On Respecting Theists
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>cannot exist without self-evaluation.
So what are we to make of followers of the three "great" monotheisms,
who complain of "bigotry" when peddling their hateful holy texts?
Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
ideas you are not only inferior but deserve the worst conceivable
punishment for it. The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground. The
incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
There is no polite way to frame this debate without ignoring what it's
about entirely. Either they're crazy and living a lie (and will
probably end the human race because of it), or we deserve to go to
Hell. We have reason on our side, and they have threats and strength
in numbers. This is not a polite situation. Theistic ideologies are
rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
It has gotten so ridiculous that they claim "persecution" when people
object to having their kids surrounded by a moment of prayer in
schools, to a fictional sky monster who will supposedly damn their mom
and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him. They
suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting the
rights of others to marry, proving that of all the things theists are
capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
day.
So please, Uncle Tom atheists, don't hold back on criticizing theists
personally for their horrible beliefs. It very much does say something
about their value as human beings when they're willing to sacrifice
sanity at the altar of the toxic death of the human race.
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Jun 15, 7:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> cannot exist without self-evaluation.
And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
own eyes their actions were justified.
> Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
> is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> ideas
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> you are not only inferior
superior to unbelievers" premise, in fact, I make a point to note
that I have no merit with which to claim favor from God; rather, God
initiates His grace in my life.
> but deserve the worst conceivable
> punishment for it.
"O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
> The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
> no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground.
testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
> The
> incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
> unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
judgments.
> There is no polite way to frame this debate without ignoring what it's
> about entirely.
> Either they're crazy and living a lie (and will
> probably end the human race because of it), or we deserve to go to
> Hell.
* The gospel of Jesus Christ provides a way to save a fallen and lost
humankind from the horrible penalty of sin
> We have reason on our side, and they have threats and strength
> in numbers.
For example, My position is that the propositional truths of the
Bible, the "Word of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence".
It is the source of knowledge for first principles that humankind
should use to make value judgments.
> This is not a polite situation.
> Theistic ideologies are
> rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
> criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
> prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
> faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
> the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
> remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
standard for objective truth is not tenable.
> It has gotten so ridiculous that they claim "persecution" when people
> object to having their kids surrounded by a moment of prayer in
> schools, to a fictional sky monster
* God is fictional
* God is a "sky monster"
> who will supposedly damn their mom
> and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him.
individual for every single person who accepts it.
> They
> suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting the
> rights of others to marry,
"Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful
for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more
than one husband at the same time."[2]
> proving that of all the things theists are
> capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
> this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
> day.
humanistic premises, the conclusion fails to be objective and
absolute.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://www.beckerteam.org/english/americanlit/edwards-sinnershand-excerpt.pdf
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 24 S 1
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>and you don't have any amount of reading comprehension. It would be a
waste of time to respond to your idiotic questions.
> [2]http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.htmlCh 24 S 1
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> Fuck you Brock.
I think its unfortunate that here you've left the polite part of the
debate; and with no provocation from me either.
Regards,
Brock
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>proves me right on its own.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>> Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--itWhy?
> cannot exist without self-evaluation.
And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
own eyes their actions were justified.
They are not my ideas. As I've noted before:
> Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
> is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> ideas
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
As a fellow sinner in need of God's grace, I don't articulate a "I'm
> you are not only inferior
superior to unbelievers" premise, in fact, I make a point to note
that I have no merit with which to claim favor from God; rather, God
initiates His grace in my life.
Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
> but deserve the worst conceivable
> punishment for it.
"O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
A believer warning of the perils and dangers of dying in sin and
> The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
> no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground.
testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
I believe self-evaluation failed Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
> The
> incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
> unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
Instead my
position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
judgments.
Of course there is a polite way to frame the debate.
> There is no polite way to frame this debate without ignoring what it's
> about entirely.
I consider a third possibility:
> Either they're crazy and living a lie (and will
> probably end the human race because of it), or we deserve to go to
> Hell.
* The gospel of Jesus Christ provides a way to save a fallen and lost
humankind from the horrible penalty of sin
I don't believe that is an honest assessment of believer's positions.
> We have reason on our side, and they have threats and strength
> in numbers.
For example, My position is that the propositional truths of the
Bible, the "Word of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence".
It is the source of knowledge for first principles that humankind
should use to make value judgments.
As I've characterized it, it is certainly a polite situation.
> This is not a polite situation.
I believe that relying upon humanistic reasoning as a pre-eminent
> Theistic ideologies are
> rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
> criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
> prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
> faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
> the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
> remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
standard for objective truth is not tenable.
Believers do not claim:
> It has gotten so ridiculous that they claim "persecution" when people
> object to having their kids surrounded by a moment of prayer in
> schools, to a fictional sky monster
* God is fictional
* God is a "sky monster"
God graciously and generously provides salvation at no cost to that
> who will supposedly damn their mom
> and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him.
individual for every single person who accepts it.
I like how the Confession puts it:
> They
> suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting the
> rights of others to marry,
"Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful
for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more
than one husband at the same time."[2]
I propose that if this assessment is based upon existential or
> proving that of all the things theists are
> capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
> this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
> day.
humanistic premises, the conclusion fails to be objective and
absolute.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://www.beckerteam.org/english/americanlit/edwards-sinnershand-excerpt.pdf
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 24 S 1
--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
-- Thomas Henry Huxley
Whose God Do You Kill For?
--Unknown
Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Brock <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 7:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> > Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
>> > cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Self-evaluation allows you to constantly review and redefine based on the
> dynamics around you.
> It's how we progress and advance both as individuals and as a society.
But its a presumtion to assume that a process of self-evaluation
necessarily leads to objective truth, specifically, when relying upon
existential premises.
>> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
>> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
>> own eyes their actions were justified.
>
> The problem was that they didn't self evaluate, Brock.
I suspect you underestimate them to characterize it so simplistically.
> They follow a Dogma
> and simply believed they were right.
They were atheists.
> This the problem with Dogmas both political and religious. They close
> people's minds to other more reasonable options.
> Did Pol Pot have to massacre all those people? No, of course he didn't. His
> Indoctrination closed his mind to a more democratic solution.
I suspect they were intellectually more competent and capable than you propose.
>> > Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
>> > is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
>> > ideas
>>
>> They are not my ideas. As I've noted before:
>>
>> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> How do you determine that the Bible is an objective truth and the Quran
> isn't?
I don't think a simple answer does justice to what is an entire field
of inquiry, Comparative Religions[5].
>> Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
>>
>> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
>> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
>> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
>> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
>> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
>> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
>> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
>> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
>> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
>> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>
> So you live your life in fear of God? Is that any way to live? In fear?
Rather consider: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Of course, it is not the case that salvation is a "get out of jail
free" card or a "risk management strategy". I believe that anyone who
tried to use salvation in such a way would be deceiving themselves.
Rather, salvation is a work of God's Holy Spirit in a person's life
and heart, and part of that renewal is a genuine and unaffected love
for God, and a willing and eager desire to obey and please Him.
>> > The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
>> > no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground.
>>
>> A believer warning of the perils and dangers of dying in sin and
>> testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
>> cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
>
> So morality comes from proselytizing?
It is a wonderful thing to warn sinners of the danger that they face,
and that there is a salvation from that terrible danger. But
regardless, believers are commanded to share the good news of the
gospel with other sinners.
>> > The
>> > incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
>> > unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
>> > evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>>
>> I believe self-evaluation failed Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
>
> Because they were too Dogmatic to do it.
They were atheists.
>> Instead my
>> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
>> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
>> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
>> judgments.
>
> But it's based on an assumption not a proven foundation.
> How do you justify basing your knowledge of first principles on an
> assumption?
But the issue hinges on the standard used to measure proof, or what
makes up the "first principles" used to evaluate all others.
Aristotle has traditionally articulated one of the earliest, and most
famous statements of first principles:
"Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them."[1]
I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
accurate[1a] I believe would be:
* Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them.
>> I consider a third possibility:
>>
>> * The gospel of Jesus Christ provides a way to save a fallen and lost
>> humankind from the horrible penalty of sin
>
> Wasn't it the gospel of Jesus Christ that launched the Inquisition and the
> Crusades?
I think one can frequently distinguish between someone who is simply
wearing the jersey, from someone who is on the team.[2]
>> > Theistic ideologies are
>> > rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
>> > criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
>> > prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
>> > faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
>> > the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
>> > remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
>>
>> I believe that relying upon humanistic reasoning as a pre-eminent
>> standard for objective truth is not tenable.
>
> Why isn't it tenable?
I don't believe one can substantiate objectivity through the use of
existential or humanistic principles. For example, as noted earlier:
"In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
objective force."[4]
The lack of objectivity is devastating to positions that rely upon
humanistic principles.
>> > who will supposedly damn their mom
>> > and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him.
>>
>> God graciously and generously provides salvation at no cost to that
>> individual for every single person who accepts it.
>
> But what does this salvation mean to the person who is living in hardship
> and suffering?
There is wonderful benefit, to all people who accept the gospel. As
the Confession notes:
"The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the
gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning
wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered
from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin,
from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the
grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God,
and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a
childlike love, and a willing mind."[3]
>> > They
>> > suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting the
>> > rights of others to marry,
>>
>> I like how the Confession puts it:
>>
>> "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful
>> for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more
>> than one husband at the same time."[2]
>
> And Deuteronomy recognizes that a man can have more than one wife.
> This is a contradiction.
This is an oversimplification. The Bible provides exquisite testimony
to the problems of polygamy. :)
>> > proving that of all the things theists are
>> > capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
>> > this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
>> > day.
>>
>> I propose that if this assessment is based upon existential or
>> humanistic premises, the conclusion fails to be objective and
>> absolute.
>
> They are not perfect,
They are worse than that, they fail to be objective and absolute if
based upon existential or humanistic premises.
> but Christianity is less perfect because it's based on
> assumptions which are then made the foundations of first principles.
> This is a very tenuous foundation.
I believe that divine revelation is a most certain foundation.
Brock
[1] http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Metaphysics
[1a] though not Aristotle's position ...
