Argumenter for og imod gud eksistens
Filosofi, Etik & Religion
Dato: 31/5 2013 13:57 | Indlæg redigeret den: 31/5 2013 14:01
So, you are certain of the existence of this being and of its nature - and, particularly, that it is the god of your religion you should worship and not this other being?
So, you are certain of the existence of this being and of its nature - and, particularly, that it is the god of your religion you should worship and not this other being?
Dato: 31/5 2013 14:51 | Indlæg redigeret den: 31/5 2013 15:03
Jeff,
You didn´t answer my question!
I´m not saying any more until you answer me.
Certain is a big word. What are you trying to say? What exactly is your point?
I get the feeling you are trying to put words in my mouth to twist the conversation your way. I would much rather define what I believe, and why, plus my criteria for discernment, as I suggested in my previous comment. Take it or leave it. I´m not being a puppet in your game.
Jeff,
You didn´t answer my question!
I would say that, firstly, you need to clarify who you mean when you talk about Lucifer.
Are you talking about the "morning star" of ancient mythology or the personality known as the devil, Satan, of whom the Gospels speak?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Are you talking about the "morning star" of ancient mythology or the personality known as the devil, Satan, of whom the Gospels speak?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
I´m not saying any more until you answer me.
Certain is a big word. What are you trying to say? What exactly is your point?
I get the feeling you are trying to put words in my mouth to twist the conversation your way. I would much rather define what I believe, and why, plus my criteria for discernment, as I suggested in my previous comment. Take it or leave it. I´m not being a puppet in your game.
Dato: 31/5 2013 15:27 | Indlæg redigeret den: 31/5 2013 15:40
Okay, just call the being "Satan".
It really doesn't matter.
I am not twisting words - you and -Martin- have made independent but similar epistemological arguments and part of what this thread is about is exactly this. Furthermore, -Martin- and you have made claims about the nature of faith, religion, and scripture, which strongly deviates from anything that most of us actually witness in reality. I am testing these arguments and claims (they already got tested in some of your previous replies to my post, I am just working through it now).
You were not able to follow my previous point to -Martin-, as I see it, so I am repeating it, step by step.
Is the god of your religion, the one I called "Jehovah" originally, the correct one to worship? And are you certain of this?
That is all you need to answer, just as you would a fellow convent member or a parish member who wanted to know.
Okay, just call the being "Satan".
It really doesn't matter.
I am not twisting words - you and -Martin- have made independent but similar epistemological arguments and part of what this thread is about is exactly this. Furthermore, -Martin- and you have made claims about the nature of faith, religion, and scripture, which strongly deviates from anything that most of us actually witness in reality. I am testing these arguments and claims (they already got tested in some of your previous replies to my post, I am just working through it now).
You were not able to follow my previous point to -Martin-, as I see it, so I am repeating it, step by step.
Is the god of your religion, the one I called "Jehovah" originally, the correct one to worship? And are you certain of this?
That is all you need to answer, just as you would a fellow convent member or a parish member who wanted to know.
Dato: 1/6 2013 15:57 | Indlæg redigeret den: 1/6 2013 16:02
Just to be clear. This is what we are talking about?
You talk about the question of God and which one to follow like it is some kind of theory, a maths equation... I speak in terms of God, not gods, and of relationship and being, not theory and maths.
It does matter who we mean when we/you use certain names. It matters when we speak about God. It matters when we speak about Satan. So for the record, I mean Satan as described by Jesus Christ, ie. "a murderer from the start", "father of lies", etc. Likewise, when I speak about GOD, I am talking about the Triune God.
The one you called "Jehovah" originally is the name of the God of the Israelites. The God of the Israelites is understood as a partial understanding for a Christian. I never speak or write about "Jehovah". If I should need to speak of Yahweh, I generally write YHWH as do the Jews, out of respect for what the name means to them.
Frankly, it always puzzles me why atheists insist on using the name "Jehovah" for God when Christians don´t. The only people I ever see using the word are "Jehovah´s Witnesses".
I believe Jesus Christ is God-made-Flesh. I also believe in his resurrection from the dead. I try to live as a follower - disciple - of Jesus Christ. I give my allegiance, my life and my heart to HIM, in the belief that he is the true revelation of God, and that he is the Way to full life in God. I´m very specific.
I can´t be 100% certain that I am correct. It is an act of faith. However, I make my act of faith, based on certain criteria, including knowledge, reasoning, experience, reflection and discernment.
I said earlier, I could provide criteria. I think the very least you could do is ask what I have in mind. As it is, you seem to be coming at question with YOUR criteria.
In my humble opinion, you are starting in the wrong place... I doubt that it will get you anywhere.
Either you want to hear my criteria or you don´t. I am not prepared to spend time on anything else.
Just to be clear. This is what we are talking about?
JEFF: But here's the thing: what evidence or move of logic ensures us we've picked the right gaps, what absolute certainty? I am said to be kinda a little bit good at math kinda sorta, and yet I fail to detect anywhere any proof of inequality between the two sets. I can find no meaningful abstract system to demonstrate that the one is greater than the other. Or shall I rely on what I prefer? How am I to know that Jehovah is the right bet and not Lucifer? Is it because Christianity is the best theory we have to date?
You talk about the question of God and which one to follow like it is some kind of theory, a maths equation... I speak in terms of God, not gods, and of relationship and being, not theory and maths.
Okay, just call the being "Satan".
It really doesn't matter.
It really doesn't matter.
It does matter who we mean when we/you use certain names. It matters when we speak about God. It matters when we speak about Satan. So for the record, I mean Satan as described by Jesus Christ, ie. "a murderer from the start", "father of lies", etc. Likewise, when I speak about GOD, I am talking about the Triune God.
Is the god of your religion, the one I called "Jehovah" originally, the correct one to worship? And are you certain of this?
The one you called "Jehovah" originally is the name of the God of the Israelites. The God of the Israelites is understood as a partial understanding for a Christian. I never speak or write about "Jehovah". If I should need to speak of Yahweh, I generally write YHWH as do the Jews, out of respect for what the name means to them.
Frankly, it always puzzles me why atheists insist on using the name "Jehovah" for God when Christians don´t. The only people I ever see using the word are "Jehovah´s Witnesses".
I believe Jesus Christ is God-made-Flesh. I also believe in his resurrection from the dead. I try to live as a follower - disciple - of Jesus Christ. I give my allegiance, my life and my heart to HIM, in the belief that he is the true revelation of God, and that he is the Way to full life in God. I´m very specific.
I can´t be 100% certain that I am correct. It is an act of faith. However, I make my act of faith, based on certain criteria, including knowledge, reasoning, experience, reflection and discernment.
I said earlier, I could provide criteria. I think the very least you could do is ask what I have in mind. As it is, you seem to be coming at question with YOUR criteria.
In my humble opinion, you are starting in the wrong place... I doubt that it will get you anywhere.
Either you want to hear my criteria or you don´t. I am not prepared to spend time on anything else.
Dato: 1/6 2013 16:41 | Indlæg redigeret den: 1/6 2013 18:35
I see. So, indeed, it is not a theory, because you have not even tested any hypothesis against evidence, you have only done some thought experiments about how the world should be.
Let me now turn away from this Q and A, since it is getting pretty excruciating (excuse the pun, if you get it) for me
So, one has to ask where Earthling learned of these beings and learned of the difference between them. Well, she did answer that one, didn't she, -Martin-?
I mean on May 30th she stated:
Then today, she quoted the 8th chapter of the so-called Gospel of John, when she stated:
So, as we can see, we are not to know about these things or their properties by direct observation, but rather only by what is transmitted to us from a source of authority and a textual source (but, hey, I better be careful what I consider to be literal).
As far as I can see it, Earthling is not just talking in "metaphors" here, -Martin-, now is she? Well, interestingly, the text she quotes is replete with metaphors and she quotes them, but let's just see if we can recognize anything especially metaphorical in the whole set of statements, like:
Seems pretty straightforward factual to me.
However, apparently I am a bad judge of these things. Maybe Earthling doesn't really mean this to be taken literally, after all if I said in a vow to a spouse "I give my allegiance, my life and my heart to you", I guess I could just say later, "well, you know I didn't really mean all that when I said it, it was just a saying, a figure of speech, you shouldn't have taken it too seriously...".
Maybe we should find out from Earthling whether she means it "metaphorically" or not.
Just to be clear, Earthling, I am not mocking you in the least, I really do take you at your word and believe you mean this all very sincerely - and with a good heart as well. That is exactly my point.
Earthling's definition about what is certain or not is really radical though, I mean it definitely dares not to comport with Paul's explanation of all the things the so-called "ancients" did "by faith", since the author writes:
Particularly, in just two sentences, Paul explains how it is that
(By the way, this is not Genesis, it is from the Epistle to the Hebrews, lest any readers here have been duped by claims that only the really "old" Old Testament stuff (coming from different narratives, bla bla bla) makes claims about this god as the creator of the Universe and how - this is New Testament stuff, after the the death of Jesus by many years, supposedly)
This held into very recently in "orthodox church teaching".
However, the whole point here is that to use epistemological claims within apologetics does not serve a non-fundamentalist. It just is not possible to make claims about the existence of a god trying to be premised on the fact that those things that seem to run contrary to one article of faith or another cannot themselves be shown to be knowable for certain or on the incompleteness of knowledge about certain things. It is a disastrous starting point for the non-fundamentalist because the argument turns full circle and undermines certainty in all articles of faith themselves as well - not just that things exist, but even that what is said about those things is known correctly and sufficiently to make appropriate judgments.
