational though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
When you say things like "reason isn't the only way to find truth", in defense of religion, you are not exactly sounding the trumpets for the rationality of faith.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:So we're agreed that irrational appeals to collectivized passions are dangerous?
We definitely haven't agreed that religion is irrational though.
Do we agree that there is a subjective component to at least the demonstration of 'religious truths' that is not present in the demonstration of 'scientific truths'?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Forget about life. What about planets, energy, etc.?
But even life itself - it's still incredibly unlikely for events to have come about as they have.
Which events are you claiming as unlikely? And how would you argue that these events are, in fact, unlikely?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I do not see how you can say that "the hit/miss ratio of Biblical prophecy is pretty poor."
When you take the outlines of future kingdoms given in Daniel 2, 7, and 8, interpreting them in the straightforward manner the text explicitly says to interpret them, and compare them to history from the time of ancient Babylon to the present, the match is absolutely perfect. Even to the prediction that Rome would be followed not by another kingdom, but by a division into ten parts. There are no misses at all, except where some people with a prior agenda may deliberately try to misinterpret the prophecies. But they have to distort the text and ignore most of what the text actually says to propound their misinterpretations.
When you take the time prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, and see how it points to the actual year when Jesus Christ was annointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism, and stipulates three and one-half years of ministry before He would be "cut off, but not for Himself," this is compelling and objective evidence that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, thus validating Christianity.
The fact that unscrupulous Jewish scribes in the seventh century A.D. tried to dilute this evidence by adding punctuation that was not in the original text so as to give the impression the text is not specifying a time period of 483 years from 457 B.C. to 27 A.D., does not affect the strength of the proof one bit. Anyone can see for himself that seven weeks and sixty-two weeks makes 69 weeks, and 69 times seven is 483. History tells us that Ezra reached Judah in the fall of 457 B.C. with the document containing the command of King Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, the sanctuary, and the city wall, which Ezra then published throughout the land.
The text goes on to mention a final week after the 69 weeks, which indicates the prophecy is indeed talking about subdivisions of the 70 weeks prophecy. You have to alter the text, do violence to it, deliberately misread it, in order to deny the clear evidence that the true Messiah began His ministry in 27 A.D., and made a sacrifice three and a half years later. Jesus was crucified in the Spring of the year, which was half a year after the Fall of the year.
You may not like such clear proof, and you may prefer the way some Jews have tried to explain this away. But that would be your choice to be less than honest and objective about what the text actually says.
I doubt that God considers it important how long the Cubs would go without winning the World Series.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When you say things like "reason isn't the only way to find truth", in defense of religion, you are not exactly sounding the trumpets for the rationality of faith.
It all depends on whether you think truth is unknowable if it can't be demonstrated from one person to another in a provable, scientific way. And if you believe that, then you must also believe there is no truth where it can't be scientifically, externally proven.
It's not irrational not to believe that.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"Reason isn't the only way to find truth."
It is one way, and it's definitely present in "religion" in my own observations. But yeah, it's only one way to find truth. A religion might include truth revealed from God as part of its body of truth as well. That truth did not come from human reasoning. Apart from religion, we rely on plenty more than reason to arrive at truths. Emotions, for example, might lead us to much different truths than reason could have.
I would say this has been stated more frequently: "Science is not the only way to find knowledge." Science is not the same as reason. Reason is a tool, not a certain set of conclusions. No discipline has a monopoly on it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: "Reason isn't the only way to find truth."
It's not just about reason, it's about reason and evidence.
And this concentrating on truth is completely missing the point.
The virtue of reason and evidence is that it reliably tells you when you are holding to a mistruth, so you can stop believing that mistruth.
Religion, guesswork, fortune cookies, whatever won't do that. You will never have a handle on the truth unless you have a mechanism of throwing out false beliefs, and reality testing is the best antidote for error.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are no misses at all, except where some people with a prior agenda may deliberately try to misinterpret the prophecies.
Ron, if I thought for a moment that you would honestly consider what I had to say on this topic, I would engage you in conversation on it. But as you've previously conceded, there is no evidence that could be presented to you that might persuade you otherwise.
quote:I doubt that God considers it important how long the Cubs would go without winning the World Series.
That's not the point. The point is that it would be an unequivocal statement, preserved in an era when no one reading it could possibly have known what it even meant. If you want important prophecies -- certainly more important than the ancient fracturing of the Roman Empire -- why not a cure for polio? Or cancer? Why not instructions for constructing a solar cell? All of these would be infinitely more important than, say, seven years of drought in one pathetic little patch of the Middle East.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It all depends on whether you think truth is unknowable if it can't be demonstrated from one person to another in a provable, scientific way. And if you believe that, then you must also believe there is no truth where it can't be scientifically, externally proven.
It's not irrational not to believe that.
The issue is not whether someone can be convinced of something in the absence of scientific proof - it is abundantly clear that people 'know' both true and untrue things. The issue is how one verifies that something is true. The scientific method provides a way of verifying truth. The justification of the scientific method is its incredible success. Religious-type statements do not find support from the scientific method, but, for various reasons, they also resist be categorically falsified by the scientific method. No alternative to the scientific method has been shown to be successful thus far.
I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
swbarnes:
I think that's a limited way of looking at it. Science has its limits. It is limited to what we ourselves can discern and conclude with our powers of observation and reason. It limits what we can call evidence to its own set of rules. It is very useful, obviously, for a great deal of things, including informing religious beliefs. I wouldn't call it reliable, however, as a measuring stick for all circumstances, somewhat the same way a hammer does really well pounding a nail but can't turn a screw.
quote:Religion, guesswork, fortune cookies, whatever won't do that. You will never have a handle on the truth unless you have a mechanism of throwing out false beliefs, and reality testing is the best antidote for error.
I put "religion" in quotes in my last post because it's become almost a meaningless term on this board. But I suppose my treatment of science is helping to do the same thing for that word. You categorize religion as fortune telling and guesswork, and do not look any further to ask whether there is in fact a method for separating truth from falsehood in religious worship.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Do we agree that there is a subjective component to at least the demonstration of 'religious truths' that is not present in the demonstration of 'scientific truths'?
I think both religion and science do have subjective components, but I will agree that science follows strict rules that makes it far less subjective. (Although the cost of following those rules is that science is very limited in the sort of questions it can properly answer.)
But subjective reasoning can be completely rational. If I feel pain when I touch something then it is normally rational for me to stop touching it, whether or not I have any objective means of showing I felt the pain.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You categorize religion as fortune telling and guesswork, and do not look any further to ask whether there is in fact a method for separating truth from falsehood in religious worship.
If there were, don't you think there would be rather more agreement among theists on what is true?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think both religion and science do have subjective components, but I will agree that science follows strict rules that makes it far less subjective. (Although the cost of following those rules is that science is very limited in the sort of questions it can properly answer.)
Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
quote: But subjective reasoning can be completely rational. If I feel pain when I touch something then it is normally rational for me to stop touching it, whether or not I have any objective means of showing I felt the pain.
True. But if other people do touch that thing without exhibiting any pain, it is now rational to investigate further.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: wbarnes:
I think that's a limited way of looking at it. Science has its limits. It is limited to what we ourselves can discern and conclude with our powers of observation and reason.
I.e. what we know to be the real world.
Once you start making claims that are divorced from the reality we can reality test, you are back where you started...making claims that you can never falsify or verify.
quote:It is very useful, obviously, for a great deal of things, including informing religious beliefs. I wouldn't call it reliable, however, as a measuring stick for all circumstances, somewhat the same way a hammer does really well pounding a nail but can't turn a screw.
In what circumstances is it not a good idea to be able to recognize false beliefs?
quote:You categorize religion as fortune telling and guesswork, and do not look any further to ask whether there is in fact a method for separating truth from falsehood in religious worship.
You think there is one?
By all means, describe it. Tell us how you know it does what you claim it does.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think both religion and science do have subjective components, but I will agree that science follows strict rules that makes it far less subjective. (Although the cost of following those rules is that science is very limited in the sort of questions it can properly answer.)
Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
quote: But subjective reasoning can be completely rational. If I feel pain when I touch something then it is normally rational for me to stop touching it, whether or not I have any objective means of showing I felt the pain.
True. But if other people do touch that thing without exhibiting any pain, it is now rational to investigate further.
One subjective component in science may be deciding what questions to ask, what answers you expect to get, and how you couch them.
Other people having the same experience, despite the lack of an objective way to show you had it, could be the basis of either religious or scientific inquiry.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb]
quote:We live in a world governed by such complexity it is difficult to deny a creator. Evolution and all the conditions it takes for us to be fortunate to exist in this state take assume ideas of infinite time to account for what is seemingly so unlikely.
Come now, Armoth. You have got to have run into the obvious counterargument for this, to wit, the creator has to be even more complex, so it is even more unlikely to arise by chance. Whatever reason you give for the creator to arise are just as applicable to the universe. Why are you ignoring this?
Who says I'm ignoring it? Present your questions, I'll present my counter-arguments.
This is not making sense. Your argument is that the universe and/or human life is too complex to arise without a creator. The hypothetical creator is even more complex. Where does the creator come from that isn't an equally good source for the universe?
quote:I'm sure you know all about non-overlapping magisteria ala Stephen Jay Gould.
Yes, I just don't agree. See my link to the story of Elijah's experiment, earlier.
quote:In order to explain the universe via a creator, you need to posit a creator that is beyond the rules of this universe. Judaism's Creator has no form, no body, no physical qualities, and is not subject to the laws of time (See - The preservation of free will if God knows what choices you will make). He is outside of this universe as He created it.
Either a first cause is required, or a first cause is not required. If it is not needed, there is no need for your god. If it is needed, there is still no need for your god, because the first cause can just as well be the Universe itself, or the Big Bang, or fluctuations in a quantum soup. The timeless, formless stuff is just words around this single fact, which you have no response for.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
KOM: In general, different religions take the same truths and use them how they will. They rarely coordinate their interpretations and applications; hence many different viewpoints. In kind of a similar vein, different scientists using the same scientific method can and have arrived at different conclusions and argued about them. I guess it's up to you whether that means there is no single truth to be found.
swbarnes: I believe God does in fact have an open line of communication with us, a means of communication, and does in fact speak truth to us to the effect that we cannot deny it is true. I can witness for it, as can many others. There is a difference between that communication and my own abilities to reason truth for myself. This is no secret if you are familiar with Mormonism. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I am referring to the Holy Ghost.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
afr: could you give some examples of such truths that both 1) are the 'same truths' among different religions and 2) are not also routinely arrived at by non-religious reasoning?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
All right...Three big truths: that there is a God, that there is a divine purpose for this life, and that we can return to live with God after this life. Three truths that are shared across many religions and that haven't been proven by science, although just to be consistent I will hold that they weren't arrived at by human reasoning, either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
Me, too.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This is no secret if you are familiar with Mormonism. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I am referring to the Holy Ghost
There are members of other faiths that claim the exact same mechanism for their knowledge that the Mormon church is false.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*nods* I have met many such people as well.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: KOM: In general, different religions take the same truths and use them how they will. They rarely coordinate their interpretations and applications; hence many different viewpoints. In kind of a similar vein, different scientists using the same scientific method can and have arrived at different conclusions and argued about them.
But then scientists collect more evidence, and one or more interpretations is found to not fit the facts, and it is discarded.
Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
quote:swbarnes: I believe God does in fact have an open line of communication with us, a means of communication, and does in fact speak truth to us to the effect that we cannot deny it is true.
And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
quote:I can witness for it, as can many others.
Lots of people will "witness" that there's no way for Joseph Smith to have been anything but a fraud and a liar.
Lots of people can "witness" for their abduction by aliens.
I don't see how this helps demonstrate that what you "witness" to is accurate.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
Yeah. Pretty much for the most part.
quote:And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
I responded respectfully to your question.
This is a point we seem to arrive at frequently: you want me to demonstrate, incontrovertibly according to the rules of scientific evidence and in terms you're ready to accept, something I know to be true. Immediately, in a text-based forum environment. Using links to other Web pages if applicable.
I can't do it. This isn't the time or place.
Nevertheless, I hold to my position that there are more ways to knowledge of truth than science, and this is one of them.
quote: Lots of people will "witness" that there's no way for Joseph Smith to have been anything but a fraud and a liar.
Lots of people can "witness" for their abduction by aliens.
I don't see how this helps demonstrate that what you "witness" to is accurate.
And maybe I'm not answering this very well, but you're right--a witness can only go so far. A witness on a witness stand in court presents evidence that is admissible to the trial proceedings. Ultimately, however, it's the jury that is convinced one way or another and makes the decision.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote: Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
One subjective component in science may be deciding what questions to ask, what answers you expect to get, and how you couch them.
Notice that this level subjectivity is present, basically, in any type of inquiry. A key facet of science is that 'scientific truths' (i.e. repeatedly confirmed hypotheses) are true for each and every tester (this is basically a tautology, as if a test falsified a hypothesis, this would no longer be regarded as a 'truth'). This sense in which scientific results are independent of the particular tester is a key way in which science tries to move beyond the subjective.
[ April 28, 2009, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: natural_mystic ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, where does the inquiry end and the science begin? Is science strictly the process of testing something and gathering data, or do we say it extends to the recognition of the need for knowledge, the formulation of questions, and the conclusions that are drawn and publicized?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
Me, too.
I believe they would claim that faith *is* verification of the truth of their beliefs. I think the better critique, one that could just as easily be leveled against those who are anti-religious as those who are religious, is that one should not force society at large to live in accordance with those beliefs, and whether you are a theist or not, that critique should apply. Basically, that means that if you want society to be free to think anything, if you want society to be free of any intellectual force or even faith itself, then you must also give up your own influence on society, even if what you embrace is "clearly" correct.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote: Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
Yeah. Pretty much for the most part.
You mean yes, they've all reconciled?
Hindus accept that Jesus is the redeemer? Muslims accept that Jospeh Smith was a prophet of God?
quote:
quote:And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
I responded respectfully to your question.
That's no guarentee that your answer is accurate, or even sensible. I asked you how one demosntrates that a religious belief is true, and your answer was "I believe what I believe".
quote:This is a point we seem to arrive at frequently: you want me to demonstrate, incontrovertibly according to the rules of scientific evidence and in terms you're ready to accept, something I know to be true.
I'm not looking for "incontrovertible". I'm looking for "could have been falsified by rigorous reality testing carried out by skeptics, but was confirmed by it".
Humans make mistakes. We can't get to truth without a reliable way of purging mistakes from our beliefs. That's where reality testing comes in. If you throw that away, it's just inevitable that you'll believe all sorts of wrong things. Especially if those wrong beliefs are beliefs you relaly wish were true. Those are the hardest mistakes to catch.
quote:Nevertheless, I hold to my position that there are more ways to knowledge of truth than science, and this is one of them.
You can hold to whatever you like, but when billions of people "hold" to completely contradictory things, with no more or less evidence supportinng them than you have supporting what you "hold", there's no reason for anyone to think that any one of you is right.
But if "I hold what I hold" really is your answer to "How do you tell true religious claims from false ones", you do have to admit that it is a singularly lame answer. But the honesty in not trying to prove yourself like Ron does is refreshing.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Well, where does the inquiry end and the science begin? Is science strictly the process of testing something and gathering data, or do we say it extends to the recognition of the need for knowledge, the formulation of questions, and the conclusions that are drawn and publicized?
My interest was in the 'truth' of scientific knowledge versus other things that are known.
Certainly the practice of science involves doing many of the things that you describe above.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote: Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
Yeah. Pretty much for the most part.
You mean yes, they've all reconciled?
Hindus accept that Jesus is the redeemer? Muslims accept that Jospeh Smith was a prophet of God?
quote:
quote:And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
I responded respectfully to your question.
That's no guarentee that your answer is accurate, or even sensible. I asked you how one demosntrates that a religious belief is true, and your answer was "I believe what I believe".
quote:This is a point we seem to arrive at frequently: you want me to demonstrate, incontrovertibly according to the rules of scientific evidence and in terms you're ready to accept, something I know to be true.
I'm not looking for "incontrovertible". I'm looking for "could have been falsified by rigorous reality testing carried out by skeptics, but was confirmed by it".
Humans make mistakes. We can't get to truth without a reliable way of purging mistakes from our beliefs. That's where reality testing comes in. If you throw that away, it's just inevitable that you'll believe all sorts of wrong things. Especially if those wrong beliefs are beliefs you relaly wish were true. Those are the hardest mistakes to catch.
quote:Nevertheless, I hold to my position that there are more ways to knowledge of truth than science, and this is one of them.
You can hold to whatever you like, but when billions of people "hold" to completely contradictory things, with no more or less evidence supportinng them than you have supporting what you "hold", there's no reason for anyone to think that any one of you is right.
But if "I hold what I hold" really is your answer to "How do you tell true religious claims from false ones", you do have to admit that it is a singularly lame answer. But the honesty in not trying to prove yourself like Ron does is refreshing.
Glad I'm refreshing. Sorry I haven't satisfied your skeptic. Care for tea, Deimos?
You want me to bludgeon you into admitting that I'm right using evidence that defies your very best efforts to disprove it.
I'm saying it doesn't work that way. I'm not going to present my religious beliefs that way. I'm not trying to be evasive. It just doesn't work with skeptics. Heck, even if I did have some incontrovertible evidence I could present here, would you accept it? I told you how I know the difference between some truths and falsehoods. I knew full well what a skeptic would think of that answer. You're going to have to go ahead and keep thinking I'm mistaken.
And you're making me feel like some Zen dude, being all mysterious. I admit I'm more interested in getting the discussion away from the hardliner scientific evidence terms it always gets mired in, than carrying on a point by point debate.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
You want me to bludgeon you into admitting that I'm right using evidence that defies your very best efforts to disprove it.
Yes. Because that's how I learn that I'm wrong. That's how everyone learns they are wrong.
quote:I'm saying it doesn't work that way. I'm not going to present my religious beliefs that way. I'm not trying to be evasive. It just doesn't work with skeptics. Heck, even if I did have some incontrovertible evidence I could present here, would you accept it?
If it were real evidence, sure. What do you have?
I know it is a point of faith for you that I wouldn't, but the way to prove it is to show the evidnece, and see what I do.
Ah, but you don't feel the need to demonstrate that your belief about me is even slightly grounded in reality. God told you that I am immune to the very evidence that I claim I privilage, so you won't bother to test your belief. And therefore, you will never know it's wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating my point exacxtly.
quote:I told you how I know the difference between some truths and falsehoods.
Because God tells you?
Muslims believe that God tells them that Mohammad was the last prophet of God. If you are LDS, you believe that this is a false belief.
So what should Muslims do? Disregard what they believe God is telling them and listen to what you say God is telling you?
quote:I admit I'm more interested in getting the discussion away from the hardliner scientific evidence terms it always gets mired in, than carrying on a point by point debate.
Wanting to keep the discussion grounded in things for which there is actually evidence of their existance is a "hardliner" stance?
So if we started a discussion of whether more angels can dance on a silver pin than a gold pin, you'd find that more interesting?
Sorry, but the virtue of a point by point discussion is that weak arguments get shredded. I understand completely why you wouldn't care for such a thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
natural_mystic,
quote:The issue is not whether someone can be convinced of something in the absence of scientific proof - it is abundantly clear that people 'know' both true and untrue things.
Of course it's part of the issue. 'Evidence' and 'rationality', to folks such as KoM and Tom, means, "What can be proven to someone else," among other things. If it cannot be tested in such a way that it can be proven or disproven to someone else, it's neither rational nor evidence.
quote:The justification of the scientific method is its incredible success. Religious-type statements do not find support from the scientific method, but, for various reasons, they also resist be categorically falsified by the scientific method. No alternative to the scientific method has been shown to be successful thus far.
Largely I agree with this.
quote: I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
What would be even better is if people would accept that it's not legitimate to force society at large to live in accordance with their own specific beliefs. Religious folks hardly have a lock on that.
Frankly, there haven't been large numbers of (publicly) atheist and agnostic people for very long in the course of human history, so even if the record of atheists and agnostics were all but blemishless in the world today, it would still be too soon to say whether religion is what makes things worse.
And of course that record isn't spotless, it's human.
quote:True. But if other people do touch that thing without exhibiting any pain, it is now rational to investigate further.
But not rational to insist that just because some other people don't feel pain, or feel a different kind of pain, then the first person must not really be feeling pain at all. ---------
KoM,
quote:If there were, don't you think there would be rather more agreement among theists on what is true?
Interesting. So now a lack of consensus is 'evidence'?
---------
quote:afr: could you give some examples of such truths that both 1) are the 'same truths' among different religions and 2) are not also routinely arrived at by non-religious reasoning?
Fugu, I do wonder just how far the notion that certain concepts are arrived at by non-religious reasoning can be stretched.
Certainly atheists and agnostics have created their own moral codes, absent religious motives, that are quite in tune with many religious values. But it's not as though those thinkers sprang fully formed from the head of Dawkins, is it?
Would those conclusions have been reached had they not been rooted in civilizations and cultures steeped in religious traditions? Who can say?
-----------
swbarnes,
quote:By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
This is actually a pretty human way of resolving disputes, unfortunately.
quote:Yes. Because that's how I learn that I'm wrong. That's how everyone learns they are wrong.
There are other ways.
quote:So what should Muslims do? Disregard what they believe God is telling them and listen to what you say God is telling you?
Where in anything afr has said is this a reasonable interpretation of what he might say about Muslims and Mormons?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Interesting. So now a lack of consensus is 'evidence'?
Yes, obviously. All truthful maps agree with each other; if N maps disagree, at least (N-1) people have not looked at the dang terrain.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
You want me to bludgeon you into admitting that I'm right using evidence that defies your very best efforts to disprove it.
Yes. Because that's how I learn that I'm wrong. That's how everyone learns they are wrong.
quote:I'm saying it doesn't work that way. I'm not going to present my religious beliefs that way. I'm not trying to be evasive. It just doesn't work with skeptics. Heck, even if I did have some incontrovertible evidence I could present here, would you accept it?
If it were real evidence, sure. What do you have?
I know it is a point of faith for you that I wouldn't, but the way to prove it is to show the evidnece, and see what I do.
Ah, but you don't feel the need to demonstrate that your belief about me is even slightly grounded in reality. God told you that I am immune to the very evidence that I claim I privilage, so you won't bother to test your belief. And therefore, you will never know it's wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating my point exacxtly.
quote:I told you how I know the difference between some truths and falsehoods.
Because God tells you?
Muslims believe that God tells them that Mohammad was the last prophet of God. If you are LDS, you believe that this is a false belief.
So what should Muslims do? Disregard what they believe God is telling them and listen to what you say God is telling you?
quote:I admit I'm more interested in getting the discussion away from the hardliner scientific evidence terms it always gets mired in, than carrying on a point by point debate.
Wanting to keep the discussion grounded in things for which there is actually evidence of their existance is a "hardliner" stance?
So if we started a discussion of whether more angels can dance on a silver pin than a gold pin, you'd find that more interesting?
Sorry, but the virtue of a point by point discussion is that weak arguments get shredded. I understand completely why you wouldn't care for such a thing.
Dude, you're kind of taking me off the deep end here. I'm shocked by what I'm apparently telling you. Your own ideas of what I think and believe are straight out of a stock religious freak file. Complete with the watermark.
I can't argue point by point with you because I am evidently not grounded in reality and we must make sure that I remember that. I was trying to establish some ground for discussing different ways we acquire knowledge; I obviously did not do a good job of that. I cannot bring up the idea of knowledge through spiritual means without you nixing it preemptively. Like I said, this is not the place for it. We like our terrain and our trenches too much to leave them. I shouldn't have jumped in.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Yes, obviously. All truthful maps agree with each other; if N maps disagree, at least (N-1) people have not looked at the dang terrain."
I don't ask religious people to justify the existence of souls/God/soulishness. That's not their job, should they wish to convert me to their religion. I merely ask them to prove to me that their version of the spiritual aspect/level of life is the correct one. None have so far. I await the day when some earnest person gives me their spiel, and it actually holds together logically.
That'd be cool. I'd love to have a religion that I could defend to KoM or TomD, or, heck, to myself.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ron, if I thought for a moment that you would honestly consider what I had to say on this topic, I would engage you in conversation on it. But as you've previously conceded, there is no evidence that could be presented to you that might persuade you otherwise.
Tom, that sounds to me like a cop-out. When have I ever shown you an unwillingness to consider arguments and evidence? I have never, ever said I would refuse to consider any evidence contrary to my present conclusions. Where Bible prophecy is concerned, I doubt that such evidence exists. But I never said I would not give you a fair hearing if you think you can present such evidence. But be prepared for a rebuttal. Perhaps you suspect that I have a good enough knowledge of the Bible and history that I can refute your favorite arguments, and you don't want to risk that.
For the prophecies of Daniel to specify that Babylon would give way to Medo-Persia, and that to the Greecian Empire, and that to Rome, and that Rome would not be followed by another such empire, but would be subdivided into many parts, is pretty particular. Even those doubters who without any valid evidence claim Daniel was written later than it claims, still cannot explain away the fact that these prophecies of Daniel were in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate the time of Christ, and the division of Rome into subdivisions did not happen until hundreds of years after Christ.
You ask for God to specify a list of detailed things to happen in the future. This sounds like the movie Knowing. But the problem with that kind of circus-act predicting is that it would compromise free will. If God had said that Christopher Columbus was going to sail across the Atlantic and find America in 1492, then perhaps Queen Isabella (or some other member of her government) would have been perverse enough either to not send Columbus, or else to send him earlier.
If God had said that Adolph Hitler would plunge Europe into a ruinous World War, which Germany would lose, and would be responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, then perhaps someone would have killed Adolph Hitler while he was still a babe in his crib--or maybe Klara and Alois would have decided not to name their son Adolph.
God is not motivated by a desire to be sensational. He is concerned with being fair, even as He lets His servants know in advance what He is going to do, so they can be prepared to play the role He needs them to play in coming events. "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)
This God does for a reason--which does not include our entertainment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:All truthful maps agree with each other
That's a pretty big assumption that is demonstrably false.
Maps are captures of subjective experience which can be and often are contradictory without being false.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When have I ever shown you an unwillingness to consider arguments and evidence?