[2] http://www.nflshop.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2237423
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 20 S 1
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion
Kent
<musquodster@gmail.com>On Jun 15, 4:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>
human inheritance as social animals and exist independent of self-
evaluation. Many people just do the correct thing without any
reflection or self-evaluation. Of course some people just do the wrong
thing similarly without thought or self-evaluation. Fetal alcohol
syndrome, for example, frequently leads to anti-social behaviour
independent of any self-evaluation.
Kent
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>the right thing--without self-evaluation, you clearly don't care. How
can you say that someone who doesn't even consider whether or not
they're being good or rotten is ethical? Not evaluating yourself leads
to the kind of hypocrisy I'm talking about.
Dave
<dvorous@gmail.com>> about their value as human beings when they're willing to sacrifice
> sanity at the altar of the toxic death of the human race.
their religion, and so on, but not the person. Now, if the person
deserves it like so many of the idiots here, then give it to them full
blast. But the nice ones, attack the religion without mercy, but try
not to attack the person.
Dave
<dvorous@gmail.com>> Fuck you Brock. Everyone knows you don't have the ability to think
> and you don't have any amount of reading comprehension. It would be a
> waste of time to respond to your idiotic questions.
The guy is as dumb as a brick.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>going to Hell. Which do you think is more likely? An attack on
religion is, inevitably, an attack on the religious.
From the _Four Horsemen_ transcript:
[RD] One of the things we've all met is the accusation that we are
strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill. What do we think about
that?
[DD] Hah! Yeah, well I'm amused by it, because I went out of my way in
my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the
draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed,
the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments
and made adjustments. And it didn't do any good in the end because I
still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came
to realise that it's a no-win situation. It's a mug's game. The
religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them
critically without being rude.
[RD] Without being rude.
[DD] You know, they sort of play the hurt feelings card at every
opportunity, and faced with a choice of, well, am I gonna be rude or
am I going to articulate this criticism? I mean, am I going to
articulate it, or am I just gonna button my lip?
If you read _Breaking the Spell_ you'd see that Dennett really did go
out of the way to write as polite a book as possible with regards to
religious belief. The way I see it:
(1) If you attack their religious beliefs honestly, the inference is
undoubtedly that they have a dangerous mental illness anyway--or that
they're just stupid and can't think for themselves.
(2) They're going to be defensive about their delusions no matter how
you phrase things.
I mean, Brock isn't particularly mean-spirited, but if you showed him
respect as a person he'd still just repeat his bullshit over and over.
The only real way to respond to Brock is to tell him what an
obnoxious, stupid, anti-intellectual coward he is.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> I mean, Brock isn't particularly mean-spirited, but if you showed him
> respect as a person he'd still just repeat his bullshit over and over.
> The only real way to respond to Brock is to tell him what an
> obnoxious, stupid, anti-intellectual coward he is.
There are lots of polite, respectful "real ways" to respond to me, all
of which I would encourage.
Regards,
Brock
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>to established logical fallacies and mindless repetition.
On Jun 16, 9:41 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> If you want respect, you're going to have to earn it by not resorting
> to established logical fallacies and mindless repetition.
There are lots of polite, respectful "real ways" to respond to me, all
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>problem, you are simply underscoring it by repeating yourself like a
robot. Robots don't have feelings, so why should anyone assume you do?
On Jun 16, 11:43 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Instead of addressing the
> problem, you are simply underscoring it by repeating yourself like a
> robot. Robots don't have feelings, so why should anyone assume you do?
There is no problem:
There are lots of polite, respectful "real ways"[1] to respond to me,
all of which I would encourage.
Regards,
Brock
[1] as you've worded it
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>On Jun 16, 12:03 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> Anybody who shows you respect is an asshole.
Or simply considerate. :)
Regards,
Brock
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>On Jun 16, 12:33 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> Anybody who is considerate to you is an asshole.
Or simply considerate. :)
Regards,
Brock
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>But its a presumtion to assume that a process of self-evaluation
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Brock <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 7:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> > Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
>> > cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Self-evaluation allows you to constantly review and redefine based on the
> dynamics around you.
> It's how we progress and advance both as individuals and as a society.
necessarily leads to objective truth, specifically, when relying upon
existential premises.
I suspect you underestimate them to characterize it so simplistically.
>> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
>> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
>> own eyes their actions were justified.
>
> The problem was that they didn't self evaluate, Brock.
They were atheists.
> They follow a Dogma
> and simply believed they were right.
I suspect they were intellectually more competent and capable than you propose.
> This the problem with Dogmas both political and religious. They close
> people's minds to other more reasonable options.
> Did Pol Pot have to massacre all those people? No, of course he didn't. His
> Indoctrination closed his mind to a more democratic solution.
I don't think a simple answer does justice to what is an entire field
>> > Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
>> > is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
>> > ideas
>>
>> They are not my ideas. As I've noted before:
>>
>> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> How do you determine that the Bible is an objective truth and the Quran
> isn't?
of inquiry, Comparative Religions[5].
Rather consider: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
>> Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
>>
>> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
>> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
>> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
>> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
>> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
>> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
>> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
>> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
>> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
>> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>
> So you live your life in fear of God? Is that any way to live? In fear?
Of course, it is not the case that salvation is a "get out of jail
free" card or a "risk management strategy". I believe that anyone who
tried to use salvation in such a way would be deceiving themselves.
Rather, salvation is a work of God's Holy Spirit in a person's life
and heart, and part of that renewal is a genuine and unaffected love
for God, and a willing and eager desire to obey and please Him.
It is a wonderful thing to warn sinners of the danger that they face,
>> > The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
>> > no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground.
>>
>> A believer warning of the perils and dangers of dying in sin and
>> testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
>> cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
>
> So morality comes from proselytizing?
and that there is a salvation from that terrible danger. But
regardless, believers are commanded to share the good news of the
gospel with other sinners.
They were atheists.
>> > The
>> > incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
>> > unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
>> > evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>>
>> I believe self-evaluation failed Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
>
> Because they were too Dogmatic to do it.
But the issue hinges on the standard used to measure proof, or what
>> Instead my
>> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
>> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
>> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
>> judgments.
>
> But it's based on an assumption not a proven foundation.
> How do you justify basing your knowledge of first principles on an
> assumption?
makes up the "first principles" used to evaluate all others.
Aristotle has traditionally articulated one of the earliest, and most
famous statements of first principles:
"Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them."[1]
I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
accurate[1a] I believe would be:
* Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them.
I think one can frequently distinguish between someone who is simply
>> I consider a third possibility:
>>
>> * The gospel of Jesus Christ provides a way to save a fallen and lost
>> humankind from the horrible penalty of sin
>
> Wasn't it the gospel of Jesus Christ that launched the Inquisition and the
> Crusades?
wearing the jersey, from someone who is on the team.[2]
I don't believe one can substantiate objectivity through the use of
>> > Theistic ideologies are
>> > rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
>> > criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
>> > prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
>> > faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
>> > the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
>> > remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
>>
>> I believe that relying upon humanistic reasoning as a pre-eminent
>> standard for objective truth is not tenable.
>
> Why isn't it tenable?
existential or humanistic principles. For example, as noted earlier:
"In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
objective force."[4]
The lack of objectivity is devastating to positions that rely upon
humanistic principles.
There is wonderful benefit, to all people who accept the gospel. As
>> > who will supposedly damn their mom
>> > and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him.
>>
>> God graciously and generously provides salvation at no cost to that
>> individual for every single person who accepts it.
>
> But what does this salvation mean to the person who is living in hardship
> and suffering?
the Confession notes:
"The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the
gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning
wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered
from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin,
from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the
grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God,
and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a
childlike love, and a willing mind."[3]
This is an oversimplification. The Bible provides exquisite testimony
>> > They
>> > suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting the
>> > rights of others to marry,
>>
>> I like how the Confession puts it:
>>
>> "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful
>> for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more
>> than one husband at the same time."[2]
>
> And Deuteronomy recognizes that a man can have more than one wife.
> This is a contradiction.
to the problems of polygamy. :)
They are worse than that, they fail to be objective and absolute if
>> > proving that of all the things theists are
>> > capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
>> > this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
>> > day.
>>
>> I propose that if this assessment is based upon existential or
>> humanistic premises, the conclusion fails to be objective and
>> absolute.
>
> They are not perfect,
based upon existential or humanistic premises.
I believe that divine revelation is a most certain foundation.
> but Christianity is less perfect because it's based on
> assumptions which are then made the foundations of first principles.
> This is a very tenuous foundation.
Brock
[1] http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Metaphysics
[1a] though not Aristotle's position ...
[2] http://www.nflshop.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2237423
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 20 S 1
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Brock <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 15, 7:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >> > Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
>> >> > cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > Self-evaluation allows you to constantly review and redefine based on
>> > the
>> > dynamics around you.
>> > It's how we progress and advance both as individuals and as a society.
>>
>> But its a presumtion to assume that a process of self-evaluation
>> necessarily leads to objective truth, specifically, when relying upon
>> existential premises.
>
> Dev didn't say the process of self-evaluation necessarily leads to objective
> truth.
For fundamental premises, a lack of objectivity can be fatal.
> He said the process of self-evaluation leads to conscience, ethics and a
> moral core.
As can the process of comparison with an objective moral standard. My
position is that comparison with a specific objective moral standard
is superior[1].
> Let me give you an example of just one area of life where we do this.
> I'm a software developer and because I have some formal training in the more
> formal aspects of software engineering like testing software (plans, unit
> tests, etc.) I sometimes get asked to deal with that process.
> Why does that process exist in software development?
> We software developers see ourselves as gods in a way. We create something
> that to other people is miraculous and amazing
I wouldn't associate this necessarily with viewing oneself as a "god",
but think it is sufficient to say one is being a creative and talented
human being.
> (at least that's what the users say until they start playing with it and
> then start whining and demanding more features, then we're shit because we
> didn't read their minds and figure out what additional features they might
> like. ;-)
Of course, they often don't want to pay for the development of said
features, either. :)
> Does that mean we shouldn't test it to ensure it works properly and that we
> shouldn't apply error checking and security features?
But this can only make sense when you understand the limitations of
your testing process. For all but the simplest and trivial of
software programs, organizations cannot objectively declare the
product to be defect free, usually because the number of input
permutations and code paths is too large to test in the allocated
development schedule.