My real point here is that one must return to the application of "faith", as exposed as that my leave the believer. And as I have just rather easily and starkly demonstrated, that is exactly what will happen as soon as the simplest questions of epistemology are really squarely put on the stage.
I have no agenda with disabusing others of their beliefs. I want to leave that to be a subtle journey for each individual, if it is indeed the way they go at all, and I actually don't think it matters whether they end their days still believing in the existence of some supernatural things or not.
My only problem is with the intrusion of belief systems into the important affairs of the world. That people care so much about what is written in certain old books of dubious merit that they are willing to kill about it, and if not that, then they are often all too eager to interfere in the lives of others with no other form of analysis on matters other than what is taken to be axiomatic given what is written in one of those books, literally or as a matter of interpretation and tradition.
Finally, I will not stand by while utter bunk about science and scientific concepts gets propagated to the detriment of many silent readers who may not know better (yet).
And, yes, yes, Earthling, I know all the rest you go on about as well as you do - I assure you quite boldly. I also use the name Thor and Zeus and whole pantheon of others. The names were only coincidental to the point I was making.
It does not matter to me to know all their by-names, although I may find it quite interesting as a matter of the literary tradition and practices of the cults in which they arose, whether it be one of the messianic cults of the Middle East some 2000 years ago or some fertility cult of Mesoamerica.
(But do you really want me to go hardcore textual here? Please, by all means, invite me to do so...)
However, I make my act of faith, based on certain criteria, including knowledge, reasoning, experience, reflection and discernment.
I see. So, indeed, it is not a theory, because you have not even tested any hypothesis against evidence, you have only done some thought experiments about how the world should be.
Let me now turn away from this Q and A, since it is getting pretty excruciating (excuse the pun, if you get it) for me
So, one has to ask where Earthling learned of these beings and learned of the difference between them. Well, she did answer that one, didn't she, -Martin-?
I mean on May 30th she stated:
Lucifer and God are not equal according to orthodox church teaching.
Then today, she quoted the 8th chapter of the so-called Gospel of John, when she stated:
I mean Satan as described by Jesus Christ, ie. "a murderer from the start", "father of lies", etc.
So, as we can see, we are not to know about these things or their properties by direct observation, but rather only by what is transmitted to us from a source of authority and a textual source (but, hey, I better be careful what I consider to be literal).
As far as I can see it, Earthling is not just talking in "metaphors" here, -Martin-, now is she? Well, interestingly, the text she quotes is replete with metaphors and she quotes them, but let's just see if we can recognize anything especially metaphorical in the whole set of statements, like:
I believe Jesus Christ is God-made-Flesh. I also believe in his resurrection from the dead. I try to live as a follower - disciple - of Jesus Christ. I give my allegiance, my life and my heart to HIM...
Seems pretty straightforward factual to me.
However, apparently I am a bad judge of these things. Maybe Earthling doesn't really mean this to be taken literally, after all if I said in a vow to a spouse "I give my allegiance, my life and my heart to you", I guess I could just say later, "well, you know I didn't really mean all that when I said it, it was just a saying, a figure of speech, you shouldn't have taken it too seriously...".
Maybe we should find out from Earthling whether she means it "metaphorically" or not.
Just to be clear, Earthling, I am not mocking you in the least, I really do take you at your word and believe you mean this all very sincerely - and with a good heart as well. That is exactly my point.
Earthling's definition about what is certain or not is really radical though, I mean it definitely dares not to comport with Paul's explanation of all the things the so-called "ancients" did "by faith", since the author writes:
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Particularly, in just two sentences, Paul explains how it is that
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
(By the way, this is not Genesis, it is from the Epistle to the Hebrews, lest any readers here have been duped by claims that only the really "old" Old Testament stuff (coming from different narratives, bla bla bla) makes claims about this god as the creator of the Universe and how - this is New Testament stuff, after the the death of Jesus by many years, supposedly)
This held into very recently in "orthodox church teaching".
However, the whole point here is that to use epistemological claims within apologetics does not serve a non-fundamentalist. It just is not possible to make claims about the existence of a god trying to be premised on the fact that those things that seem to run contrary to one article of faith or another cannot themselves be shown to be knowable for certain or on the incompleteness of knowledge about certain things. It is a disastrous starting point for the non-fundamentalist because the argument turns full circle and undermines certainty in all articles of faith themselves as well - not just that things exist, but even that what is said about those things is known correctly and sufficiently to make appropriate judgments.
My real point here is that one must return to the application of "faith", as exposed as that my leave the believer. And as I have just rather easily and starkly demonstrated, that is exactly what will happen as soon as the simplest questions of epistemology are really squarely put on the stage.
I have no agenda with disabusing others of their beliefs. I want to leave that to be a subtle journey for each individual, if it is indeed the way they go at all, and I actually don't think it matters whether they end their days still believing in the existence of some supernatural things or not.
My only problem is with the intrusion of belief systems into the important affairs of the world. That people care so much about what is written in certain old books of dubious merit that they are willing to kill about it, and if not that, then they are often all too eager to interfere in the lives of others with no other form of analysis on matters other than what is taken to be axiomatic given what is written in one of those books, literally or as a matter of interpretation and tradition.
Finally, I will not stand by while utter bunk about science and scientific concepts gets propagated to the detriment of many silent readers who may not know better (yet).
And, yes, yes, Earthling, I know all the rest you go on about as well as you do - I assure you quite boldly. I also use the name Thor and Zeus and whole pantheon of others. The names were only coincidental to the point I was making.
It does not matter to me to know all their by-names, although I may find it quite interesting as a matter of the literary tradition and practices of the cults in which they arose, whether it be one of the messianic cults of the Middle East some 2000 years ago or some fertility cult of Mesoamerica.
(But do you really want me to go hardcore textual here? Please, by all means, invite me to do so...)
Dato: 1/6 2013 19:51 | Indlæg redigeret den: 1/6 2013 20:37
Jeff,
*sigh*
Where to begin..
1) "the existence of a god" question that you seem obsessed with is utterly irrelevant to me. Personally as well as academically.
2) My point with bringing up epistemology in the first place was that the general consensus within the world of academia is that falsifying/verifying the actuality of a god of the Judeo-Christian variant(s)/tradition(s) falls outside the scientific field of competence. How would you go about processing such claims using standard scientific procedure? If one then as a consequence follows the Burden of Proof principle and concludes that theism is absurd, I have no problem with this. Go with peace, but before you pull the apologist card, see 1).
3) It's quite obvious that you metaphysical realist types just don't feel at home in the realms of figurative language. The language of faith plays by different rules than those of for example natural science. If it doesn't appeal to you, or you are put off by the problem of evil and/or other contradictions, I don't have a problem with this either. However, and for your own good, do consider that the language of science also happens to be one of metaphors and figures of speech, only these are of a different kind.
And finally, are you confident that a world where decision making is independent of religion would be a better place?
(Editted due to poor grammar and multiple typos.)
Jeff,
*sigh*
Where to begin..
1) "the existence of a god" question that you seem obsessed with is utterly irrelevant to me. Personally as well as academically.
2) My point with bringing up epistemology in the first place was that the general consensus within the world of academia is that falsifying/verifying the actuality of a god of the Judeo-Christian variant(s)/tradition(s) falls outside the scientific field of competence. How would you go about processing such claims using standard scientific procedure? If one then as a consequence follows the Burden of Proof principle and concludes that theism is absurd, I have no problem with this. Go with peace, but before you pull the apologist card, see 1).
3) It's quite obvious that you metaphysical realist types just don't feel at home in the realms of figurative language. The language of faith plays by different rules than those of for example natural science. If it doesn't appeal to you, or you are put off by the problem of evil and/or other contradictions, I don't have a problem with this either. However, and for your own good, do consider that the language of science also happens to be one of metaphors and figures of speech, only these are of a different kind.
And finally, are you confident that a world where decision making is independent of religion would be a better place?
(Editted due to poor grammar and multiple typos.)
Dato: 2/6 2013 00:25 | Indlæg redigeret den: 2/6 2013 00:26
Frankly, Jeff, your last little tirade absolutely disgusts me. You are just playing your old tricks, exactly as I suspected, and also being extremely dishonest, as far as I´m concerned.
You set up the terms - in this case, your questions - to serve your own agenda, and when I answer in good faith (no pun intended), you then twist what I say to use it against me. Not only that, you quote me out of context, and presume to suggest that I have no argument or evidence for what I say or the Scripture I quote. You also presume to suggest that there is no evidence (as distinct from proof) for my beliefs. The truth is, you don´t want the evidence.
If you were sincere in your quest, you would be asking for my criteria and asking how and why I come to the place where I believe what I believe. I assure you that it´s not a simple matter of quoting Scripture.
You are not even remotely interested in any possible evidence. Your mind is made up in advance. Not only that, you are locked in your world of maths and calculations. Well, I´m sorry, life is more than that... Life is more than the music score written on the page. It is more than the instruments and the musicians. It is the sound of the symphony!
Nothing I said takes away from these words from St. Paul - taken out of context as always. This too, I might add, is precisely the way Scripture is NOT supposed to be used.