Ron, I don't know how to demonstrate that behavior to you if you don't see it in a casual review of your own posts.
quote:But the problem with that kind of circus-act predicting is that it would compromise free will.
But Daniel interpreting dreams doesn't compromise free will? Why is free will preserved when God is suitably cryptic?
quote:If God had said that Adolph Hitler would plunge Europe into a ruinous World War, which Germany would lose, and would be responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, then perhaps someone would have killed Adolph Hitler while he was still a babe in his crib--or maybe Klara and Alois would have decided not to name their son Adolph.
We have a pretty detailed prophecy about Revelations. Does that mean that if people refuse to take the Mark of the Beast -- because they don't want to bring about the apocalypse -- then it won't happen?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ron, I don't know how to demonstrate that behavior to you if you don't see it in a casual review of your own posts.
You can't demonstrate it to Ron if he can't see it himself, eh? That's a very ironic thing for you to say in this thread....
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
Yes - the subjective components are mainly the assumptions on which scientific models are based. The biggest one is probably the assumption that the future and past will and have followed the same laws as the present, because scientific induction is based upon that. Others include things along the lines of "Occam's Razor".
Beyond that, science is also based originally in sets of observations, which themselves come from subjective senses.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, Revelation is subject to a huge number of differing interpretations--mainly because people seem to view it as a competitiion to see who has the most original imagination, instead of simply allowing the Bible to define its own symbols. That is the course I followed in my recently-published book Genuine New Light from Revelation and Daniel, available from www.Amazon.com, and from the publisher, www.TeachServices.com
I take seriously the prohibition against wild speculation based on subjective imagination, given in 2 Peter 1:20: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation."
I took the prophecies of Daniel as an example, because comparing the four outlines of history given therein are for the most part quite straight-forward, and the text explicitly tells us to apply them to future history.
The untrue calumny that I can't be persuaded to contrary views because I refuse to consider them or am somehow blind, is again just the self-serving rationalization of those who have found that I can in fact refute their arguments, and lying about me is their only recourse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:All truthful maps agree with each other
That's a pretty big assumption that is demonstrably false.
Maps are captures of subjective experience which can be and often are contradictory without being false.
And different maps of tyhe same place can show different things and look completely different. A climate map won't look like a topographic map.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's a very ironic thing for you to say in this thread.
Only if you don't understand what we've been talking about.
--------
quote:The untrue calumny that I can't be persuaded to contrary views because I refuse to consider them or am somehow blind, is again just the self-serving rationalization of those who have found that I can in fact refute their arguments...
Believe me, Ron, I have never once worried that you have refuted one of my arguments. But your mind is rather set on the "correctness" of your interpretation of Scripture, and attempting to show you another perspective is doomed to fail. I mean, you've actually attempted to "educate" Lisa and Rivka on the Old Testament; there's a truly staggering amount of hubris there, and I'm just not willing to try to penetrate it when I know you're going to fight it the whole way.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:That's a very ironic thing for you to say in this thread.
Only if you don't understand what we've been talking about.
Explain then - because you seemed to be arguing earlier that in order to rationally believe something, you must be able to demonstrate it. But now you seem to be suggesting you believe Ron is unwilling to consider arguments and evidence, yet agree that you can't demonstrate that to him. Do you have scientific proof that Ron is unwilling to consider arguments and evidence?
My suspicion is that you haven't done a scientific study on Ron, but rather have based this conclusion on your anecdotal observations of him... the same sort of evidence that I offered to you of people who find religion valuable.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I have discussed many things with Lisa and Rivka, partially with an eye to finding out what the main arguments are that Jews use in an attempt to counter Christian arguments. I was genuinely surprised to hear that the second "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 is supposed by them to refer to Abraham! That required considerable thought, and scholarly digging.
Are you suggesting it is hubris for me to dare to disagree with Lisa and Rivka over the proper interpretation of the Old Testament--presumably because they went to Hebrew School as children? There are qualified experts on Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and I have taken recourse to those. It was not hubris for me to note that the vowel pointings (which were not in the original text), on which Jewish attempts to explain away such Christian proof-texts as Psalms 110:1, was imposed artificually upon the text by Jewish scribes in the seventh century, A.D.--obviously as a deliberate attempt to counter the Christian argument that the second "Lord" in the verse is the same word used for the second "Lord" in Psalms 97:5 and other texts, which clearly are referring to God. Nor did I rely upon my own reasoning in this. I quoted a qualified scholar who made this point.
If there are some people whom you think I have no right to disagree with, then I think you have a serious problem of attitude, which can only handicap you in any attempt at intelligent debate. I do not bow to your authority, nor to Lisa's or Rivka's authority. If you demand that I should, then consider me a revolutionary, revolting against your tyranny.
And Tom, the actual truth is that you have refused to acknowledge my refutations of your arguments. That does not mean that I have not presented valid refutations. For example: will you acknowledge that in the previous paragraph I did in fact refute your implication that I must be somehow guilty of "hubris" because I dare to disagree with Lisa and Rivka about the proper interpretation of the Old Testament text?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:All truthful maps agree with each other
That's a pretty big assumption that is demonstrably false.
Maps are captures of subjective experience which can be and often are contradictory without being false.
And different maps of tyhe same place can show different things and look completely different. A climate map won't look like a topographic map.
Yes, yes. I'm going to assume that you are not actually so stupid you didn't understand what I was saying, and leave it to you to answer the actual argument instead of trying to pick holes in the analogy.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
About the maps thing, I found this in Wickipedia:
"A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other shape on a plane. Map projections are necessary for creating maps. All map projections distort the surface in some fashion. Depending on the purpose of the map, some distortions are acceptable and others are not; therefore different map projections exist in order to preserve some properties of the sphere-like body at the expense of other properties. There is no limit to the number of possible map projections." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
There are cylindrical projections, and projections which appoximate the pattern of an orange peel flattened out, etc. But does this falsify MrSquicky's statement that all truthful maps agree with each other? No, of course he is right. But maps do have to be interpreted. And it is possible to do so intelligently, without being arbitrary.
That last is probably the point best relating to the theological discussion. The Bible tells us that those who do not partake of the Spirit of God cannot discern some things that those who do, can: "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2: 13, 14; NKJV) But that does not mean that the things spiritually discerned are not perfectly reasonable. It is a matter of the prior assumptions, the spiritual axioms of faith, which makes some things discernable to the person of faith which the person who resists faith cannot see.
But the Bible tells us that "God has dealt to each one a measure of faith." (Romans 12:3; NKJV) So even professed unbelievers do have the capacity of faith, if they can be reached. And so we who have faith keep trying to present the reasonable arguments that we have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, it is relevant because (expanding your analogy) you seem to want all maps to be used for the same thing and use the same method.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes, yes. I'm going to assume that you are not actually so stupid you didn't understand what I was saying, and leave it to you to answer the actual argument instead of trying to pick holes in the analogy.
The thing that gets me about these discussions isn't the attempts to bludgeon the religious people. There's no change that;s going to happen there.
It's the lack of understanding of basic scientific epistemology that many of the "pro-science" people demonstrate (as well as the fallacious portrayal of science = materialism). The map-territory distinction/disparity is incredibly important to scientific reasoning and theory of mind. But you don't understand that because you don't really know what you are talking about.
Subjective experience is not available to objective analysis and all "truths" carrying the little "wrt" disclaimer with them. This is huge in its implications to scientific epistemology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you have scientific proof that Ron is unwilling to consider arguments and evidence?
I have not been saying that you require scientific proof of something to consider it demonstrable. I have, however, tired of trying to explain this to you, because you always harp on this misapprehension and it takes pages to get you into the right frame of mind.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, it is relevant because (expanding your analogy) you seem to want all maps to be used for the same thing and use the same method.
Let us try it in a slightly different form: Truthful maps do not disagree. A climate map shows different data than a relief map, but the two do not contradict each other. Religions contradict each other. (Except yours, of course; it's hard to contradict anything when no positive assertion is made.) Therefore not all religions can be truthful. Therefore the religious 'way of finding truth', whatever it is supposed to be, is exceedingly unreliable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For example: will you acknowledge that in the previous paragraph I did in fact refute your implication that I must be somehow guilty of "hubris" because I dare to disagree with Lisa and Rivka about the proper interpretation of the Old Testament text?
It's not that you dare to disagree. It's that you have chosen your "experts" based mainly on the fact that they have come to the same conclusions you have, and put them forward as unimpeachable authorities while ignoring the oral traditions that Rivka and Lisa are putting forward as authorities.
This is not something that I find uniquely frustrating about you, mind; I think it's human nature. But I would no more attempt to tell you that you've misinterpreted the Bible than I would attempt to tell Lisa; the two of you have a great deal of your sense of self tied up with your opinion of the accuracy of your interpretations. It starts out quite pleasantly, but inevitably descends into personal attacks and presumptive declarations of victory, and I'm just not interested. For that reason, I'm not going to become invested in trying to tell you that you're all wrong about the Bible; it would be the work of ages to change your mind.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I have not been saying that you require scientific proof of something to consider it demonstrable.
In that case, perhaps a better question is: Do you have more "demonstration" that Ron is unwilling to consider arguments than I have "demonstration" that religious thinking is useful to some people in some situations? If so, what is it?
I do continually harp on this point because you continue to apply a standard of proof to religion that you haven't been willing to apply to your own beliefs. Pointing this out is really my best method of demonstrating why that standard of proof is unreasonably high. If it is rational for you to casually make beliefs about what is going on inside Ron's mind, with no knowledge about him other than posts he writes on an internet forum, then you should not be making the claim that religion requires rock solid proof in order to be rational.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
quote:Yes, obviously. All truthful maps agree with each other; if N maps disagree, at least (N-1) people have not looked at the dang terrain.
Should I expect a revision on your opinion on what the majority consensus supporting theism means for what is and isn't correct, then?
Of course not. What you're really saying is, "Consensus counts as evidence. When I agree with it."
quote:Yes, yes. I'm going to assume that you are not actually so stupid you didn't understand what I was saying, and leave it to you to answer the actual argument instead of trying to pick holes in the analogy.
Well, just for clarity, you are in fact assuming she is that stupid-just not about this in particular. Anyway, no, not all truthful maps agree with each other. A Mercator projection map is a truthful map, yet doesn't agree with a globe. Or is a Mercator projection not 'truthful' because it assumes a sphere?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A Mercator projection does agree with a globe. We already went through this.
quote:Should I expect a revision on your opinion on what the majority consensus supporting theism means for what is and isn't correct, then?
There is no such consensus, as you well know. You don't get to handwave the huge differences of assertion between the different stripes of theist and call that agreement. People have killed over the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father, or through the Father. That's not consensus, that's hardly even meaningful assertion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A Mercator projection does agree with a globe. We already went through this.
We did? Where, exactly? A Mercator projection assumes a perfect sphere, which doesn't reflect reality-the Earth is slightly flattened. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most globes are perfect (or nearly perfect, anyway) spheres as well, so they'd be untruthful too. I'm not so sure about that, I vaguely recall reading it somewhere.
quote: quote:Should I expect a revision on your opinion on what the majority consensus supporting theism means for what is and isn't correct, then?
There is no such consensus, as you well know. You don't get to handwave the huge differences of assertion between the different stripes of theist and call that agreement. People have killed over the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father, or through the Father. That's not consensus, that's hardly even meaningful assertion.
Oh, I see. So, I was right. It's not a consensus unless you agree with it. Because the distinctions you're drawing are completely arbitrary. There is a consensus, among the majority of humanity. You're the one deciding that it doesn't count because that's as far as the agreement goes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: People have killed over the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father, or through the Father.
Not even close.
You are perhaps thinking of the debate over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father or from the Father and the Son.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A Mercator projection does agree with a globe. We already went through this.
We did? Where, exactly? A Mercator projection assumes a perfect sphere, which doesn't reflect reality-the Earth is slightly flattened. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most globes are perfect (or nearly perfect, anyway) spheres as well, so they'd be untruthful too. I'm not so sure about that, I vaguely recall reading it somewhere.
Ron's post, and mine following it. I admit my 'we' assumed you had read those. That the map is not the terrain does not change whether they are useful or not; a Mercator map will give you the same course as a globe, if you use it to navigate. A left-justified fantasy map won't.
quote:
quote: There is no such consensus, as you well know. You don't get to handwave the huge differences of assertion between the different stripes of theist and call that agreement. People have killed over the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father, or through the Father. That's not consensus, that's hardly even meaningful assertion.
Oh, I see. So, I was right. It's not a consensus unless you agree with it. Because the distinctions you're drawing are completely arbitrary. There is a consensus, among the majority of humanity. You're the one deciding that it doesn't count because that's as far as the agreement goes. [/qb]
If two people tell you there is a dragon in your cellar, but cannot agree on - indeed come to blows over - the colour, size, shape, and scaliness of the dragon, then you may in some sense say that they have a consensus, but it's not one you would give weight as evidence of the dang dragon.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: People have killed over the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father, or through the Father.
Not even close.
You are perhaps thinking of the debate over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father or from the Father and the Son.
Imagine my concern. Do you dispute that people have died over this form of words?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If two people tell you there is a dragon in your cellar, but cannot agree on - indeed come to blows over - the colour, size, shape, and scaliness of the dragon, then you may in some sense say that they have a consensus, but it's not one you would give weight as evidence of the dang dragon.
If two people tell me there is a mouse in my cellar, then I'm going to believe there is a mouse in my cellar. Why the difference?
Here's the answer: In both cases the people's claims DO give weight as evidence of the dragon/mouse. The only difference is that for dragons, there is other evidence with weight AGAINST the existence of dragons. Whereas for mice, we no reason to doubt it. Claims by other people do count as rational evidence; the question is whether there's additional rational evidence that is conflicting with and is weighter than those claims.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well done, Tres. At this rate, you'll be updating correctly in just a few hundred years. Now consider that one witness claims the mouse to be brown, weigh 100 pounds, and bark; the other claims that it is black, has retractable claws, and meows. They both agree, however, that it is invisible, and cannot be heard unless you already believe that it barks or meows. How much are you going to spend on traps to get rid of this mouse?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If two people tell you there is a dragon in your cellar, but cannot agree on - indeed come to blows over - the colour, size, shape, and scaliness of the dragon, then you may in some sense say that they have a consensus, but it's not one you would give weight as evidence of the dang dragon.
Well now you're adding qualifiers. I never suggested that just because there was a consensus that the supernatural exists must mean that it does.
I was simply pointing out a problem you apparently didn't realize you had. You claimed it was obvious that consensus can be considered evidence.
There's consensus that the supernatural exists. Therefore it's obvious there's evidence for the supernatural, by your own reasoning. Unless, as I said, it's only consensus if you agree with it.
Whether the people come to blows over the precise qualities over the dragon in the cellar has no bearing on whether or not there is a consensus there is a dragon in the cellar.
Of course, should as appears likely agnosticism and atheism continue to increase in the world, if we're both alive to see it documented, I suspected that then that particular consensus will matter.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
KOM, just reread my previous post again. Now you've thrown in evidence with weight AGAINST the existence of the mice, since I have reason to believe mice don't bark and aren't invisible. You've made the mice example into the dragon example.
But if one witness claims the mouse is black and the other claims the mouse is white, I'd still buy the traps. The disagreement on that detail is not enough to warrant rejecting their agreement on seeing a mouse.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There's consensus that the supernatural exists. Therefore it's obvious there's evidence for the supernatural, by your own reasoning. Unless, as I said, it's only consensus if you agree with it.
Ok, I skipped a step. You're right, consensus is evidence. The additional step I took was that evidence can be weak or strong, and when you look at the qualities of this consensus on the supernatural, it's pretty weak. Again, how much would you spend on traps for the mouse I described in my reply to Tres? You might say "There seems to be something in the cellar, I'd better have a look." But if you did so and saw nothing, the consensus of your two friends would not cause you to believe in the mouse.
We are perhaps seeing symptoms of the problem I touched on earlier with 'proof' versus 'evidence'. There is no proof, but evidence doesn't have to convince you, either. Unfortunately that's not the way it gets used in ordinary English; we say 'proof' and 'evidence' interchangeably to mean "things that convinced me".
You will notice, though, that we have moved well away from where we started with 'faith'. It was suggested that faith is a method of acquiring truth separate from reasoning. But now we are right back to quite ordinary scientific, or rational if you prefer, reasoning on evidence. Faith does not appear either in your post or in Tres's; you both have just witness statements and then reasoning.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: KOM, just reread my previous post again. Now you've thrown in evidence with weight AGAINST the existence of the mice, since I have reason to believe mice don't bark and aren't invisible. You've made the mice example into the dragon example.
But if one witness claims the mouse is black and the other claims the mouse is white, I'd still buy the traps. The disagreement on that detail is not enough to warrant rejecting their agreement on seeing a mouse.
You may recall that we are not actually arguing about the existence of mice in your cellar. The differences between the world's religions are not minor.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Just for the record, I've not claimed faith is a method of truth separate from reasoning. I think faith is normally hand in hand with reasoning. Faith is, in my view, the leap I made between incomplete evidence of the mice and confidently accepting a conclusion that the mice exist.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, can you at least acknowledge that I did answer you, whether you accept my answer or not? In the past you have just rejected my answers, then pretended I did not answer.
And what about my argument is difficult to follow? It is not just a matter of "selecting" experts.
Does anyone here deny that the argument Lisa (and others) used that the second "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 is a different word from the one in Psalms 97:5 is based totally on vowel pointings, that were not in the original text, and were only added in the seventh century A.D. by Jewish scribes? Does anyone here deny this historical fact of when the vowel-pointings were added to the text? The scholar I quoted referred to the fact that Jerome (a scholar who died in 420 A.D. and is known as the medieval scholar behind the Latin translation of the Bible) did not mention anything like this in his discussions of the text, which he surely would have if vowel pointings had already been added. Does anyone deny that the original Hebrew of the Old Testament did not have any vowel pointings, so that in the original Hebrew inwhich Psalms was written, there was no difference between the word translated "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5? DOES ANYONE DENY THIS?
Why Tom, do you refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness and validity of my argument? It does not matter whom I quoted. It does not matter who went to Hebrew School as a child. Can you not follow the argument for yourself? If vowel-pointings were not added until the seventh century A.D., and the attempt to counter the Christian use of Psalms 110:1 depends upon vowel-pointings, then logically that attempt to explain away the Christian use of that text is not valid. It results from a contrived alteration of the text.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If it is rational for you to casually make beliefs about what is going on inside Ron's mind, with no knowledge about him other than posts he writes on an internet forum, then you should not be making the claim that religion requires rock solid proof in order to be rational.
I have not said that religion requires "rock-solid proof." However, the basis of religious epistemology depends on some "premises" -- here put in scare quotes because they really shouldn't be premises -- that constitute extraordinary claims in order to justify the appeals to authority integral to that epistemology.
It is reasonable for me to assume that, having interacted with Ron, I can make educated guesses about how Ron behaves and how he is motivated -- keeping in mind, of course, that I might always be wrong.
But what if I believed that I was interacting with a nebulous "ROff" who exists everywhere and nowhere, and whose posts can only be read by the pure of heart under special light that can never be duplicated except by those who already believe ROff existed? If I were having a conversation with ROff here, you'd be perfectly justified in your accusations of hypocrisy.
--------
quote:Tom, can you at least acknowledge that I did answer you, whether you accept my answer or not? In the past you have just rejected my answers, then pretended I did not answer.
Um....I actually replied to you. You didn't answer my question, but I certainly saw your post.
quote:And what about my argument is difficult to follow? It is not just a matter of "selecting" experts.
I never said it was difficult to follow. I said it was weak and made appeals to authority that are themselves questionable, especially in light of other contradictory appeals to authority made by other people who consider themselves familiar with the same topic. For my part, I think it's very likely that the vowel points WERE added later, and ARE inconclusive. I don't have a horse in that race, since I think the whole book has been heavily edited and redacted to keep some of its prophecies "current."
quote:Why Tom, do you refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness and validity of my argument?
Mainly it's because you don't present a single argument as if it matters; you throw up a wall of arguments, like verbal chaff, and defy people to individually address each one. And if they don't, even if they leave just the least compelling one standing, you will sit back and insist that no one can prove you wrong. It's like beating one's head against a wall.
Like I said earlier, what evidence would it take to convince you that you're wrong about your religion? The data points don't exist that would suffice for that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, this is the most unfortunate part of being an atheist. I've often wished I believed in at least half-an-hour's worth of afterlife, just so you could shoot people and know that they would be going 'Ooops' rather than ''.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Just for the record, I've not claimed faith is a method of truth separate from reasoning.
You certainly give a good impression of making such a claim:
quote:The point is that I cannot offer you proof of religion's "better-ness" as an epistemological method, but it is nevertheless better in many cases.
But I think perhaps we are running into the usual thing with your private language; you use these words that have meanings, and you mean something completely different by them, and things get very confused because you're not claiming what it looks like you're claiming. Case in point:
quote:Faith is, in my view, the leap I made between incomplete evidence of the mice and confidently accepting a conclusion that the mice exist.
By this standard, any belief in anything at all is 'faith', because you can never have complete evidence. If you're going to use the word this way, it ceases to be useful for anything; it leaves us no way to distinguish between believing that the sun will come up tomorrow, and that Apollo will harness his horses and bless the land with his light tomorrow. (And I am not using a metaphor here, so kindly don't try to equivocate that the two are actually the same.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: DOES ANYONE DENY THIS?
You already know the answer to this is yes, and it was explained to you why in some detail the last go-round.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
But he put it in capital letters this time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, it is almost as if he has forgotten that the difference between the two is a consonant difference in Hebrew, and has thus been part of the document since long before vowel annotations were added.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The issue is not whether someone can be convinced of something in the absence of scientific proof - it is abundantly clear that people 'know' both true and untrue things.
Of course it's part of the issue. 'Evidence' and 'rationality', to folks such as KoM and Tom, means, "What can be proven to someone else," among other things. If it cannot be tested in such a way that it can be proven or disproven to someone else, it's neither rational nor evidence.
I said it wasn't the issue because it is trivially true - clearly, throughout history, many people have 'known' some thoroughly false things, as well as some true things. Discriminating between these classes is much harder.
quote:
quote: I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
What would be even better is if people would accept that it's not legitimate to force society at large to live in accordance with their own specific beliefs. Religious folks hardly have a lock on that.
I don't know. I think it inevitable that society be forced to live in accordance with specific beliefs insofar, at least, that laws and their implementation are representative of said beliefs. The point is that not all beliefs are equal. Beliefs without any empirical backing should be very cautiously enacted (if at all), and probably should not be enacted when empirical data supports an alternative. An example would be, when combating teen pregnancy, the implementation of abstinence only education in preference to sex-ed courses that teach contraception. Beliefs stemming from atheist ideology, as for religious beliefs, should conform to this standard.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
Yes - the subjective components are mainly the assumptions on which scientific models are based. The biggest one is probably the assumption that the future and past will and have followed the same laws as the present, because scientific induction is based upon that. Others include things along the lines of "Occam's Razor".
Beyond that, science is also based originally in sets of observations, which themselves come from subjective senses.
Certainly the inductive assumption is an assumption. And justification of it inductively is obviously circular, as Hume pointed out. I'm not sure that it's subjective in any sense beyond the trivial. It's worth pointing out that any functioning human at least implicitly acts as if this assumption were true.
I can't speak to how Occam's razor has been used in the past, however I think it is currently just a rule of thumb in how to conduct research rather than an underlying assumption which influences scientific truths.
The last is pretty much just saying that science is subject to Cartesian doubt. Fine. In the real world the scientific method goes to great lengths to compensate for and/or understand variation in observations. And seems to be successful at doing so.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I have not said that religion requires "rock-solid proof." However, the basis of religious epistemology depends on some "premises" -- here put in scare quotes because they really shouldn't be premises -- that constitute extraordinary claims in order to justify the appeals to authority integral to that epistemology.
It is reasonable for me to assume that, having interacted with Ron, I can make educated guesses about how Ron behaves and how he is motivated -- keeping in mind, of course, that I might always be wrong.
But what if I believed that I was interacting with a nebulous "ROff" who exists everywhere and nowhere, and whose posts can only be read by the pure of heart under special light that can never be duplicated except by those who already believe ROff existed? If I were having a conversation with ROff here, you'd be perfectly justified in your accusations of hypocrisy.
Okay, we are getting somewhere now.... So rationality doesn't require rock-solid proof. Rational beliefs can be based on educated guesses, based on anecdotal observations.
So it sounds like the reason you disqualify religious thinking from rationality is because it requies "extraordinary assumptions" - things like "ROff can exist everywhere and nowhere" or "ROff's posts can only be read by the pure of heart". If you take away those "extraordinary assumptions" it would be perfectly reasonable to make conclusions about ROff. And similarly, if religion required no "extraordinary assumptions" then it could be rational to use religious thinking, even without rock-solid proof, in your view?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Just for the record, I've not claimed faith is a method of truth separate from reasoning.
You certainly give a good impression of making such a claim:
quote:The point is that I cannot offer you proof of religion's "better-ness" as an epistemological method, but it is nevertheless better in many cases
I didn't mention reasoning in that quote at all. The context of the quote was that I was arguing that religion was better in some situations to answer some questions than other epistemological methods (like science). But both science and religion and many other epistemlogical methods fall under the umbrella of rationality - because they all start with observations and assumptions and then use reason to reach conclusions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And similarly, if religion required no "extraordinary assumptions" then it could be rational to use religious thinking, even without rock-solid proof, in your view?
How are you defining uniquely religious thinking for your purposes here, Tres? Are you again merely thinking of it as an appeal to a third-party claiming to speak for a higher authority?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd rather not define religious thinking, because I don't know how and if I do then someone will probably try to accuse me of playing semantics. But no, trusting a third-party claiming to speak for a higher authority probably doesn't always qualify as religious thinking. And some religious thinking probably doesn't involve a third-party (like someone who thinks God has spoken to him directly), or a higher authority (like someone who belongs to a nontheist religion).