But this is a limitation of the process. As I've noted before:
4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space
cannot establish objective truth
(The input permutations and code paths frequently asymptotically tend
toward an unbounded value as the complexity of the software (lines of
code, features, new supported hardware etc) increases)
> Should we forego this evaluation process in the interests of expediency or
> because we're such unbelievably amazing developers that we know it's
> perfect? And what's a few bugs anyway...
Its devastatingly important to understand the true, real and limited
nature of the testing performed.
>> >> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
>> >> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
>> >> own eyes their actions were justified.
>> >
>> > The problem was that they didn't self evaluate, Brock.
>>
>> I suspect you underestimate them to characterize it so simplistically.
>
> Well, in reality, neither you nor I can say definitively that they did or
> didn't.
But if you rely upon existential premises, you can't even make that
statement with objective certainty (Of course, my position doesn't
accept such premises, for just such a reason). As noted earlier:
"In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
objective force."[2]
> However, they don't appear to have because, in my opinion, if they
> had done an honest self-evaluation they should have seen their errors and
> changed.
But that begs the question, as it is precisely the sufficiency of
"self-evaluation" that is under question. Of course, as I've
postulated above, a believe a comparison to a specific objective moral
standard is superior[1].
> Why do you believe that I've underestimated them and characterized it too
> simplistically?
For example, Stalin was a student at a georgian orthodox seminary,
yet, while there, became an atheist[3]. Surely an example or
indication, from your point of view, of "honest self-evaluation"[4].
>
>>
>> > They follow a Dogma
>> > and simply believed they were right.
>>
>> They were atheists.
>
> Communists are both atheists and theists.
These three were atheists.
> They did what they did because of
> their Communist Dogma not because they didn't believe in God.
The converse is equally (if not more) likely, that their lack of
belief in God led to their "Dogma" (as you put it). Its a wonderful
double standard articulated on this forum frequently[5], as we've
discussed before. :)
> There are and have been violent insurgencies led in Latin and South America
> by Christian Marxists.
> My Article in Pages on the Christian Roots of Communism goes into this.
These three were atheists.
>> > This the problem with Dogmas both political and religious. They close
>> > people's minds to other more reasonable options.
>> > Did Pol Pot have to massacre all those people? No, of course he didn't.
>> > His
>> > Indoctrination closed his mind to a more democratic solution.
>>
>> I suspect they were intellectually more competent and capable than you
>> propose.
>
> I'm not saying they were intellectually incompetent or incapable, I'm saying
> that their Dogma blinded them to the reality of the situation, what was
> going on amongst their people, and the needs of both their people and their
> countries.
They weren't blind to the reality of the situation. They were well
aware of the consequences of their actions and social policies.
Millions and millions of people dead. The deaths might have been a
surprise to the rest of the world, but they were certainly aware of
what they did.
>> > How do you determine that the Bible is an objective truth and the Quran
>> > isn't?
>>
>> I don't think a simple answer does justice to what is an entire field
>> of inquiry, Comparative Religions[5].
>
> I agree the answer can be complex, but it can also be relatively
> straightforward.
> For example, is there anything inherent in Christianity that makes it an
> objective truth and the Quran not an objective truth.
But, we're back to the first principles that one would use to measure
objective truth. Basing first principles on existential premises does
not lead to objective truth, but rather, only to subjective truth.[1]
>> >> Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
>> >>
>> >> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
>> >> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
>> >> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
>> >> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
>> >> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
>> >> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
>> >> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
>> >> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
>> >> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
>> >> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>> >
>> > So you live your life in fear of God? Is that any way to live? In fear?
>>
>> Rather consider: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
>
> On what basis? Why is the fear of the Lord the beginning of wisdom.
The testimony of the Bible. :)
> What will be accomplished by society and individual because they Fear the
> Lord?
The beginning of wisdom. And not a subjective humanistic wisdom, but
a wisdom based on the objective truth of the nature, characteristics
and attributes of God.
>
>>
>> Of course, it is not the case that salvation is a "get out of jail
>> free" card or a "risk management strategy". I believe that anyone who
>> tried to use salvation in such a way would be deceiving themselves.
>> Rather, salvation is a work of God's Holy Spirit in a person's life
>> and heart, and part of that renewal is a genuine and unaffected love
>> for God, and a willing and eager desire to obey and please Him.
>
> But why should I or anyone else assume that this is a good god when the
> Bible describes him in such a negative way?
I don't believe the Bible describes Him in a negative way. As the
Confession notes:
"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being
and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,
most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things
according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,
for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering,
abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and
sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most
just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no
means clear the guilty.
God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself;
and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need
of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them,
but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is
the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom,
are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by
them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his
sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite,
infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him
contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all
his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men,
and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he
is pleased to require of them."[6]
> I know that you've talked about your god applying justice but my reading of
> the bible doesn't show that. It shows a petty egocentric demanding god who
> violates his own commandments and demands his followers do so as well.
Not all subjective readings of the Bible are equal. In fact, many are
wrong. As the Confession notes:
"The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be
determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers,
doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in
whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit
speaking in the Scripture."[7]
> For example, children being torn apart by bears because they call a bald man
> names. That's more than little excessive in terms of a punishment and
> indicates a sadistic streak not a god who is applying justice.
The commandments summarized in the moral law are to be taken
seriously. Very seriously.
>> >> Instead my
>> >> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
>> >> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
>> >> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
>> >> judgments.
>> >
>> > But it's based on an assumption not a proven foundation.
>> > How do you justify basing your knowledge of first principles on an
>> > assumption?
Thats the very point of first principles. If one could derive them
from earlier precepts, then they wouldn't be first principles. So
first principles, as Aristotle has articulated so well, are
non-deducible axioms:
"Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them."[8]
> Where does objective truth come into play here? How does objective truth
> come from metaphysics which is an unproven and unprovable starting point.
The point is, the objective value for any metaphysical statement is
limited by its objective reality.
> Isn't it far more likely that an existing objective truth (at a given time)
> will come from scientific evaluation?
> For example, the objective truth that earth is round came from science.
> Religion's "objective truth" based on metaphysics was that the earth was
> flat.
Consider:
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
>> I think one can frequently distinguish between someone who is simply
>> wearing the jersey, from someone who is on the team.[2]
>
> How?
"The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be
determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers,
doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in
whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit
speaking in the Scripture."[7]
>> > Why isn't it tenable?
>>
>> I don't believe one can substantiate objectivity through the use of
>> existential or humanistic principles. For example, as noted earlier:
>>
>> "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
>> consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
>> recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
>> objective force."[4]
>>
>> The lack of objectivity is devastating to positions that rely upon
>> humanistic principles.
>
> It is as objective as it can possibly be
But if arguing from existential premises, you cannot objectively make
this statement.
> considering our limitations as a
> species and far more objective than a metaphysical approach whose
> foundations are unproven and unprovable.
The reality of the universe is not affected by humanistic limitations[1].
>> There is wonderful benefit, to all people who accept the gospel. As
>> the Confession notes:
>>
>> "The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the
>> gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning
>> wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered
>> from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin,
>> from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the
>> grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God,
>> and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a
>> childlike love, and a willing mind."[3]
>
> That won't ease their hardship or suffering. It will only give them false
> hope and could block them from trying to come up with solutions to resolve
> their issues.
It may ease (but isn't guaranteed) their suffering in this world. The
Bible certainly comforts, consoles and strengthens believers
spiritually by noting the freedom of salvation as quoted above. This
is because God's Holy Spirit, graciously living in the heart of a
believer strengthens, comforts and consoles the believer, which is one
of the beautiful meanings for the word "Immanuel": "God is with us".
:)
>> > And Deuteronomy recognizes that a man can have more than one wife.
>> > This is a contradiction.
>>
>> This is an oversimplification. The Bible provides exquisite testimony
>> to the problems of polygamy. :)
>
> I'm not aware of that, however, it's possible that's the case, I don't have
> the expertise that others here have on the Bible, but nevertheless it
> doesn't change the fact that it's a contradiction and just one of many.
Of course it does. Non-believers frequently claim to find subtle and
wonderful literary meaning in both classical and contemporary literary
works (such as works by Hemingway, Joyce, Shakespeare, etc.), yet
treat the bible sophomoric ally, which is a double standard.
Regards,
Brock
[1] My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the
"Word of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the
source of knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to
make value judgments.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Religion
[4] though not how I would categorize it
[5] http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/fc8479e017d1cf4b
[6] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 2 S 1-2
[7] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 1 S 10
[8] http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Metaphysics
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>Ambassador From Hell
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>Ambassador From Hell
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped>
For fundamental premises, a lack of objectivity can be fatal.
> Dev didn't say the process of self-evaluation necessarily leads to objective
> truth.
As can the process of comparison with an objective moral standard. My
> He said the process of self-evaluation leads to conscience, ethics and a
> moral core.
position is that comparison with a specific objective moral standard
is superior[1].
> Let me give you an example of just one area of life where we do this.I wouldn't associate this necessarily with viewing oneself as a "god",
> I'm a software developer and because I have some formal training in the more
> formal aspects of software engineering like testing software (plans, unit
> tests, etc.) I sometimes get asked to deal with that process.
> Why does that process exist in software development?
> We software developers see ourselves as gods in a way. We create something
> that to other people is miraculous and amazing
but think it is sufficient to say one is being a creative and talented
human being.
Of course, they often don't want to pay for the development of said
> (at least that's what the users say until they start playing with it and
> then start whining and demanding more features, then we're shit because we
> didn't read their minds and figure out what additional features they might
> like. ;-)
features, either. :)
But this can only make sense when you understand the limitations of
> Does that mean we shouldn't test it to ensure it works properly and that we
> shouldn't apply error checking and security features?
your testing process. For all but the simplest and trivial of
software programs, organizations cannot objectively declare the
product to be defect free, usually because the number of input
permutations and code paths is too large to test in the allocated
development schedule.
But this is a limitation of the process. As I've noted before:
4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space
cannot establish objective truth
(The input permutations and code paths frequently asymptotically tend
toward an unbounded value as the complexity of the software (lines of
code, features, new supported hardware etc) increases)
Its devastatingly important to understand the true, real and limited
> Should we forego this evaluation process in the interests of expediency or
> because we're such unbelievably amazing developers that we know it's
> perfect? And what's a few bugs anyway...
nature of the testing performed.
But if you rely upon existential premises, you can't even make that
>> >> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
>> >> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
>> >> own eyes their actions were justified.