You fail, as always, to distinguish between faith as a belief and faith as trust in a person. In fact, Paul´s words are built on his concrete experience of the Risen Jesus Christ and his experience of the early Christian community. As such, his faith is built on something: a Person, persons, events. It is not lived in a vacum. Furthermore, Paul´s own faith evolved, as did his understanding. He moved from being a Pharisee and Jew hating and persecuting Christians to being a Christian ready to sacrifice everything for Jesus Christ. His faith grew, changed and developed as his understanding grew. His faith also stretched out to the Gentile world, and embraced a very cosmic vision of Christ´s work of redemption. Why, he speaks of the whole of creation groaning in one great act of giving birth! (Romans 8) I think it´s one of the most beautfiul passages in the whole bible and gives a beautiful framework for an evolving creation given life and sustained by God.
What? Says who? You, who hide behind calculations, assumptions, projections and dismissal every time someone says something which doesn´t fit in your comfort zone. And anything that remotely comes near making a case is just dismissed out of hand because you are not interested in matters of faith. How convenient! If you want evidence, go back and read this entire thread, specifically the links dealing with the person of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection. Deal with that person and that event! Because when you get that right, everything else will start falling into place.
You talk of evidence! Well, I´m still waiting on the memes theory to be proven. I´m also waiting on the multi-universes theory to be proven. You know, I read an article last week posted by an atheist philosopher. The article claimed that the original calculations haven´t been read by peers yet. Indeed, it said that to date no one is able to read them... I can give you the link if you wish. Talk about taking things on faith...
Yes, YOU are mocking me, and patronising me. And using me to try and score cheap points.
This, of course, is taken entirely out of context, and deliberately so, I suspect. To say that I might not be 100% certain that I am correct is not to say I don´t believe in Jesus Christ or think that he is not real, it is to state that my own personal faith may sometimes be weak. It has nothing to do with the object of my faith.
I note that you didn´t ask me what I would be ready to sacrifice, have sacrificed, for what I believe. That would be a better measure of my certainty.
This engages sheer hyprocrisy. You extoll about the merits of classical music, literature, art, etc. which is inspired by the Christian faith. You enjoy the benefits of a university education, a career in science, good medical care, democracy, all of which are the fruit of Christians and other believers engaging in the public arena. I presume you have no problem with their public engagement. I also presume you have no problem letting doctors, nurses, firemen, soldiers, whoever, who are directly inspired by their beliefs, serve and protect you, those you love, and the rest of society.
And to be clear, all "important affairs" engage belief systems, one way or the other.
What you really saying is that you want a substancial number of people to be silenced and marginalized because you dont´agree with them. Congratulations! That´s the way to totalitarianism. You show your true colours here.
Utter bunk? How dramatic! You know perfectly well that I have never propagated "utter bunk" about science anywhere. The only thing we disagree on in this regard is the origin of life, the dignity to be accorded life, and the interpretation of scientific facts. These are issues which concern everyone, and as such, everyone should have a say.
You have issues, Jeff, but they´re not with me. Go back to where you came from and take up your battle there.
I know exactly the point you were TRYING to make. Therein lies your dishonesty. It is what I meant when I said, you set up the terms - in this case, your questions - to serve your own agenda. You never fooled me.
I am only sorry I was naive enough to believe you had enough basic decency and goodwill to hear my criteria with open-mindedness. I am also sorry I wasted my time answering your cardboard questions.
Frankly, Jeff, your last little tirade absolutely disgusts me. You are just playing your old tricks, exactly as I suspected, and also being extremely dishonest, as far as I´m concerned.
You set up the terms - in this case, your questions - to serve your own agenda, and when I answer in good faith (no pun intended), you then twist what I say to use it against me. Not only that, you quote me out of context, and presume to suggest that I have no argument or evidence for what I say or the Scripture I quote. You also presume to suggest that there is no evidence (as distinct from proof) for my beliefs. The truth is, you don´t want the evidence.
If you were sincere in your quest, you would be asking for my criteria and asking how and why I come to the place where I believe what I believe. I assure you that it´s not a simple matter of quoting Scripture.
You are not even remotely interested in any possible evidence. Your mind is made up in advance. Not only that, you are locked in your world of maths and calculations. Well, I´m sorry, life is more than that... Life is more than the music score written on the page. It is more than the instruments and the musicians. It is the sound of the symphony!
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Nothing I said takes away from these words from St. Paul - taken out of context as always. This too, I might add, is precisely the way Scripture is NOT supposed to be used.
You fail, as always, to distinguish between faith as a belief and faith as trust in a person. In fact, Paul´s words are built on his concrete experience of the Risen Jesus Christ and his experience of the early Christian community. As such, his faith is built on something: a Person, persons, events. It is not lived in a vacum. Furthermore, Paul´s own faith evolved, as did his understanding. He moved from being a Pharisee and Jew hating and persecuting Christians to being a Christian ready to sacrifice everything for Jesus Christ. His faith grew, changed and developed as his understanding grew. His faith also stretched out to the Gentile world, and embraced a very cosmic vision of Christ´s work of redemption. Why, he speaks of the whole of creation groaning in one great act of giving birth! (Romans 8) I think it´s one of the most beautfiul passages in the whole bible and gives a beautiful framework for an evolving creation given life and sustained by God.
you have not even tested any hypothesis against evidence
What? Says who? You, who hide behind calculations, assumptions, projections and dismissal every time someone says something which doesn´t fit in your comfort zone. And anything that remotely comes near making a case is just dismissed out of hand because you are not interested in matters of faith. How convenient! If you want evidence, go back and read this entire thread, specifically the links dealing with the person of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection. Deal with that person and that event! Because when you get that right, everything else will start falling into place.
You talk of evidence! Well, I´m still waiting on the memes theory to be proven. I´m also waiting on the multi-universes theory to be proven. You know, I read an article last week posted by an atheist philosopher. The article claimed that the original calculations haven´t been read by peers yet. Indeed, it said that to date no one is able to read them... I can give you the link if you wish. Talk about taking things on faith...
Just to be clear, Earthling, I am not mocking you in the least, I really do take you at your word and believe you mean this all very sincerely - and with a good heart as well. That is exactly my point.
Yes, YOU are mocking me, and patronising me. And using me to try and score cheap points.
Earthling's definition about what is certain or not is really radical though,
This, of course, is taken entirely out of context, and deliberately so, I suspect. To say that I might not be 100% certain that I am correct is not to say I don´t believe in Jesus Christ or think that he is not real, it is to state that my own personal faith may sometimes be weak. It has nothing to do with the object of my faith.
I note that you didn´t ask me what I would be ready to sacrifice, have sacrificed, for what I believe. That would be a better measure of my certainty.
My only problem is with the intrusion of belief systems into the important affairs of the world.
This engages sheer hyprocrisy. You extoll about the merits of classical music, literature, art, etc. which is inspired by the Christian faith. You enjoy the benefits of a university education, a career in science, good medical care, democracy, all of which are the fruit of Christians and other believers engaging in the public arena. I presume you have no problem with their public engagement. I also presume you have no problem letting doctors, nurses, firemen, soldiers, whoever, who are directly inspired by their beliefs, serve and protect you, those you love, and the rest of society.
And to be clear, all "important affairs" engage belief systems, one way or the other.
What you really saying is that you want a substancial number of people to be silenced and marginalized because you dont´agree with them. Congratulations! That´s the way to totalitarianism. You show your true colours here.
I will not stand by while utter bunk about science and scientific concepts gets propagated
Utter bunk? How dramatic! You know perfectly well that I have never propagated "utter bunk" about science anywhere. The only thing we disagree on in this regard is the origin of life, the dignity to be accorded life, and the interpretation of scientific facts. These are issues which concern everyone, and as such, everyone should have a say.
You have issues, Jeff, but they´re not with me. Go back to where you came from and take up your battle there.
And, yes, yes, Earthling, I know all the rest you go on about as well as you do - I assure you quite boldly. I also use the name Thor and Zeus and whole pantheon of others. The names were only coincidental to the point I was making.
I know exactly the point you were TRYING to make. Therein lies your dishonesty. It is what I meant when I said, you set up the terms - in this case, your questions - to serve your own agenda. You never fooled me.
I am only sorry I was naive enough to believe you had enough basic decency and goodwill to hear my criteria with open-mindedness. I am also sorry I wasted my time answering your cardboard questions.
Dato: 2/6 2013 01:35 | Indlæg redigeret den: 2/6 2013 10:06
It is interesting how you take every sentence I write, even the general ones, to be directed towards you.
And nearly every sentence in your post reads like there is some kind of competition or game going on here. There are no tricks, just me trying to get a straight answer.
This is just silly now.
I think after that post, I will have to bow out, gracefully or not, from this and most likely all future discussions directly with you.
It is interesting how you take every sentence I write, even the general ones, to be directed towards you.
And nearly every sentence in your post reads like there is some kind of competition or game going on here. There are no tricks, just me trying to get a straight answer.
This is just silly now.
I think after that post, I will have to bow out, gracefully or not, from this and most likely all future discussions directly with you.
Dato: 2/6 2013 02:13 | Indlæg redigeret den: 2/6 2013 10:52
-Martin-
*Sigh* here too.
WTF?
Are you just inventing stuff now? Or are you hallucinating? Or are you just lying? Nowhere have I shown any serious interest in the actual question of the existence of god on this thread or elsewhere, on the contrary. That is contrived, plain and simple.