I realize you may be thinking that all religions have extraordinary assumptions. But my question still stands - IF a given religion did not, could it be rational in your view? Or, to put it another way, are the "extraordinary assumptions" involved the reason why you consider religion to be inherently irrational (rather than just sometimes irrational)?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Could you give some examples of uniquely religious thinking?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd think things like these are often considered sorts of religious thinking, although I doubt they are all uniquely so:
*Praying or meditating and then having a sense that you should do a certain thing *Reading a Bible and inferring conclusions from the Bible on the assumption that it is an accurate telling of events *Soul-searching or reflecting on what you observe to be morally right *Having God or gods speak to you *Going to a church or temple and learning from a religious leader *Having an significant experience that radically changes your viewpoint on certain religious topics (like what to value in life, whether God exists, etc.)
Most of these do seem to involve some sort of authority - whether it be God, a religious leader, a text, or an inner "sense".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Questions:
1) How is meditating and then having a sense you should do something different from reflecting on what you consider morally right? 2) How is reading the Bible and inferring conclusions from it different from reading any other ancient book of history? 3) How is having God speak to you distinct from having your uncle speak to you? 4) Is learning ethics from a religious leader different in any way from learning biology from, say, a biologist? Is learning biology from a religious leader who claims to speak for God different from learning biology from a biologist? 5) How is changing your mind after a significant experience different from changing your mind after meditation or reflection?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You didn't answer my question, Tom - if a given religion did not rely on any "extraordinary assumptions", could it be rational in your view?
As for your questions: 1) They are similar, but I think latter tends to involve less of a feeling and more reasoning. Reflecting would include things like reading a book on philosophy and deciding if the arguments are correct. This is a debatable distinction though. 2) It isn't really, except that it has been protected by the church and is thought to be "God's word" by many, so religious people tend to trust it. 3) You'll have to ask someone who had God speak to them. But I don't assume my uncle is all-knowing, for one thing, so I wouldn't trust him nearly as much. 4) The answer to this is going to vary a whole lot depending on the religion. People approach learning from religious leaders in different ways. 5) I'd think the difference is that an experience gives you new external data, whereas meditation or reflection just gives you information from your own mind/soul/self.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if a given religion did not rely on any "extraordinary assumptions", could it be rational in your view?
I don't think it'd be a religion. A religion without extraordinary assumptions is a philosophy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Only in your incredibly biased and circular definition-argument loop.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tell you what: remove the "extraordinary assumptions" from any of the world's major religions and tell me how much they look like religions when you're done.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tell you what: remove the "extraordinary assumptions" from any of the world's major religions and tell me how much they look like religions when you're done.
But can't you simply flip that concept so that now philosophy is merely "religion lite?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. Except that Occam's Razor suggests that, all else being held equal, "religion lite" is natively superior to "religion."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, here's the thing.... What determines if an assumption is extraordinary?
How about tiny invisible particles within everything that are actually waves in addition to being particles, and which don't occupy a determined point in space? Is that extraordinary?
Or what about the idea, mentioned by you previously, that there exist multiple universes. Extraordinary?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or what about the idea, mentioned by you previously, that there exist multiple universes. Extraordinary?
Sure. Also theoretically falsifiable. Get enough of 'em together -- like, say, claiming that philotes in multiple universes somehow interact with heavy water inside our bodies to create electromagnetic impulses that constitute our higher brain functions -- and you've got a religion.
But here's another thing: the idea behind multiple universes actually exists as a predictive theory; it's meant to explain certain observed physical behavior, and also predicts other behavior. The problem is that when we treat certain religion assertions as theories cut from the same cloth -- e.g. try to identify the predictive value of "There is only one God, and Mohammed is His prophet" -- we rapidly discover that either all the expected events fail to come true as predicted, or believers have defined the situation so vaguely that no single prediction can actually be falsified.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But that doesn't answer the question - what makes an assumption extraordinary?
I'd argue that modern scientific models rely on far far more extraordinary assumptions than Christian religion, for instance. God, as a concept, makes a lot more sense than some of the things that come up in quantum mechanics.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: God, as a concept, makes a lot more sense than some of the things that come up in quantum mechanics.
A god, by some definitions, is an omnipotent, omnipresent thing. Which, I think, would make it the most complex and extraordinary thing possible. Much more extraordinary and complex than anything in quantum mechanics.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Also Tres, don't confuse "makes sense" or "is simpler" with "less extraordinary" or "less complex".
If we're talking about the creation of the universe, invisible universe-creating pixies is a very simple answer, and it makes sense. I mean, "universe-creating" is in their name!
But the fact that they are a simple explanation doesn't make them un-extraordinary.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Also Tres, don't confuse "makes sense" or "is simpler" with "less extraordinary" or "less complex".
In the same way, make sure you don't confuse "more extraordinary" with "more complex". God isn't more extraordinary just because He'd be such a complex thing. A galaxy is far more complex, far more powerful, and far bigger than a living dinosaur in New York City, but the dinosaur would probably be considered more extraordinary.
I'm inclined to think the only actual criteria for "extraordinary" is that it defies our common sense assumptions or expectations. If you casually assume that mammals live on land, then a whale is extraordinary to you. If you assume particles are tiny solid spheres like they are portrayed in some textbooks, quantum mechanics will be extraordinary to you. If you expect that spiritual sounding things don't exist, then souls are an extraordinary concept to you. But that makes "extraordinary" a subjective concept that's going to vary from person to person.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How about tiny invisible particles within everything that are actually waves in addition to being particles, and which don't occupy a determined point in space? Is that extraordinary?
Only to human intuition; and hardly an assumption in any case. This is well-supported empirical data.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:A galaxy is far more complex, far more powerful, and far bigger than a living dinosaur in New York City.
Bigger I will give you; powerful seems a rather strange concept to apply to a galaxy - what does it have the power to do? - but complex is false. A dinosaur is more complex than a galaxy. Galaxies are really quite simple.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
More importantly: a galaxy existing somewhere does not violate the predictive models we have already constructed. A galaxy (or a dinosaur) appearing in downtown New York does violate that model.
When something violates that model, it becomes necessary to question the thing and then, if it resists vanishing, change the model.
God violates the holy heck out of the model. But God also evaporates the instant you question or attempt to test Him.
Some people are willing to reject a shared model of reality in favor of a personal one. That personal model might well make plenty of room for the existence of God. But when people opt for personal realities that differ from observable, shared reality, we usually call them delusional.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tell you what: remove the "extraordinary assumptions" from any of the world's major religions and tell me how much they look like religions when you're done.
They look quite a lot like religions to me. They won't look at all like religions to you, because you've defined religion in your head as "irrational assumptions" and so the fewer or less irrational assumptions a world-view/person has the less religious you consider it. I'm not burdened by that particular prejudice of yours.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What, then, distinguishes a club with a strong philosophy from a religion? Is the Optimist's Club a religion? It certainly has a creed, and it meets regularly, and it even has leaders; it's an organized group with shared beliefs.
Can you give me an example of a religion that you think I'm unfairly accusing of having "extraordinary assumptions?"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would say that what makes a given group "religious" is two-fold. First it deals somehow with existential questions -- what does it mean to be a human being, what(if anything) is the meaning/purpose of existence, what gives something/someone value, etc. Second, it involves a community of people who intend to somehow live out of (or into) the results of their encounter with those questions. Note that religous can be theistic or atheistic or have no position at all on the theism question.
I don't know enough about the Optimists to answer your question about them, but from a quick scan of their website I would say that they're borderline. Depending on what they mean by "optimism as a philosophy of life" they could be a religion.
As far as an example, consider please to what degree you consider people who don't subscribe to what you consider the irrational aspects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., to be practicing a "watered-down" form of their religion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rivka, are you really sure that there are actual consonants in the text that are different for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and the second Lord in Psalms 97:5, so that these words were not exactly the same, indistinguishable, in the original Hebrew as it was written some 3,000 year ago? You made this claim, and I have to insist that you back it up.
I find nowhere in the scholarly debates on this by real, qualified Hebrew scholars, any mention of there actually being consonants that are different. Everyone I have read acknowledges that the difference is only because of vowel points, which were arbitrarily imposed on the text in the seventh century A.D. If you have a version of the Hebrew text that shows such a difference in the consonants, can you establish that the version you have now has not been altered, and is unchanged from the way the text was originally written by King David? That is the issue--what the inspired Scriptures originally said. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do they show any difference in the words translated Lord in the two Psalms? This is what sound scholarship demands--that points be proven to be really valid.
I see no reason why I should accord the Masoretic scribes any authority at all. The Scriptures are God's Word, not the scribes' word. They had no right to change the text.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think it was Lisa who made the claim originally.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::facepalm::
Why is it that when confronted with two possibilities, you choose scribes that alter text rather than dismissing one of your bajillion forced readings of a text to find foreshadowing. Don't you have a bajillion -1 others?
Aleph-daled-nun-yud vs. Aleph-daled-vav-nun
Different consonants.
You can come to my house and check out all my Hebrew Bibles, or check your local synagogue. Check it out online, or however you wanna get your hands on a text.
Do Christians have an authoritative HEBREW Bible?
And I'm sure if the Dead Sea Scrolls used a different letter combination, we would have been able to find out online. But if you like, my University has a bunch of Dead Sea Scroll scholars and I can ask them personally.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rivka is the one who claimed on April 29, 5:48 pm (this page) that I have already been told yada yada. Maybe it was Lisa who originally claimed there were different consonants. But Rivka apparently agrees.
You see, this really is a crucial matter. If in fact the Scriptures in their original text had the same word for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and for the second Lord in Psalms 97:5, then it is most reasonable to conclude that the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 is also God, proving that there are at least two Persons in the Deity, one who is speaking to the other. But this should not be such a surprise, since the creation narrative in Genesis chapter one uses the plural elohym for God, and has God saying in verse 26: "Let us make man in our image."
[ April 30, 2009, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'll not deny, and neither will our texts deny that Genesis says "Naaseh Adam" - roughly translating to "Let us make man."
We have always explained that as God speaking to the heavenly court, angels, etc. Or as God speaking in the royal we.
But you're wrong about 110:1
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth, thanks.
As for the first proposed explanation, that would imply that the angels of heaven had a part in the creation of man. But angels are not divine, they are themselves created beings (see Psalms 104:4.) Only God is the Creator: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
As for the second proposed explanation, wouldn't that amount to imposing human customs (the tradition of the "royal we") on the Creator? I would suggest that the royal we derives from the concept of "the divine right of kings," where the king is actually implying, "I and God." For God to use this form would indicate He is saying "I and I."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
First, Yes. Angels do not create. They are merely expressions of God's will. Some commentaries explain that God was teaching us modesty by consulting with inferior beings.
Other commentaries explain that God was consulting with all that was created because the world has a specific teleogical purpose - and that is the mission of man. By saying "Let us make man", He pointed all created beings toward man.
Second, perhaps. Perhaps not. The Torah speaks in the language of men. Is a king a concept made up by man? Or is it a projection of a form that exists and is rooted in God? I think the latter.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Some people have the belief that one of the things that miffed Lucifer was that he was not consulted in the creation of man.
But again, Genesis 1:1 is pretty clear and definite: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Anything else is speculation. The text does not say that He consulted with anyone other than Himself.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I didn't say He consulted with anyone about the heavens and the earth. It's man we are talking about, is it not?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:consider please to what degree you consider people who don't subscribe to what you consider the irrational aspects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., to be practicing a "watered-down" form of their religion
Valid point. I would argue that a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Christ is not actually a Christian at all, but gets some emotional benefits from claiming to be and going to the meetings.
But I wouldn't say that's a problem with my definition. I would say, in fact, that my definition more easily diagnoses the problematic nature of that person's "membership."
My problem with your definition is that it would seem to make any organized community of philosophers into a religious group.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ron, I think you've mentioned BlueLetterBible.org before as a place where one can look at the Hebrew texts. Is that right? Would you consider that a reliable source? If not, do you have another source online so that we can all look at the texts together?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
My problem with your definition is that it would seem to make any organized community of philosophers into a religious group.
And this is a problem because . . . ?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
My problem with your definition is that it would seem to make any organized community of philosophers into a religious group.
And this is a problem because . . . ?
This is just a translation of the issue, isn't it? In the earlier discussion, substitute the phrase 'theistic religions' for 'religions'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:God violates the holy heck out of the model. But God also evaporates the instant you question or attempt to test Him.
Not exactly. As Jesus put it, in essence, "Those who seek for signs shall find them but not unto salvation." I'm not trying to grate you (and I suspect if I knew more about your background Tom as you have hinted that you used to be religious, that I would be more understanding of where you are coming from) but just as to work in a bio lab you have to sterilize the equipment and the person working with the cultures, a person who wants to experiment with God has to be mentally ready to handle it. To be unprepared is to automatically make any interaction with God unfavorable.
Besides, even when we have discussed how God could verify the supernatural claims of his religion, you steadfastly rejected that God could convincingly convey that truth outside of visibly appearing or causing a miraculous event of your specifications. You rejected outright allowing for him to designate the method of communication, or rather you tried to make it fit into a box of your choosing.
Or if you did not reject it outright you attempted to simply explain it away as self deception, or that the experience was without any value, as it cannot simply be documented, packaged like a chemistry set, and repeated for everyone to simultaneously get their sh*ts and giggles over.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well, that's rather the point, isn't it? Your 'demonstrations' are only convincing to someone already convinced.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And this is a problem because . . . ?
Because at this point you lose the distinction between a religion and a philosophy.
I can understand why very liberal religious leaders might want to assert that there is no distinction, mind you. But in the same way that it's useful to know the difference between stew and soup, it's handy to keep the two words -- with two different definitions -- available for when you need to distinguish between them.
----
quote:To be unprepared is to automatically make any interaction with God unfavorable.
Here's the problem, BB: the steps for "preparation" in this case are almost textbook examples of how to brainwash someone (in this case, yourself). Enough psychological studies have been done on this phenomenon -- on the human ability to convince oneself of the truth of a falsehood through repetition and insistence -- that I am absolutely certain of my ability to convince myself that God exists given the time and the desire. It is for precisely this reason that I am intensely skeptical of any prerequisite for "seeking" that first requires that I convince myself of the end goal. I certainly don't dispute that God might well be reluctant to demonstrate His existence in ways that would convince skeptics. However, I maintain that, if this is true, the continued existence of skeptics is entirely and completely God's fault.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: just as to work in a bio lab you have to sterilize the equipment and the person working with the cultures, a person who wants to experiment with God has to be mentally ready to handle it. To be unprepared is to automatically make any interaction with God unfavorable.
Sigh.
In a bio lab, you set up negative controls. That's how you know if you sterilized properly. And you set up positive contols too. If your positive controls work, and your sample fails, you know that you did everything right, it's the sample at fault.
What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
What is the evidence that you can collect which would cause you to say "I'm doing everything right, but this just doesn't work as it's supposed to"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:Here's the problem, BB: the steps for "preparation" in this case are almost textbook examples of how to brainwash someone (in this case, yourself)
You've made this assertion many times in the past, it wasn't true then, it isn't true now. Look I can grant that this can be the case, just as it can be with raising a child to play football, or be a television star. Making a kid learn to play the piano can often be quite close to brain washing. You force them to spend time everyday practicing even when they hate the instrument and the songs. You tell yourself they will thank you later, and in rare cases that happens.
There's still a fine line between brain washing and entraining. Good religion does not tell you you are a bad person if you don't find it's teachings to be correct. It does not ridicule you for your lack of faith if you just can't get it. But it also doesn't just tell you that whatever you think is true. Or that everyone's morality is whatever they choose it to be.
You don't have to convince yourself that God exists. You just need to discard the notion that God needs to conform to your specifications. I blame God for skepticism as well, clearly if he created us and that capacity exists he has to account for it. But it, like every other attribute must be tempered with moderation. There's a point where skepticism turns into base pride. A refusal to take a necessary step because it's hard. Better to simply abrogate your responsibility by intellectual speculation so that you can assuage your conscience and say, "I did all you could reasonably expect me to do."
I don't believe in not thinking, ask anybody who has known me for about 1 hour and they will tell you that perhaps my problem is that I don't stop talking about things like this. The opposite vice from healthy skepticism is blind obedience. I see little akin to brainwashing with the philosophy, "Try all things, hold fast to that which is good." If a virtue espoused by religion makes you a better person then keep doing it.
Tom, I would say in a general sense there is much about you that I find admirable. To me you are a living example of why agnosticism or atheism can still produce a moral person. Of course I only know the person you project in this forum, but I am sufficiently convinced that the idea you present exists in this universe. Do I strike you as somebody who has been brainwashed? Do I retreat from discussion when I don't have an answer? Do I become emotional or resort to personal attacks? Do I appear stupid to you?
Do you at least conceive that it's possible I might know something you don't? From my perspective even if I am wrong and I have brainwashed myself into believing a falsehood by sheer fortune I just happen to have locked myself into a system of ethics where I try to love my neighbor as myself, increase in knowledge of all that is worth knowing, and be a source for good in the universe.
Are you really so worried that by making an enthusiastic search for God you will suddenly fall into a trap and shackle your intellect? I have faith in the integrity of your mind, I am fairly certain that in searching for God you will encounter one of two outcomes. You won't find him, or you will and find that in knowing he exists your life is measurably more difficult.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2:
quote:Sigh.
I can see this conversation is going to be a great deal more profitable than our last one out of the gate.
quote:What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
How about, until He talks back all He can expect is that I will live according to what I believe to be true. If I am genuinely open to instruction and yet he remains silent then I can't conclude He exists. It's really not that hard.
With an approach like that you don't have to find misery in God being silent, you remain stoic about it until God changes the stakes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But it also doesn't just tell you that whatever you think is true.
Of course not; it tells you that specific things X, Y and Z are true. Then it invites you to think about this, and continues doing so until you come up with the right answer.
quote: Do I strike you as somebody who has been brainwashed? Do I retreat from discussion when I don't have an answer? Do I become emotional or resort to personal attacks? Do I appear stupid to you?
Not answering for Tom, obviously, but : Yes, yes, no, yes.
quote:"Try all things, hold fast to that which is good."
And have you really done so? Have you attempted, for example, to convert to Islam on a trial basis? As I recall, you were born into Mormonism.
quote:If a virtue espoused by religion makes you a better person then keep doing it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the religion is true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
How about, until He talks back all He can expect is that I will live according to what I believe to be true. If I am genuinely open to instruction and yet he remains silent then I can't conclude He exists. It's really not that hard.
With an approach like that you don't have to find misery in God being silent, you remain stoic about it until God changes the stakes.
But see, right there you are making assumptions about what you're going to find. Who said anything about misery? You have this mindset of "I'll do X until it's proven correct"; this is not science, it's deliberate self-deception. When this is your attitude going in, of course you will convince yourself that X is correct! All the more so when you speak in terms of patience and stoicism and avoiding misery when you haven't got your proof yet. Never mind waiting until you're proven right; what would it take to convince you that you're wrong?
There is an experiment whose name I do not recall, showing how humans can convince themselves of anything they like; it goes as follows. You put five people in a room; only one is an experimental subject, but he thinks the other four are, too. You ask them, "which of these lines is longer", with two lines where one is a lot longer than the other; and the four confederates answer first, and give the wrong answer. A surprisingly small fraction of humans will go against the apparent consensus of the group and answer that line B is longer, even though this is really true. And what's more, a considerable fraction of them, asked about this later, will argue that line A really was shorter; they will literally edit their own memories against the evidence of their own eyes, and convince themselves of falsehood, to go along with a group of random strangers on an unimportant question!
And then you come here and tell us that you have 'tested' the religion of your youth, which your parents and friends and entire social circle told you was true, and you expect to be taken seriously? Go along with you, now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: You'll forgive me if I don't let you decide whether I can talk with Tom about religion. You think I'm a lost cause because I am too stupid to understand what you are saying, I don't feel inclined to dissuade you.
I can learn about Islam without actually surrendering my own religion just fine. I don't need to check with you as to whether I have indeed sufficiently tried my own religion, I've already made that decision, and I think it's pretty obvious I am not a wide eyed follower with narry a question.
I'd rather not run along, how about you retreat back to the lonely cave you came from.
edit: This text has been up long enough that editing it would probably be improper. I was a bit more visceral in my response KOM, though you find little of interest in my ideas, that does not mean I necessarily feel the same way about you. Perhaps some of what you say rings true at least to you. If you feel inclined could you give me an instance where I backed out of a conversation because I did not have any answers?
[ April 30, 2009, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You'll forgive me if I don't let you decide whether I can talk with Tom about religion.
I didn't say you should.
quote: You think I'm a lost cause because I am too stupid to understand what you are saying,
No, I don't. I do think you are wilfully stupid on the question of religion; but that is not the same thing as "so stupid as to be a lost cause". You at least admit, in principle, the role of evidence; you are just being stubborn on what is good evidence.
quote: I don't feel inclined to dissuade you.
Clearly.
quote:I can learn about Islam without actually surrendering my own religion just fine.
Yes; but that's not the question. The question is, is Islam really true? And by your own procedure for finding the 'truth' of Mormonism, you have not really investigated this question.
quote:I don't need to check with you as to whether I have indeed sufficiently tried my own religion, I've already made that decision,
Yes, I know you have. That is exactly the problem. Why do you apply different standards to the religion you happened to be born into, and the scary foreign one?
quote: I think it's pretty obvious I am not a wide eyed follower with narry a question.
Wrong.
quote:I'd rather not run along
Splendid; then why don't you answer the charge that you have convinced yourself as outlined in my post? Speaking of "running away when you don't have an argument".
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
How about, until He talks back all He can expect is that I will live according to what I believe to be true. If I am genuinely open to instruction and yet he remains silent then I can't conclude He exists.
Why couldn't you just say "I don't have a control, positive or negative?" Because you don't.
quote:It's really not that hard.
You might have explained that to Mother Teresa, while she was alive. My understanding was that she knew she did not feel the presense of God, yet she didn't seem to be as stoic as you feel she should have been, she did not stop believing that God was real. Instead, she kept on believing what she came in believing, that God existed, exactly what her repeated experiments failed to demonstrate was true.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
See my edit KOM.
swbarnes2: From what I read about Mother Teresa she often did believe that perhaps God was not there. I'm not her nor am I God. I cannot accurately judge either her or God based on her case, I can only do that with my own.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This thread right here! What is your answer for the demonstration that humans can and will convince themselves of patently untrue things, things in direct contradiction of their own eyes, to conform with a group of strangers? How can you reconcile this with your belief that you have 'tested' your religion, when you have 'tested' no other one in the same 'rigorous' manner?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
How can this thread be an example of me leaving a conversation because I don't want to face the fact that I don't have answers? You should be able to link a discussion from the past, this thread cannot serve as an example for the simple reason that I am currently talking to you. The future of this thread has yet to be written.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why don't you answer the question?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why don't you answer the question?
Why don't you answer mine, it precedes yours?
edit: And this is another reason why this thread cannot serve to answer the charge, you've put me at the disadvantageous position where if you are disingenuous in the discussion you can cite my discontinued participation as proof that your original assertion was correct.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Good religion does not tell you you are a bad person if you don't find it's teachings to be correct. It does not ridicule you for your lack of faith if you just can't get it.
I think it's worth noting that not all instances of religion are good religion; some religious people will tell you you're a bad person if you don't find their teachings to be correct, or will ridicule you for your lack of faith. More importantly, though, I think it's important to realize that the sense of belonging to a given culture is a very compelling and attractive trait about religion. Certainly my wife and I have noted, even in our small suburb of Madison, that we would have a larger social circle and closer relationships with our Baptist neighbors if we joined the local evangelical church; there is a bond there to which we are denied access by virtue of our absence from their faith. I would imagine that someone born into a Mormon family in Utah or a Catholic family in Boston might feel enormous pressure to believe the local consensus religion, even if none of the people around them are consciously pressuring them to do so. A lonely person can join a church and, even in the initial recruitment, suddenly acquire a dozen new acquaintances. There are, in a nutshell, some serious incentives for joining a religious culture.
quote:Do I strike you as somebody who has been brainwashed? Do I retreat from discussion when I don't have an answer? Do I become emotional or resort to personal attacks? Do I appear stupid to you?
Absolutely not! I've always held you in respect, and always appreciate your willingness to discuss this sort of thing. To be frank, though, I think it is far more likely that you have been culturally exposed to a narrative that has led you to interpret certain experiences through a specific religious lens, and you haven't looked critically at that lens without being sure to do so through the filters specifically recommended by your religion (which, incidentally, make critical review of that lens almost impossible). There is of course the possibility that your interpretation of your experiences is correct; this must be weighed against the fact that your interpretation is an exclusive one, and invalidates the experiences of thousands if not millions of other people, some of whom are just as intelligent and upstanding.
quote:From my perspective even if I am wrong and I have brainwashed myself into believing a falsehood by sheer fortune I just happen to have locked myself into a system of ethics where I try to love my neighbor as myself...
This is actually why I'm a bit more moderate on this subject than, say, KoM, who believes that every religious person is a battle lost. I was actually even more moderate until very recently, when I noticed that authorities had for years been whipping casually religious people up into kneejerk frenzies and doing harm to political and scientific discourse. If religion makes somebody happy and gives them a workable justification for ethics, great. The downside, of course, is that a religious epistemology opens you up to more irrational appeals; if that process is hijacked (as it occasionally has been), even the most decent and ethical person may find themselves unknowingly dragged into something profoundly unethical. Religion is, after all, ultimately about trust in unverifiable authorities; if those authorities misuse your misplaced trust, how can you know without questioning your religion itself?
quote:Are you really so worried that by making an enthusiastic search for God you will suddenly fall into a trap and shackle your intellect?
I am absolutely certain that if I engaged in a search for God in the way described by converts as the most successful sort, I would have no difficulty convincing myself that God exists within a year or so. To be honest, though, I don't believe I'm capable of engaging in such a search; at no point do I think that the man I am today would refuse to take silence as an answer. The sort of "open heart" people say is required is not the sort of heart I have. I feel love, and the first thing my brain asks -- after "what is this that I'm feeling?" -- is "why am I feeling this?"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And this is a problem because . . . ?
Because at this point you lose the distinction between a religion and a philosophy.
I can understand why very liberal religious leaders might want to assert that there is no distinction, mind you. But in the same way that it's useful to know the difference between stew and soup, it's handy to keep the two words -- with two different definitions -- available for when you need to distinguish between them.