>> >
>> > The problem was that they didn't self evaluate, Brock.
>>
>> I suspect you underestimate them to characterize it so simplistically.
>
> Well, in reality, neither you nor I can say definitively that they did or
> didn't.
statement with objective certainty (Of course, my position doesn't
accept such premises, for just such a reason). As noted earlier:
objective force."[2]
"In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
> However, they don't appear to have because, in my opinion, if theyBut that begs the question, as it is precisely the sufficiency of
> had done an honest self-evaluation they should have seen their errors and
> changed.
"self-evaluation" that is under question. Of course, as I've
postulated above, a believe a comparison to a specific objective moral
standard is superior[1].
For example, Stalin was a student at a georgian orthodox seminary,
> Why do you believe that I've underestimated them and characterized it too
> simplistically?
yet, while there, became an atheist[3]. Surely an example or
indication, from your point of view, of "honest self-evaluation"[4].
These three were atheists.
>
>>
>> > They follow a Dogma
>> > and simply believed they were right.
>>
>> They were atheists.
>
> Communists are both atheists and theists.
The converse is equally (if not more) likely, that their lack of
> They did what they did because of
> their Communist Dogma not because they didn't believe in God.
belief in God led to their "Dogma" (as you put it). Its a wonderful
double standard articulated on this forum frequently[5], as we've
discussed before. :)
> There are and have been violent insurgencies led in Latin and South AmericaThese three were atheists.
> by Christian Marxists.
> My Article in Pages on the Christian Roots of Communism goes into this.
They weren't blind to the reality of the situation. They were well
>> > This the problem with Dogmas both political and religious. They close
>> > people's minds to other more reasonable options.
>> > Did Pol Pot have to massacre all those people? No, of course he didn't.
>> > His
>> > Indoctrination closed his mind to a more democratic solution.
>>
>> I suspect they were intellectually more competent and capable than you
>> propose.
>
> I'm not saying they were intellectually incompetent or incapable, I'm saying
> that their Dogma blinded them to the reality of the situation, what was
> going on amongst their people, and the needs of both their people and their
> countries.
aware of the consequences of their actions and social policies.
Millions and millions of people dead. The deaths might have been a
surprise to the rest of the world, but they were certainly aware of
what they did.
>> > How do you determine that the Bible is an objective truth and the QuranBut, we're back to the first principles that one would use to measure
>> > isn't?
>>
>> I don't think a simple answer does justice to what is an entire field
>> of inquiry, Comparative Religions[5].
>
> I agree the answer can be complex, but it can also be relatively
> straightforward.
> For example, is there anything inherent in Christianity that makes it an
> objective truth and the Quran not an objective truth.
objective truth. Basing first principles on existential premises does
not lead to objective truth, but rather, only to subjective truth.[1]
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
-- Thomas Henry Huxley
jake
<peppy54@yahoo.com>
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 15, 4:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>
> who complain of "bigotry" when peddling their hateful holy texts?
> is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> punishment for it. The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
> no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground. The
> unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>
> in numbers. This is not a polite situation. Theistic ideologies are
> criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
> prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
> faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
> the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
> remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
>
> object to having their kids surrounded by a moment of prayer in
> and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him. They
> this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
> day.
>
> personally for their horrible beliefs. It very much does say something
> about their value as human beings when they're willing to sacrifice
> sanity at the altar of the toxic death of the human race.
balanced discussion of the situation must include the fact that there
are a very large number of theists who are good people and do not want
the government to violate the rights of those who do not share their
beliefs, and there are also a fair number of theists who are quite
intelligent.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 15, 6:47 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> > cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>
> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
> own eyes their actions were justified.
>
You cannot live a truly ethical life without subjecting your beliefs
to critical inquiry. This does not guarantee a good outcome but it is
a lot better than any alternative.
> > Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
> > is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> > ideas
>
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > you are not only inferior
>
> superior to unbelievers" premise, in fact, I make a point to note
> that I have no merit with which to claim favor from God; rather, God
> initiates His grace in my life.
>
> > punishment for it.
>
>
> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>
> > The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
> > no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground.
>
> testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
>
If there really is a cosmic tyrant who is meting out eternal horrible
punishments, the highest moral ground would be taken by one who said
they wanted nothing to do with him and would not submit to his
tyranny.
> > The
> > incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
> > unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> > evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>
to live an ethical life. However the case may be, the horrible
tragedies wrought by these people are certainly no excuse for not
making a good faith effort to live a thoughtful, self-critical ethical
life yourself, quite the reverse.
> Instead my
> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
> judgments.
>
value judgements.
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>> There's a lot that can be said about the phenomenon of religion, but a
> balanced discussion of the situation must include the fact that there
> are a very large number of theists who are good people
religious beliefs or just that they have some extrareligious sense of
ethics?
> and do not want
> the government to violate the rights of those who do not share their
> beliefs,
to lie to their children and force their religious beliefs onto them.
> and there are also a fair number of theists who are quite
> intelligent.
with regards to their theism. But if you just mean that some people
can tell witty jokes or do really hard math problems even though they
thing magic exists then I don't think anyone would care to argue with
that point.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 18, 9:26 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm stealing this one Dev.
>
> > There's a lot that can be said about the phenomenon of religion, but a
> > balanced discussion of the situation must include the fact that there
> > are a very large number of theists who are good people
>
> "Good people" in what way? And do you mean good with respect to their
> religious beliefs or just that they have some extrareligious sense of
> ethics?
>
are kind-hearted, treat their fellow humans with consideration,
goodwill, tolerance, and respect and try to empathise with them and
understand different points of view, are honest with their employers,
helpful and kind towards their friends and spouses, don't lie, steal,
cheat, rape, or murder, occasionally go out of their way to help
strangers who are in need, and so forth. I mean that they are just as
good as you or me, according to standards that will be widely agreed
upon. Many many theists are like that.
> > and do not want
> > the government to violate the rights of those who do not share their
> > beliefs,
>
> Though by a vast vast majority they still find it perfectly acceptable
> to lie to their children and force their religious beliefs onto them.
>
children, in the sense of making statements that they believe to be
false. Except for the Santa Claus thing, but a lot of atheists do that
too and it might be argued that it's a harmless myth which adds to the
sense of excitement around Christmastime. When I was six I said to my
parents "I'm not sure about all this God stuff they're teaching me at
school" and they said "Well, we don't believe it either, but you must
make up your own mind". Perhaps a lot of theists take a different
approach, but that's still not quite the same as lying. "Force their
religious beliefs onto them"... well, let's analyse that further. I
don't morally approve of encouraging your child to attend a
confirmation ceremony at the age of ten, no, but there are worse
things and I'm not sure how widespread that is. We all have to make
some decision about what school to send our children to, I'm not
convinced that sending your child to a school which is run by people
who share your religious beliefs is the same thing as "forcing your
religious beliefs" onto your child. I've known people who work for
Catholic schools who aren't religious at all, and I've known people
who attended Religious Studies classes in high school and I've been
told the discussion was fairly broadminded. This is in Australia of
course, it may be different in the US.
> > and there are also a fair number of theists who are quite
> > intelligent.
>
> I've never met or heard of a single adult theist who was intelligent
> with regards to their theism.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>the same established fallacies verbatim?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Jun 15, 6:47 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 7:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> > Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
>> > cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
>> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
>> own eyes their actions were justified.
>
> I doubt that they thought in those terms at all.
That's probably a presumption on your part. I believe it is as likely
(if not more likely) that they made what they would call
"self-evaluation" of their beliefs and actions.
> You cannot live a truly ethical life without subjecting your beliefs
> to critical inquiry.
Well, the point is not that critical inquiry is always bad, but
rather, what the objective moral standard one uses to to perform the
measuring. If one uses existential/humanistic premises, the
conclusions are not tenable.
> This does not guarantee a good outcome but it is
> a lot better than any alternative.
I don't believe you can assess an objective "better than any
alternative" if relying upon existential/humanistic premises.
>> > Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
>> > is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
>> > ideas
>>
>> They are not my ideas. As I've noted before:
>>
>> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>>
>
> What are your beliefs?
My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
of knowledge for the first principles that one should use to make
value judgements.
>> > you are not only inferior
>>
>> As a fellow sinner in need of God's grace, I don't articulate a "I'm
>> superior to unbelievers" premise, in fact, I make a point to note
>> that I have no merit with which to claim favor from God; rather, God
>> initiates His grace in my life.
>>
>> > but deserve the worst conceivable
>> > punishment for it.
>>
>> Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
>>
>> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
>> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
>> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
>> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
>> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
>> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
>> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
>> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
>> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
>> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>
> Quite morally disgusting, in my view.
But the objective reality of the universe is not based on your
personal aesthetic.
>> > The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
>> > no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground.
>>
>> A believer warning of the perils and dangers of dying in sin and
>> testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
>> cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
>>
>
> If there really is a cosmic tyrant who is meting out eternal horrible
> punishments, the highest moral ground would be taken by one who said
> they wanted nothing to do with him and would not submit to his
> tyranny.
Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine. God has a moral claim on
every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism notes:
"Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>
>> > The
>> > incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
>> > unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
>> > evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>>
>> I believe self-evaluation failed Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
>
> Not very likely. I don't think these people made a good faith effort
> to live an ethical life. However the case may be, the horrible
> tragedies wrought by these people are certainly no excuse for not
> making a good faith effort to live a thoughtful, self-critical ethical
> life yourself, quite the reverse.
Yes, but you measure their "good faith effort" by using your personal
standard; that's precisely what you object to when you describe God
as a "tyrant" above. That's a double standard on your part.
>> Instead my
>> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
>> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
>> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
>> judgments.
>>
>
> Well, tell me more about how I'm supposed to use the Bible to make
> value judgements.
For example, one can learn and understand and assent that God has a
moral claim on every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism
notes:
"Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
Regards,
Brock
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 19, 9:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 6:47 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 7:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >> > Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> >> > cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>
> >> Why?
>
> >> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the self-
> >> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
> >> own eyes their actions were justified.
>
> > I doubt that they thought in those terms at all.
>
> That's probably a presumption on your part. I believe it is as likely
> (if not more likely) that they made what they would call
> "self-evaluation" of their beliefs and actions.
>
the other.
> > You cannot live a truly ethical life without subjecting your beliefs
> > to critical inquiry.