I have deleted the rest of my reply for now, I am happy with just "WTF?", also to your other two replies, since every thing you assert just has nothing to do with my posts.
(Or makes cheap, bogus claims about how I relate to language and texts, which for anybody else here surely manifests a satisfactorily sophisticated understanding of metaphor,´simile, tropes, metonymy, synedoche, catachresis, hypostatization, diagesis, heteroglossia, polysemy, ...etc., etc.)
-Martin-
*Sigh* here too.
1) "the existence of a god" question that you seem obsessed with is utterly irrelevant to me. Personally as well as academically.
WTF?
Are you just inventing stuff now? Or are you hallucinating? Or are you just lying? Nowhere have I shown any serious interest in the actual question of the existence of god on this thread or elsewhere, on the contrary. That is contrived, plain and simple.
I have deleted the rest of my reply for now, I am happy with just "WTF?", also to your other two replies, since every thing you assert just has nothing to do with my posts.
(Or makes cheap, bogus claims about how I relate to language and texts, which for anybody else here surely manifests a satisfactorily sophisticated understanding of metaphor,´simile, tropes, metonymy, synedoche, catachresis, hypostatization, diagesis, heteroglossia, polysemy, ...etc., etc.)
Dato: 2/6 2013 12:18 | Indlæg redigeret den: 2/6 2013 12:19
Jeff,
I did read your original reply last night which I chose not to dignify with an answer. Let's not go there. That said, debate is a contact sport and you get bruised, so no hard feelings on my part.
But let's try to clear up the confusion as I think our exchange is rather incoherent. Allow me to (re)introduce two terms that are used in two different ways: ontology and epistemology. Since we agree (pretty much) on their meaning within science, there's no need for further exhaustion there. The aim of science is to produce facts; (some level of) certainty, consistency and predictability that constitute the basis for more science, and for technology - you know the drill. This is our first use.
The second use, which is how the terms are used in Christianity, works somewhat differently. I suppose I won't offend anyone by defining Christianity as an interpretaiton of the life and death of a very particular person. The central claim in the Christian faith is that God became man. That's the ontological part. The epistemological part is believing in this. The incarnation was a paradox, a mystery, a scandal then as it remains now, but how exactly Christians mentally construe it and its implications differs enormously even within the same denominations. Hence the inconsistency. Some people have very concrete ideas while others shape abstractions and elaborations that verge on secular philosophy.* Either way it's a different kind of ontology and epistemology than that of (hard) science. It's faith in spite of uncertainty.
* See for example: http://cphpost.dk/culture/who/who-thorkild-grosb%C3%B8ll
Edit: Link added.
Jeff,
I did read your original reply last night which I chose not to dignify with an answer. Let's not go there. That said, debate is a contact sport and you get bruised, so no hard feelings on my part.
But let's try to clear up the confusion as I think our exchange is rather incoherent. Allow me to (re)introduce two terms that are used in two different ways: ontology and epistemology. Since we agree (pretty much) on their meaning within science, there's no need for further exhaustion there. The aim of science is to produce facts; (some level of) certainty, consistency and predictability that constitute the basis for more science, and for technology - you know the drill. This is our first use.
The second use, which is how the terms are used in Christianity, works somewhat differently. I suppose I won't offend anyone by defining Christianity as an interpretaiton of the life and death of a very particular person. The central claim in the Christian faith is that God became man. That's the ontological part. The epistemological part is believing in this. The incarnation was a paradox, a mystery, a scandal then as it remains now, but how exactly Christians mentally construe it and its implications differs enormously even within the same denominations. Hence the inconsistency. Some people have very concrete ideas while others shape abstractions and elaborations that verge on secular philosophy.* Either way it's a different kind of ontology and epistemology than that of (hard) science. It's faith in spite of uncertainty.
* See for example: http://cphpost.dk/culture/who/who-thorkild-grosb%C3%B8ll
Edit: Link added.
Dato: 2/6 2013 13:35
OK, Jeff - I've been on a wild goose chase, reading up on those things, you posed links for, and I don't see the relevance of it at all.
The only thing that seems to play into it is the concept of "satisficing". Is that what you're hinting at?
It is annoying as hell that I have to guess. Not to mention the fact that you don't present your claims, but rather tell people to read treatises, rather than presenting and representing the basic claims of these treatises yourself. That is what Sam Harris would do.
I defined rationality as "basing one's beliefs about the world on evidence and logic only".
- What else COULD one base it on? Obviously, the only thing that falls outside of this is WISHES. Subjectivity is the problem. We shouldn't believe what we wish (or negatively, what we fear), but rather what seems to be the case.
It is a standard of intellectual honesty, akin to Sam Harris' talk of "honestly evaluating the evidence".
The fact that people aren't always completely anal about the precision of a belief - but rather settle for less precise measurements where that is enough for the results that they want to achieve - is not contrary to my definition of rationality. As you said - satisficing works.
The opposite is actually the case. If people obsessed about precision beyond what is necessary for the desired results, THAT would be irrational - even autistic.
Other writings about cognitive biases actually do well describe our tendencies to be truly irrational, and a rationalist will acquaint himself with these, to counteract them. - "Know thyself".
Being a rationalist is to believe that people SHOULD be rational - not that people ARE rational, automatically. Then there would be nothing to propagate and no problem to fight.
Rationality, like most words, is very ambiguous. But what rationalists are against is not honest mistakes in reasoning. How can you be against those? The problem is when the "mistakes" are DIShonest, and people REFUSE to correct them or admit their faultiness. This is when the subjective interferes with the objective, and that is what rationalists oppose.
Likewise, obviously, "culture" is an ambiguous word. Bacterial culture is obviously not "just a collection of bad habits", like I said. Why didn't you hang me on that?
I was replying to Martin's comment that
It is in this context - when we choose to do something because it has been done by our society for a long time - that "culture" becomes unthinking habit.
And I wasn't DEFINING culture, but making a CLAIM about it. Philosophers will do that. We are not always content with dictionary definitions, but look beyond them, to the phenomena that they refer to. And if the linguistic apparatus is bad, we make up a better linguistic apparatus. We shamelessly redefine words and make up new theories, after the principle of what makes sense.
OK, Jeff - I've been on a wild goose chase, reading up on those things, you posed links for, and I don't see the relevance of it at all.
The only thing that seems to play into it is the concept of "satisficing". Is that what you're hinting at?
It is annoying as hell that I have to guess. Not to mention the fact that you don't present your claims, but rather tell people to read treatises, rather than presenting and representing the basic claims of these treatises yourself. That is what Sam Harris would do.
I defined rationality as "basing one's beliefs about the world on evidence and logic only".
- What else COULD one base it on? Obviously, the only thing that falls outside of this is WISHES. Subjectivity is the problem. We shouldn't believe what we wish (or negatively, what we fear), but rather what seems to be the case.
It is a standard of intellectual honesty, akin to Sam Harris' talk of "honestly evaluating the evidence".
The fact that people aren't always completely anal about the precision of a belief - but rather settle for less precise measurements where that is enough for the results that they want to achieve - is not contrary to my definition of rationality. As you said - satisficing works.
The opposite is actually the case. If people obsessed about precision beyond what is necessary for the desired results, THAT would be irrational - even autistic.
Other writings about cognitive biases actually do well describe our tendencies to be truly irrational, and a rationalist will acquaint himself with these, to counteract them. - "Know thyself".
Being a rationalist is to believe that people SHOULD be rational - not that people ARE rational, automatically. Then there would be nothing to propagate and no problem to fight.
Rationality, like most words, is very ambiguous. But what rationalists are against is not honest mistakes in reasoning. How can you be against those? The problem is when the "mistakes" are DIShonest, and people REFUSE to correct them or admit their faultiness. This is when the subjective interferes with the objective, and that is what rationalists oppose.
Likewise, obviously, "culture" is an ambiguous word. Bacterial culture is obviously not "just a collection of bad habits", like I said. Why didn't you hang me on that?
I was replying to Martin's comment that
we base our lives and our technology on science, and that is all honky dory, but religion can provide so many marvelous insights in addition, and it's an important part of our cultural heritage.
It is in this context - when we choose to do something because it has been done by our society for a long time - that "culture" becomes unthinking habit.
And I wasn't DEFINING culture, but making a CLAIM about it. Philosophers will do that. We are not always content with dictionary definitions, but look beyond them, to the phenomena that they refer to. And if the linguistic apparatus is bad, we make up a better linguistic apparatus. We shamelessly redefine words and make up new theories, after the principle of what makes sense.
Dato: 2/6 2013 13:48 | Indlæg redigeret den: 2/6 2013 20:23
-Martin-,
To be clear, I only deleted my original reply for the sake of brevity, not because I found it particularly egregious in any other way.
I would be careful with the use of the relative clause in your description of the aim of science, it could be read as solipsistic and incestuous. A full stop at the end of "The aim of science is to produce facts; (some level of) certainty, consistency and predictability...", and a "this" instead of a "that" at the beginning of the next statement, like "This constitutes the basis for more science, and for technology..." would help avoid some confusion.
My point here is that it is not the primary aim of science to produce more science and I am hoping it was not your intention to imply such.
Secondly, I am not really sure that terms like ontology and epistemology have much use in (hardcore) science at all - I suppose you mean more philosophy of science. Yes, here, these matters get addressed.