I think there is a very clear distinction between them. But it has nothing to do with one having extraordinary assumptions and the other not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What distinction do you draw?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, BlackBlade, you're a real mensch to put up with this much unprovoked crap from KOM.
Tom's perspective, on the other hand, seems eminently sensible. When Pascal first wrote about the "wager argument," he said the following (in the Pensees:
quote:Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: When Pascal first wrote about the "wager argument," he said the following (in the Pensees:
quote:[...]Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc.[...]
That's a big problem right there: the advice is to follow the paths of others in your society/culture. In doing so you'd probably put more religious* effort into understanding the religion of the people around you than atheists and agnostics. But can you say you have tried to understand all religions? Nope.
*as opposed to effort about understanding religions, which can come through a process different from the one used to accept a religion
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What distinction do you draw?
My point two above. The organized community for the purpose of living in response to point one.
And before you accuse me again of changing definitions to suit my purpose, if you read philosophy of religion, cultural anthropology, theology, or religious studies and look at the attempts to define "religion" going all the way back to the ancient greeks you'll find that my definition is more supported than yours.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So any group attempting to live by a shared creed that answers the "big questions" should be considered a religion?
Hrm. I don't find that to be a particularly useful definition. Why do you prefer it to the more obvious one?
Obviously, I'm not familiar with the attempts of the ancient Greeks to define the word "religion." If you've got a recommended source that's available in English, I'd be especially interested in the attempts of self-identified areligious Greeks to define "religion" -- not least because I suspect that it is mainly the areligious who would care about the relative uselessness of the broader definition. Letting the religious define religion for themselves seems like a recipe for wobbly logic.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What, specifically, do you consider the more obvious one?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That a religion is the organized participation in an ethical framework which relies on an appeal to an absolute authority; this appeal relies in whole or in part on non-axiomatic assertions about the consequences of behavior which are unfalsifiable by observational evidence.
I think that covers pretty much every religion in the world while simultaneously excluding the areligious philosophical groups.
Edit: admittedly, a strict reading of the above would still permit someone who considers herself a Lutheran to also belong to the "religion" of Richard Simmons' diet philosophy, which also relies on unfalsifiable assertions about various things. And yet the Lutheran would never consider her faithful adherence to Simmons' advice to be another form of religious faith, and likely would not perceive that as a rival of her "real" religion. So I'd imagine that there's probably an even narrower definition out there to address that sort of case.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tribal animistic and spiritualist religions (for example, the Hmong) often don't have an apeal to an absolute authority.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For a given value of "absolute," though, don't they? I mean -- and I'm speaking here as somebody whose understanding of Hmong religion comes solely from a Hmong coworker who, while apparently a believer, is a grudging one -- you do what your ancestors tell you because you don't want to make them angry, or (in some cases) because you want to receive their blessings. You obey your grandmother when she tells you to get a certain kind of job because her dead grandmother will curse you, and because she herself will haunt your steps after she dies.
In either case, you are motivated by a desire to do what your recognized authority wants, whether or not that authority is "absolute" in the omnipotent sense.
I'd be okay with the removal of "absolute;" compared to some alternatives, the word may have been ill-chosen.
At the most primitive, I think you can argue that there isn't actually an ethical framework involved, and the "religion" is really a collection of magic recipes: "bury this person in this way to protect their soul from being eaten by demons" and the like. I wonder what would differentiate this from, well, very bad science.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nothing.
I agree that the ethical component is not a defining factor of religion, although most "big question" philosophies can/will spin off an ethical system. I still disagree with the "authority" unless you broaden the definition of authority to include "the way the world is/works," which makes it a non-distinctive marker, since every world-veiw includes it.
I think you're trying to hold on to appeals to something "supernatural" as part of the definition of religion, and I disagree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think you're trying to hold on to appeals to something "supernatural" as part of the definition of religion...
Once you remove the presumption of an ethical framework and appeals to the supernatural, you're left with Club Thinky. As I said earlier, I can absolutely understand why some people would want this to be the definition of "religion," but I don't think it's particularly recognizable. I think appeals to the supernatural, in particular, are essential to religion; I can't think of a single religion -- and this includes primitive and animist ones that are on the very border of any definition one might come up with -- for which this isn't true.
How, for example, would you distinguish a self-help group from a religion under your approach?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Point one. Deals with existential questions of purpose, meaning, etc.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... At the most primitive, I think you can argue that there isn't actually an ethical framework involved, and the "religion" is really a collection of magic recipes: "bury this person in this way to protect their soul from being eaten by demons" and the like. I wonder what would differentiate this from, well, very bad science.
Or superstition for that matter.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:There are, in a nutshell, some serious incentives for joining a religious culture.
Far be it from me to deny that those things are true. But it is also true that an enormous chunk of even those who profess to be religious fall into a category my church calls, "inactive." Within Mormonism I would peg that number at around 40%. They attend church at the most once a month, do not pray, do not read scriptures, do not attend to other religious duties, etc. It is absolutely clear that there are certain conditions attendant to that development. I myself went essentially inactive for a period of about two years. Did my parents get frustrated with me, yes they did. Are they the reason I came back? I don't think so, both my parents have siblings that left the church long ago and while religious topics come up, they treat them just as they do their active family.
quote:To be frank, though, I think it is far more likely that you have been culturally exposed to a narrative that has led you to interpret certain experiences through a specific religious lens, and you haven't looked critically at that lens without being sure to do so through the filters specifically recommended by your religion (which, incidentally, make critical review of that lens almost impossible).
I'll grant you your explanation is more likely. But going back to my approximately (could have been longer tbh) period of inactivity, I had more than enough time to examine my life without church attendance, without scriptural study, without praying. I wasn't a recluse during that period, I still had plenty of purpose in my life, school, dating, work, etc. What else does one have to do to get a soft reset on their life? I think that period of time gave me sufficient data on what the rest of my life would have been like had I continued down that road.
quote:I was actually even more moderate until very recently, when I noticed that authorities had for years been whipping casually religious people up into kneejerk frenzies and doing harm to political and scientific discourse. If religion makes somebody happy and gives them a workable justification for ethics, great. The downside, of course, is that a religious epistemology opens you up to more irrational appeals; if that process is hijacked (as it occasionally has been), even the most decent and ethical person may find themselves unknowingly dragged into something profoundly unethical. Religion is, after all, ultimately about trust in unverifiable authorities; if those authorities misuse your misplaced trust, how can you know without questioning your religion itself?
I entertain the idea that my religion might be wrong all the time. The latest bout with proposition 8 is a perfect example. I am fairly convinced that there is something to the same sex issue that my church has not grasped yet. But this is also why Mormonism works, because God and you need no middle man, yet the authorities over the church have absolute control over that sphere. Opening up the sciences has dangers as well. Our most powerful weapons could not exist without scientists being encouraged to probe and manipulate. But we can't exactly turn off the science valve for fear of one day doing ourselves in. Likewise religion will continue to be misused every day it remains on the earth, but it will also be utilized for good.
quote:I am absolutely certain that if I engaged in a search for God in the way described by converts as the most successful sort, I would have no difficulty convincing myself that God exists within a year or so. To be honest, though, I don't believe I'm capable of engaging in such a search; at no point do I think that the man I am today would refuse to take silence as an answer. The sort of "open heart" people say is required is not the sort of heart I have. I feel love, and the first thing my brain asks -- after "what is this that I'm feeling?" -- is "why am I feeling this?"
There's nothing about asking why that indicates a closed heart. But you should also be following that sequence with, "What should I do."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Deals with existential questions of purpose, meaning, etc.
But self-help groups often DO deal with just such questions. I suppose you could argue that, in those cases, they've crossed the line and have become stealthy religions.
Can you give me an example of a religion that does not (or historically did not) make appeals to the supernatural?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Can you give me an example of a religion that does not (or historically did not) make appeals to the supernatural?
Buddhism comes pretty close.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Even there, you've got animal spirits, the Great Wheel, etc.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Historically none of them did. The distinction between natural and supernatural is meaningless prior to modern scientific thinking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But that's like saying the distinction between quarks and electrons was meaningless prior to modern scientific thinking. It's true, but it doesn't mean the distinction itself didn't exist; people simply weren't aware of it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even there, you've got animal spirits, the Great Wheel, etc.
I'm not aware of the animal spirits. Also the great wheel does not seem supernatural to me. It simply explains what happens when people die and are born, a decidedly natural occurrence. There's no supernatural force controlling it, that's just what the clockwork of the universe does.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But that's like saying the distinction between quarks and electrons was meaningless prior to modern scientific thinking. It's true, but it doesn't mean the distinction itself didn't exist; people simply weren't aware of it.
Not quite. It means that you can't argue that "belief in the supernatural" is a defining characteristic of religion prior to modern thinking. And I would argue that it follows that it can't now be a defining characteristic of religions that date prior to the distinction. (eta: or of the definition of religion in general.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It means that you can't argue that "belief in the supernatural" is a defining characteristic of religion prior to modern thinking.
Why not? As another example: someone who has only met green people might not realize that green skin is a defining characteristic of his people. That doesn't mean that it isn't; it just means they don't realize that it's part of what makes them unique.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: It means that you can't argue that "belief in the supernatural" is a defining characteristic of religion prior to modern thinking.
While I in many ways prefer your definition, this isn't true. That someone does not know they are believing in the supernatural does not mean they are not doing so. That many people prior to the supernatural/natural distinction had belief systems (unknowingly) relating to the supernatural that they did not classify as religious is also not a sufficient critique (assuming Tom's position includes them as minor religions, or at least sets of religious beliefs), though it could weaken his assertions about his definition lining up with typical labels.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Replace 'supernatural' with 'intangible', then. You can't argue that the ancient religions were able to point to their spirits and touch them, whether or not they believed them natural. 'Supernatural' is a silly word in any case; if it exists, it's natural.
BB, I don't have time to do an archive binge. If you check the edit timestamp, you will observe that my question was asked five minutes before yours, although in a later post. What's more, I have here given you an excellent opportunity to prove me wrong; all you have to do is answer the question, which you claim always to be willing to do.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Could you clarify which definition of 'intangible' you're using, KoM?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Not giving any sense impression". See no spirit, hear no spirit, smell no spirit.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 'Supernatural' is a silly word in any case; if it exists, it's natural.
In this, I agree with KoM. I think that calling God supernatural is misleading.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Replace 'supernatural' with 'intangible', then. You can't argue that the ancient religions were able to point to their spirits and touch them, whether or not they believed them natural.
It's still not a defining characteristic of religions though, because the first people to think of germs as a possibility for the cause of disease couldn't point to or touch them either. Or the "humours" theory of medicine, or the theory of gravity.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 'Supernatural' is a silly word in any case; if it exists, it's natural.
I agree completely. I think that's why some atheists like to include it in the definition of religion -- it makes all religion wrong by definition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, BB, I was very moved by your last post. I'm not neglecting it. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's still not a defining characteristic of religions though, because the first people to think of germs as a possibility for the cause of disease couldn't point to or touch them either.
And had they then attempted to answer the big questions (i.e. your Point One) based on these things, and these things stubbornly resisted verification by any standard, they'd be religions today. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's still not a defining characteristic of religions though, because the first people to think of germs as a possibility for the cause of disease couldn't point to or touch them either.
Certainly they could; that's what microscopes are for. Humours and gravity fail the other test, that of addressing existential questions; you do need both.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
dkw, it was not me--I have never mentioned BlueLetterBible.org. Biblegateway.com is the Internet site I have gone to on occasion. Most of the time I consult the sixteen versions of the Bible I have on my own computer. I use SeedMaster software, which allows me to get a Strong's number for any word in the KJV, then click on the number to see the entry in Thayer's Bible Dictionary. Among the versions I have on my computer are two Greek versions, the Textus Receptus, and the Nestle Alland. I can read Biblical Greek a little--took some courses in college.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: no, early germ theory had no ability to see the germs it was talking about. It isn't like microscopes have always existed.
And then there are Mendel's genes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think KoM is referring here to falsifiability. While they couldn't see germs, they could produce testable theories about germs -- and then, when microscopes were invented, they could actually see germs.
Religion doesn't have the same predictive utility; neither is it expected that religious claims might someday become testable in this universe.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom, under your definition much of 10th century liberal protestantism is not religous. Nor is a good slice of 20th century neo-orthodoxy.
By linking the definition of religion to pre-scientific worldviews which were not exclusive to relgion you make it impossible for a religion to extricate itself from those pre-scientific world views. I'm more inclined to let people who actually practice a religion decide what is central to their religion and what is historical baggage.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
We appear to be operating from different conceptions of when germs were first theorised as the source of disease; I had the impression it was after the invention of microscopes and subsequent discovery of 'animalcules' in water. In any case, germ theory makes no attempt at existential questions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: then as far as a tribe that shared a common sensory experience that convinced everyone in the tribe spirits existed was concerned, their beliefs wouldn't be religious. After all, everyone was able to falsifiably test the existence of the spirits to the extent of the capabilities they had access to.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
fugu13, Gregor Mendel only deduced the existence of genes (he called them "hereditary factors"), and he determined that they are doubled in some way, so that dominant genes are expressed if they exist only on one side, while recessive genes must be doubled on both sides to be expressed. This was brilliantly insightful, considering the limitations of scientific knowledge in his time.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: dkw, it was not me--I have never mentioned BlueLetterBible.org. Biblegateway.com is the Internet site I have gone to on occasion. Most of the time I consult the sixteen versions of the Bible I have on my own computer. I use SeedMaster software, which allows me to get a Strong's number for any word in the KJV, then click on the number to see the entry in Thayer's Bible Dictionary. Among the versions I have on my computer are two Greek versions, the Textus Receptus, and the Nestle Alland. I can read Biblical Greek a little--took some courses in college.
Okay, Biblegateway has a Hebrew text version. Here’s Psalm 110:1. The work in question is the fifth from the right in the first line.
אדני
Here’s 97:5. The word is seventh from the right in line 5.
אדון
They have the same Strong's number because they have the same root, but the difference in the forms is in the consonants, not just the vowels.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ron: reread the thread. You have misunderstood the point I was making.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:There is an experiment whose name I do not recall, showing how humans can convince themselves of anything they like; it goes as follows. You put five people in a room; only one is an experimental subject, but he thinks the other four are, too. You ask them, "which of these lines is longer", with two lines where one is a lot longer than the other; and the four confederates answer first, and give the wrong answer. A surprisingly small fraction of humans will go against the apparent consensus of the group and answer that line B is longer, even though this is really true. And what's more, a considerable fraction of them, asked about this later, will argue that line A really was shorter; they will literally edit their own memories against the evidence of their own eyes, and convince themselves of falsehood, to go along with a group of random strangers on an unimportant question!
I'm aware of that experiment as well. But not everyone does that. It's not as if you simply get enough people to say one thing then everyone believes it forever and ever. I would think the fact I choose to discuss these things on this forum rather than on some "Lets all talk about how great the bible is forum" is likely indicative that I like opposition for its' ability to refine what I believe.
Furthermore, I don't feel "icky" towards other religions. Were I completely without religion and investigating Mormonism I wouldn't have to be baptized, attend church, etc in order to know if there is good in it. I think it's objectively good that Mormonism encourages people to seek out whatever is good or, 'of good report' and hold fast to it. It's important to not get hung up no the source of a good idea and therefore reject it. I have read parts of the Koran, (I have no objections with reading it cover to cover if I were to secure a copy) I'm quite familiar with Buddhist philosophy. There's quite a difference between observing good where you see it then adopting it, and getting a PHD in every religion.
quote:you have to do is answer the question, which you claim always to be willing to do.
I am always willing to answer to the best of my abilities granted at the time. I don't pretend to always have the answer. Our discussions would go alot further if you exhibited some good will even if it was simply acknowledging that religion also directly influences good behavior as well as evil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Were I completely without religion and investigating Mormonism I wouldn't have to be baptized, attend church, etc in order to know if there is good in it.
I would like to make a distinction which you consistently elide: Between 'good' and 'truth'. You argue that Mormonism has 'good' in it; it is a rare organisation that survives among humans without some measure of good. But you ignore the question of whether it has truth in it, which is much more interesting.
quote:But not everyone does that. It's not as if you simply get enough people to say one thing then everyone believes it forever and ever.
Yes, but the experiment runs on measureable, quantifiable things that you can see with your own eyes. And still about two-thirds of humans will conform! And so when you say that intangibles like feeling that life is better when you follow your religion's precepts is evidence for your religion's truth, well, no. Just no. You can't make that argument. Of course you feel better when you conform to your parents and friends and entire society! This would still be true if they were all Satanists; it would be true if they insisted on Hoerbiger's ice-moon theory. It is just completely orthogonal to the question of what is true.
quote:There's quite a difference between observing good where you see it then adopting it, and getting a PHD in every religion.
Is a Mormon newbie, someone who is thinking of converting, advised to 'get a PhD' in the faith? Of course not. He is advised to pray, to think about the precepts and see whether they make sense, to try living by the rules for a while and seeing if he feels better. It is this procedure that you have not given a good-faith try for Islam, not some strawman PhD program. And again, the question is not 'good' but 'true'.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's not as if you simply get enough people to say one thing then everyone believes it forever and ever.
Actually, people usually will, unless they explicitly set out to try and prove what they believe is wrong.
How many people do you think believe that Saddam Hussain was behind 9-11? How many people think that active WMD were found in Iraq?
It's hard enough to change dry facts in people's heads. But ideas that people become emotionally attached to? It can be impossible to change people there.
quote:I have read parts of the Koran, (I have no objections with reading it cover to cover if I were to secure a copy) I'm quite familiar with Buddhist philosophy. There's quite a difference between observing good where you see it then adopting it, and getting a PHD in every religion.
I doubt that anyone has expected you to merely master the doctrine of Islam. The question is, have you sufficiently opened your heart to Islam, seeking to hear God telling you that Islam is the true religion? Have you done so with the openness and persistance that you think that skeptics would require to feel the truth of your own religion? I think for starters, it would require to you try living the belief that Jesus wasn't the son of God, and that Joseph Smith was not the prophet he claimed to be, because you can't entertain Islam while believing those things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just as an additional data point, my parents weren't Catholic. They did not have me baptised or give me any particular religious training (though they support any I choose for myself) or example. I wasn't raised Catholic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:I would like to make a distinction which you consistently elide: Between 'good' and 'truth'. You argue that Mormonism has 'good' in it; it is a rare organisation that survives among humans without some measure of good. But you ignore the question of whether it has truth in it, which is much more interesting.
I'm not ignoring it, while you find truth to be more interesting I still find goodness to be a worthwhile thing to search for. There's truth in Mormonism too, for instance the guidance to not smoke or chew tobacco came years before science verified the prudence of such direction.
quote:Yes, but the experiment runs on measureable, quantifiable things that you can see with your own eyes. And still about two-thirds of humans will conform! And so when you say that intangibles like feeling that life is better when you follow your religion's precepts is evidence for your religion's truth, well, no. Just no. You can't make that argument. Of course you feel better when you conform to your parents and friends and entire society! This would still be true if they were all Satanists; it would be true if they insisted on Hoerbiger's ice-moon theory. It is just completely orthogonal to the question of what is true.
You're conflating doing something because society dictates it ought to be done, and doing something because you yourself observe its' good effect on your person. You can observe yourself, as can others, the effect a lifestyle has on you. No you can't simply say, "It feels good, therefore it's right." I've said many times that system of ethics leads to ruin. But we're just reaching the same impasse where you say that unless God fits into an experimental model that has nothing to do with feeling his presence that anything else is unreliable for identifying his presence much less His intentions.
quote:Is a Mormon newbie, someone who is thinking of converting, advised to 'get a PhD' in the faith? Of course not. He is advised to pray, to think about the precepts and see whether they make sense, to try living by the rules for a while and seeing if he feels better. It is this procedure that you have not given a good-faith try for Islam, not some strawman PhD program. And again, the question is not 'good' but 'true'.
Except that as far as I know Islam does not have such a procedure for verifying the truthfulness of its' claims. It does not identify how one can know the truthfulness of the matter or the falsehood whereas Mormonism describes both. Furthermore, as I am of the opinion that God has already verified the truthfulness of Mormonism, I do not need to keep praying and asking him to reconfirm. -----
swbarnes2:
quote:Actually, people usually will, unless they explicitly set out to try and prove what they believe is wrong.
How many people do you think believe that Saddam Hussain was behind 9-11? How many people think that active WMD were found in Iraq?
It's hard enough to change dry facts in people's heads. But ideas that people become emotionally attached to? It can be impossible to change people there.
I was not denying that people will believe things when society pressures them to believe them. I was saying that ideas devoid of any truth eventually die, it can take minutes, or it can take years. But I suppose to an atheist the fact that religion which is wholly devoid of truth lasting for thousands of years necessitates disagreeing with me. I'm hard pressed to find another idea that has lasted for so long.
quote:I doubt that anyone has expected you to merely master the doctrine of Islam. The question is, have you sufficiently opened your heart to Islam, seeking to hear God telling you that Islam is the true religion? Have you done so with the openness and persistence that you think that skeptics would require to feel the truth of your own religion? I think for starters, it would require to you try living the belief that Jesus wasn't the son of God, and that Joseph Smith was not the prophet he claimed to be, because you can't entertain Islam while believing those things.
Not true. As a missionary I never asked anybody to live their life as if their current religion was completely false. People routinely read the Book of Mormon and went to the Miao to pray to their idols that same day. It was when they asked about whether the Book of Mormon was true that all the other logical steps can take place, i.e. Joseph Smith must then be a prophet of God, Jesus who the Book of Mormon testifies of must be the son of God and savior of the world, there is no other true religion.
If God wanted me to believe in Islam He would have to explain to me why he confirmed the truthfulness of Mormonism when in fact it was not what it claimed to be, "the only correct religion." Further he would have to confirm Islam to me in such a manner that it put all my prior spiritual experiences (which are of a powerful nature) to shame. Again, you can certainly acquaint yourself with Islam without first discarding all your beliefs in God.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
dkw, since I cannot read Hebrew, and cannot tell whether vowel-pointings have been allowed to influence the word choice (including consonants) in modern Hebrew texts, I have to go by what qualified Hebrew scholars say. They say that the claim that the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5 are different words rests solely upon vowel-pointings. Nor have I seen where any qualified, recognized Jewish Hebrew scholar denies this.
Show me the Hebrew text from well before the seventh century A.D., such as from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I will believe you if you can then demonstrate that the words are different in the two verses.
Even if the words could be proven to be different, there is no Scriptural precedent I can find for King David to refer to Abraham (who had been dead for centuries in the time of David) as his "lord." The name Abraham does not even appear in Psalms. Nor do I find any case where anyone who is dead is referred to as lord. So I would have to suspect that the "rule" some people are trying to assert, that the "adoni" they say is the word in Psalms 110:1 can only refer to a non-divine human, is not a valid rule; they just made it up for use in this one case.
[ May 02, 2009, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
fugu13, I wasn't really arguing with what you said about Gregor Mendel and genes; only that he would not have used the word himself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:They say that the claim that the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5 are different words rests solely upon vowel-pointings.
Citation, please. Citations, really, since you've claimed abundant numbers of these statements.
Also, you're perfectly capable of looking at the text, then looking up each of the little symbols and seeing what sort of symbol it is. You've even been helpfully pointed to the exact spots in the text you need to look at. Stop pleading incompetence.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I already posted this.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Simply link to that post, then. Note that we need a citation for those specific points in the passages -- for those specific words (in their textual positions) not being different before. Not a general assertion that such behavior was going on without referring to those particular points in the passage.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was not denying that people will believe things when society pressures them to believe them. I was saying that ideas devoid of any truth eventually die, it can take minutes, or it can take years.
It can take decades, or longer. How long did it take your church to start treating African-Americans as equal worshippers? How long do you think it will be before they deign to call a gay couple raising a child a 'family'?
Really, I don't think the argument "Religious people will eventually fix theological mistakes, even if it takes centuries" is a wise argument.
quote:It was when they asked about whether the Book of Mormon was true that all the other logical steps can take place, i.e. Joseph Smith must then be a prophet of God, Jesus who the Book of Mormon testifies of must be the son of God and savior of the world, there is no other true religion.
Okay, so have you honestly and openly asked if the Koran is true? How openly can you ask this question if you are committed to holding certain things as true that the Koran says are false?
Have you spent the same amount of effort trying to see if Islam and all the other religions of the world are true that you have spent confirming to yourself that your religion is true?
quote:If God wanted me to believe in Islam He would have to explain to me why he confirmed the truthfulness of Mormonism when in fact it was not what it claimed to be, "the only correct religion."
Maybe you were wrong about what God has or hasn't confirmed?
quote:Further he would have to confirm Islam to me in such a manner that it put all my prior spiritual experiences (which are of a powerful nature) to shame.
Since when do mortals say what God has to do?
Maybe truly honest people can recognize truth when they see it, and aren't distracted by spiritual special effects.
quote:Again, you can certainly acquaint yourself with Islam without first discarding all your beliefs in God.
But we aren't talking about 'acquainting'. We are talking about being truly open to recognizing error and embracing truth. Are you as open to accepting the truth of Islam as your converts are to accepting the truth of your religion?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] KOM:
quote:I would like to make a distinction which you consistently elide: Between 'good' and 'truth'. You argue that Mormonism has 'good' in it; it is a rare organisation that survives among humans without some measure of good. But you ignore the question of whether it has truth in it, which is much more interesting.
I'm not ignoring it, while you find truth to be more interesting I still find goodness to be a worthwhile thing to search for. There's truth in Mormonism too, for instance the guidance to not smoke or chew tobacco came years before science verified the prudence of such direction.
Without comparison otherwise, you do know who the other pioneers in this direction were, right? Throw enough predictions out there and you'll get one right by plain chance. But yes, I'll grant this is evidence in your favour. Not convincing evidence, but evidence.
quote:You're conflating doing something because society dictates it ought to be done, and doing something because you yourself observe its' good effect on your person. You can observe yourself, as can others, the effect a lifestyle has on you. No you can't simply say, "It feels good, therefore it's right." I've said many times that system of ethics leads to ruin. But we're just reaching the same impasse where you say that unless God fits into an experimental model that has nothing to do with feeling his presence that anything else is unreliable for identifying his presence much less His intentions.