>
> Well, the point is not that critical inquiry is always bad, but
> rather, what the objective moral standard one uses to to perform the
> measuring. If one uses existential/humanistic premises, the
> conclusions are not tenable.
>
what you mean by "existential/humanistic premises". I see no reason to
believe that the outcomes of moral inquiry are any less tenable when
they are done in the absence of religious assumptions than when they
are done in the presence of religious assumptions.
> > This does not guarantee a good outcome but it is
> > a lot better than any alternative.
>
> I don't believe you can assess an objective "better than any
> alternative" if relying upon existential/humanistic premises.
>
It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
> >> > Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
> >> > is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> >> > ideas
>
> >> They are not my ideas. As I've noted before:
>
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > What are your beliefs?
>
> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
> of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
> of knowledge for the first principles that one should use to make
> value judgements.
>
presuming that there are some truths in the Bible, so please explain
how to reconcile that with the contention that the objective truth of
the Bible is independent of your beliefs. It would also be nice if you
could give one example of a truth in the Bible.
>
>
> >> > you are not only inferior
>
> >> As a fellow sinner in need of God's grace, I don't articulate a "I'm
> >> superior to unbelievers" premise, in fact, I make a point to note
> >> that I have no merit with which to claim favor from God; rather, God
> >> initiates His grace in my life.
>
> >> > but deserve the worst conceivable
> >> > punishment for it.
>
> >> Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
>
> >> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
> >> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
> >> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
> >> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
> >> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
> >> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
> >> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
> >> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
> >> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
> >> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>
> > Quite morally disgusting, in my view.
>
> But the objective reality of the universe is not based on your
> personal aesthetic.
>
quoted is morally disgusting.
> >> > The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
> >> > no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground.
>
> >> A believer warning of the perils and dangers of dying in sin and
> >> testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
> >> cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
>
> > If there really is a cosmic tyrant who is meting out eternal horrible
> > punishments, the highest moral ground would be taken by one who said
> > they wanted nothing to do with him and would not submit to his
> > tyranny.
>
> Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine.
> God has a moral claim on
> every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism notes:
>
> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>
should we obey God's will just because it happens to be his will? Why
should we surrender our capacity to judge what is right and wrong?
That's a complete abaondment of responsibility for our actions as
rational beings.
>
>
> >> > The
> >> > incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
> >> > unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> >> > evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>
> >> I believe self-evaluation failed Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
>
> > Not very likely. I don't think these people made a good faith effort
> > to live an ethical life. However the case may be, the horrible
> > tragedies wrought by these people are certainly no excuse for not
> > making a good faith effort to live a thoughtful, self-critical ethical
> > life yourself, quite the reverse.
>
> Yes, but you measure their "good faith effort" by using your personal
> standard;
according to whether it's a genuine good faith effort or not, just as
I measure whether something's blue according to whether or not it is
in fact blue.
> that's precisely what you object to when you describe God
> as a "tyrant" above. That's a double standard on your part.
>
chosen authority as opposed to the exercise of your judgement and
rational faculties.
> >> Instead my
> >> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
> >> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
> >> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
> >> judgments.
>
> > Well, tell me more about how I'm supposed to use the Bible to make
> > value judgements.
>
> For example, one can learn and understand and assent that God has a
> moral claim on every aspect of humankind's life.
> As the Catechism
> notes:
>
> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>
the fact that the Cathecism says something does not in itself make it
true. What are the *reasons* why I should accept that I have this
duty? Why should I submit to God unless I perceive that it is good to
do so? And if I only do so on the condition that I perceive it to me
good to do so then it is not the kind of submission you are
advocating, I am still reserving the right to exercise my rational
faculty and indeed there would be no effective difference from what I
am already doing, namely exercising my own judgement about what is
right and wrong.
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.htmlQ 39
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> > You cannot live a truly ethical life without subjecting your beliefs
>> > to critical inquiry.
>>
>> Well, the point is not that critical inquiry is always bad, but
>> rather, what the objective moral standard one uses to to perform the
>> measuring. If one uses existential/humanistic premises, the
>> conclusions are not tenable.
>>
>
> You'll have to elaborate on this further, I'm afraid. I don't know
> what you mean by "existential/humanistic premises". I see no reason to
> believe that the outcomes of moral inquiry are any less tenable when
> they are done in the absence of religious assumptions than when they
> are done in the presence of religious assumptions.
As I've noted before:
Humankind is not the measure of all things:
"Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed
down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to
interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his
predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective
and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes to
Protagoras an early form of phenomenology, in which what is or appears
for a single individual is true or real for that individual."[1]
I reject relativism as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject phenomenology as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject Hume's "the science of man is the only solid foundation for
the other sciences" argument as a valid axiomatic first principle
I reject Sartre's "existence precedes essence" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject the application of existential premises as articulated in
works by Philip K Dick (such as "A Scanner Darkly" and "Blade Runner")
as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject the application of existential premises as portrayed in
"Objects in Space", (From Joss Whedon's Firefly) as a valid axiomatic
first principle.
And of course, though no one sound bite accurately captures all the
subtle distinct nuances of these positions, "humankind is not the
measure of all things" and "existential premises" are useful
references to them.
My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
of knowledge from which we derive our first principles that we use to
make value judgments.
>> > This does not guarantee a good outcome but it is
>> > a lot better than any alternative.
>>
>> I don't believe you can assess an objective "better than any
>> alternative" if relying upon existential/humanistic premises.
>>
>
> That's just a statement about what you believe. It's not an argument.
The lack of objectivity when using existential/humanistic first
principles is fatal:
"Roger Scruton claimed, in his book From Descartes to Wittgenstein,
that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept
of bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral
creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by
them. In chapter 18, he writes, "In what sense Sartre is able to
'recommend' the authenticity which consists in the purely self-made
morality is unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument,
his recommendation can have no objective force.""[2]
> It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
> wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
"arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>
>> >> > Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
>> >> > is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
>> >> > ideas
>>
>> >> They are not my ideas. As I've noted before:
>>
>> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>>
>> > What are your beliefs?
>>
>> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
>> of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
>> of knowledge for the first principles that one should use to make
>> value judgements.
>>
>
> I don't understand what that means.
I reject relativism as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject phenomenology as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject Hume's "the science of man is the only solid foundation for
the other sciences" argument as a valid axiomatic first principle
I reject Sartre's "existence precedes essence" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject the application of existential premises as articulated in
works by Philip K Dick (such as "A Scanner Darkly" and "Blade Runner")
as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject the application of existential premises as portrayed in
"Objects in Space", (From Joss Whedon's Firefly) as a valid axiomatic
first principle.
And of course, though no one sound bite accurately captures all the
subtle distinct nuances of these positions, "humankind is not the
measure of all things" and "existential premises" are useful
references to them.
My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
of knowledge from which we derive our first principles that we use to
make value judgments.
> First of all, you seem to be
> presuming that there are some truths in the Bible, so please explain
> how to reconcile that with the contention that the objective truth of
> the Bible is independent of your beliefs.
To be clearer, my position is:
1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> It would also be nice if you
> could give one example of a truth in the Bible.
Consider:
"Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[3]
>> >> Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
>>
>> >> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
>> >> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
>> >> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
>> >> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
>> >> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
>> >> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
>> >> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
>> >> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
>> >> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
>> >> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>>
>> > Quite morally disgusting, in my view.
>>
>> But the objective reality of the universe is not based on your
>> personal aesthetic.
>>
>
> Never said it was. That's completely irrelevant. That passage you just
> quoted is morally disgusting.
But, if based on existential/humanistic premises, you're simply
articulating a personal aesthetic; as noted above:
"In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
objective force.""[2]
>> >> A believer warning of the perils and dangers of dying in sin and
>> >> testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
>> >> cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
>>
>> > If there really is a cosmic tyrant who is meting out eternal horrible
>> > punishments, the highest moral ground would be taken by one who said
>> > they wanted nothing to do with him and would not submit to his
>> > tyranny.
>>
>> Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine.
>
> So much the worse for Christianity.
I consider it to be a wonderful part of Christianity. :)
>> God has a moral claim on
>> every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism notes:
>>
>> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
>> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>>
>
> Well, that's precisely why Christianity must be rejected as evil. Why
> should we obey God's will just because it happens to be his will?
Now we get to the root objection. The doctrines of submission frequently are. :)
> Why
> should we surrender our capacity to judge what is right and wrong?
Surrender as a Christian doctrine is a wonderful word. It affirms
that all I have, all I am, all that will be, comes from God. It
affirms that though I will never have infinite, full and exhaustive
knowledge, when I surrender to God, I can be infallibly and perfectly
informed on any topic that God chooses to share with me. It affirms
that my capacity to judge right and wrong is finite and incomplete,
and that I need the help and assistance of God's Holy Spirit in my
life.
> That's a complete abaondment of responsibility for our actions as
> rational beings.
Its a recognition of the finite and limited nature of human
understanding, and a recognition of the sufficiency of God's revealed
knowledge.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > The
>> >> > incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
>> >> > unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
>> >> > evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>>
>> >> I believe self-evaluation failed Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
>>
>> > Not very likely. I don't think these people made a good faith effort
>> > to live an ethical life. However the case may be, the horrible
>> > tragedies wrought by these people are certainly no excuse for not
>> > making a good faith effort to live a thoughtful, self-critical ethical
>> > life yourself, quite the reverse.
>>
>> Yes, but you measure their "good faith effort" by using your personal
>> standard;
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
You evaluated those men by your personal standard, made a moral
judgement and concluded:
"I don't think these people made a good faith effort to live an ethical life."
This is precisely what you objected to, when calling God a tyrant.
You objected to God, using His standard to make a moral judgement on
your life, and to impose His values on you. So its a double standard,
you feel free to make moral judgements on others, but reject the
authority of others to make a moral standard by which to measure you.
> I measure the good faith effort
> according to whether it's a genuine good faith effort or not, just as
> I measure whether something's blue according to whether or not it is
> in fact blue.
>
>> that's precisely what you object to when you describe God
>> as a "tyrant" above. That's a double standard on your part.
>>
>
> No. You're confused. I'm objecting to submission to an arbitrarily
> chosen authority as opposed to the exercise of your judgement and
> rational faculties.
Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
"arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>> >> Instead my
>> >> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
>> >> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
>> >> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
>> >> judgments.