As to whether ontology and epistemology are active terms within the philosophy of religion per se, I am not able to say, but they are terms that have meanings that are more or less standard within philosophy as a general field and it is upon this tradition and the productivity of these terms that I am relying.
Yes, no doubt, some small minority of believers have abstract views about the objects of religion. I have already conceded this point rather early on, at least implicitly.
The problem is not that you assert this viewpoint, I got that early on as well. It is that you seem to spirit away all other kinds of belief and the majority of believers (I already produced the evidence concerning several hundred million US citizens alone). And either you are concerned with a particular viewpoint (my guess is that this is the reason) or you are being less than honest or at least less than factual (since this not an easily tenable posture in light of what most of us just know from everyday experience and what we encounter in mainstream news, I am guessing this is not where you are coming from).
I am perfectly aware of what faith is - also within the context of main religious doctrine: it seems like I am the only one who learned anything in Sunday school around here, be it Hebrews 11 or Luther's Small Catechism on the Apostles' Creed, etc. (It seems absurd for me to say so to a nun and a theologian, but that is what happens when the whole thing looks a little like a shell game).
And this is my whole point, already demonstrated in Earthling's last reply and that before it. If there is no argument to be made from a position of certainty, then the argument from gaps in knowledge (qua kindness, beauty, etc.) of the kind that Earthling very explicitly and manifestly just recently made (and often makes) fails - unless we open for the fundamentalism you seem to constantly wish to diminish.
Do I share the view of many New Atheists that religious moderates often inadvertently provide shelter for the evils of other heinous forms of belief (I don't even just mean zealots and terrorists, but anyone who would interfere with education or the rights of two people to marry)?
Yes, I actually do, but I can say very plainly and sincerely that that is not the point I was ever making in this thread.
-Martin-,
To be clear, I only deleted my original reply for the sake of brevity, not because I found it particularly egregious in any other way.
I would be careful with the use of the relative clause in your description of the aim of science, it could be read as solipsistic and incestuous. A full stop at the end of "The aim of science is to produce facts; (some level of) certainty, consistency and predictability...", and a "this" instead of a "that" at the beginning of the next statement, like "This constitutes the basis for more science, and for technology..." would help avoid some confusion.
My point here is that it is not the primary aim of science to produce more science and I am hoping it was not your intention to imply such.
Secondly, I am not really sure that terms like ontology and epistemology have much use in (hardcore) science at all - I suppose you mean more philosophy of science. Yes, here, these matters get addressed.
As to whether ontology and epistemology are active terms within the philosophy of religion per se, I am not able to say, but they are terms that have meanings that are more or less standard within philosophy as a general field and it is upon this tradition and the productivity of these terms that I am relying.
Yes, no doubt, some small minority of believers have abstract views about the objects of religion. I have already conceded this point rather early on, at least implicitly.
The problem is not that you assert this viewpoint, I got that early on as well. It is that you seem to spirit away all other kinds of belief and the majority of believers (I already produced the evidence concerning several hundred million US citizens alone). And either you are concerned with a particular viewpoint (my guess is that this is the reason) or you are being less than honest or at least less than factual (since this not an easily tenable posture in light of what most of us just know from everyday experience and what we encounter in mainstream news, I am guessing this is not where you are coming from).
I am perfectly aware of what faith is - also within the context of main religious doctrine: it seems like I am the only one who learned anything in Sunday school around here, be it Hebrews 11 or Luther's Small Catechism on the Apostles' Creed, etc. (It seems absurd for me to say so to a nun and a theologian, but that is what happens when the whole thing looks a little like a shell game).
And this is my whole point, already demonstrated in Earthling's last reply and that before it. If there is no argument to be made from a position of certainty, then the argument from gaps in knowledge (qua kindness, beauty, etc.) of the kind that Earthling very explicitly and manifestly just recently made (and often makes) fails - unless we open for the fundamentalism you seem to constantly wish to diminish.
Do I share the view of many New Atheists that religious moderates often inadvertently provide shelter for the evils of other heinous forms of belief (I don't even just mean zealots and terrorists, but anyone who would interfere with education or the rights of two people to marry)?
Yes, I actually do, but I can say very plainly and sincerely that that is not the point I was ever making in this thread.
Dato: 2/6 2013 14:10 | Indlæg redigeret den: 2/6 2013 15:05
John,
First of all, no, Sam Harris does not always do what you claim. I am not going to demonstrate this (although I did actually do something like this once w.r.t. another assertion you tried to make of this kind) - it is fruitless, just as presenting evidence on myriad other things when you are wrong just elicits radio silence.
And why are you always comparing me to Sam Harris? I have 0 ambition to be Sam Harris nor do I think that we should set that ambition for any other person than Sam Harris. I really don't even get why you bring this kind of craziness into the discussion. It is certainly one of the more absurd kinds of conversational habits I have encountered and were I to encounter it with others in real life settings, I would roll my eyes and wonder what was going on.
Although we could use this space to debate on rationality and cognitive biases, etc. it is now several pages later and the relevance of the point is mostly lost. If you really want to debate it, drop me a line - that is a sincere invitation.
You are welcome to make up definitions as you please. I can't really do much about it. You tend to do it, even when talking about slime molds, about which you obviously know nothing yet feel at liberty to define for us as molds, without regret.
The only thing I ever wished to hang you on was your assertion that culture is merely and always a collection of bad habits. I feel pretty certain that just about everyone else reading that claim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist or atheist, is just saying to him/herself, "huh? surely he means something better than that, why doesn't he just amend the statement?".
(If you really grasped the papers I linked you to, then you would get that there may also be collections of good habits which are not fully rational - although the original point I was making was different and had to do with the erroneous general assertion that full rationality belonged to Homo sapiens as a thus far successful evolutionary adaptation*)
Anyway, culture is culture and bad habits are bad habits.
Believing bad things without scrutiny does very often lead to bad consequence, yes, on that we can agree.
With that said, if you mean that argumentum ad antiquitatem is a logical fallacy and leaves us apt to inherit errors in judgment, then let's just agree on that, because I have no problem with that. However, that is not the same as what culture is and does.
Finally, I have no problem with the following (apart from the difference between making "mistakes in reasoning" and boundedly or ecologically rational decision making)
However, you don't need to state it for me (I think that is pretty obvious to anyone, given even just numerous posts on this thread) and why didn't you state that in the first place instead of latching onto and becoming entrenched around the particular signifier "culture"?
*And just to make sure that we are clear on what I originally asserted:
As you can see, I have not tried to squirm away from my original point in the least...
John,
First of all, no, Sam Harris does not always do what you claim. I am not going to demonstrate this (although I did actually do something like this once w.r.t. another assertion you tried to make of this kind) - it is fruitless, just as presenting evidence on myriad other things when you are wrong just elicits radio silence.
And why are you always comparing me to Sam Harris? I have 0 ambition to be Sam Harris nor do I think that we should set that ambition for any other person than Sam Harris. I really don't even get why you bring this kind of craziness into the discussion. It is certainly one of the more absurd kinds of conversational habits I have encountered and were I to encounter it with others in real life settings, I would roll my eyes and wonder what was going on.
Although we could use this space to debate on rationality and cognitive biases, etc. it is now several pages later and the relevance of the point is mostly lost. If you really want to debate it, drop me a line - that is a sincere invitation.
You are welcome to make up definitions as you please. I can't really do much about it. You tend to do it, even when talking about slime molds, about which you obviously know nothing yet feel at liberty to define for us as molds, without regret.
The only thing I ever wished to hang you on was your assertion that culture is merely and always a collection of bad habits. I feel pretty certain that just about everyone else reading that claim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist or atheist, is just saying to him/herself, "huh? surely he means something better than that, why doesn't he just amend the statement?".
(If you really grasped the papers I linked you to, then you would get that there may also be collections of good habits which are not fully rational - although the original point I was making was different and had to do with the erroneous general assertion that full rationality belonged to Homo sapiens as a thus far successful evolutionary adaptation*)
Anyway, culture is culture and bad habits are bad habits.
Believing bad things without scrutiny does very often lead to bad consequence, yes, on that we can agree.
With that said, if you mean that argumentum ad antiquitatem is a logical fallacy and leaves us apt to inherit errors in judgment, then let's just agree on that, because I have no problem with that. However, that is not the same as what culture is and does.
Finally, I have no problem with the following (apart from the difference between making "mistakes in reasoning" and boundedly or ecologically rational decision making)
...what rationalists are against is not honest mistakes in reasoning. How can you be against those? The problem is when the "mistakes" are DIShonest, and people REFUSE to correct them or admit their faultiness. This is when the subjective interferes with the objective, and that is what rationalists oppose
However, you don't need to state it for me (I think that is pretty obvious to anyone, given even just numerous posts on this thread) and why didn't you state that in the first place instead of latching onto and becoming entrenched around the particular signifier "culture"?
*And just to make sure that we are clear on what I originally asserted:
Much of what you are asserting belies what is the current understanding of how humans learn and how we take up new things. You are constructing a mode of being and behavior that is patently abstract and detached from the actual patterns of behavior in our species we observe, nor has any empirical demonstration been given showing that what you claim about "rationality" in the way argue it (as antagonistic to or least repellent of cultural transmission) is viable under selection (this also a tall order, but such experiments actually abound in biology and in the new field of mathematical biology, which can explore computationally what is not easily conducted otherwise)
As you can see, I have not tried to squirm away from my original point in the least...