Perhaps I didn't lay out the steps of my argument clearly enough, because it seems to me you are arguing slightly over my left shoulder. I'll try again:
We both agree that religion must have evidence in its favour in order to be accepted, just like any other hypothesis.
You argue that the evidence lies in
Praying/meditation and a feeling of confirmation.
Living by the rules and observing a good effect on your own life.
Testimony of others to the same effects.
Possibly I've missed something.
The reason I do not consider these points sufficient evidence is that the third point produces the first two. Of course you feel 'confirmation' when praying "is it true?". Of course you see a good effect on your own life. How could you not? Since you were a child you have been told to expect these effects! The argument is not that you believe because others tell you to believe, although this effect does exist and I think you underestimate it. It is that your 'evidence' can be shown to be completely reproducible just by social pressure; nothing external is required. If people will believe that a long line is short because strangers tell them so, how much more will they believe that their lives are better when told so by family and friends? It might even be true just through (completely subconscious) better treatment from the same family and friends!
If you have two explanations, A and B, and some fact X which is to distinguish between them, then X is evidence in favour of A if, and only if, A is more likely to produce X than is B. Now I tell you that religions which you believe false produce precisely, in other people, the same effect that you cite as evidence for your own, and I give you the mechanism for their doing so. Does that not make it far more likely that your 'confirmation' is evidence only of the mechanism I have set out, rather than a god? We can produce such 'confirmation' reliably for propositions demonstrably false, for things that can be measured! How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
quote:Except that as far as I know Islam does not have such a procedure for verifying the truthfulness of its' claims. It does not identify how one can know the truthfulness of the matter or the falsehood whereas Mormonism describes both.
In the first place, I think you'll find you are mistaken about Islam. Most religions do have this sort of conversion-manufacturing process, because it works; that's (partly) why I consider it orthogonal to the issue of truth. Most converts have at some point prayed to be told "Yes, it's true" and have received some such answer. I feel moderately confident that kmb did something of the sort when she converted to Catholicism, for example, although she would likely describe it in terms of thought and meditation rather than explicit prayer. And in the second place, in the spirit of taking the good from every religion, why not take this confirmation process from Mormonism and apply it to Islam?
quote:Furthermore, as I am of the opinion that God has already verified the truthfulness of Mormonism, I do not need to keep praying and asking him to reconfirm.
If Islam is true, then Mormonism is still partly true, although misguided in following an earlier prophet than Mohammed. (And possibly heretical in also believing there was a prophet after Mohammed.) It follows, presumably, that you would get a partial confirmation, as having taken a step on the right path.
quote:I was not denying that people will believe things when society pressures them to believe them. I was saying that ideas devoid of any truth eventually die, it can take minutes, or it can take years. But I suppose to an atheist the fact that religion which is wholly devoid of truth lasting for thousands of years necessitates disagreeing with me. I'm hard pressed to find another idea that has lasted for so long.
Did you really try? Slavery, duelling, feudalism, the divine right of kings, several different traditions of alchemy and magic, and astrology (which may border on religion) all lasted longer than any currently major religion. Astrology is still active, at that. Let's also note that Mormonism is less than 200 years old. Finally, in a world becoming more secular every year, is this really an argument you want to make?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Perhaps I didn't lay out the steps of my argument clearly enough, because it seems to me you are arguing slightly over my left shoulder. I'll try again:
* We both agree that religion must have evidence in its favour in order to be accepted, just like any other hypothesis. * You argue that the evidence lies in o Praying/meditation and a feeling of confirmation. o Living by the rules and observing a good effect on your own life. o Testimony of others to the same effects. o Possibly I've missed something. * The reason I do not consider these points sufficient evidence is that the third point produces the first two. Of course you feel 'confirmation' when praying "is it true?". Of course you see a good effect on your own life. How could you not? Since you were a child you have been told to expect these effects! The argument is not that you believe because others tell you to believe, although this effect does exist and I think you underestimate it. It is that your 'evidence' can be shown to be completely reproducible just by social pressure; nothing external is required. If people will believe that a long line is short because strangers tell them so, how much more will they believe that their lives are better when told so by family and friends? It might even be true just through (completely subconscious) better treatment from the same family and friends! * If you have two explanations, A and B, and some fact X which is to distinguish between them, then X is evidence in favour of A if, and only if, A is more likely to produce X than is B. Now I tell you that religions which you believe false produce precisely, in other people, the same effect that you cite as evidence for your own, and I give you the mechanism for their doing so. Does that not make it far more likely that your 'confirmation' is evidence only of the mechanism I have set out, rather than a god? We can produce such 'confirmation' reliably for propositions demonstrably false, for things that can be measured! How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
The problem with this is that what I learn from praying/meditation and what I learn from observing the effect of religion on my life often conflict with what I've been taught since I was a small child. That's why some of my religious beliefs are not in line with the church's, and not really in line with anyone other than myself. How could this possibly be the case if, as you say, all I am observing is what I've been taught to observe?
Your assertion that everything boils down to accepting what we've been trained to accept is a reasonable sounding hypothesis, but it doesn't fit the data. Discovering new things through introspection, meditation, religious experiences, etc., that one hasn't been taught, is common among the religious.
As for your final point, I'd say the obvious explanation for why people from different religions report similar effects is that different major religions all observe many of the same basic truths. There is disagreement on God, but there is general agreement on the existence of the spiritual. There is disagreement on the details of right and wrong, but certain moral concepts are common to most major religions. I don't know of any major world religion existing today that I'd consider more wrong than right.
quote:How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
One note about this last question: I still don't see any reason for you to assume religion is any more "unlikely" or "extraordinary" than any other particular explanation of the world. The "likeliness" of religion can't be measured in a reliable way, in the way that the likeliness of a picking out a green M&M from a particular M&M bag can. And every explanation of the world that I can think of has "intangible" concepts, whether they be atoms or gods or mental dreams.
Each time this is pointed out, the discussion shifts to how religion is untestable. Regardless of whether that is true or not, being untestable does not in any way suggest something is inherently less likely or more extraordinary. It's a separate question.
[ May 03, 2009, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Nor have I seen where any qualified, recognized Jewish Hebrew scholar denies this.
Recognized by whom?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There is so much circular reasoning in Jewish attempts to justify their irresponsible alteration of the text of Psalms 110, that it is hard to pin down Jewish scholars; but observe that the distinction they are trying to make between the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and in Ps. 97:5 is derived from vowel pointings, and they will not deny it. I challenge anyone to produce a statement where a universally recognized authority on the Hebrew text of the Bible flat out denies that the supposed difference between the words in the two texts comes from vowel pointings.
The only difference between adoni and adonai is the vowels. Vowels were not in the original Hebrew inwhich Psalms was written. Is this not clear enough?
Here is another statement by someone conversant with Hebrew scholarship:
quote:This Psalm is short but very important. The text is one of the 134 texts altered by the Sopherim where Yahovah (wrongly termed Yahweh or Jehovah) was altered to Adonai. The text in 110:1 uses the form adoni, a fact that is used by Radical Unitarians to indicate that the Lord in issue is a human as it can refer to humans in the form of owner, master or lord. Even Strong lists this as the case. However, this contrived limitation is denied by Bullinger as it obviously refers to the Adonai at the Right Hand of God. The word used in 110:5 was originally Yahovah but was changed to Adonai in the same possessive form Adoni as that of 110:1 and means Adonai and refers to Yahovah.
This psalm is clearly dealing with two divine beings one of which is the subordinate of the other at his right hand. The subordinate is also named Yahovah (refer to the paper The Angel of YHVH (No. 24)). The Sopherim changed the word to Adonai to conceal the fact of the divinity of the Messiah by association with Yahovah as the One True God. It begins with the identification that it is a Psalm of David. Thus, the verse is not referring to David but to David’s Lord. Hence, the being is Messiah. The rabbinical authorities use the text in the commentaries to refer to Abraham using the link of Melchisedek in verse 4 (see the Soncino commentaries to the Psalm (pp. 371-372) and note the Hebrew of the MT in both verses). However, Abraham tithed to Melchisedek so we must be speaking of Messiah and his order of priests of which Abraham is a subordinate. He is referred to as Yahovah (or some using Jehovah) in Psalm 110:5 and this was changed to Adonai as we will see.
Thus it appears that the word for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 was not the only part of the text that was changed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think you read what you just posted, Ron. Even in the midst of the numerous drastic (far more than vowel) changes your quotation asserts, it says
quote:The text in 110:1 uses the form adoni
and only asserts other parts of the text were altered, and that part misunderstood.
So, you attempted to provide one example of someone saying 110:1 and 97:5 are different only based on vowel pointings, and failed.
Please provide a single scholarly source that says 110:1 and 97:5 are or ever were different in vowel pointings. We've already seen that in current texts (including ones relied upon by biblical scholars) there is a consonant difference.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I cannot say or spell out the names of God you have listed above. The one beginning with a "Y". So for the sake of clarity, I will simply call it, "Y".
Jews do not say the name of Y. However, we also never alter the text. Thus, Y is always preserved in it's full form. Christians don't even say it. Whenever it says Y in the bible, the Christian bible says "Lord."
The claim that we altered an original text that read that Y was talking to Y, instead of Y talking to Adoni, is preposterous.
And again, there is a change in consonants, not vowel pointings.
There isn't much more to do to prove we are correct. We explain to you how we read, and you accuse us of forging and manipulating texts. On what basis? None. Theory. That's all. THEORY.
Do you know how insulting that is? The onus is on YOU. You don't even KNOW Hebrew and you sit here on this forum and claim a level of knowledge that no one else can combat, when you are the most ignorant! Do you realize how paralyzed you are without a basic knowledge of Hebrew?
I wish I had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls so I could shove em in your face. But then again, even if I DID have em in my basement, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO READ THEM!!!!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No, fugu13, you misread the statement. You seem to have a problem with accurately reading complex text. The author took the current reading as it appears in modern versions, and argued that it should have been adonai, no distinction should have been made, and noted how a few verses further on, the name for God was changed to adonai. The scribes changed the text. Even accepting the current incorrect word, "adoni," the context shows it does refer to Deity. So the word should not properly be pronouced as adoni at all.
This is where I find fault with Jewish scholarship in general:
(1) Using textual arguments based on text that has been deliberately altered for propaganda purposes, and not even having the candor to admit it.
(2) Serious disregard for the context. It seems almost like Jewish apologists do not even know how to take things in context. The second Lord in Psalms 110:1 could not possibly refer to Abraham.
By the way, fugu13, the quotation I gave was not an attempt to comply with your impertinent demands. You are a control freak and a lazy scholar. I make it a policy to ignore your demands. Nor will I do your scholarship for you.
Armoth, for you to insist that scribes have not altered the text shows how fundamentally ignorant you are of textual criticism.
It is not theory to note that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew that was all consonants. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for there to have been any difference in the true original for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5. There is no theory about this, it is inarguable fact. It is you and all those trying to manufacture a difference by imposing vowel pointings and other actual word substitutions on the original text, who are trying to present your theories as arguments. Abraham indeed!
You would be surprised (and obviously you are) by how readily scholars can tell when word changes have been made in the text. It is a simple fact of Bible history that throughout the past 3,000 years, scribes routinely changed the text, usually to update the vocabulary to reflect changes in the meanings of words. Many scholars today can even tell where those changes were made. Thus scribes have a long history of changing the text however they saw fit, so it would convey the meanings they thought it should convey.
Yes, I wish you had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls too, and could show the relevant passages to me. I may not be able to read Hebrew, but I can recognize shapes well enough to see if two selected words are the same.
I do not appreciate attempts to deceive me. I want valid facts, and soundly reasoned arguments. I will not settle for less.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is not theory to note that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew that was all consonants. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for there to have been any difference in the true original for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5. There is no theory about this, it is inarguable fact. It is you and all those trying to manufacture a difference by imposing vowel pointings and other actual word substitutions on the original text, who are trying to present your theories as arguments. Abraham indeed!
Ron. If you use the words "vowel pointings" one more time...
The same way you say you will be able to recognize a difference in the Dead Sea Scrolls between the two psalms is the same way you should be able to recognize the difference now. It is a consonant difference, not a vowel difference.
You want to continue using the arguments that the scribes changed actual words? Cool. Keep making em. But seriously dude, stop with the vowel pointings.
And your silliness about how easy it is to detect when the scribes changed things? Yeah, apparently your homing beacon is whenever it'd be convenient to talk about Jesus - that's when the scribes probably did a little bit of messing.
But it's really hard to take you seriously. You talk about sound scholarship and stuff, but all it seems like you have is a subscription to a bunch of biblical journals. Secondary sources are fine and good, but only if you have examined the primary sources as well. If you know anything about scholarship it is that secondary sources are a dime a dozen. You can't know anything until you can plug it back into the primary source - and not only are you not doing this, you are INCAPABLE.
It's laughable.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is not theory to note that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew that was all consonants. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for there to have been any difference in the true original for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5. There is no theory about this, it is inarguable fact. It is you and all those trying to manufacture a difference by imposing vowel pointings and other actual word substitutions on the original text, who are trying to present your theories as arguments.
Ron, I am at this very minute, looking at the Hebrew text without the vowel pointings. Consonants only, and there is a difference between those two words.
In addition, vowel pointings don't change the shape of the letters, they are just little dots underneath the line of text (a few above, but most under). The consonants still look just like they did before the vowels were added. So I'm going to echo Armoth and say that if you want to argue that someone changed one of the texts, deliberately or through scribal error, make that argument but that has nothing to do with vowel pointing. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say it seems very strange for someone who insists on biblical inerrancy to admit that the text could have been changed. Once you allow that, every claim of "X was prophesied" can be countered with "Yes, the text was changed in something AD". It blows every argument Ron has ever made for his faith utterly out of the water.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Someone may find this somewhat interesting. Some might laugh others call me an ass. The Catholic Church made sure that when doctors examined Padre Peo that an atheist doctor was always included.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Using textual arguments based on text that has been deliberately altered for propaganda purposes, and not even having the candor to admit it.
. . .
the IRONY. It BURNS! *whimper*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Catholic Church made sure that when doctors examined Padre Peo that an atheist doctor was always included.
Shame the Amazing Randi wasn't available.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:Without comparison otherwise, you do know who the other pioneers in this direction were, right?
Actually I don't, if you know some I'd be happy to read about them.
From your list of evidences,
Praying/meditation and a feeling of confirmation.
Living by the rules and observing a good effect on your own life.
Testimony of others to the same effects.
Possibly I've missed something.
An extension of the tobacco argument would be to observe predictions and see if they come true. For example Smith's prediction that the US civil war would begin with the succession of South Carolina. So in addition to we could add,
Prophecies coming true.
Archeological evidence that confirms statements made in key historical texts i.e the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, etc.
quote:The reason I do not consider these points sufficient evidence is that the third point produces the first two. Of course you feel 'confirmation' when praying "is it true?". Of course you see a good effect on your own life. How could you not? Since you were a child you have been told to expect these effects! The argument is not that you believe because others tell you to believe, although this effect does exist and I think you underestimate it. It is that your 'evidence' can be shown to be completely reproducible just by social pressure; nothing external is required. If people will believe that a long line is short because strangers tell them so, how much more will they believe that their lives are better when told so by family and friends? It might even be true just through (completely subconscious) better treatment from the same family and friends!
But your point ignores the MANY people who fall away from the church because no matter how hard "they tried" they just couldn't get a testimony of the truthfulness of it. Failure to obtain a spiritual confirmation is expected, both because an applicant isn't actually (despite believing) worthy to receive one, and because God has yet to deem it appropriate to reveal himself. But clearly many people fall away from Mormonism, why aren't they kept into the fold by pure social pressures? I still summoned the will to not be strongly involved in my religion for some time despite having the same spiritual confirmation I constantly cite now. You also are not accounting for those who convert without any significant social pressure to do so, i.e. people who convert while despite the protestations of their family, friends, and neighbors.
quote:If you have two explanations, A and B, and some fact X which is to distinguish between them, then X is evidence in favour of A if, and only if, A is more likely to produce X than is B. Now I tell you that religions which you believe false produce precisely, in other people, the same effect that you cite as evidence for your own, and I give you the mechanism for their doing so. Does that not make it far more likely that your 'confirmation' is evidence only of the mechanism I have set out, rather than a god? We can produce such 'confirmation' reliably for propositions demonstrably false, for things that can be measured! How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
Because I disagree with the fundamental premise that they are exactly as likely. I do believe it's more likely that my experiences come from God and not from myself. The behavior of my experiences has not been consistent like a learned behavior. I don't feel overcome by the spirit every time I bear testimony. I don't get emotional every time I read the scriptures. I've prayed many times and spiritual responses are more the exception rather than the rule. Most often nothing happens and I continue going about my day, once in a while distinct thoughts of action come to my mind that I attribute to God, no other act produces that result, not even long period of pondering.
quote:In the first place, I think you'll find you are mistaken about Islam. Most religions do have this sort of conversion-manufacturing process, because it works; that's (partly) why I consider it orthogonal to the issue of truth. Most converts have at some point prayed to be told "Yes, it's true" and have received some such answer. I feel moderately confident that kmb did something of the sort when she converted to Catholicism, for example, although she would likely describe it in terms of thought and meditation rather than explicit prayer. And in the second place, in the spirit of taking the good from every religion, why not take this confirmation process from Mormonism and apply it to Islam?
I honestly have not heard that mechanism discussed in my myriad experiences with other religions. Mormons are notable for constantly bringing it to the front of their proselyting, but other religions just...don't. I believe you get a Christian to verify that prayer to God can reveal the truth of a matter, but beyond that I just haven't heard it. I wouldn't apply the Mormon concept of prayer to Islam because there is reason to believe it does not work.
Christians pray to their heavenly father, (so far so good) but do it in the name of Christ (the mediator between us and the father). I am already convinced that the religion of Islam if accepted wholesale is fundamentally flawed based on my own mediation, and experiences with prayer. Islam and Mormonism can't both be true. If prayer is merely me telling myself what I want to hear, than an appeal concerning Islam could never work anyway as I should expect the same experience as when I prayed about Mormonism.
Look KOM, I get it that it's astronomically improbable that I just happened upon the right religion coincidentally by being born into a family that just happened to practice it. I get that there are certainly explanations that are plausible that can explain who I could mistakenly believe what I do. Yet it's not impossible that what I said happened actually happened. What reasons do you have for believing there is no chance that I am speaking the truth, or that my interpretations of events are in fact correct?
quote:Did you really try? Slavery, duelling, feudalism, the divine right of kings, several different traditions of alchemy and magic, and astrology (which may border on religion) all lasted longer than any currently major religion. Astrology is still active, at that. Let's also note that Mormonism is less than 200 years old. Finally, in a world becoming more secular every year, is this really an argument you want to make?
I confess I made that point and part of my mind said I wasn't thinking very hard, and I hit submit anyway, for that I'm sorry. Point of order, Mormonism professes to be the original and correct version of Christianity taught to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and that many of it's distinct features are actually ones that have always been true but have been lost in history due to apostasy. Mormonism is a restored version of Christianity not an original concept created by Joseph Smith. Thus if it is what it claims to be that would make it the oldest major religion, and possibly the one with the largest number of adherents if we tally up throughout history.
Look I guess what I had in mind is that Joseph Smith clearly felt that there was something amiss in the fractured sectarianism of Christianity, and he just happened to make extraordinary claims about what the correct conclusion was to that dilemma. He restored a church and claimed that it would stand until Jesus comes again. If the Mormon church disappears for whatever reason then you will be proven absolutely correct on every single point we debate about.
I wish I could have given this post more thought but it took me a long time and I'm late for work now. I especially wish I could have responded better to the question of X explaining A or B makes it evidence for neither. Maybe when I get back from work.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
KOM, I never said I subscribed to the belief that the Bible is verbally inspired--a belief common to, for example many Southern Baptists. I have always maintained, as does my church, that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired. They served as God's penmen, not His pen.
Anyone who has gone to even some depth in Biblical scholarship and textual criticism is aware of the many changes routinely made in the transmission of Scripture--made necessary because the meanings of words change from generation to generation, so the vocubulary has to be updated regularly. I do not fault the scribes for doing this. It was necessary. God meant for the words He inspired to be understood.
But where I do charge scribes--especially the Masoretic scribes--with unfaithfulness is when they change the text to reflect personal preferred views, such as when they manufacture apparent differences between Psalms 110:1 and 97:5, in an attempt to counter the Christian use of Psalms 110:1 as a proof-text for the divinity of Jesus. That they did this is now incontrovertible--among anyone who knows what he is talking about.
Those who are of a mind to can cling to their self-deceptions and be content. Until God brings them into the Judgment, and they must answer to Him for the way they have treated His Word. I predict that one of the first things He will say to them, is "How dare you? It is MY Word, not YOUR word, to do with as you please! And MY Word is the standard by which the whole earth is judged." See Zechariah 5:1-4.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: That they did this is now incontrovertible--among anyone who knows what he is talking about.
Careful when you use this caveat, since most would agree it would automatically exclude you based on the way you 'argue.'
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It merely puts me in a different class.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'deluded?'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 'Supernatural' is a silly word in any case; if it exists, it's natural.
In this, I agree with KoM. I think that calling God supernatural is misleading.
I have actually thought this, and I also think that "extra-sensory perception" is equally nonsensical.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But your point ignores the MANY people who fall away from the church because no matter how hard "they tried" they just couldn't get a testimony of the truthfulness of it. Failure to obtain a spiritual confirmation is expected, both because an applicant isn't actually (despite believing) worthy to receive one, and because God has yet to deem it appropriate to reveal himself.
So you are saying that prayer is a very poor way of finding religious truth, because it is expected to yield false negatives, even if you are doing everything exactly right?
quote:I wouldn't apply the Mormon concept of prayer to Islam because there is reason to believe it does not work.
And you came to this conclusion by reading a few bits of the Koran?
You think that is a fair study?
quote:Christians pray to their heavenly father, (so far so good) but do it in the name of Christ (the mediator between us and the father). I am already convinced that the religion of Islam if accepted wholesale is fundamentally flawed based on my own mediation, and experiences with prayer.
And do you have an explanations for all the people for whom their meditation and experiences with prayer tell them that Islam is right, and Mormonism is fundamentally flawed?
You realize that the latter outnumber the former by a few magnitudes, right?
quote:Islam and Mormonism can't both be true. If prayer is merely me telling myself what I want to hear, than an appeal concerning Islam could never work anyway as I should expect the same experience as when I prayed about Mormonism.
Yes, this is the fundamental problem with determining religious truth with prayer. And this is why you won't ever try it.
quote:Look KOM, I get it that it's astronomically improbable that I just happened upon the right religion coincidentally by being born into a family that just happened to practice it.
I don't think you do. If you really understood that, you would be trying harder to make sure that that really was the case, by giving all those other religions that you weren't born into a serious try. But you haven't.
quote:What reasons do you have for believing there is no chance that I am speaking the truth, or that my interpretations of events are in fact correct?
How about the fact that you can't produce any objective evidence that you are right?
That does count for something. In fact, it counts for a great deal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2: I feel like you and me (I'm borderline about this with KOM) can't talk about anything meaningful regarding religion as I feel a strong animosity from you towards me. I don't feel anything I can say or do will change that, as perhaps whether intentionally or not I've caused you to conclude that will always be the case. You talk as if you've been a constant observer as I've gone about living my life. Your words presuppose that you already know my state of mind as well as I do. You also seem to be have unshakably believed that I must be wrong. It feels like that sentiment is almost to the point that it would gaul you if there really was a God, and I was right about how which church He favors. Were I wrong about there being a God, I admittedly would be extremely disappointed, and I do not think I would be able to believe in much with any degree approaching certainty. You on the other-hand seemed determined to disagree with me purely because you don't like me, and you have a very low opinion of my intelligence, integrity, or beliefs.
I would like to talk about these things with you, but it has to be at least as acquaintances who while disagreeing on the points, still respect each other as honest in their convictions.
I'll respond to your statements, but a less than satisfactory response to this point will warrant that I respectfully decline to treat your words with anything beyond general courtesy.
quote:So you are saying that prayer is a very poor way of finding religious truth, because it is expected to yield false negatives, even if you are doing everything exactly right?
No, I am saying that prayer must be done correctly, and if it is not, it does not work. It's no different than any other process except that personality affects the outcome.
quote:And you came to this conclusion by reading a few bits of the Koran?
You think that is a fair study?
No it isn't, I've already conceded that I would happily read the entirety of the Koran if presented with a copy. That I have not gone out of my way to purchase every single religious book from every single religion is not indicative of disinterest, it's indicative of the fact I couldn't afford to, and it's not a reasonable request anyway. If a person has concluded that any religion that does not permit gay marriage must be wrong, I do not immediately fault them for not giving Mormonism the prayer check. If the person has ears to hear, let them hear. I speak with God everyday, if he wants to lead me to another religion He knows where to find me, and most likely knows how to go about it better than anybody else. If I'm wrong about there being a God in the first place, I hope experience, and good people will set me aright.
quote:And do you have an explanations for all the people for whom their meditation and experiences with prayer tell them that Islam is right, and Mormonism is fundamentally flawed?
You realize that the latter outnumber the former by a few magnitudes, right?
Do you have reliable numbers on how many Muslims believe in Islam because of self described experiences with God, or through some other means? I doubt it. I'd wager (not a large sum) I've encountered more Muslims than you, and I am lead to believe that far too many are Muslim because they are coerced into being so, not because they have a real choice in the matter. Furthermore, you don't know what my own spiritual experiences are or what the experiences of these Muslims are. I've said many times I can conceive of a God who confirms to somebody that it is good for them to be a Muslim, without attempting to lead them astray. Perhaps it is best for them given the circumstance to live that life as best they can. But I don't try get into pissing contests with others who claim God has spoken to them because I cannot say with any degree of certainty how accurate they are in their descriptions. I only consider my own experiences for what they are.
quote:Yes, this is the fundamental problem with determining religious truth with prayer. And this is why you won't ever try it.