>>
>> > Well, tell me more about how I'm supposed to use the Bible to make
>> > value judgements.
>>
>> For example, one can learn and understand and assent that God has a
>> moral claim on every aspect of humankind's life.
>
> How? How exacly did you find this out?
>
>> As the Catechism
>> notes:
>>
>> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
>> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>>
>
> If you have some minimal level of rationality you will be aware that
> the fact that the Cathecism says something does not in itself make it
> true. What are the *reasons* why I should accept that I have this
> duty?
I like how the Confession authors put it:
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the
consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all
glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire
perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full
persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority
thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness
by and with the Word in our hearts."[4]
The whole paragraph is wonderful and exceptional, but I would emphasize:
"yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work
of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
hearts."[4]
God's own Holy Spirit, a person, living and working in our hearts
through the testimony of the Bible! :)
> Why should I submit to God unless I perceive that it is good to
> do so? And if I only do so on the condition that I perceive it to me
> good to do so then it is not the kind of submission you are
> advocating, I am still reserving the right to exercise my rational
> faculty and indeed there would be no effective difference from what I
> am already doing, namely exercising my own judgement about what is
> right and wrong.
I like how the Bible puts it:
"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
or evil."[5]
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html Q 39
[4] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 1 S 5
[5] http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12.htm v 13-14
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 19, 2:59 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> How do you suggest responding to someone who does nothing but repeat
> the same established fallacies verbatim?
>
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 19, 10:38 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
it further.
> I reject Sartre's "existence precedes essence" argument as a valid
> axiomatic first principle.
> I reject Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" argument as a valid
> axiomatic first principle.
> I reject Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" argument as a valid
> axiomatic first principle.
> I reject the application of existential premises as articulated in
> works by Philip K Dick (such as "A Scanner Darkly" and "Blade Runner")
> as a valid axiomatic first principle.
> I reject the application of existential premises as portrayed in
> "Objects in Space", (From Joss Whedon's Firefly) as a valid axiomatic
> first principle.
>
> And of course, though no one sound bite accurately captures all the
> subtle distinct nuances of these positions, "humankind is not the
> measure of all things" and "existential premises" are useful
> references to them.
>
Well, some of these philosophers we may need to talk over in just a
bit more depth.
Humankind is not the measure of all things, no, in the sense that
there is objective truth, but nevertheless humans are the only ones
who are actually around to do any measuring and it's time you faced up
to that reality. If you're going to place your faith in some ancient
text then what you're doing is suspending your rational faculties and
handing responsibility for your life over to some other humans who
wrote this text without reasoning out for yourself whether that's
actually a good idea or not. Which is the height of irresponsibility.
And even supposing, for the sake of argument, that you were actually
to encounter a supernatural being, handing over control of your life
to that being without reasoning out for yourself whether that was a
good idea or not would still be the height of irresponsibility.
Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got. Use them.
> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
> of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
> of knowledge from which we derive our first principles that we use to
> make value judgments.
>
post? We'll see.
> >> > This does not guarantee a good outcome but it is
> >> > a lot better than any alternative.
>
> >> I don't believe you can assess an objective "better than any
> >> alternative" if relying upon existential/humanistic premises.
>
> > That's just a statement about what you believe. It's not an argument.
>
> The lack of objectivity when using existential/humanistic first
> principles is fatal:
>
> "Roger Scruton claimed, in his book From Descartes to Wittgenstein,
> that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept
> of bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral
> creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by
> them. In chapter 18, he writes, "In what sense Sartre is able to
> 'recommend' the authenticity which consists in the purely self-made
> morality is unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument,
> his recommendation can have no objective force.""[2]
>
fact is, you are free and you have responsibility for your choices.
When you make a choice, you are completely responsible for it and you
are advocating that all of humanity make that choice. That's the human
condition. That's what he's on about. Some people Sartre says have
"bad faith" and are "cowards". Well, if you have bad faith or are a
coward, then that is the way things are. There is nothing to recommend
or not to recommend about it. But it is still a fact that that is the
way things are and that you are responsible for it. You are free, and
you are responsible for your actions. That is the human condition and
you cannot escape it.
See, when you place your faith in the Bible you still cannot escape
responsibility for your actions. Each time you choose to do something
based on your faith, you are saying "I choose on this occasion to
place my faith in the Bible and act accordingly and I am advocating
that all of humanity do the same, despite the fact that by my own
admission I cannot offer rational grounds for doing so". That is your
choice and you are responsible for it. That is the way things are. The
idea that you have handed over your life to the care of some higher
power who has better judgement than you is an illusion.
> > It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
> > wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
>
> Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
> double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
> "arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>
the fact that you have to make your own choices and take
responsibility for them. This is Sartre's point.
And if you have not reasoned out your choices for yourself, then you
are acting in bad faith. This too is an inescapable fact. When I say
this it is "better" to act in good faith I am perhaps merely
expressing a personal preference. But the fact remains that in trying
to say "Someone else knows better than me" you are deceiving yourself.
You cannot escape the fact that only you can make the judgement about
who knows best. When you place your faith in the Bible without
attempting to reason the matter out you are doing the equivalent of
the man in the novel "The Dice Man" who lives his life by the roll of
the dice. What he is doing is actually a lot more honest than what you
are doing.
certainly cut out your work for yourself.
> And of course, though no one sound bite accurately captures all the
> subtle distinct nuances of these positions, "humankind is not the
> measure of all things" and "existential premises" are useful
> references to them.
>
> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
> of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
> of knowledge from which we derive our first principles that we use to
> make value judgments.
>
I asked you some questions about this waffle which you haven't
answered.
> > First of all, you seem to be
> > presuming that there are some truths in the Bible, so please explain
> > how to reconcile that with the contention that the objective truth of
> > the Bible is independent of your beliefs.
>
> To be clearer, my position is:
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
Let me see if I can engage in some valid reasoning here.
(3) One of your beliefs is the proposition that the Bible is
objectively true (by (1) above).
(4) According to you, the proposition that the Bible is objectively
true is independent of each of your beliefs (by (2) above)
(5) Therefore, the proposition that the Bible is objectively true is
independent of the proposition that the Bible is objectively true.
Sound reasoning? I can formalize this argument in intuitionistic first-
order logic, which is weaker than classical first-order logic. Unless
you're going to reject one of the premises...
> > It would also be nice if you
> > could give one example of a truth in the Bible.
>
> Consider:
>
> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[3]
>
about deciding what counts as genuine revelation?
>
>
> >> >> Rather, consider how Jonathan Edwards puts it:
>
> >> >> "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
> >> >> furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
> >> >> wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is
> >> >> provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the
> >> >> damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of
> >> >> divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it,
> >> >> and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and
> >> >> nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
> >> >> flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done,
> >> >> nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."[1]
>
> >> > Quite morally disgusting, in my view.
>
> >> But the objective reality of the universe is not based on your
> >> personal aesthetic.
>
> > Never said it was. That's completely irrelevant. That passage you just
> > quoted is morally disgusting.
>
> But, if based on existential/humanistic premises, you're simply
> articulating a personal aesthetic; as noted above:
>
My disgust for what the Inquisition did is also based on a personal
aesthetic. They used exactly the same reasoning as you. I would have
less disgust for them if they had not pretended they were fulfilling a
moral duty by serving a higher being.
> "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
> consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
> recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
> objective force.""[2]
>
> >> >> A believer warning of the perils and dangers of dying in sin and
> >> >> testifying of the grace and goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
> >> >> cedes a higher moral ground to no one.
>
> >> > If there really is a cosmic tyrant who is meting out eternal horrible
> >> > punishments, the highest moral ground would be taken by one who said
> >> > they wanted nothing to do with him and would not submit to his
> >> > tyranny.
>
> >> Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine.
>
> > So much the worse for Christianity.
>
> I consider it to be a wonderful part of Christianity. :)
>
articulate.
> >> God has a moral claim on
> >> every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism notes:
>
> >> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
> >> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>
> > Well, that's precisely why Christianity must be rejected as evil. Why
> > should we obey God's will just because it happens to be his will?
>
> Now we get to the root objection. The doctrines of submission frequently are. :)
>
Perhaps you could do something to address it.
> > Why
> > should we surrender our capacity to judge what is right and wrong?
>
> Surrender as a Christian doctrine is a wonderful word. It affirms
> that all I have, all I am, all that will be, comes from God. It
> affirms that though I will never have infinite, full and exhaustive
> knowledge, when I surrender to God, I can be infallibly and perfectly
> informed on any topic that God chooses to share with me.
You have no reason to think that there is omniscient being. Hoping
that by placing your faith in some ancient text you can get the
benefits of some supernatural being's omniscience is just wishful
thinking and doing it in the absence of sufficient reason is the
height of irresponsibility, like the man in the novel "The Dice Man"
living his life by the throw of the dice. At least he was honest about
what he was doing.
As Sartre says in "Existentialism and Humanism", when the angel orders
Abraham to sacrifice his son, he has to decide whether it is really an
angel and whether he is really Abraham. He can't escape responsibility
for his choice.
And does not Kierkegaard's stuff about Abraham's "teleological
suspension of the ethical" make you worry just a little bit, given the
bloody and brutal history of Christianity?
If I was Abraham I would go with ethics, myself. Also, if I lived in
the days of the Inquisition, I would examine this book on the basis of
which people were being brutally tortured to death for their beliefs
with a critical eye.
Of course that's just a personal aesthetic.
But you too cannot escape the fact that you are living your life on
the basis of your personal whims. As Sartre says, you need to face up
to that reality. You are making your choices and have responsibility
for them.
> It affirms
> that my capacity to judge right and wrong is finite and incomplete,
> and that I need the help and assistance of God's Holy Spirit in my
> life.
>
represents the Word of God. That's your decision and you get to decide
the criteria on the basis of which you make it. You openly admit there
are no rational criteria, that's central to your position, so that
means you are rolling dice. And your decision to live by this roll of
the dice has to be re-affirmed each day. No-one is responsible for it
but you. You are the one calling the shots. That is the way things
are. It is time you took responsibility for your actions.
> > That's a complete abaondment of responsibility for our actions as
> > rational beings.
>
> Its a recognition of the finite and limited nature of human
> understanding, and a recognition of the sufficiency of God's revealed
> knowledge.