Dato: 2/6 2013 18:39 | Indlæg redigeret den: 3/6 2013 09:51
Jeff,
How do you know this?
Copy/paste from my own post: "how exactly Christians mentally construe it and its implications differs enormously even within the same denominations. Hence the inconsistency. Some people have very concrete ideas while others shape abstractions and elaborations that verge on secular philosophy.* " In what way am I being biased or dishonest here?
I'm not sure what you mean with "several hundred million US citizens alone", but I suppose you're referring to American Evangelicalism. This was exactly my point with my first post in this thread: The internet science/religion 'war' reflects positions in (mainly American) New Atheism and Fundamentalism where the first is a reaction to the latter. The circle is closed.
So, according to you it's either certainty or Fundamentalism? Religious basically claims stem from ignorance?
Editted as per request from Jeff.
Jeff,
Yes, no doubt, some small minority of believers have abstract views about the objects of religion. I have already conceded this point rather early on, at least implicitly.
How do you know this?
The problem is not that you assert this viewpoint, I got that early on as well. It is that you seem to spirit away all other kinds of belief and the majority of believers (I already produced the evidence concerning several hundred million US citizens alone). And either you are concerned with a particular viewpoint (my guess is that this is the reason) or you are being less than honest or at least less than factual (since this not an easily tenable posture in light of what most of us just know from everyday experience and what we encounter in mainstream news, I am guessing this is not where you are coming from).
Copy/paste from my own post: "how exactly Christians mentally construe it and its implications differs enormously even within the same denominations. Hence the inconsistency. Some people have very concrete ideas while others shape abstractions and elaborations that verge on secular philosophy.* " In what way am I being biased or dishonest here?
I'm not sure what you mean with "several hundred million US citizens alone", but I suppose you're referring to American Evangelicalism. This was exactly my point with my first post in this thread: The internet science/religion 'war' reflects positions in (mainly American) New Atheism and Fundamentalism where the first is a reaction to the latter. The circle is closed.
I am perfectly aware of what faith is - also within the context of main religious doctrine: it seems like I am the only one who learned anything in Sunday school around here, be it Hebrews 11 or Luther's Small Catechism on the Apostles' Creed, etc. (It seems absurd for me to say so to a nun and a theologian, but that is what happens when the whole thing looks a little like a shell game).
And this is my whole point, already demonstrated in Earthling's last reply and that before it. If there is no argument to be made from a position of certainty, then the argument from gaps in knowledge (qua kindness, beauty, etc.) of the kind that Earthling very explicitly and manifestly just recently made (and often makes) fails - unless we open for the fundamentalism you seem to constantly wish to diminish.
And this is my whole point, already demonstrated in Earthling's last reply and that before it. If there is no argument to be made from a position of certainty, then the argument from gaps in knowledge (qua kindness, beauty, etc.) of the kind that Earthling very explicitly and manifestly just recently made (and often makes) fails - unless we open for the fundamentalism you seem to constantly wish to diminish.
So, according to you it's either certainty or Fundamentalism? Religious basically claims stem from ignorance?
Editted as per request from Jeff.
Dato: 2/6 2013 20:21 | Indlæg redigeret den: 3/6 2013 10:34
I know about what believers report from countless large-scale studies - it surprises me that you apparently doubt this. Of course, there could be a considerable degree of uncertainty associated with these projections, but the game you seem to be playing is simply not one that gets played in serious academics - I hope you know this.
W.r.t. ""several hundred US citizens alone""
I meant hundred million US citizens (I left a word out). I will edit my original post and then please edit yours so that neither of us perpetuates this error willfully.
However, studies reveal a larger portion of the British (hence non-American) population than you seem to expect. Additionally, regardless of what you want to portray here, the main expectation, as far as I know, is also for a considerable degree of orthodox, devout belief in many Middle Eastern nations.
Please, -Martin-, you are just not being honest anymore if you are trying to portray this as a singularly American phenomenon. Yes, within Christianity I agree that we see the strongest tendency in the US, but Christianity is not the only religion around. No one is going to be persuaded by this argument who can pick up a newspaper or turn on the television.
And, I think you are misunderstanding something: no, it is not certainty or Fundamentalism. That is not my point. Nor is it to advance a hackneyed view like "religious claims stem from ignorance". The more you read me as a New Atheist (something I sincerely believe is your intention, unfortunately, since it suits your viewpoint and what I gather is central to your recent thesis), the more you will make errors in parsing what is not really very complicated rhetoric (believe me, if I wanted to use rhetoric of that kind, I certainly could).
The point, once again, is that positions that invoke belief in the way that you have (and the way it is described both in scripture and doctrine) cannot make claims which leverage epistemology against inconsistencies between what is observable, testable, reasonable, from the standpoint of direct experience and what is held to be true as an object of religion.
I have already shown why this is so several posts ago and Earthling's posts show the cognitive dissonance (mentioned early on in this thread) that arises in trying to resemble a non-fundamentalist while asserting a position concerning what is knowable about the existence and nature of supernatural beings. What happens is a flight back to "faith" as source of assurance (as Paul writes) and a long statement of what is considered factual on that very basis (and what in form resembles much of what fundamentalism claims).
As you well know, fundamentalism (certainly Christian forms but also forms in many other religions) takes it point of departure not in a position that entertains the epistemological problems you and I so freely discuss. It adheres to claims of the inerrancy of scriptural texts (primarily in a literalist interpretation), claims of historicity and facts concerning person and events, such as prophets and miracles, etc.
Let me boil this down to what I disagree about in your position:
1) That it is only in the USA that religion plays the role we are discussing.
2) That religion is just a function of figurative language and that literalism and claims about the nature of the Universe are not really at stake in the role of religion for hundreds of millions if not billions of people around the planet.
3) That defending views on tenets of religion that violate what is well understood about the mechanics of the Universe is logically achievable through asking about the knowability of these things at all.
Finally, I am still really waiting for you to take back your assertion that I am interested (you said "obsessed") in the question of the existence of god. This is simply not true and you cannot provide nothing to demonstrate it to be so.
I know about what believers report from countless large-scale studies - it surprises me that you apparently doubt this. Of course, there could be a considerable degree of uncertainty associated with these projections, but the game you seem to be playing is simply not one that gets played in serious academics - I hope you know this.
W.r.t. ""several hundred US citizens alone""
I meant hundred million US citizens (I left a word out). I will edit my original post and then please edit yours so that neither of us perpetuates this error willfully.
However, studies reveal a larger portion of the British (hence non-American) population than you seem to expect. Additionally, regardless of what you want to portray here, the main expectation, as far as I know, is also for a considerable degree of orthodox, devout belief in many Middle Eastern nations.
Please, -Martin-, you are just not being honest anymore if you are trying to portray this as a singularly American phenomenon. Yes, within Christianity I agree that we see the strongest tendency in the US, but Christianity is not the only religion around. No one is going to be persuaded by this argument who can pick up a newspaper or turn on the television.
And, I think you are misunderstanding something: no, it is not certainty or Fundamentalism. That is not my point. Nor is it to advance a hackneyed view like "religious claims stem from ignorance". The more you read me as a New Atheist (something I sincerely believe is your intention, unfortunately, since it suits your viewpoint and what I gather is central to your recent thesis), the more you will make errors in parsing what is not really very complicated rhetoric (believe me, if I wanted to use rhetoric of that kind, I certainly could).
The point, once again, is that positions that invoke belief in the way that you have (and the way it is described both in scripture and doctrine) cannot make claims which leverage epistemology against inconsistencies between what is observable, testable, reasonable, from the standpoint of direct experience and what is held to be true as an object of religion.
I have already shown why this is so several posts ago and Earthling's posts show the cognitive dissonance (mentioned early on in this thread) that arises in trying to resemble a non-fundamentalist while asserting a position concerning what is knowable about the existence and nature of supernatural beings. What happens is a flight back to "faith" as source of assurance (as Paul writes) and a long statement of what is considered factual on that very basis (and what in form resembles much of what fundamentalism claims).
As you well know, fundamentalism (certainly Christian forms but also forms in many other religions) takes it point of departure not in a position that entertains the epistemological problems you and I so freely discuss. It adheres to claims of the inerrancy of scriptural texts (primarily in a literalist interpretation), claims of historicity and facts concerning person and events, such as prophets and miracles, etc.
Let me boil this down to what I disagree about in your position:
1) That it is only in the USA that religion plays the role we are discussing.
2) That religion is just a function of figurative language and that literalism and claims about the nature of the Universe are not really at stake in the role of religion for hundreds of millions if not billions of people around the planet.
3) That defending views on tenets of religion that violate what is well understood about the mechanics of the Universe is logically achievable through asking about the knowability of these things at all.
Finally, I am still really waiting for you to take back your assertion that I am interested (you said "obsessed") in the question of the existence of god. This is simply not true and you cannot provide nothing to demonstrate it to be so.
Dato: 3/6 2013 01:17 | Indlæg redigeret den: 3/6 2013 01:19
Jeff,
It´s rather difficult to know when what you say is not personal, given that my name is regularly mentioned in your comments to Martin and when your objective is to "expose" my belief as somehow fraudulent... It is also difficult for me to know which of your general sentences exclude me and which include me...