Well prayer done properly is not an attempt to impose one's will on "God" rather a request that one's will be aligned with God. I've asked God if many things I thought were absolutely right should be done, and gotten no positive response. I've been going about my business thinking of frivolous things and suddenly God has interrupted on a topic unrelated to my musings with instructions that turned out to be important. I can tell the difference between my own mind and something outside of it telling it something. If it gets foggy prayer often settles the score, as if I don't hear anything from God, which is more often than not, I don't believe it's from Him.
quote:I don't think you do. If you really understood that, you would be trying harder to make sure that that really was the case, by giving all those other religions that you weren't born into a serious try. But you haven't.
I disagree, Mormonism being true is so important to me, I've dedicated my life to uncovering every single tenant of the religion and will spend the rest of my life studying it until it leads me to salvation or until I conclude it's wrong. There's is so much to Christianity that to spend a lifetime learning about it is not time enough. God speaks to me the more I actually live my religion, I have no reason to reject that benefit and try another religion wholesale. But I wouldn't need to do that anyway, I have time enough to examine other religions while keeping my own.
quote:How about the fact that you can't produce any objective evidence that you are right?
That does count for something. In fact, it counts for a great deal.
But I do have objective evidence. I think determining whether I am actually a free thinker and not a brainwashed zombie could definitely be evidence that one can believe in Mormonism without being mentally coerced into doing so. If I am not a zombie than there must be something genuine and extraordinary that has happened, that lead me to conclude that my religion was true. Unless I am lying about everything, or unable to interpret my own mind reasonably, than it must accepted that there is evidence that an outside force communicates with me.
The fact you absolutely will not consider the latter to be possible leads me to believe that one of us is more seriously emotionally invested in one of the conclusions than the other.
edit: What objective evidence could I produce in any case? For one thing it could not infringe on your free will by putting the question of God beyond dispute.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I speak with God everyday, if he wants to lead me to another religion He knows where to find me...
For my part, I don't speak with God every day. But, if He exists, He knows where to find me. It's entirely His fault that I'm not religious.
quote:I can tell the difference between my own mind and something outside of it telling it something.
How?
quote:I think determining whether I am actually a free thinker and not a brainwashed zombie could definitely be evidence that one can believe in Mormonism without being mentally coerced into doing so.
This argument fails for the same reason that Lewis' triune paradox is so worthless, you realize: there's a huge gulf between being completely right and a drooling, insane idiot -- and there's a huge gulf between being a truly free thinker and a brainwashed zombie.
Do you think that all the Catholics in the world are brainwashed zombies? Do you think the Catholic Church is the True Church? If not, why do they believe?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:For my part, I don't speak with God every day. But, if He exists, He knows where to find me. It's entirely His fault that I'm not religious.
If you say so. I don't know the details of your entire life, but if you feel the fault lies with God for not yet revealing himself to you that does not bother me in the slightest. I feel very strongly that there are things that I expect God to explain to me in the next life. If I sort them out in this one, so much the better.
quote:How?
I just do, I know it sounds stupid but it's like asking a golfer how they control how far the ball goes when you, even when you hit the ball correctly fail to. I don't by any means pretend to have a perfect relationship with God, I still sin, I still make mistakes, after practice I feel the system involved with prayer and it becomes more comprehensible to me. I've also experienced a huge range of what my mind can do on it's own. The two experiences feel very different.
quote:This argument fails for the same reason that Lewis' triune paradox is so worthless, you realize: there's a huge gulf between being completely right and a drooling, insane idiot -- and there's a huge gulf between being a truly free thinker and a brainwashed zombie.
Do you think that all the Catholics in the world are brainwashed zombies? Do you think the Catholic Church is the True Church? If not, why do they believe?
I think the fact not all adherents to Catholicism are slathering idiots is indicative of important truths existing in the faith. Just as you existing is indicative to me that atheism does not necessitate moral bankruptcy. Whether effectively or not I am trying to demonstrate that I am not a fool, and that while there is a chance I am deluding myself into believing in God, that is not definitely the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The two experiences feel very different.
Yes, but since your mind is what processes both of them, all you're really saying is that the two experiences feel different to your mind, not that you can actually tell which thought originates outside your mind.
quote:I think the fact not all adherents to Catholicism are slathering idiots is indicative of important truths existing in the faith.
Really? So a given belief must be at least partly true if its adherents have some positive character traits?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:Yes, but since your mind is what processes both of them, all you're really saying is that the two experiences feel different to your mind, not that you can actually tell which thought originates outside your mind.
Do your thought processes feel so different a less intelligent person might conclude one of those processes wasn't originating from themselves?
quote:Really? So a given belief must be at least partly true if its adherents have some positive character traits?
Segregation had an element of truth in it. The reason blacks were looked at as inferior was in large part because they were forced to live substandard lives with substandard resources. It was virtually impossible to rise above the mediocrity. It's easy to believe somebody is racially inferior if they as a race are kept down. So a single idea having overall good people who believe it does not mean that idea is good.
If a system of beliefs has adherents that you find admirable or worthy of respect than you are in part reverencing that belief system as that system is part of who they are.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:So you are saying that prayer is a very poor way of finding religious truth, because it is expected to yield false negatives, even if you are doing everything exactly right?
No, I am saying that prayer must be done correctly, and if it is not, it does not work. It's no different than any other process except that personality affects the outcome.
But that's not what you just said. You said God might choose not to reveal himself.
But if you really want to stick to your "you have to pray correctly" argument, then, for the hundreth time, how does one determine that one is praying correctly?
You brough up the biology lab as a appropriate metaphor, so surely you understand that a lab uses controls to determine if an experiment is being carried out correctly. So if your own metaphor is appropriate, you must have controls. What are they?
quote:And you came to this conclusion by reading a few bits of the Koran?
You think that is a fair study?
quote:No it isn't, I've already conceded that I would happily read the entirety of the Koran if presented with a copy. That I have not gone out of my way to purchase every single religious book from every single religion is not indicative of disinterest, it's indicative of the fact I couldn't afford to, and it's not a reasonable request anyway.
You can't think that this is a serious counter-argument. You just graduated from college, yes? They have libraries there. You can read whatever you wish for free.
quote:I speak with God everyday, if he wants to lead me to another religion He knows where to find me, and most likely knows how to go about it better than anybody else.
Maybe God has "deemed it inappropriate" to reveal that he wants you to change religions until you take the first step of trying?
quote:If I'm wrong about there being a God in the first place, I hope experience, and good people will set me aright.
You can hope, but people are generally extremely resistant to being told they are wrong. Just look at your own post "I can't afford to buy a Koran"? That's a lame excuse, and you know it. Waiting around to change your mind pretty much doesn't work. Agressively seeking and taking criticism to heart, that can work. Reality testing, like sincerely trying to be Muslim, that can work. Remember, there are millions of Americans who think the Saddam was behind 9-11, and they believe this despite all the evidence and good people telling them they are wrong.
quote:I've said many times I can conceive of a God who confirms to somebody that it is good for them to be a Muslim, without attempting to lead them astray.
Is this really the argument you want to make? That God might confirm in someone the belief that Mohammad was the last and best prophet, even though it wasn't true?
If you can pray, and God can confirm in you a false belief, then prayer doesn't support the accuracy of any belief, does it?
quote: I can tell the difference between my own mind and something outside of it telling it something.
There are a million ways that we could test that assertion of yours, but it would fail every test.
A novel malaira drug, for one... that would definately not come out of your head, were you to produce one, we'd know it came from somewhere eles.
quote:I disagree, Mormonism being true is so important to me, I've dedicated my life to uncovering every single tenant of the religion and will spend the rest of my life studying it until it leads me to salvation or until I conclude it's wrong.
Well, there is the problem. The more important you hold X to be, the more impossible it is that you will ever decide that X is false. Read your own post...the reason you won't consider Islam is beucase you can't afford to buy the Koran? You won't consider Islam becuase your dedication to the LDS chuch and its beliefs prevents you from putting it to a test it could fail.
quote:But I do have objective evidence. I think determining whether I am actually a free thinker and not a brainwashed zombie could definitely be evidence that one can believe in Mormonism without being mentally coerced into doing so.
No, I meant evidence that the beliefs of Mormonism are accurate.
quote:If I am not a zombie than there must be something genuine and extraordinary that has happened, that lead me to conclude that my religion was true.
You can say that, but it's not true. Ordianry brain activity can be wildly misinterpreted.
quote:edit: What objective evidence could I produce in any case? For one thing it could not infringe on your free will by putting the question of God beyond dispute.
Cough up the reactions to synthesize the next blockbuster anti-malaria drug. My illusion of free will is a small price to pay to help ease the suffering of millions of innocent children.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If a system of beliefs has adherents that you find admirable or worthy of respect than you are in part reverencing that belief system as that system is part of who they are.
I completely disagree with this.
However I guess I can see how one might believe this if one felt that morality stemmed from god and any moral action performed could be in part attributed to the belief in god.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do your thought processes feel so different a less intelligent person might conclude one of those processes wasn't originating from themselves?
It has nothing to do with intelligence.
My brain is a black box. I have no idea what goes into it. I don't even know what comes out of it, since my consciousness lives inside it. I have absolutely no reference for what constitutes one of "my" thoughts versus a thought I'm having that came from somewhere else.
quote:If a system of beliefs has adherents that you find admirable or worthy of respect than you are in part reverencing that belief system as that system is part of who they are.
Here I disagree. I've had a lot of experience with admiring people whose belief systems I think are regrettable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2: I never said I couldn't afford a Koran, I said I couldn't afford to purchase every religious book from every single religion. More importantly there just isn't enough time to study every single religion down to the bones. Even Mormonism recognizes that it needs to present its' case to everybody, rather than just waiting around for God to personally proselyte to everybody. My door has always been open to missionaries from other faiths, my friendships involve people of many religious persuasions, and much of my time is committed to seeking after truth and goodness.
But you didn't respond to my concern that you hold me in contempt and that that unfriendly attitude makes it impossible for either of us to prevail on the other. I don't feel inclined to discuss these sorts of issues with you until something changes.
----- Natural Mystic:
quote:I completely disagree with this.
However I guess I can see how one might believe this if one felt that morality stemmed from god and any moral action performed could be in part attributed to the belief in god.
Even if a person grows up in a faith and later abandons it, that belief system by sheer nurture impresses in their mind certain attitudes that typically cannot be totally cleansed. ---- Tom:
quote:Here I disagree. I've had a lot of experience with admiring people whose belief systems I think are regrettable.
Unless you can successfully divorce all the things you admire about them from their belief systems, I'm not sure how you can say you don't admire anything about those systems if you indeed admire the believer.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Unless you can successfully divorce all the things you admire about them from their belief systems...
That's not all that hard to do. I think many people inappropriately credit their religious beliefs for their positive traits.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My brain is a black box. I have no idea what goes into it. I don't even know what comes out of it, since my consciousness lives inside it. I have absolutely no reference for what constitutes one of "my" thoughts versus a thought I'm having that came from somewhere else.
Blackblade, this is an issue for me as well. What attribute of these thoughts unambiguously define them as originating from outside yourself?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Unless you can successfully divorce all the things you admire about them from their belief systems, I'm not sure how you can say you don't admire anything about those systems if you indeed admire the believer.
Well, for one thing, I don't think people's belief systems really inform their moral character all that much; I'm perfectly capable of acknowledging the utility of a belief system that says "love your fellow man" without assuming that everyone who loves his or her fellow man does so in order to more closely hew to that belief system.
More importantly, I can see some value in a belief system even if it's totally false. If you believe that you should not kill me because I am a sacred and wonderful manifestation of the Divine Om, I am grateful that you do not kill me whether or not I'm an Om.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I just wanted to make an interesting observation here:
Not all religions have the same view on prayer. I've been reading along and this notion of "praying on something" and "communicating with God" the way people are describing it is foreign to me, and foreign, I believe, to my community.
I pray to God, but it is more about me and less about Him. I praise Him to remind myself that He deserves praise. I ask from Him to remind myself that all things come from Him. Prayer is a meditative experience in which we are meant to reorient our perspectives to align with our true humble place before God, and to align our wills with His will.
I don't feel that God leads me to make one choice or the other. He leads me the same way he leads atheists. God is the creator of nature, of human psychology and the like. I also believe that He personally wills the outcomes of our lives - but not in such a heeby jeeby way.
-----------
BlackBlade, I admire your religious conviction. But if our entire purpose in the world is about our relationship with God, then the fact that you cannot afford religious material is no excuse. And even still - This is the information age. You could likely find out all about the major religions without spending a dime.
As for your statement on letting God find you - don't you see how that comes off? You were given a world of opportunity. Would it not be a crime if you did not seize it and come and find Him?
I think your best argument is that you are secure in your faith. There is a concept in Judaism called Chazakah - it literally means "Strengthened" or something like that. It basically means that certain things can be assumed to be true and in a position of strength, and that the onus is on its challengers to take it down from that position. I suppose you have a Chazakah on your faith. But I don't know how compelling of an argument that is since everyone has a Chazakah on their own faith.
Jews are commanded (at least in the Oral Law), "Dah ma liheshiv" - "Know what to respond". The should be taught how to respond to the arguments of the different religions.
As a religious person myself, I need to defend myself from the same charges leveled against BB. I have looked seriously into Christianity. I know a little bit about LDS, I know a fair amount of Islam, some Buddhism, and not really all that much on Hinduism. But I am confident in choosing my own faith respective to the others based on their fundamentals.
While 90% of Islam may be foreign to me, that 90% is an explication of the basic fundamental 10%. If you know you can reject the foundation, then you know you can reject the house it is built on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I am confident in choosing my own faith respective to the others based on their fundamentals.
What about their fundamentals indicates their invalidity?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
And don't their fundamentals require a different mode of evaluation? Aren't you evaluating them according to metrics that will only confirm the fundamentals of your religion as valid?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: swbarnes2: I never said I couldn't afford a Koran, I said I couldn't afford to purchase every religious book from every single religion.
You can afford to read every religious text found in every library in your area. There are even inter-library loans which expand the number of books you have access to. I'd be shocked if there weren't at least a few online Koran translations, and obviously, you have access to the internet.
quote:More importantly there just isn't enough time to study every single religion down to the bones.
For the tenth time, studying anything "down to the bones" is not what anyone is asking of you. You keep placing a premium on how prayer confirms your current beliefs, the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
This is what you refuse to even entertain.
quote:But you didn't respond to my concern that you hold me in contempt and that that unfriendly attitude makes it impossible for either of us to prevail on the other. I don't feel inclined to discuss these sorts of issues with you until something changes.
It's not your beliefs that I am contemptuous of, but your lame rationalizations of them.
If you'd said "I don't dare to think about alternate religions, because I might be tempted away from my beliefs", that would at least be honest. Or if you'd said "I know I'm right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong, I don't have to investigate what I know is poppycock", that would be honest.
But "The only reason I haven't given Islam a serious, honest trial with prayer is because I can't do so without getting a PhD in the topic, and I can't afford to read a book for free at the library" is ridiculous.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'll choose Christianity as an example.
Judaism has a massive advantage in that it is the mother-religion to many Western religions. That means that other religions have the burden of explaining why Judaism is no longer good.
Judaism began with a mass revelation (please don't quote this and say that it is claimed. I understand if you don't believe it that I am claiming it.) If God wanted to change His mind, I think He'd best do it with a mass revelation. The prophets that came after the desert merely added things within the general rubric of Judaism as revealed at Sinai. If God was gonna change the whole thing, He'd best tell more than one guy.
Secondly, the OT talks about a false prophet and also says that these are the commandments to be followed. A prophet who will lead you from the commandments is a false prophet. Christianity rejects a lot of OT commandments.
Islam has similar problems.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You keep placing a premium on how prayer confirms your current beliefs, the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
And then keep doing it until you believe them.
---------
quote:Judaism began with a mass revelation (please don't quote this and say that it is claimed. I understand if you don't believe it that I am claiming it.) If God wanted to change His mind, I think He'd best do it with a mass revelation.
Do you understand why this is a ridiculously weak argument for Judaism?
I mean, I hesitate to point out the problems with this. But you recognize that surely the first step to legitimately testing the validity of the Jewish faith would be to stop taking this mass revelation as a given, and proceed as if it may not have happened? Otherwise you're literally just preaching to the choir; you're saying "well, when deciding whether Judaism is the one true religion or not, keep in mind that God descended to tell people it was." I think it's safe to say that no one believes in this revelation if they're not in a Judeo-Christian religion in the first place. At best, then, your argument only establishes the primacy of Judaism over its "children."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And don't their fundamentals require a different mode of evaluation? Aren't you evaluating them according to metrics that will only confirm the fundamentals of your religion as valid?
Nope. That's why I find Buddhism very attractive. Evaluated according to same fundamentals in which I evaluate Judaism, Buddhism comes in second place. See above for why it is easier for Judaism vs. Christianity and Islam.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Evaluated according to same fundamentals in which I evaluate Judaism, Buddhism comes in second place. See above for why it is easier for Judaism vs. Christianity and Islam.
But Mormonism, for instance, isn't evaluated by attempting to reconcile the scriptures of the New Testament with the scriptures of the Old Testament. It's evaluated by a process of reading their scriptures and praying for confirmation. Once God has told you personally that this is the correct faith, then it doesn't seem all that hard to dismiss arguments based on written and oral traditions.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Tom - I was explaining Judaism over other religions. Not Judaism in the first place. Yes I agree - that would be the place to start an undermining of Judaism.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Evaluated according to same fundamentals in which I evaluate Judaism, Buddhism comes in second place. See above for why it is easier for Judaism vs. Christianity and Islam.
But Mormonism, for instance, isn't evaluated by attempting to reconcile the scriptures of the New Testament with the scriptures of the Old Testament. It's evaluated by a process of reading their scriptures and praying for confirmation. Once God has told you personally that this is the correct faith, then it doesn't seem all that hard to dismiss arguments based on written and oral traditions.
But then the burden is on Mormons to explain why praying for confirmation is a valid method of finding the truth of something. Which is exactly where we are in this thread, right?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
Judaism began with a mass revelation (please don't quote this and say that it is claimed. I understand if you don't believe it that I am claiming it.) If God wanted to change His mind, I think He'd best do it with a mass revelation. The prophets that came after the desert merely added things within the general rubric of Judaism as revealed at Sinai. If God was gonna change the whole thing, He'd best tell more than one guy.
Suffering of innocents, evil ... who am I to question why an omnipotent, perfectly good god would let these happen?
God decided not to go with mass revelation? Please, like an omnipotent god would really not go the mass revelation route.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I was explaining Judaism over other religions.
Yes, but even there you have to understand that these spin-off religions have developed their own justifications for their beliefs that rationalize what appear to be unequivocal statements from God into something else. And these justifications are in a handful of cases far less tortured than, say, some of the logic used to determine what is or is not permitted on the Sabbath.
I think you can fairly judge a religion based on its internal logical consistency, but it's not fair play to say "your Christian excuses for this don't count, because the Jewish interpretation of this event precludes that possibility."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Fair argument. But flawed. When it comes to fundamentals, you cannot use tortured logic.
Even if I were to agree to you that the permissibility of what is allowed on Sabbath was tortured logic - that is a detail. Not a fundamental. So you have not proven that a religion should be evaluated on it's internal consistency.
But bear in mind that Judaism is PART of Christianity's internal consistency.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes 2:
quote:If you'd said "I don't dare to think about alternate religions, because I might be tempted away from my beliefs", that would at least be honest. Or if you'd said "I know I'm right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong, I don't have to investigate what I know is poppycock", that would be honest.
Except that it wouldn't, that isn't how I fell, that is how you think I feel. We ran into this exact same problem when discussing same sex marriage, you placed extremely poor motives on everything I said, when those motives do not exist.
quote:the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
So if I made an addendum to every prayer, "And let me know if another religion is in reality the true one." Then I'd be doing enough to seek out the truth? Fine.
quote:You can afford to read every religious text found in every library in your area. There are even inter-library loans which expand the number of books you have access to. I'd be shocked if there weren't at least a few online Koran translations, and obviously, you have access to the internet.
That does not give me access to every religious book ever written. It does not account for lost texts, or lost religions. As a Mormon I don't believe the true religion of God existed in its' proper form for a some years short of two thousand.
--- Armoth:
quote:As for your statement on letting God find you - don't you see how that comes off? You were given a world of opportunity. Would it not be a crime if you did not seize it and come and find Him?
You've got me all wrong. I don't see my attitude as letting God do all the work. I, like you, feel that God has already answered this question for me. To continue to bate and rehash the question seems kind of disrespectful. Also, I don't really think that if I made the subject of every other major religion being true the subject of intense prayer, that swbarnes2 for example would suddenly change the tenor of his remarks towards me.
I feel that the crux of the oppositions argument is that prayer is useless for anything but making somebody feel good about something they want to believe in. Unless we make everything a matter of prayer we don't really believe in it, and unless we can turn prayer into some sort of bat computer like process it does not work.
I am secure in my belief systems, but I don't fear that other religions might be right. I'm don't feel pompous about being a Mormon, other religious systems have some things that I do not accept as right, just as my own church has made decisions I am not completely at peace with. But again, say I go out and read the entire text of the Koran, what then? Where do you draw the line? I am comfortable at the pace that I investigate other religions, others are not.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
That's cool that you are, Blackblade.
The only problem is that I'm secure in my beliefs too. Luckily, you don't seem to be the sort who'd a priori condemn me for not believing in Yahweh, Christ, etc. At least, that's what I've gauged.
Yet I've met far too many others who disagree with both of us on what the truth on God is, and whose disagreements are perhaps just as great a gulf, who'd say that both of us either deserve or will end up suffering eternal torment.
My own family, for example, including my mother, have explicitly stated such things.
I suppose my point has nothing to do with whether you, I, or my family is correct on God.
But our beliefs, yours, mine, theirs, and Islam, tend to be so... mutually exclusive to each other, if you know what I mean. If one is true, the others can't be true, after all.
Yet you, I, my family, and the Muslims are all just as certain of our beliefs. I'm comfortable and fairly sure of my beliefs, as are you. And so are they.
What are we to make of it, that people seem to be so clearly and fully convinced of faiths that are mutually contradictory to yours and mine?
Further, that there are billions of people who believe so, and who seem clearly to have quite strong strength in what they affirm to believe, as you and I both do.
Well, of course you can't automatically assume you're wrong, and I wouldn't recommend that. But it is good to realize that though you feel God has answered your question for you, and affirmed your faith as correct, others feel the same about other faiths.
Personally, I can't believe, from what I've seen both on the inside of faith and outside (albeit, in a faith you don't affirm to be completely true!) that this certainty is all that different. People of such different faiths talk of God speaking to them, giving them signs, in various ways, or just knowing, or however many ways. I just can't imagine God could be talking to all of them, and telling, well, in any case the majority who feel that God is talking to them, total or partial lies.
Well, I could imagine it, but the God doing that wouldn't generally be the God most of these faiths would affirm exist.
At the same time, I could be no less wrong in my atheism. I fully accept that.
But deep down, the facts of the matter preclude me taking such a feeling, even if I felt it myself, as anything like good evidence for any of the faiths which make the claims.
Bah, forgive my rambling, it really has no point in the end, because I'm not truly trying to tell you you're wrong or anything, not really. I don't dislike your beliefs, or the faith you hold.
Now, if you were like some people I know, even in my own life... well, changing beliefs might not help. Because even if I managed to do the impossible and make them believe as I did, they might turn out to be the sort of atheist who gets really annoying, like the loudmouth obnoxious ones in AOL chatrooms.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Without comparison otherwise, you do know who the other pioneers in this direction were, right?
Actually I don't, if you know some I'd be happy to read about them.
quote:An extension of the tobacco argument would be to observe predictions and see if they come true. For example Smith's prediction that the US civil war would begin with the secession of South Carolina.
I must say this one would impress me a lot more if South Carolina hadn't been openly discussing secession for the thirty years preceding the civil war. It's a bit like predicting that the Great War would start over "Some damn silly thing in the Balkans." Well yeah, it did, but...
quote:Archeological evidence that confirms statements made in key historical texts i.e the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, etc.
That would be evidence, yes, if any such confirmations existed.
quote:But your point ignores the MANY people who fall away from the church because no matter how hard "they tried" they just couldn't get a testimony of the truthfulness of it.
I have not claimed that these brain mechanisms are perfect, as you well know; but really, this is just as much an argument against your own position, if not more so - because you have claimed that your procedure is perfect. As indeed it dang well should be, your god being involved with all that is claimed for him.
quote:Failure to obtain a spiritual confirmation is expected, both because an applicant isn't actually (despite believing) worthy to receive one, and because God has yet to deem it appropriate to reveal himself.
Again, this boils down to "Try until you get the right answer; that will happen when you are worthy". Surely you must see that this is a really excellent way to get people to convince themselves that whatever they felt was, in fact, the right answer? Because if they got that, then they are worthy!
quote: But clearly many people fall away from Mormonism, why aren't they kept into the fold by pure social pressures? I still summoned the will to not be strongly involved in my religion for some time despite having the same spiritual confirmation I constantly cite now. You also are not accounting for those who convert without any significant social pressure to do so, i.e. people who convert despite the protestations of their family, friends, and neighbors.
Again, social pressure is not perfect; it does not have to account for 100% of human behaviour to be a good explanation of your behaviour.
quote:Because I disagree with the fundamental premise that they are exactly as likely.
Really? You genuinely believe that a hypothetical alien, never exposed to human religious beliefs, would hear about your experience and categorise "Powerful outside source" as more likely than "Internal brain function"? When he had never seen any other evidence of the powerful external source, and knew that other humans had other explanations? I suspect this is not the belief of your heart, if you really think about it.
quote:I do believe it's more likely that my experiences come from God and not from myself. The behavior of my experiences has not been consistent like a learned behavior.
Why is this an argument for god-sourcing and not BB-sourcing? An unchanging god should give the same result every time.
I don't feel overcome by the spirit every time I bear testimony. I don't get emotional every time I read the scriptures. I've prayed many times and spiritual responses are more the exception rather than the rule. Most often nothing happens and I continue going about my day, once in a while distinct thoughts of action come to my mind that I attribute to God, no other act produces that result, not even long period of pondering.
quote:I honestly have not heard that mechanism discussed in my myriad experiences with other religions.
quote: Mormons are notable for constantly bringing it to the front of their proselyting, but other religions just...don't. I believe you get a Christian to verify that prayer to God can reveal the truth of a matter, but beyond that I just haven't heard it. I wouldn't apply the Mormon concept of prayer to Islam because there is reason to believe it does not work.