>
some "revealed knowledge of God" out there which will help you to live
better is just rolling dice. It's a suspension of your rational
faculties. But you're responsible for the fact that you chose to live
your life by this roll of the dice, and that you keep choosing to live
this way.
Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is the Word
of God, the fact would remain that you were "just lucky" and that the
real nature of your choice was to live by a roll of the dice, and that
you bear responsibility for this choice.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 19, 10:38 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, but you measure their "good faith effort" by using your personal
> >> standard;
>
> > What's that supposed to mean?
>
> You evaluated those men by your personal standard,
and it's time you faced up to that reality. If you chose to place your
faith in some ancient text, you still bear responsibility for having
chosen to roll the dice.
> made a moral
> judgement and concluded:
>
> "I don't think these people made a good faith effort to live an ethical life."
>
wrong. What they did falls afoul of my personal standards, yes, but
that is not the point. I don't think they were making an effort to
live by any moral standards. I don't think that ethical reflection was
part of what they did. That's my best guess anyway.
> This is precisely what you objected to, when calling God a tyrant.
First of all, I wouldn't be so silly as to call a non-existent being
names.
If there were a supernatural being who was going to throw me into a
lake of fire for making my own decisions, of course it would be
appropriate to call that being a tyrant and that is nothing to do with
what I just did there, I was just making a guess about what the facts
are.
You're completely confused.
> You objected to God, using His standard to make a moral judgement on
> your life, and to impose His values on you.
doing anything.
I encourage you and others to make moral judgements about my life. But
the reality is that I have to decide for myself whether or not I
accept these judgements. That's just the way things are, I'm afraid.
> So its a double standard,
> you feel free to make moral judgements on others, but reject the
> authority of others to make a moral standard by which to measure you.
>
Complete misreading.
Make whatever moral judgements about my life you like, but if you want
me to listen to them I expect you to back them up with some reasoning,
rather than pointing to some ancient text and asking me to gamble that
it is the Word of God without the slightest rhyme or reason.
If I do bad things, I may be justly punished. Or I may not do anything
bad and be unjustly punished. The bottom line is that I am only
accountable to myself for whether I am good or not.
Eternal torture would clearly be an unjust punishment, even for the
worst crimes human beings are capable of.
> > I measure the good faith effort
> > according to whether it's a genuine good faith effort or not, just as
> > I measure whether something's blue according to whether or not it is
> > in fact blue.
>
> >> that's precisely what you object to when you describe God
> >> as a "tyrant" above. That's a double standard on your part.
>
> > No. You're confused. I'm objecting to submission to an arbitrarily
> > chosen authority as opposed to the exercise of your judgement and
> > rational faculties.
>
> Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
> double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
> "arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>
> >> >> Instead my
> >> >> position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word of
> >> >> God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source of
> >> >> knowledge for first principles that humankind should use to make value
> >> >> judgments.
>
> >> > Well, tell me more about how I'm supposed to use the Bible to make
> >> > value judgements.
>
> >> For example, one can learn and understand and assent that God has a
> >> moral claim on every aspect of humankind's life.
>
> > How? How exacly did you find this out?
>
You didn't find it out. You did not "learn and understand" that it was
the case. You guessed that it was the case because you wanted it to be
the case, it made you feel good. You are responsible for suspending
your rational faculties when making decisions about how to live your
> >> As the Catechism
> >> notes:
>
> >> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
> >> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>
> > the fact that the Cathecism says something does not in itself make it
> > true. What are the *reasons* why I should accept that I have this
> > duty?
>
> I like how the Confession authors put it:
>
> "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
> and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the
> matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the
> consent of all the parts,
obscene.
> the scope of the whole (which is to give all
> glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's
> salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire
> perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
> itself to be the Word of God;
an argument along these lines that the Bible is such a great book that
it must be the Word of God then let's hear it.
> yet, notwithstanding, our full
> persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority
> thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness
> by and with the Word in our hearts."[4]
>
cameras hidden everywhere connected to the Internet by which people
were watching me and spying on me. I believed that they were sending
me messages through ads on the sides of buses and trying to punish me.
Then I got put on medication and three weeks later it was all better.
This is the same kind of stuff.
> The whole paragraph is wonderful and exceptional,
reality, the second exhibits symptoms of a psychiatric disorder.
> but I would emphasize:
>
> "yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
> infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work
> of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
> hearts."[4]
>
> God's own Holy Spirit, a person, living and working in our hearts
> through the testimony of the Bible! :)
>
theory.
When I read the Bible or a novel, I have a clear enough head to be
able to separate fact from fiction.
When I read textbooks on set theory, I don't need divine inspiration,
I can understand the proofs for myself and see that the results are
true.
> > Why should I submit to God unless I perceive that it is good to
> > do so? And if I only do so on the condition that I perceive it to me
> > good to do so then it is not the kind of submission you are
> > advocating, I am still reserving the right to exercise my rational
> > faculty and indeed there would be no effective difference from what I
> > am already doing, namely exercising my own judgement about what is
> > right and wrong.
>
> I like how the Bible puts it:
>
> "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
> commandments,
Because otherwise he might put me into a lake of fire? Well, I suppose
that would be a good pragmatic argument if I had the slightest reason
to believe that God or the lake of fire existed.
Is that what it's about, is it, just making sure you don't get the
snot beaten out of you?
> because this applies to every person. For God will bring
> every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
> or evil."[5]
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
> [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
> [3]http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.htmlQ 39
> [5]http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12.htmv 13-14
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> Sorry to take so long to respond. I was thinking about your comments.
No problem. Thanks for your consideration. :)
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dev didn't say the process of self-evaluation necessarily leads to
>> > objective
>> > truth.
>>
>> For fundamental premises, a lack of objectivity can be fatal.
>
> I agree.
> However, the Bible doesn't meet those requirements.
Here's where we may agree to disagree. :)
>> > Does that mean we shouldn't test it to ensure it works properly and that
>> > we
>> > shouldn't apply error checking and security features?
>>
>> But this can only make sense when you understand the limitations of
>> your testing process. For all but the simplest and trivial of
>> software programs, organizations cannot objectively declare the
>> product to be defect free, usually because the number of input
>> permutations and code paths is too large to test in the allocated
>> development schedule.
>
> True. The fact is that All processes have limitations. There are no perfect
> processes.
It may be a difference in how you've phrased it, but if it is an
objective fact that:
"all processes have limitations"
then the conclusion
"all processes have limitations"
if based on a limited process (such as existential/humanistic
premises) cannot be objectively certain. Which means that "all
processes have limitations" is nothing more than a subjective personal
aesthetic. But, on the other hand, if you maintain that it is
objectively true that "all processes have limitations", then a process
that leads you to the objective conclusion "all processes have
limitations" is a counter example to the premise "all processes have
limitations".
Here's my point:
Existential/humanistic reasoning is not tenable because subjective
premises are insufficient to establish an objective truth. As I've
noted earlier:
"Roger Scruton claimed, in his book From Descartes to Wittgenstein,
that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept
of bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral
creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by
them. In chapter 18, he writes, "In what sense Sartre is able to
'recommend' the authenticity which consists in the purely self-made
morality is unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument,
his recommendation can have no objective force.""[1]
> The question then becomes do you engage in the process anyway despite the
> fact that it has limitations or do you decide not to engage in the process
> because it has limitations and just declare the software developer god. Even
> if you didn't state the software developer was god you would be conceding
> that by your actions because you chose not to engage in the process because
> of it's limitations and you chose to trust that the software developer was
> talented, creative, and good at what they did. You would in effect be
> declaring a faith in the software developer, so to speak.
The point is, the qualification does not have objective force.
> Then, if you decide to engage in the process despite it's limitations, do
> you just accept those limitations or do you try to do the best you can
> despite those limitations minimize the issues associated with those
> limitations by developing an effective Test Plan that speaks to those
> issues.
To assess objective truth by subjective methods is simply using the
wrong tool for the job. And of course, you illustrate the danger in
the text of your response. You talk about doing "the best you can" as
if you can even objectively know what "the best you can" is by only
subjective methods; Scruton's argument above shows the problem with
that.
>> >> >> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely the
>> >> >> self-
>> >> >> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
>> >> >> own eyes their actions were justified.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem was that they didn't self evaluate, Brock.
>> >>
>> >> I suspect you underestimate them to characterize it so simplistically.
>> >
>> > Well, in reality, neither you nor I can say definitively that they did
>> > or
>> > didn't.
>>
>> But if you rely upon existential premises, you can't even make that
>> statement with objective certainty (Of course, my position doesn't
>> accept such premises, for just such a reason). As noted earlier:
>>
>> "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
>> consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
>> recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
>> objective force."[2]
>
> Neither can the Bible because it's not an objective truth for the reasons I
> stated before.
But if you based that conclusion on subjective premises, your
conclusion does not have objective force.
> So we work within our limitations which are based on objective facts/truths
> which are known to us within the limits that we can, that is, are capable of
> knowing them.
"Good enough" is not good enough.
> Or we postulate theories based on those objective facts/truths, try to prove
> if those are true or not, and use those to enhance our knowledge.
Look at how poorly this process works over time for one direct,
specific question "what is the age of the universe?":
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/ageuniv.htm
The answer to the question cited here, employing methods similar to
your "best we can" approach, simply gives wrong answer after wrong
answer after wrong answer after wrong answer after wrong answer (when
compared with the value/range currently believed to be the "right"
answer).
Subjective methods are not good enough. "Good enough" is not good enough. :)
> For example, I'm testing a software now which was developed by a Software
> Development firm for my Company. My Company has purchased the source code as
> well.
> We had some issues with this software which I had to troubleshoot. Some of
> the issues appeared to be related to timeouts.
> Those timeouts could have had several causes. I theorized that the cause was
> likely SQL Server based on my past experience with SQL Server, ran Profiler,
> and discovered that the Server we were using had a huge amount of resources
> which were being used to process one particular job which seemed to be
> running constantly against the Report Server. Now this would have resulted
> in a delay in processing not necessarily a timeout depending on how both the
> Server and the Software was configured.
> So, the next step was to look at both those configurations, as well as
> suggest those jobs (if possible) be restricted to overnight and weekends,
> or, just leave it alone, and assume that everyone knew what they were doing
> and the users should just accept the delays and timeouts.