It is unfortunate if you think that my comments are competitive or a game. I assure you that such a notion is incorrect. I am interested in constructive dialogue and better understanding. I take you seriously. It is the reason why I respond to you and why I am going to read Origin of the Species. However, it´s a difficult path to walk. You have come at me with several insinuations about both my motivation and my character. You also have what I consider a very limited and one-sided concept of faith. Then, there is the noteworthy fact that I am a lone ranger on the thread, ie. outnumbered by atheists and agnostics...
I find it hard to believe you want “straight” answers, given that you want to define, limit and shape the conversation, and given that you only address religion and faith in the most general terms. It seems to me that you only want answers to suit your own agenda. It makes dialogue very difficult, if not impossible.
It seems to me like you never got beyond Sunday school...
I find it rather amusing that you, an atheist, think you have to right to define faith for me and lecture me about how and what to believe. It is perfectly pheasible to say that I believe in God as the Origin and Sustainer of the Universe and in Jesus Christ as God Incarnate as a matter of faith, while sometimes having personal difficulty in trusting that God due to my own weakness. Faith is purified and forged in doubt.
Hebrews 11 is one letter out of several in the New Testament. It is not a Gospel. It was written specifically to the new Jewish Christians to help them bridge the gap between their old faith and their new faith. I suggest that you put it in the broader context of the four Gospels, the rest of the New Testament letters, and in the broader context of the Early Church Fathers.
A shell game? My faith is no shell game. It is built solidly on Jesus Christ. The trouble is you are only prepared to see him as a vague figure who lived in the past. I have recommended – and recommend again – that you earnestly investigate the evidence for his Resurrection. I would also recommend that you earnestly ponder the prophetic words he is on record as having spoken 2,000 years ago (Matthew 16:18). Is it really only coincidence that his Church is still here today?
Interesting that you mention the Lutheran Catechism. Luther was right to speak up about the corruption to be found in the Church. Sadly, the Church leaders of the time were slow to take it to heart... However, the Church did go on to reform itself (Council of Trent). In the meantime, Luther pursued a radical new path. He took it upon himself to run “solo”, something which is entirely unscriptural, and against the stated desire of Jesus Christ who prayed that his followers would be ONE (John 17). Added to that, serious decisions are never taken by one person, either in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament (see Acts 15). He also removed six books from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and wanted to remove the Letter of St. James , with its emphasis on deeds as an expression of faith. He talked about “Sola Scriptura” which is non-Biblical, ie. not to be found anywhere in the Bible. It doesn´t even make sense, given that the early Christians EXPERIENCED Jesus Christ for themselves and/or had the Good News PREACHED to them by those who had long before the Bible as we know it came into being. Luther also added the word “alone” when translating from Greek to the vernacular, and then proposed “by faith alone we are saved”... He presents mankind as being fundamentally bad, something which cuts right across the grain of Genesis 1-2 which states clearly that all God created is good and that humanity is made in God´s image. That indicates that Creation retains its fundamental goodness even after the Fall and Man retains God´s image in his being, even after the Fall. Creation is WOUNDED, Man is WOUNDED, not bad. Hence, the Catholic teaching that “Grace BUILDS ON Nature”. I might also add that Luther set faith and reason up against each other as opposites, something foreign to both the Bible and the Early Church. He was also rabidly anti-semitic towards the end of his life. All in all, I would say he created more problems than he solved...
In view of all this, we are obviously not going to agree on some things, given that some aspects of Lutheran teaching are the very opposite of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) teaches. You might consider acquainting yourself with it a little.
And for the record, I am not a theologian. I take it as a compliment that you think I am. Anything I say is the fruit of 30 years of conscious commitment, prayer, reflection, pondering, reading and discussion, including discussion with atheists AND the daily lived experience of my faith in Jesus Christ.
That is a pity, Jeff, but you must do what you see fit. However I would say that if you are not going to do me the courtesy of addressing me directly, then do not address me indirectly either. I wish you well.
For anyone who might be interested, a few articles looking at science and faith
Science and Faith - R. Jeffrey Grace
http://www.hprweb.com/2012/05/science-and-faith/
Is the Church at War With Science? - Benjamin Wiker
https://catholiccourses.benedictpress.com/lounge/2012/02/17/is-the-church-at-war-with-science/
The Christian Roots of Modern Science - Tony Listi
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/the-christian-roots-of-modern-science/
Scientists baffled by Laws of Nature
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html
Astronomy and Belief, Guy Consolmagno SJ
http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20130418_1.htm
The Accidental Universe: Science’s crisis of faith - Alan Lightman
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/the-accidental-universe/
Jeff,
It is interesting how you take every sentence I write, even the general ones, to be directed towards you.
And nearly every sentence in your post reads like there is some kind of competition or game going on here. There are no tricks, just me trying to get a straight answer.
And nearly every sentence in your post reads like there is some kind of competition or game going on here. There are no tricks, just me trying to get a straight answer.
It´s rather difficult to know when what you say is not personal, given that my name is regularly mentioned in your comments to Martin and when your objective is to "expose" my belief as somehow fraudulent... It is also difficult for me to know which of your general sentences exclude me and which include me...
It is unfortunate if you think that my comments are competitive or a game. I assure you that such a notion is incorrect. I am interested in constructive dialogue and better understanding. I take you seriously. It is the reason why I respond to you and why I am going to read Origin of the Species. However, it´s a difficult path to walk. You have come at me with several insinuations about both my motivation and my character. You also have what I consider a very limited and one-sided concept of faith. Then, there is the noteworthy fact that I am a lone ranger on the thread, ie. outnumbered by atheists and agnostics...
I find it hard to believe you want “straight” answers, given that you want to define, limit and shape the conversation, and given that you only address religion and faith in the most general terms. It seems to me that you only want answers to suit your own agenda. It makes dialogue very difficult, if not impossible.
I am perfectly aware of what faith is - also within the context of main religious doctrine: it seems like I am the only one who learned anything in Sunday school around here, be it Hebrews 11 or Luther's Small Catechism on the Apostles' Creed, etc. (It seems absurd for me to say so to a nun and a theologian, but that is what happens when the whole thing looks a little like a shell game).
It seems to me like you never got beyond Sunday school...
I find it rather amusing that you, an atheist, think you have to right to define faith for me and lecture me about how and what to believe. It is perfectly pheasible to say that I believe in God as the Origin and Sustainer of the Universe and in Jesus Christ as God Incarnate as a matter of faith, while sometimes having personal difficulty in trusting that God due to my own weakness. Faith is purified and forged in doubt. Hebrews 11 is one letter out of several in the New Testament. It is not a Gospel. It was written specifically to the new Jewish Christians to help them bridge the gap between their old faith and their new faith. I suggest that you put it in the broader context of the four Gospels, the rest of the New Testament letters, and in the broader context of the Early Church Fathers.
A shell game? My faith is no shell game. It is built solidly on Jesus Christ. The trouble is you are only prepared to see him as a vague figure who lived in the past. I have recommended – and recommend again – that you earnestly investigate the evidence for his Resurrection. I would also recommend that you earnestly ponder the prophetic words he is on record as having spoken 2,000 years ago (Matthew 16:18). Is it really only coincidence that his Church is still here today?
Interesting that you mention the Lutheran Catechism. Luther was right to speak up about the corruption to be found in the Church. Sadly, the Church leaders of the time were slow to take it to heart... However, the Church did go on to reform itself (Council of Trent). In the meantime, Luther pursued a radical new path. He took it upon himself to run “solo”, something which is entirely unscriptural, and against the stated desire of Jesus Christ who prayed that his followers would be ONE (John 17). Added to that, serious decisions are never taken by one person, either in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament (see Acts 15). He also removed six books from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and wanted to remove the Letter of St. James , with its emphasis on deeds as an expression of faith. He talked about “Sola Scriptura” which is non-Biblical, ie. not to be found anywhere in the Bible. It doesn´t even make sense, given that the early Christians EXPERIENCED Jesus Christ for themselves and/or had the Good News PREACHED to them by those who had long before the Bible as we know it came into being. Luther also added the word “alone” when translating from Greek to the vernacular, and then proposed “by faith alone we are saved”... He presents mankind as being fundamentally bad, something which cuts right across the grain of Genesis 1-2 which states clearly that all God created is good and that humanity is made in God´s image. That indicates that Creation retains its fundamental goodness even after the Fall and Man retains God´s image in his being, even after the Fall. Creation is WOUNDED, Man is WOUNDED, not bad. Hence, the Catholic teaching that “Grace BUILDS ON Nature”. I might also add that Luther set faith and reason up against each other as opposites, something foreign to both the Bible and the Early Church. He was also rabidly anti-semitic towards the end of his life. All in all, I would say he created more problems than he solved...
In view of all this, we are obviously not going to agree on some things, given that some aspects of Lutheran teaching are the very opposite of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) teaches. You might consider acquainting yourself with it a little.
And for the record, I am not a theologian. I take it as a compliment that you think I am.
Anything I say is the fruit of 30 years of conscious commitment, prayer, reflection, pondering, reading and discussion, including discussion with atheists AND the daily lived experience of my faith in Jesus Christ. I think after that post, I will have to bow out, gracefully or not, from this and most likely all future discussions directly with you.
That is a pity, Jeff, but you must do what you see fit. However I would say that if you are not going to do me the courtesy of addressing me directly, then do not address me indirectly either. I wish you well.