Have you tried actually asking an imam about this? Notice also that my point on conversion experiences was intended to be limited to converts, not to people born into the faith; I include here people who have had a sort of 'born-again' experience, that is, who were nominally of (whatever faith) until some age, but then did a round of prayer/meditation/whatever and suddenly became much more involved. (You are yourself an example of the pattern.) These are much rarer in Islam than in Mormonism, but they certainly do exist.
quote:Islam and Mormonism can't both be true. If prayer is merely me telling myself what I want to hear, than an appeal concerning Islam could never work anyway as I should expect the same experience as when I prayed about Mormonism.
Then you have nothing to lose by testing this theory, yes?
quote:Look KOM, I get it that it's astronomically improbable that I just happened upon the right religion coincidentally by being born into a family that just happened to practice it. I get that there are certainly explanations that are plausible that can explain who I could mistakenly believe what I do. Yet it's not impossible that what I said happened actually happened. What reasons do you have for believing there is no chance that I am speaking the truth, or that my interpretations of events are in fact correct?
There is a difference between 'no chance' and 'a chance so small it can be ignored'. Analogously, consider the man whose financial planning consists of buying lottery tickets. "Yes," he tells you, "I know my chances of winning are really terrible, but they're not zero, right?" You would not consider this a rational approach to personal savings, and I suggest that this excellent principle should be extended to epistemology as well.
quote:I confess I made that point and part of my mind said I wasn't thinking very hard, and I hit submit anyway, for that I'm sorry. Point of order, Mormonism professes to be the original and correct version of Christianity taught to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and that many of it's distinct features are actually ones that have always been true but have been lost in history due to apostasy. Mormonism is a restored version of Christianity not an original concept created by Joseph Smith. Thus if it is what it claims to be that would make it the oldest major religion, and possibly the one with the largest number of adherents if we tally up throughout history.
This would only be convincing to a man who already believed Mormonism true; it is, therefore, circular reasoning. I suggest therefore that you should drop this argument. And, by the way, let me make you aware of another problem with the human mind: If you argue in favour of a position, no matter how bad your arguments, even if you explicitly made up your arguments, your belief in that position is strengthened. I repeat: This is true even if you are consciously aware that your arguments are bullshit made up on the spur of the moment. It takes a conscious effort to overcome this tendency. I suggest you take a moment to apply it to this argument, and to all others where you say something and have no good response for the counter. Otherwise you will find that even bad arguments, which you yourself come to disbelieve, strengthen your faith. I feel convinced you would not want that to happen.
quote:Look I guess what I had in mind is that Joseph Smith clearly felt that there was something amiss in the fractured sectarianism of Christianity, and he just happened to make extraordinary claims about what the correct conclusion was to that dilemma. He restored a church and claimed that it would stand until Jesus comes again. If the Mormon church disappears for whatever reason then you will be proven absolutely correct on every single point we debate about.
A safe argument for you to make. Organisations do not die in a year. But consider that already there are many schismatic movements all calling themselves the Church of Latter-Day Saints and claiming to be the true successors of Joseph Smith. You cannot tell me this was his intention.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
BB - I now understand and respect your perspective. I think you're a really cool person.
Mega - I believe Mormonism and Judaism are mutually exclusive. But I don't believe that Mormons are going to hell. One of the major doctrines of my faith has to do with potential and fulfillment. I think that someone who is born ignorant of the faith I was educated about cannot possibly be held to the same standard as I am.
I hope it occurs to people who aren't religious and to non-believers that they should not judge a religion based on the practice of its followers. Maybe religion sounds so cheesy, so stupid, and so obviously pop-psychology because a lot of its adherents are doing it all wrong.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Certainly the impression many atheists have given of atheism.
ETA: I apologize. That was a useless comment.
[ May 05, 2009, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I hope it occurs to people who aren't religious and to non-believers that they should not judge a religion based on the practice of its followers. Maybe religion sounds so cheesy, so stupid, and so obviously pop-psychology because a lot of its adherents are doing it all wrong.
I don't agree entirely - I think discussions like this one demonstrate that atheists and other non-believers often find religion unconvincing when viewing it merely as a theory. It's mostly when you see how it changes the lives of its followers for the better that the value of religion becomes pretty apparent. Other than actually accepting/experiencing a religion oneself, I'd suspect looking to religious followers as examples is probably the best way to appreciate it.
Having said that, I think the problem you are getting at is that people often judge a religion by its followers' worst practices, when they should be judging it by their best practices. It's a bit like judging the potential of science fiction as a genre based on Star Trek fan fiction rather than Ender's Game - something people who don't read sci-fi often do actually. In the case of Christianity, I've found that the ones often presented as supposed examples of Christianity are those who don't really follow Christian principles at all. That doesn't mean people shouldn't look to religious adherents to see the value of religion; it just means they should look to the ones who are succeeding with it, rather than those who aren't. After all, if a non-believer were to convert to a religion, I'd assume he'd choose to model his practices after the most admirable religious followers rather than the least admirable.
I think it's clear that if you approach religion in all the wrong ways then it can and most likely will cause problems. The question is, will it help you if you approach it in the right ways - and is it possible to figure out what the right ways are?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Fair argument. But flawed. When it comes to fundamentals, you cannot use tortured logic.
Even if I were to agree to you that the permissibility of what is allowed on Sabbath was tortured logic - that is a detail. Not a fundamental. So you have not proven that a religion should be evaluated on it's internal consistency.
But bear in mind that Judaism is PART of Christianity's internal consistency.
Not, for me at least, the way you seem to understand it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the problem you are getting at is that people often judge a religion by its followers' worst practices, when they should be judging it by their best practices.
I know people who swear colloidal silver cured their asthma.
Should I judge those medical claims by the best claimed results, which may or may not be related to this treatment? Or should I judge them by the people who've died and/or turned themselves permanently grey in pursuit of other health benefits?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:You might start with the Wiki.
Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s. Of course it's likely there were doctors before that with pet theories that tobacco was bad for you.
quote:I must say this one would impress me a lot more if South Carolina hadn't been openly discussing secession for the thirty years preceding the civil war. It's a bit like predicting that the Great War would start over "Some damn silly thing in the Balkans." Well yeah, it did, but...
He still put his money where his mouth was in picking a state. 32 years before the fact is still of interest, further the prediction that the South would solicit help from Great Britain was also noted. It's not the craziest prophecy I've heard, but it could have easily turned out wrong.
quote:That would be evidence, yes, if any such confirmations existed.
There is alot of archeological research being done on pre-columbian America. As far as science confirming religion I'd say it's the front line for whether the Book of Mormon scientifically true.
quote:I have not claimed that these brain mechanisms are perfect, as you well know; but really, this is just as much an argument against your own position, if not more so - because you have claimed that your procedure is perfect. As indeed it dang well should be, your god being involved with all that is claimed for him.
It is perfect. Perfection does not mean it always gives a positive result. Prayer is designed to bring a person closer to God if that person truly wishes it. If they say they do and pray, but in their mind they don't, God typically remains aloof. It puts the results in God's hands rather than saying "If you just try hard enough it will work," A charge you have frequently brought to religion's door.
Just so we can get this out of the way, sometime ago we were both speaking with KarlEd and as I was new I did not know his background, and I did not guard my advice as much as I should have and so I questioned how hard he had really tried to pray about Mormonism. You pounced on that and concluded that if I encounter unbelief I just assumed they haven't tried hard enough. I don't believe that.
quote:Really? You genuinely believe that a hypothetical alien, never exposed to human religious beliefs, would hear about your experience and categorize "Powerful outside source" as more likely than "Internal brain function"? When he had never seen any other evidence of the powerful external source, and knew that other humans had other explanations? I suspect this is not the belief of your heart, if you really think about it.
What's this got to do with anything? Why say he hasn't been exposed to religious belief when you could just as easily say that he was never exposed to socially enforced learned behavior either.
quote:Why is this an argument for god-sourcing and not BB-sourcing? An unchanging god should give the same result every time.
You're conflating unchanging with inflexible. A God can avail himself of the infinite circumstances that could surround a spiritual experience and still be unchanging. God perfectly responds to every situation He is presented with, and hence is unchanging. He responds to every prayer through the power of the Holy Ghost, and yet that could entail a vision, a voice, a feeling, etc. Our personalities have a huge impact on how God deals with us, it has nothing to do with God being unchangeable.
quote:Have you tried actually asking an imam about this?
No, the next time the opportunity arises I'll let you know what they say.
quote:Then you have nothing to lose by testing this theory, yes?
It would seem so.
quote:There is a difference between 'no chance' and 'a chance so small it can be ignored'. Analogously, consider the man whose financial planning consists of buying lottery tickets. "Yes," he tells you, "I know my chances of winning are really terrible, but they're not zero, right?" You would not consider this a rational approach to personal savings, and I suggest that this excellent principle should be extended to epistemology as well.
Yes but if the man went on to win the lottery, say four times during the period he was buying lottery tickets, would you investigate further as to what else might explain his success?
quote:This would only be convincing to a man who already believed Mormonism true; it is, therefore, circular reasoning. I suggest therefore that you should drop this argument. And, by the way, let me make you aware of another problem with the human mind: If you argue in favour of a position, no matter how bad your arguments, even if you explicitly made up your arguments, your belief in that position is strengthened. I repeat: This is true even if you are consciously aware that your arguments are bullshit made up on the spur of the moment. It takes a conscious effort to overcome this tendency. I suggest you take a moment to apply it to this argument, and to all others where you say something and have no good response for the counter. Otherwise you will find that even bad arguments, which you yourself come to disbelieve, strengthen your faith. I feel convinced you would not want that to happen.
I wasn't trying to submit that as evidence, merely to remind you of how Mormons see their own religion. Unbelievers often think of it as a church Joseph Smith started, but that was never the intent. That is why the church is modeled after the one outlined in the New Testament, it also colors our interpretation of many Old Testament events. So for example the argument that Judaism began as a polytheistic religion and evolved into a monotheistic one is completely wrong to Mormons.
I do understand that having a framework of arguments no matter how flawed still strengthens a conviction when compared to a belief that has none. As a younger person I had all sorts of beliefs that existed purely because they hadn't been challenged and I took my cues from my parents. Capital punishment good, abortions bad, socialism bad, capitalism good, etc. Those beliefs all changed dramatically by being exposed to ideas with more solid grounding in reason. It could also be argued that since you believed in Christianity and found it wanting, that that might also be tainted in your judgment. Admitting you made a mistake could be grating to the point that you would continue to reject Christianity because it would force you to face your own infirmities and the conclusion that you were could be so completely wrong. Fortunately I'm sure neither of us are guilty of letting emotion have uncontrollable reign on our beliefs, but one of us keeps suggesting that the other has beliefs that are grounded in strings not rope.
quote:A safe argument for you to make. Organisations do not die in a year. But consider that already there are many schismatic movements all calling themselves the Church of Latter-Day Saints and claiming to be the true successors of Joseph Smith. You cannot tell me this was his intention.
There are not that many, but there are a few, none even enter the ballpark as being as big as the LDS church. No that was no Smith's intention but it's hardly different from history. Every major idea has splinter groups. Mormonism has shown growth every year since its' founding. I do not expect that trend to continue forever. I believe eventually it will reach a point where membership declines as people go inactive or apostatize. Heck the book of revelation insists that Christianity will be close to its' last gasps before Jesus comes again. There are plenty of sects that have already died off the shakers are one such example. But in any case you don't even have to wait for Mormonism to die, just wait for one of prophets over the whole church to get caught stealing, or commit adultery, or publish a book about not living a lie anymore.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I "judge" a religion by all of its practices. Selecting only positives is just as bad as selecting only negatives when it comes to "judging" the true value of something.
That said, the value of a myth (as it is to me) does not undermine the fact that it is a myth. Many non-religious myths and legends have served all kinds of positive and negative roles in the past (for example: nationalism/patriotism, creating hope, causing genocide etc.). Even if a myth has a massive impact on a population, it still doesn't make it true.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s.
quote:In 1604, British monarch James I increased taxes on tobacco 4,000 percent. His 1604 tract "A Counterblaste to Tobacco" denounced smoking as being not only harmful to the brain and lungs, but "in the black stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."
quote:Should I judge those medical claims by the best claimed results, which may or may not be related to this treatment? Or should I judge them by the people who've died and/or turned themselves permanently grey in pursuit of other health benefits?
I would look at whichever particular uses of silver seems to get the best results - and then determine if those results are worthwhile, and whether it appears they came from the silver. I would not look at the people who ingest a pound of silver one day and then are dead by the next morning; that death fails to prove there isn't a better and less foolish method of using silver.
Similarly, if you want to know if aspirin is a good solution for headaches, study the person who uses the correct dosage, not the person who swallows the whole bottle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if you want to know if aspirin is a good solution for headaches, study the person who uses the correct dosage
How do you establish the correct dosage for religious belief?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It should say on the bottle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, I prefer whatever faith Angela Lansbury is recommending for my headaches.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s.
quote:In 1604, British monarch James I increased taxes on tobacco 4,000 percent. His 1604 tract "A Counterblaste to Tobacco" denounced smoking as being not only harmful to the brain and lungs, but "in the black stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."
Pff like we can believe anything a British monarch says! Thanks for the link. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I hope it occurs to people who aren't religious and to non-believers that they should not judge a religion based on the practice of its followers. Maybe religion sounds so cheesy, so stupid, and so obviously pop-psychology because a lot of its adherents are doing it all wrong.
To be honest, in my case as a non-believer, I'm not entirely sure if that makes too much sense from my POV.*
See, in the case of the Jewish god, I can kind of understand how a Jew might think there is some form of "ideal" Judaism that could be practised if only one understood the Jewish god better, that the human practise of religion is non-optimal.
But as a non-believer, if there's no Jewish god, then there really is no "ideal" Judaism. There is simply Judaism as practised by this group of people (say Reform) or this group of people (say Conservative) or even Judaism as practised by a certain group of Jews at a certain point in history.
It basically looks to us as an outsider that there is this constantly evolving collection of religious beliefs and cultural practises that we deem Judaism (perhaps a meme for lack of a better word).
So from this POV, if we don't judge a religion based on its believers, there's nothing else really there.
(I guess one possible answer to this is that you can judge a religion based on its literature as "divorced" from its actual followers. But from our POV, since the text is merely something created and slowly updated by people practising that meme, it doesn't make too much sense either. At best we could consider it a lagging "snapshot")
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I guess one possible answer to this is that you can judge a religion based on its literature as "divorced" from its actual followers.
That's particularly problematic with Judaism, as they assert that its literature must be interpreted through the oral traditions of its followers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
FWIW, I just picked an example that was easily to relate to, but I thought it would have been one of the easier ones.
See, in the case of those borderline Chinese religions, where each community may have its unique mix of Taoism, Buddhist, and superstitious beliefs which is characterized pretty much entirely by actual practise in that community, the problem becomes even more difficult.
And in what sense can you judge, say, ancestor worship as separate from the practise of its followers, when those very followers may croak the next day and join that very hierarchy of worship?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Sure. But this makes the task more complex. I have never met Lisa or Rivka before, but it seems clear that we subscribe to the same form of ideal Judaism, even though we may all have our basic human flaws.
Actually, I could give you a very limited group of texts that would describe this idea Judaism and keep things relatively simple.
We are the people of the book - not the authors of the book. I'll not deny that our interpretations evolve - but they do not change. They adapt. New situations demands new laws, and the core principles in the Talmud are extended and adapted to new situations.
That's the religion I keep trying to present as a contrast here. There is such a thing as an ideal form and an adherent who has it all wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There is alot of archeological research being done on pre-columbian America. As far as science confirming religion I'd say it's the front line for whether the Book of Mormon scientifically true.
Agreed on both points. But you listed this as evidence, not as a search for evidence. Back off on that, please.
quote:Pff like we can believe anything a British monarch says!
So when it's your guy, then it is divine inspiration and true prophecy, but if it is someone you don't like it can be passed off with a joke? Is this the way you like to see yourself arguing?
quote:No that was no Smith's intention but it's hardly different from history.
Quite so, but that is just the point. Smith apparently did claim that his Church would be different, would indeed stand until Jesus returned, in contrast with every church before his. You cannot shrug and say "Just like the others" of an entity that is claimed to be unique!
quote:It could also be argued that since you believed in Christianity and found it wanting, that that might also be tainted in your judgment.
I do not know where you got this idea; I have never been a Christian.
quote:Yes but if the man went on to win the lottery, say four times during the period he was buying lottery tickets, would you investigate further as to what else might explain his success?
If he had bought a hundred tickets and won 4 times twenty dollars? Well no, I would not be particularly surprised. But you are overstraining the analogy here, because you cannot claim to have won the Grand Prize of complete proof that you were right all along. I remind you of what I was responding to: You claimed that there was some chance you were correctly interpreting your subjective feelings, even in the face of the counterevidence I had put to you. I compared this to the chance of winning the lottery: You would disdain a man who said there was some chance he would win the lottery, and planned his finances accordingly. You cannot then turn around and once again count your subjective feelings as lottery wins! Your interpretation of those feelings are buys of lottery tickets; the drawing will occur when you are dead.
quote:What's this got to do with anything? Why say he hasn't been exposed to religious belief when you could just as easily say that he was never exposed to socially enforced learned behavior either.
Very well, he knows nothing of how human brains malfunction. Do you still really believe that he would rather look for an outside source, undetectable by any other means, rather than look for internal causes? Especially when he is told that no two humans interpret such feelings the same way?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is such a thing as an ideal form...
Why are you taking as a given the idea that an ideal form must be changeless? Perhaps one of the highest virtues of God is constant evolution.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Sure. But this makes the task more complex. I have never met Lisa or Rivka before, but it seems clear that we subscribe to the same form of ideal Judaism, even though we may all have our basic human flaws.
On the other hand, its quite clear that there are Jews that do not ascribe to quite the same form that you do and champion decidedly different interpretations.
Without a belief in a divine tie-breaker, its not really up to us to pick a "winner" faction. And beyond even picking a faction, having to abstract out what they say as opposed to what they do is a different task too.
quote: That's the religion I keep trying to present as a contrast here. There is such a thing as an ideal form and an adherent who has it all wrong.
And what algorithm should a non-believer use to determine which is "ideal" and which is "wrong"?
For example, in the case that BB and KoM are discussing, its not immediately obvious how we can establish from a secular point of view whether the mainline LDS church is ideal or whether its splinter groups are ideal.
At best we can treat them as two religions which happen to have a common ancestor.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: swbarnes 2:
quote:If you'd said "I don't dare to think about alternate religions, because I might be tempted away from my beliefs", that would at least be honest. Or if you'd said "I know I'm right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong, I don't have to investigate what I know is poppycock", that would be honest.
Except that it wouldn't, that isn't how I fell, that is how you think I feel. We ran into this exact same problem when discussing same sex marriage, you placed extremely poor motives on everything I said, when those motives do not exist.
Then make an argument that makes sense and stick to it. Arguing that the reason you didn't give Islam a sincere try is because you can't afford to read free books is stupid. And when that was pointed out, you said "Oh, that's not my real reason, my real reason is that I don't have time to get a PhD", which is also a stupid argument, becuase no one asked that of you. And then you changed to another argument, that you won't study Islam, because there are other religions which have died out, and there's nothing to read, which is still a stupid argument against reading extant texts, like Islam and other religions have.
Do you see the pattern? You make a stupid exucse, it's pointed out how dumb that excuse is, and then you come up with another excuse, it's pointed out how dumb that is, and out comes another one. When the excuses keep falling like flies, but your resistance remains, it's pretty clear that the orignal excuses weren't sincere. A person who sincerely wanted to read extant religious texts, but couldn't afford to buy books would read them at the library. You did not do this, hence you were insincere when you said that money was the reason.
If my suggested reasons for your resistance are wrong, fine. I'm wrong. But there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them. There are no sincere people who can't afford to read free books.
quote:
quote:the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
So if I made an addendum to every prayer, "And let me know if another religion is in reality the true one." Then I'd be doing enough to seek out the truth? Fine.
No, a mere addendum for form's sake would not be enough. How many times does one have to rephrase the same thing? You have to sincerely and persistantly listen for God to tell you "What you believed yesterday was wrong. What your family and friends beleieve is wrong. This is the truth".
And if you hear nothing, assume that you were doing it wrong, and try again tomorrow. It's not like you have controls to tell you otherwise.
quote:As a Mormon I don't believe the true religion of God existed in its' proper form for a some years short of two thousand.
Good grief, you are dense. The whole point of the exercise is that you might be wrong in what you believe! The whole point is that if you prayed hard for God to tell you that Islam is the true faith, and didn't stop praying until you felt that God had told you this, you eventually would feel it, and conclude that your old beliefs were simply wrong.
But really, you already destroyed your argument that prayer can reveal religious truth, when you admitted that you think that God might lie to people, by confirming religious falsehoods in them. I suppose you figure that God only lies to other people, and not to you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How do you establish the correct dosage for religious belief?
That's a tricky part of religion. But the short answer is: You use your judgement.
But having said that, I think it's considerably easier to recognize some of the people who are using the wrong dosage - you can tell because they tend to constantly be grumpy or hateful or rather violent, to the point where it is damaging their life.
----
Edit: I'll add that usually that's one of the functions of the church. Experienced spiritual leaders guide other followers so they hopefully use the correct "dosage", so to speak. And in the case of Christianity, at least, the religion has a model (Christ) for appropriate behavior, to compare against. Other religions tend to have their own models for ideal behavior.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Good grief, you are dense.
That was uncalled-for. Why the heck would you insult somebody who's willing to have this conversation with you? Do you think abuse is the best way to get your point across?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Do you see the pattern? You make a stupid exucse, it's pointed out how dumb that excuse is, and then you come up with another excuse, it's pointed out how dumb that is, and out comes another one.
Fair's fair; BB has now agreed that he will ask an imam about confirmatory prayer "next time he has a chance", and also that he has nothing to lose by attempting the prayer. This is as far as an internet discussion is going to get. Whether he actually does these things is under his control, but he is not making excuses anymore, at least not in public.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
FWIW, I highly recommend at least looking into go many different religions and, if at all possible, going to events, services, meetings, celebrations or what have you before settling on one (or none).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Tom, i did not say it was changeless. Not in the sense that you take issue with. All I meant is that there is a basic corpus that Orthodox Judaism subscribes to.
Yes - it makes it hard for non-believers on the one hand, But i actually think it makes it even harder for believers.
Non-Believers need to look at the basic texts, or even modern religious writings on Orthodox Judaism for the basic fundamentals and theory. I think the Judaism 101 page has been linked a number of times, and I am happy to recommend other reading material.
Believers have the problem of distinguishing between thought and practice. I have many friends who were turned off of Judaism because many of the people we know are really rotten. This includes teachers, Rabbis, parents, etc. They preach Judaism but behave differently. Usually, this is the result of ignorance on their part.
I think that if someone does a serious analysis of a religion, you can distinguish between the ideal faith and its followers. I try to do this in my analysis of Christianity all the time.
Christianity bothered me tremendously in my youth, but I learned a lot more from reading Church fathers, and later Christian thinkers such that I understood that the average Christian misunderstands.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, i did not say it was changeless. Not in the sense that you take issue with.
I'm not taking issue with the changelessness; I'm not passing judgment on that at all. Rather, I'm questioning whether you can fairly say "I know Judaism to be true because it has not changed, and it considers changelessness to be a virtue."
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Good grief, you are dense.
That was uncalled-for. Why the heck would you insult somebody who's willing to have this conversation with you? Do you think abuse is the best way to get your point across?
It apparently wasn't much of a conversation at all. "I don't have to investigate other religions to see if I am wrong, because I believe the LDS church is the only right church" is not a valid argument. Since there wasn't anything I could have possibly said that would undermine that stellar circular argument, it's not like I hurt my rhetorical chances any.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it's not like I hurt my rhetorical chances any.
Is that the only reason you would avoid insulting somebody in this situation? I mean, seriously, it's not like the stakes are particularly high in this thread or anything. Be pleasant.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Good thing I never made such an argument then. Why don't you tell us the part again where you accuse me of saying I couldn't afford a Koran, that's probably the most amusing bit. I'll even quote the original statement,
quote:No it isn't, I've already conceded that I would happily read the entirety of the Koran if presented with a copy. That I have not gone out of my way to purchase every single religious book from every single religion is not indicative of disinterest, it's indicative of the fact I couldn't afford to, and it's not a reasonable request anyway
I then went on to explain how it wasn't a reasonable request as it would be impossible for me to obtain a copy of every religious text of every religion as certain religions can be lost from memory which is completely unrelated to whether they were true or not.
You don't like me, I don't dislike you. Your contempt makes all your good ideas taste like poison. It's unfortunate that you don't realize that your rude way of speaking to people with whom disagree, serves only to prevent you from adequately communicating what valuable ideas you posses, (and I have no doubt you have some.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Tom, i did not say it was changeless. Not in the sense that you take issue with.
I'm not taking issue with the changelessness; I'm not passing judgment on that at all. Rather, I'm questioning whether you can fairly say "I know Judaism to be true because it has not changed, and it considers changelessness to be a virtue."
Did I say that? What was the context? I mean, i could expound and address that now if you like, but I'd like to put it back in context.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Did I say that? What was the context?
Your earlier argument -- that if God appeared and gave the entirety of the law to the Jews at Sinai, it invalidates other Judeo-Christian religions -- hinges upon the assumption that God does not change His message or methods. This is the one and only reason I've seen you give for believing in Judaism relative to anything else.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:it's not like I hurt my rhetorical chances any.
Is that the only reason you would avoid insulting somebody in this situation? I mean, seriously, it's not like the stakes are particularly high in this thread or anything. Be pleasant.
Well, perhaps I took it as a bit insulting that BB argued that he didn't have enough money to read free books?
If he'd said at the outset "I'm don't have to bother seriously investigating the possibility that my religious beliefs are incorrect, because as a Mormon, I don't believe those other religions are true" that would have at least been sincere. Close-minded and illogical, but sincere.
But he threw up ten reasons why he won't seriously and persistantly try other religions, and then when those were pointed out as being stupid, then he fell back to "I don't have to, because as a Mormon, I don't believe any of those religions can be true".
I think that sincerity is a higher virtue than pleasantness.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Did I say that? What was the context?
Your earlier argument -- that if God appeared and gave the entirety of the law to the Jews at Sinai, it invalidates other Judeo-Christian religions -- hinges upon the assumption that God does not change His message or methods. This is the one and only reason I've seen you give for believing in Judaism relative to anything else.
For the future, please spell out the assumptions that you think I am making. The quotes you gave earlier threw me off.
If you want to talk about why I believe in Judaism over no religion at all, then we should talk about the fact that I don't think the text changed, or that Judaism changed much. Adapted? Sure. Changed, no. (And when I say adapted, I mean that it adapted within the original context - I'm not saying that words of the bible were "adapted" as Ron claims).
But if I want to prove Judaism as opposed to other Judaeo-Christian religions, the only I thing I need to look at is what they believe - and they affirm the mass revelation as well as the OT. That means I now have to look at Judaism and see if Judaism leaves room for a Christian messiah or Muslim prophet. See the page I quoted earlier for FURTHER arguments (in addition to mass revelation) that explain why I don't believe in Christianity, taking into account this calculation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, perhaps I took it as a bit insulting that BB argued that he didn't have enough money to read free books?
Are we agreed that it's silly to be insulted by someone else's bad argument?
quote:I think that sincerity is a higher virtue than pleasantness.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, y'know.
--------
quote:That means I now have to look at Judaism and see if Judaism leaves room for a Christian messiah or Muslim prophet.
Only if you believe that God can't change His message, or if you assume that the description of the presentation at Sinai is meant to be verbatim. This ultimately begs the question.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Incidentally, Armoth, you never did respond to my pointing out that your god is no more likely to appear ex nihilo than the universe is; indeed less so, since it contains all the complexity of the universe plus some extra.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Good thing I never made such an argument then. Why don't you tell us the part again where you accuse me of saying I couldn't afford a Koran, that's probably the most amusing bit. I'll even quote the original statement,
quote:No it isn't, I've already conceded that I would happily read the entirety of the Koran if presented with a copy. That I have not gone out of my way to purchase every single religious book from every single religion is not indicative of disinterest, it's indicative of the fact I couldn't afford to, and it's not a reasonable request anyway
I then went on to explain how it wasn't a reasonable request as it would be impossible for me to obtain a copy of every religious text of every religion as certain religions can be lost from memory which is completely unrelated to whether they were true or not.
No one was asking you to purchase anything at all! No one was asking you to learn about every single religion that ever existed. No one was asking you to get a PhD, or learn "down to the bones" about any religion, you made that up yourself, so you'd have an excuse to do nothing. Lots of people are capable of learning enough about other religions to convert to them, without getting PhDs. Am I mistaken in thinking that you yourself have witnessed this? Were those people put off by the fact that they didn't have PhD's in every single religion ever? Or did they pick one or a few, and deeply try those?
Honestly, the more you resist, the clearer it is that the idea of seriously trying another religion deeply frightens you. And in one sense, it should, because you think that this stuff is deeply serious business...but that's all the more reason for spending a lot of effort to make sure that you haven't made a mistake. And your idea of enough effort is to wait at home for someone to drop a Koran in your hands.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:No one was asking you to purchase anything at all! No one was asking you to learn about every single religion that ever existed. No one was asking you to get a PhD, or learn "down to the bones" about any religion, you made that up yourself, so you'd have an excuse to do nothing. Lots of people are capable of learning enough about other religions to convert to them, without getting PhDs. Am I mistaken in thinking that you yourself have witnessed this? Were those people put off by the fact that they didn't have PhD's in every single religion ever? Or did they pick one or a few, and deeply try those?
Then let me step into the "dense" role you've created for me and ask just what you are expecting then?
I'm happy to start reading the Koran, I'm already interested in doing so. And quit saying that I made the argument, "I don't have to bother seriously investigating the possibility that my religious beliefs are incorrect, because as a Mormon, I don't believe those other religions are true." I never made that statement either, and it's ridiculous that you keep making those two comments and then arguing against them.
You know what's worse then deception? Thinking you have any business telling me what my real motives are. You are so far away from how I actually feel you need to just stop. You might think you have some great insight into the inner workings of my mind, but you don't. You have no business telling me how much I ought to try to expose myself to other religions as you have no demonstrated you are any better. If you have seriously tried out many religions, I'd be happy to hear how you went about it as well as what worked or what didn't. If you haven't, stop pressing this point because it makes you look foolish.
My resistant to people's calls that I seriously investigate other religions was one of obviously not understanding what I was expected to do. But others managed to stay on point and explain where I wasn't getting it, while you simply overstate my words to the point they are unrecognizable to me anymore.
I've completely removed any credibility that I might have had in stating that I was not going to speak to you about these things until this animosity ceases. Well I'm going to start demonstrating that if there is anything honest about my words this is it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Tom - God makes a whole bunch of covenants in the OT. The more you learn it, the more you realize how implausible it is to assume that God "changed His mind." Especially about the commandments.
We can argue that it comes down to interpreting literature. There can be many interpretations to a good story - but some are pushing it. I think the Christian interpretation is all about pushing it. You, as an atheist can surely appreciate that. You believe that the original OT was not referring to Jesus, do you not? You can't see how Christian interpretations seem to cram Jesus into places in the OT?
----
KoM - I thought I DID address it. Think of it this way: Our minds understand the rules of this universe. In this universe, something does not come from nothing. Thus, the universe itself would need to be created.
What it was created by is not subject to the sense of contradiction and impossibility as it is not bound by the rules of the universe.
Should you choose to argue that the universe itself may not be bound by the same rules as things that are PRESENT in the universe, I still need an explanation for the introduction of energy into the universe, and for some sort of impetus for something that was infinite to turn into what it is today.
Richard Dawkins thinks that that is the cheating trump-card method of argument. I think it's funny that that is what he has to say to that argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I still need an explanation for the introduction of energy into the universe, and for some sort of impetus for something that was infinite to turn into what it is today.
Why? What explanation gives God the ability to introduce energy into the Universe? He's outside it, after all. Let's just take whatever imaginary mechanism you use, call it "cosmological expansion" instead of God, and say it's non-sentient. There. We're done.
quote:You can't see how Christian interpretations seem to cram Jesus into places in the OT?
Of course I do. But I also think Jewish interpretations cram Yahweh into some places in the OT, so what do I know? Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE] I've completely removed any credibility that I might have had in stating that I was not going to speak to you about these things until this animosity ceases. Well I'm going to start demonstrating that if there is anything honest about my words this is it.
::cheers:: Give the guy a break. And before you rationalize his desire to stop arguing as though he feels as if he is threatened, consider the alternative explanation.
It is incredibly frustrating to argue with someone you know you will never convince, regardless of how logical you are. But what keeps us going is that the other side is willing to try and understand you and to try be pleasant. This is why I like talking to Tom.
When there is no pleasantness involved, you are not just talking to a wall. You are talking to a really ugly, rude wall. That's not fun.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I still need an explanation for the introduction of energy into the universe, and for some sort of impetus for something that was infinite to turn into what it is today.
Why? What explanation gives God the ability to introduce energy into the Universe? He's outside it, after all. Let's just take whatever imaginary mechanism you use, call it "cosmological expansion" instead of God, and say it's non-sentient. There. We're done.
quote:You can't see how Christian interpretations seem to cram Jesus into places in the OT?
Of course I do. But I also think Jewish interpretations cram Yahweh into some places in the OT, so what do I know?
The former point: I'm okay with that. The metaphysical proofs for God don't prove God. They prove an original cause who is beyond the rules of this universe. I don't know why you say it isn't sentient - it doesn't HAVE to be sentient, but I think it makes sense that it IS sentient.
The latter point: Firstly, the term you used for God is not the way Orthodox Jews pronounce it. They pronounce it the other way, the one with a J? But instead of a J, they do a Y. Granted, I've never actually pronounced that name in my life...
Secondly - let's read the bible as a piece of literature. How can you say that the interpretation of the Bible as a god speaking to man etc. is a cramming of God into the bible?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: But if I want to prove Judaism as opposed to other Judaeo-Christian religions, the only I thing I need to look at is what they believe - and they affirm the mass revelation as well as the OT. That means I now have to look at Judaism and see if Judaism leaves room for a Christian messiah or Muslim prophet. See the page I quoted earlier for FURTHER arguments (in addition to mass revelation) that explain why I don't believe in Christianity, taking into account this calculation.
Again, you are making some assumptions about Christianity that are not universally true. Christianity does not necessarily depend on the accuracy of the reporting or the reliability of remembering of the revelations recounted in the Hebrew scripture.
[ May 05, 2009, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it doesn't HAVE to be sentient, but I think it makes sense that it IS sentient
Why? Sentience increases complexity. Since there's no evidence for sentience, and no obvious requirement for it, Occam's Razor would advise against it.
quote:How can you say that the interpretation of the Bible as a god speaking to man etc. is a cramming of God into the bible?
I don't believe that the portrayal of God -- especially as the One True God -- is remotely consistent within the OT, much less the NT. I think it's pretty obviously a collection of stories meant to answer different questions and prop up various social mores, regardless of how bizarre and cobbled-together a god it produced.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s. Of course it's likely there were doctors before that with pet theories that tobacco was bad for you.
Methodists were saying it in the 1700s. And the idea that tobacco & alcohol were both unhealthy and immoral would definintely have been part of the socio-religious culture in which Joseph Smith grew up.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:it doesn't HAVE to be sentient, but I think it makes sense that it IS sentient
Why? Sentience increases complexity. Since there's no evidence for sentience, and no obvious requirement for it, Occam's Razor would advise against it.
quote:How can you say that the interpretation of the Bible as a god speaking to man etc. is a cramming of God into the bible?
I don't believe that the portrayal of God -- especially as the One True God -- is remotely consistent within the OT, much less the NT. I think it's pretty obviously a collection of stories meant to answer different questions and prop up various social mores, regardless of how bizarre and cobbled-together a god it produced.
The former pt: I think Occam's Razor points to a a sentient creator. I think it is more complex to say that a first cause randomly created a universe than that a sentient being created the universe. Even if God IS a complex option, we are talking about the origin of the universe. Weighing the randomness of a non-sentient first cause against the orderliness of a sentient one, I think the latter is the less complex of the two options.
The latter pt: It would be interesting to sit down and read the OT together.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: God makes a whole bunch of covenants in the OT. The more you learn it, the more you realize how implausible it is to assume that God "changed His mind." Especially about the commandments.
I'll say again: is this more implausible that god changed his mind, or that a perfectly good omnipotent god allows suffering of innocents etc?
I know what your answer is; but as a reasonable portion of your audience is atheist/agnostic you should realize that arguments resting on the relative implausibility of events we already regard as thoroughly implausible are far from compelling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even if God IS a complex option, we are talking about the origin of the universe.
Well, absolutely! You think something capable of imagining the whole universe is less complex than something capable of emitting energy?
quote:Weighing the randomness of a non-sentient first cause against the orderliness of a sentient one...
How can you possibly do this? Where's your control universe, to show you the defaults?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The former pt: I think Occam's Razor points to a a sentient creator. I think it is more complex to say that a first cause randomly created a universe than that a sentient being created the universe. Even if God IS a complex option, we are talking about the origin of the universe. Weighing the randomness of a non-sentient first cause against the orderliness of a sentient one, I think the latter is the less complex of the two options.
Why is 'first cause' being preferred to 'infinite regress'?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Non-Believers need to look at the basic texts, or even modern religious writings on Orthodox Judaism for the basic fundamentals and theory.
Even that is a choice though, the Orthodox interpretation of Judaism is obviously different from others and its not immediately clear why a non-believer would take that perspective to judge Judaism as a whole.
quote: I think that if someone does a serious analysis of a religion, you can distinguish between the ideal faith and its followers. I try to do this in my analysis of Christianity all the time.
I just don't entirely understand why a non-believer would think that there is such a thing as an "ideal" version of a particular faith.
As an example, say you've watched the 1970s version of Battlestar Galactica and then you watch the modern Battlestar Galactica. It is true, maybe there is *some* "ideal" of Battlestar Galactica based upon the older version but separate from the budget and acting constraints of the time.
I can get why from one perspective that one may prefer the original since its older whereas the newer version is "distorted." I can also get that maybe separate from the actual practice of filming that older version, that there was a imaginary "ideal" version sitting in the head of one of the writers at the time which could be better replicated by better special effects.
But from my POV, since they're all imaginary anyways, its not really even a relevant question which is the "ideal." Its almost nonsensical.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s. Of course it's likely there were doctors before that with pet theories that tobacco was bad for you.
Methodists were saying it in the 1700s. And the idea that tobacco & alcohol were both unhealthy and immoral would definintely have been part of the socio-religious culture in which Joseph Smith grew up.
Possibly. Are you saying the Methodist church uniformly believed that tobacco was bad for the body? Because very early in Mormonisms history Joseph Smith made no objections to tobacco. It was when his wife complained that cleaning chaw off the floor of the meeting house was disgusting and he prayed that the word of wisdom was revealed.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:No one was asking you to purchase anything at all! No one was asking you to learn about every single religion that ever existed. No one was asking you to get a PhD, or learn "down to the bones" about any religion, you made that up yourself, so you'd have an excuse to do nothing. Lots of people are capable of learning enough about other religions to convert to them, without getting PhDs. Am I mistaken in thinking that you yourself have witnessed this? Were those people put off by the fact that they didn't have PhD's in every single religion ever? Or did they pick one or a few, and deeply try those?
Then let me step into the "dense" role you've created for me and ask just what you are expecting then?
I've only said it about 10 times. I'm not the first to ask either. Simply that you give Islam a serious chance, and be as thorough and persistant at it as you expect believers in your own religion to be towards its teachings. Since you place such a high preimium on prayer, that's the approach you should use. Pray every day for Allah to confirm in you that Islam is right, and your old beliefs were wrong. And if you hear nothing, try again. You already admitted that God will sometimes be silent if the person praying is unworthy, so demonstrate your worthiness by being persistant and sincere.
quote:I'm happy to start reading the Koran, I'm already interested in doing so. And quit saying that I made the argument, "I don't have to bother seriously investigating the possibility that my religious beliefs are incorrect, because as a Mormon, I don't believe those other religions are true." I never made that statement either, and it's ridiculous that you keep making those two comments and then arguing against them.
Here is the quote in context:
quote:
quote:Me: You can afford to read every religious text found in every library in your area. There are even inter-library loans which expand the number of books you have access to. I'd be shocked if there weren't at least a few online Koran translations, and obviously, you have access to the internet.
That does not give me access to every religious book ever written. It does not account for lost texts, or lost religions. As a Mormon I don't believe the true religion of God existed in its' proper form for a some years short of two thousand.
The whole point of the conversation is that your LDS beliefs might be wrong. Making their accuracy your starting presumption completely misses the point of pages of conversation.
quote: You have no business telling me how much I ought to try to expose myself to other religions as you have no demonstrated you are any better.
You can do whatever the hell you want. If you want to post on the internet that you would read the Koran, if only there were some way for you to get the text without having to pay for it, or even leave your home, and you think that that's a sincere and sound argument, you keep making it.
quote:If you have seriously tried out many religions, I'd be happy to hear how you went about it as well as what worked or what didn't.
You can read history fine for yourself. You know that all the Inquisitors prayed for guidance, and kept doing what they were doing, honestly believing it was the Lord's work. Thumbscrews, burning people alive, all supported by prayers.
Their example is a great deal more convincing than anything I could tell you.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Even if God IS a complex option, we are talking about the origin of the universe.
Well, absolutely! You think something capable of imagining the whole universe is less complex than something capable of emitting energy?
quote:Weighing the randomness of a non-sentient first cause against the orderliness of a sentient one...
How can you possibly do this? Where's your control universe, to show you the defaults?
Tom, it isn't just emitting energy. It is emitting energy and the rules of the universe that make it possible for the incredibly complex state of life we currently enjoy. That led me to my complex random vs. complex order.
And I can't weight that against the other scientifically. That's impossible. It's impossible to calculate probabilities when you don't know how many outcomes are even possible. But in terms of what is likely to me based on logical plausibility, I think that it is makes sense that the first cause is sentient. Just like you feel that you are speaking to a human and not a computer program.
--- Mystic - Because it is not an infinite regress when the laws of the universe no longer apply. ---
Mucus - Your BSG analogy doesn't work here. BSG is not a mode of thought, it is not a mission, or a way of life.
---
To all of ya'all - When I am presenting my perspective, I am not trying to convince you. I am trying to explain that if you reject a religion based on its adherents, it is likely you aren't getting a good picture of the religion.
I understand that this is laughable from a non-believers concrete perspective. It's just that if the reason why a non-believer does not believe has anything to do with the practices of some of its adherents, perhaps the perspective should not be so concrete.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Because very early in Mormonisms history Joseph Smith made no objections to tobacco. It was when his wife complained that cleaning chaw off the floor of the meeting house was disgusting and he prayed that the word of wisdom was revealed.
I have to say, as demonstrations that a particular bit of ritual is divinely ordained and not contingent on humans go, I find this one particularly unconvincing. The word of god just happens to be convenient for letting Smith support his wife and having her continue to clean the meeting room, saving him from hiring someone to do it? Uh-huh. Sure.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Possibly. Are you saying the Methodist church uniformly believed that tobacco was bad for the body? Because very early in Mormonisms history Joseph Smith made no objections to tobacco. It was when his wife complained that cleaning chaw off the floor of the meeting house was disgusting and he prayed that the word of wisdom was revealed.
I'm saying that the idea that it was unhealthy was around in the culture. There were pamphlets about it. Doctors who said it was arguing with doctors who said it wasn't. Anti-tobacco societies signing pledges not to smoke or chew. And lots of people with money tied up in tobacco farms trying to promote it as harmless or even healthy. But suggesting that abstaining from tobacco is the healthy choice would not have been anything new or unusual.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... Mucus - Your BSG analogy doesn't work here. BSG is not a mode of thought, it is not a mission, or a way of life.
First, it could be.
Second, I don't understand why that should make a difference to me as a non-religious person.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
--- Mystic - Because it is not an infinite regress when the laws of the universe no longer apply. ---
?
I was asking why you have discounted the possibility that the universe has always existed i.e. was not 'caused' at all. Please clarify what you were saying.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: BSG is not a mode of thought, it is not a mission, or a way of life.
First, it could be.
Actually, from the way some of my friends have tried to get me to watch it, I rather thought it was.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:it doesn't HAVE to be sentient, but I think it makes sense that it IS sentient
quote:I do believe it's more likely that my experiences come from God and not from myself.
quote:I think the fact not all adherents to Catholicism are slathering idiots is indicative of important truths existing in the faith.
Threads like these are at their best when attempts at logical justifications and mechanisms for faith, such as these, are extricated through patient questioning.
In a completely neutral, non-hostile fashion I find the mechanisms of internal justification for core ideologies to be fascinating and like to see examples of the process by which justifications are rendered in response to challenges to core ideologies.
Sometimes — even though this unavoidably sounds hostile, but will grudgingly make sense to a religious person when viewed in the context of the habits of people in other 'easily dismissible' religious like Scientology — it provides insight into "The X Habits Of Highly Successful Religions," one of which seems to be, in Tom's words, filters specifically recommended by one's religion that make critical review of one's religious lens almost impossible.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"filters specifically recommended by one's religion that make critical review of one's religious lens almost impossible"
Make that "extremely unattractive" and I'd agree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Certainly in far too many highly religious cultures, rendered a deviant act.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't appreciate you taking my quote out of context. That quote is meant to be an aspect of my position that can only be understood accurately in light of all my views as represented by me on pages 1 through 15 of this thread.
Mystic, I misunderstood your question.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Because very early in Mormonisms history Joseph Smith made no objections to tobacco. It was when his wife complained that cleaning chaw off the floor of the meeting house was disgusting and he prayed that the word of wisdom was revealed.
I have to say, as demonstrations that a particular bit of ritual is divinely ordained and not contingent on humans go, I find this one particularly unconvincing. The word of god just happens to be convenient for letting Smith support his wife and having her continue to clean the meeting room, saving him from hiring someone to do it? Uh-huh. Sure.
Joseph's relationship with his wife was not quite like that. For instance Smith's revelation on polygamy was so opposed by Emma that after his death she denied he ever had it. There's perfect propriety with a prophet asking God on the matter of personal health, and being given an answer that profits the rest of mankind. The revelation does not stop at tobacco, but goes on to discuss many different things. As somebody who has lived in Utah and seen the general health of members of the church, I would have to say the revelation was of vital importance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, it isn't just emitting energy. It is emitting energy and the rules of the universe that make it possible for the incredibly complex state of life we currently enjoy. That led me to my complex random vs. complex order.
It's entirely possible that in an infinite number of other universes, different rules have popped up and, as a consequence, we have not.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Why? Sentience increases complexity. Since there's no evidence for sentience, and no obvious requirement for it, Occam's Razor would advise against it."
Precisely. Even if there is a supernatural aspect to the Universe, common sense would tell you that it's probably a lot like everything else that seems to exist. It would be increasing in complexity over time, much like carbon-based life (amino acids to DNA to cells to higher organisms, may have left out a step or 40), stellar system forms (hydrogen can only form stars, but as heavier elements are formed, rocky planets/moons are possible), etc. The Universe is becoming more complex on the obvious physical level. Why would this not be true on the supernatural level?
This is the elephant in the living room that no conservative/Orthodox/etc. person talks about. It's one thing to talk about the supernatural. It's another thing to hate Americans because we don't make our women wear the burka, mmm? I submit it's putting the cart before the horse to assume that, just because there may be a supernatural, intention-influenced aspect to existence, that it's OK to kill/hate others because they think differently about the supernatural.
Think about it this way. Imagine a skilled musician. When he starts 6th grade band, he has a pair of drumsticks. You could have fairly called him a drummer, that very first day of band. Later, after playing for over 20 years, he also has a pair of drumsticks. You can still call him a drummer. Who knows more about drumming, though, the "drummer" at age 11 in 6th grade band, or the "drummer" at age 33, with a degree in percussion performance, and years of professional experience? Both individuals are called "drummers".
Similarly, I submit that the "God" of the past (and by God I mean "something/anything supernatural) is not the same "God" of the future, much as the "drummer" in 6th grade band, though having the same title as the professional "drummer", is not the same at all as the professional.
I ask you this--if the complexity of the Universe is your evidence for the existence of an intelligent, self-aware Creator, why would the Universe be getting MORE complex over time? IF the creator is unchanging (as far as complexity goes), why would the creation not also be static (in terms of complexity)? Mmmm? Indeed. My logic is impeccable.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Because very early in Mormonisms history Joseph Smith made no objections to tobacco. It was when his wife complained that cleaning chaw off the floor of the meeting house was disgusting and he prayed that the word of wisdom was revealed.
I have to say, as demonstrations that a particular bit of ritual is divinely ordained and not contingent on humans go, I find this one particularly unconvincing. The word of god just happens to be convenient for letting Smith support his wife and having her continue to clean the meeting room, saving him from hiring someone to do it? Uh-huh. Sure.
You're not thinking like a religious person. To someone who believes, Smith's wife's comment about the state of the floor was not just a complaint but the doorway to him having this revelation.
Think of a haunted house. Common urban mythology has houses being empty because they are haunted. "All potential buyers or purchasers are scared away." But the reality is, the mythology exists because the house is empty.
In this case, Smith did not have his revelation because his wife complained (because the house is empty, it is haunted), but she complained because he was going to have his revelation (empty because it's haunted).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Because very early in Mormonisms history Joseph Smith made no objections to tobacco. It was when his wife complained that cleaning chaw off the floor of the meeting house was disgusting and he prayed that the word of wisdom was revealed.
I have to say, as demonstrations that a particular bit of ritual is divinely ordained and not contingent on humans go, I find this one particularly unconvincing. The word of god just happens to be convenient for letting Smith support his wife and having her continue to clean the meeting room, saving him from hiring someone to do it? Uh-huh. Sure.
Joseph's relationship with his wife was not quite like that. For instance Smith's revelation on polygamy was so opposed by Emma that after his death she denied he ever had it.
Well, she would say that, wouldn't she? That Smith had one revelation to please his wife doesn't mean he can't have one to please himself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Because very early in Mormonisms history Joseph Smith made no objections to tobacco. It was when his wife complained that cleaning chaw off the floor of the meeting house was disgusting and he prayed that the word of wisdom was revealed.
I have to say, as demonstrations that a particular bit of ritual is divinely ordained and not contingent on humans go, I find this one particularly unconvincing. The word of god just happens to be convenient for letting Smith support his wife and having her continue to clean the meeting room, saving him from hiring someone to do it? Uh-huh. Sure.
Joseph's relationship with his wife was not quite like that. For instance Smith's revelation on polygamy was so opposed by Emma that after his death she denied he ever had it.
Well, she would say that, wouldn't she? That Smith had one revelation to please his wife doesn't mean he can't have one to please himself.
Taken as a whole, I think you will find that Joseph's revelations were not given with the intention of exalting himself and debasing others. Frequently in the text God chastises Joseph for his inadequacies, and Joseph often confesses to having weaknesses.
But I can see how the fact his wife complained about a problem first which then resulted in a revelation seems suspicious.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Frequently in the text God chastises Joseph for his inadequacies, and Joseph often confesses to having weaknesses.
...thereby demonstrating that much-praised and sought-after virtue, modesty. Is there any sign that he strengthened these weak points, as opposed to just beating his breast about them?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: Frequently in the text God chastises Joseph for his inadequacies, and Joseph often confesses to having weaknesses.
...thereby demonstrating that much-praised and sought-after virtue, modesty. Is there any sign that he strengthened these weak points, as opposed to just beating his breast about them?
How many leaders of religious groups do you hear openly confess to making mistakes? I'm merely asserting that he didn't strive to develop a cult of personality.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is a much weaker point than the one you originally cited this behaviour as supporting, namely that he did not have 'revelations' of convenience.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That is a much weaker point than the one you originally cited this behaviour as supporting, namely that he did not have 'revelations' of convenience.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
). I make that statement in the unique position of someone whose been both an atheist (or at least a firm non-believer) and a semi-devout theist on this forum.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)