For anyone who might be interested, a few articles looking at science and faith
Science and Faith - R. Jeffrey Grace
http://www.hprweb.com/2012/05/science-and-faith/
Is the Church at War With Science? - Benjamin Wiker
https://catholiccourses.benedictpress.com/lounge/2012/02/17/is-the-church-at-war-with-science/
The Christian Roots of Modern Science - Tony Listi
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/the-christian-roots-of-modern-science/
Scientists baffled by Laws of Nature
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html
Astronomy and Belief, Guy Consolmagno SJ
http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20130418_1.htm
The Accidental Universe: Science’s crisis of faith - Alan Lightman
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/the-accidental-universe/
Dato: 3/6 2013 08:39 | Indlæg redigeret den: 3/6 2013 10:33
Earthling,
Fair enough if due to the number of occasions that I do converse directly (or sometimes about your posts), you come to assume that some comments are directed to or about you. However, you really do lament too much about what gets said about your position as if it is a comment about your person. I am only one of many who notices this to you.
If you would stop tallying and using words like "fair" and "played along", etc. then you may reduce the amount of unintended metaphor about the discussion.
Yes, the Hebrews verse is one in many, but so is "Love thy neighbor..." or "Blessed are..." or "The Lord is my shepherd...". It is a verse that is often taught because it is doctrinal for what faith is in Christianity. If you want to argue about this, let's do it.
I mentioned Luther's Small Catechism because it is doctrinal for Lutheranism and Denmark is largely Lutheran country and because it instructs on "faith" explicitly.
I don't define faith, Paul does (among others). However, if you would bother to read the context of the discussion, you would realize that I am not taking issue with your definition of faith at all, quite the contrary. To be honest, I don't think you understand completely the discussion with -Martin- (or perhaps you are misreading it) which has to do with self-erosive apologetics that leverage arguments concerning what is knowable. Anselm, for instance, was a little more clever than just giving some flimsy, pedestrian "how can we be certain about materialist viewpoints" argument. Anselmian apologetics fail elsewhere, but not because they blunder into undermining the knowability of their own propositions.
-Martin- does not like that my point implies a rather binary point where we are either certain or we are not, but that is the way it is with many things (unless we are concerned with the différance of a trace of jouissance on the margins of a trope) and he does not like that I assert that fundamentalism asserts absolute certainty, but both these things are just plain true in a mundane sense.
Of course, I know that the world doesn't just breakdown into fundamentalists and all the rest (although sometimes it sure seems like it) and it is a shallow piece of rhetoric to imply that I do. I give most of you credit and the benefit of the doubt more often than you know when you use simple propositions; we have to do that, otherwise we would not get very far at all. So, give me a break, -Martin-, and don't waste my time with this kind of open-ended interrogatory.
The point is that one doesn't get to ask Aros if he is absolutely certain of things he calls "facts" in the rhetorical fashion -Martin- did and simultaneously advance a position of knowledge about other things, like asserting that good is better than evil (that sentence is internally flawed but I like it anyway) or God is greater than Satan (see, sometimes I use "God" the way you want me too, when the context is appropriate).
You (in the plural) don't seem to recognize that the assumptions that you carry around in your use of certain allowed facts, particularly binarisms, God/Satan charity/cruelty, etc., don't get pressured for their rectitude in this kind of discourse - and turning the epistemological lens on that kind of thing only sets you up for losing that whole background.
That was my whole point: drop the argument to Aros about what he gets to call facts in a basic way as knowable or else drop your own "facts" as knowable in a basic philosophical sense (and here we are not talking about virgin births and resurrection but even whether your god is good in the first place). This is not really a can of worms you want to open - but be relieved, I am exactly deferring this discourse, I just want -Martin- to do the same.
Earthling,
Fair enough if due to the number of occasions that I do converse directly (or sometimes about your posts), you come to assume that some comments are directed to or about you. However, you really do lament too much about what gets said about your position as if it is a comment about your person. I am only one of many who notices this to you.
If you would stop tallying and using words like "fair" and "played along", etc. then you may reduce the amount of unintended metaphor about the discussion.
Yes, the Hebrews verse is one in many, but so is "Love thy neighbor..." or "Blessed are..." or "The Lord is my shepherd...". It is a verse that is often taught because it is doctrinal for what faith is in Christianity. If you want to argue about this, let's do it.
I mentioned Luther's Small Catechism because it is doctrinal for Lutheranism and Denmark is largely Lutheran country and because it instructs on "faith" explicitly.
I don't define faith, Paul does (among others). However, if you would bother to read the context of the discussion, you would realize that I am not taking issue with your definition of faith at all, quite the contrary. To be honest, I don't think you understand completely the discussion with -Martin- (or perhaps you are misreading it) which has to do with self-erosive apologetics that leverage arguments concerning what is knowable. Anselm, for instance, was a little more clever than just giving some flimsy, pedestrian "how can we be certain about materialist viewpoints" argument. Anselmian apologetics fail elsewhere, but not because they blunder into undermining the knowability of their own propositions.
-Martin- does not like that my point implies a rather binary point where we are either certain or we are not, but that is the way it is with many things (unless we are concerned with the différance of a trace of jouissance on the margins of a trope) and he does not like that I assert that fundamentalism asserts absolute certainty, but both these things are just plain true in a mundane sense.
Of course, I know that the world doesn't just breakdown into fundamentalists and all the rest (although sometimes it sure seems like it) and it is a shallow piece of rhetoric to imply that I do. I give most of you credit and the benefit of the doubt more often than you know when you use simple propositions; we have to do that, otherwise we would not get very far at all. So, give me a break, -Martin-, and don't waste my time with this kind of open-ended interrogatory.
The point is that one doesn't get to ask Aros if he is absolutely certain of things he calls "facts" in the rhetorical fashion -Martin- did and simultaneously advance a position of knowledge about other things, like asserting that good is better than evil (that sentence is internally flawed but I like it anyway) or God is greater than Satan (see, sometimes I use "God" the way you want me too, when the context is appropriate).
You (in the plural) don't seem to recognize that the assumptions that you carry around in your use of certain allowed facts, particularly binarisms, God/Satan charity/cruelty, etc., don't get pressured for their rectitude in this kind of discourse - and turning the epistemological lens on that kind of thing only sets you up for losing that whole background.
That was my whole point: drop the argument to Aros about what he gets to call facts in a basic way as knowable or else drop your own "facts" as knowable in a basic philosophical sense (and here we are not talking about virgin births and resurrection but even whether your god is good in the first place). This is not really a can of worms you want to open - but be relieved, I am exactly deferring this discourse, I just want -Martin- to do the same.
Dato: 3/6 2013 09:47
Jeff,
I really don't have the time to compose a reply that treats all of your points, deductions and accusations against my person. I'm on a rather tight schedule this week! You've answered my questions and I'm quite content with that for now.
Have a splendid Monday!
Jeff,
I really don't have the time to compose a reply that treats all of your points, deductions and accusations against my person. I'm on a rather tight schedule this week! You've answered my questions and I'm quite content with that for now.
Have a splendid Monday!
Dato: 3/6 2013 10:15
Bevidsthed kommer fra bevidsthed, og gud er en upersonlig måde
at tiltale den almægtige guddomelige personlighed på, hans navn er KRISHNA, han er gud fordi han er absolut med alle 6 oppulencer: Absolut Viden, Absolut Rigdom, Absolut Smuk, Absolut Almægtig, Absolut Alt Tiltrækkene, Absolut Evig.
dette er den Almægtige Personlighed, herren Krishna, han er ikke forskellig fra sit eget navn, bare man siger krishna med lyd
er han manifisteret og er sammen med dig i hans lyd inkarnation, der hersker ikke tvivl om at krishna er gud, der er intet han ikke kan.....der er intet han ikke ved, nogen spørgsmål
Bevidsthed kommer fra bevidsthed, og gud er en upersonlig måde
at tiltale den almægtige guddomelige personlighed på, hans navn er KRISHNA, han er gud fordi han er absolut med alle 6 oppulencer: Absolut Viden, Absolut Rigdom, Absolut Smuk, Absolut Almægtig, Absolut Alt Tiltrækkene, Absolut Evig.
dette er den Almægtige Personlighed, herren Krishna, han er ikke forskellig fra sit eget navn, bare man siger krishna med lyd
er han manifisteret og er sammen med dig i hans lyd inkarnation, der hersker ikke tvivl om at krishna er gud, der er intet han ikke kan.....der er intet han ikke ved, nogen spørgsmål
Dato: 3/6 2013 10:30 | Indlæg redigeret den: 3/6 2013 11:25
-Martin-,
I really don't think I have made any accusations and certainly not against your person. Since you have no time I will not ask you to point out where I have, especially since I am more than certain that there is nothing you could point to*.
I am also rather content that I have answered your questions, even when you paradoxically ask for what typically calls for some level of deduction and then figure it with implicit suspicion in your reply.
*Pay some attention to my use of conditional language in places and my focus on what you say, not who you are.
-Martin-,
I really don't think I have made any accusations and certainly not against your person. Since you have no time I will not ask you to point out where I have, especially since I am more than certain that there is nothing you could point to*.
I am also rather content that I have answered your questions, even when you paradoxically ask for what typically calls for some level of deduction and then figure it with implicit suspicion in your reply.
*Pay some attention to my use of conditional language in places and my focus on what you say, not who you are.