Thanks for sharing this. It is always interesting to hear about how
problems/issues in software engineering are diagnosed and identified.
It truly is like solving a mystery! :)
>> > Why do you believe that I've underestimated them and characterized it
>> > too
>> > simplistically?
>>
>> For example, Stalin was a student at a georgian orthodox seminary,
>> yet, while there, became an atheist[3]. Surely an example or
>> indication, from your point of view, of "honest self-evaluation"[4].
>
> Possibly.
Surely stronger than simply possibly. :)
Atheists on this forum are frequently articulating a similar process
of "honest self-evaluation" to become an atheist, yet here is an
example of that very thing and all you'll say is "possibly". Tsk tsk.
> He could have also realized that in order to advance in a
> Communist society, being an atheist would be more "politically correct",
> which wouldn't have been an honest self-evaluation. We just don't know what
> his motivations were other than what he said which was couched in a lot of
> rhetorical political doctrine and doesn't really give us the truth.
Ok, so your conclusion:
* "The problem was that they didn't self evaluate ... They follow a
Dogma and simply believed they were right."
in the context of:
* "We just don't know what his motivations were other than what he said"
is untenable and shows an example of why subjective methods are insufficient.
>> They weren't blind to the reality of the situation. They were well
>> aware of the consequences of their actions and social policies.
>> Millions and millions of people dead. The deaths might have been a
>> surprise to the rest of the world, but they were certainly aware of
>> what they did.
>
> I agree that they made conscious decisions based on their Dogma to murder
> millions of people.
But again, your conclusion:
* "The problem was that they didn't self evaluate ... They follow a
Dogma and simply believed they were right."
in the context of:
* "We just don't know what his motivations were other than what he said"
shows that your conclusion does not have objective force. Yet, you
advance the conclusion as if it did.
> I'm just explaining that it was
> their belief in Communism that lead them in that direction.
But this in the context of:
* "We just don't know what his motivations were other than what he said"
shows that your conclusion does not have objective force. Yet, you
advance the conclusion as if it were objectively certain.
>> >> I don't think a simple answer does justice to what is an entire field
>> >> of inquiry, Comparative Religions[5].
>> >
>> > I agree the answer can be complex, but it can also be relatively
>> > straightforward.
>> > For example, is there anything inherent in Christianity that makes it an
>> > objective truth and the Quran not an objective truth.
>>
>> But, we're back to the first principles that one would use to measure
>> objective truth. Basing first principles on existential premises does
>> not lead to objective truth, but rather, only to subjective truth.[1]
>
> Yes and you're still dodging.
I don't think a simple answer does justice to what is an entire field
of inquiry, Comparative Religions.
Regards,
Brock
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> I reject Hume's "the science of man is the only solid foundation for
>> the other sciences" argument as a valid axiomatic first principle
>
> Can you give me a reference for this one, I might want to talk about
> it further.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92t/introduction.html
>> And of course, though no one sound bite accurately captures all the
>> subtle distinct nuances of these positions, "humankind is not the
>> measure of all things" and "existential premises" are useful
>> references to them.
>>
>
> Okay.
>
> Well, some of these philosophers we may need to talk over in just a
> bit more depth.
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things, no, in the sense that
> there is objective truth, but nevertheless humans are the only ones
> who are actually around to do any measuring
I don't believe you can objectively substantiate or prove such a statement.
> and it's time you faced up
> to that reality. If you're going to place your faith in some ancient
> text then what you're doing is suspending your rational faculties and
> handing responsibility for your life over to some other humans who
> wrote this text without reasoning out for yourself whether that's
> actually a good idea or not. Which is the height of irresponsibility.
Thats not the claim of the Bible, as the Confession notes:
"The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or
Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof;
and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."[1]
> And even supposing, for the sake of argument, that you were actually
> to encounter a supernatural being, handing over control of your life
> to that being without reasoning out for yourself whether that was a
> good idea or not would still be the height of irresponsibility.
Thats not the claim of the Bible, as the Confession notes:
"He (God) is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in
all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other
creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to
require of them."[2]
> Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got.
My position contrasts with yours, and is that the propositional truths
of the Bible, the "Word of God", is the "essence" that precedes
"existence". It is the source of knowledge for first principles that
humankind should use to make value judgments.
>> >> > This does not guarantee a good outcome but it is
>> >> > a lot better than any alternative.
>>
>> >> I don't believe you can assess an objective "better than any
>> >> alternative" if relying upon existential/humanistic premises.
>>
>> > That's just a statement about what you believe. It's not an argument.
>>
>> The lack of objectivity when using existential/humanistic first
>> principles is fatal:
>>
>> "Roger Scruton claimed, in his book From Descartes to Wittgenstein,
>> that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept
>> of bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral
>> creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by
>> them. In chapter 18, he writes, "In what sense Sartre is able to
>> 'recommend' the authenticity which consists in the purely self-made
>> morality is unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument,
>> his recommendation can have no objective force.""[2]
>>
>
> It's not a recommendation. It's something you can't escape. The simple
> fact is, you are free and you have responsibility for your choices.
> When you make a choice, you are completely responsible for it and you
> are advocating that all of humanity make that choice. That's the human
> condition. That's what he's on about. Some people Sartre says have
> "bad faith" and are "cowards". Well, if you have bad faith or are a
> coward, then that is the way things are.
The point is when using existential/humanistic premises, that the
evaluation of "bad faith" and "coward" do not have objective force,
and are simply arbitrary personal aesthetic.
> There is nothing to recommend
> or not to recommend about it. But it is still a fact that that is the
> way things are and that you are responsible for it. You are free, and
> you are responsible for your actions. That is the human condition and
> you cannot escape it.
Essence precedes existence. Meaning originates from outside of humankind. :)
> See, when you place your faith in the Bible you still cannot escape
> responsibility for your actions. Each time you choose to do something
> based on your faith, you are saying "I choose on this occasion to
> place my faith in the Bible and act accordingly and I am advocating
> that all of humanity do the same, despite the fact that by my own
> admission I cannot offer rational grounds for doing so".
I'm pretty sure that is not what I am saying.
> That is your
> choice and you are responsible for it. That is the way things are. The
> idea that you have handed over your life to the care of some higher
> power who has better judgement than you is an illusion.
I think the idea that you have better judgment than God is an illusion.
>
>> > It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
>> > wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
>>
>> Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
>> double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
>> "arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>>
>
> No. It's not arbitrarily chosen. It's all you've got. You can't escape
> the fact that you have to make your own choices and take
> responsibility for them. This is Sartre's point.
Of course its arbitrarily chosen; "existence precedes essence"
predicates value at the individual level based on the arbitrary choice
that individual makes.
> And if you have not reasoned out your choices for yourself, then you
> are acting in bad faith.
But your "bad faith" is nothing more than a personal preference. Its
not an objective truth.
> This too is an inescapable fact. When I say
> this it is "better" to act in good faith I am perhaps merely
> expressing a personal preference. But the fact remains that in trying
> to say "Someone else knows better than me" you are deceiving yourself.
But you are subjectively making a value judgment that can, by your own
standard, only be appropriate to yourself, yet you are applying it to
another.
> You cannot escape the fact that only you can make the judgement about
> who knows best.
There went your "bad faith" argument. If your standard is true, then
by your standard you cannot criticize a person who does:
> When you place your faith in the Bible without
> attempting to reason the matter out
because you have presumed your values upon them.
(Of course, this is not my position, but it shows that existentialism
is not tenable.)
>> >> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
>> >> of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
>> >> of knowledge for the first principles that one should use to make
>> >> value judgements.
>>
>> > I don't understand what that means.
>>
>> I reject relativism as a valid axiomatic first principle.
>> I reject phenomenology as a valid axiomatic first principle.
>> I reject Hume's "the science of man is the only solid foundation for
>> the other sciences" argument as a valid axiomatic first principle
>> I reject Sartre's "existence precedes essence" argument as a valid
>> axiomatic first principle.
>> I reject Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" argument as a valid
>> axiomatic first principle.
>> I reject Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" argument as a valid
>> axiomatic first principle.
>> I reject the application of existential premises as articulated in
>> works by Philip K Dick (such as "A Scanner Darkly" and "Blade Runner")
>> as a valid axiomatic first principle.
>> I reject the application of existential premises as portrayed in
>> "Objects in Space", (From Joss Whedon's Firefly) as a valid axiomatic
>> first principle.
>>
>
> You realise that each of these requires some discussion. You've
> certainly cut out your work for yourself.
You asked for my position, and I shared it with you. :)
>> To be clearer, my position is:
>>
>> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
>> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>>
>
> I hang out on the newsgroup sci.logic a lot, you know.
>
> Let me see if I can engage in some valid reasoning here.
>
> (3) One of your beliefs is the proposition that the Bible is
> objectively true (by (1) above).
> (4) According to you, the proposition that the Bible is objectively
> true is independent of each of your beliefs (by (2) above)
> (5) Therefore, the proposition that the Bible is objectively true is
> independent of the proposition that the Bible is objectively true.
>
> Sound reasoning?
More correctly:
(5) Therefore, the truth of the proposition that the Bible is
objectively true is independent my beliefs.
which is just:
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>> > It would also be nice if you
>> > could give one example of a truth in the Bible.
>>
>> Consider:
>>
>> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
>> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[3]
>>
>
> Right, so that is indeed our moral duty? Why is that? And how do we go
> about deciding what counts as genuine revelation?
I'm happy to share several of my resources:
* http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html
* http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
* http://gsb.biblecommenter.com/genesis/1.htm
>> "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
>> consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
>> recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
>> objective force.""[2]
>>
>
> We probably should talk this over in more detail.
That would be cool.
>> >> Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine.
>>
>> > So much the worse for Christianity.
>>
>> I consider it to be a wonderful part of Christianity. :)
>>
>
> I find it revolting, for reasons which I hope I have done something to
> articulate.
Personal aesthetic?
>> >> God has a moral claim on
>> >> every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism notes:
>>
>> >> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
>> >> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>>
>> > Well, that's precisely why Christianity must be rejected as evil. Why
>> > should we obey God's will just because it happens to be his will?
>>
>> Now we get to the root objection. The doctrines of submission frequently are. :)
>>
>
> Quite. This is the root objection. Seems like a strong one to me.
> Perhaps you could do something to address it.
I'll do my best, but at the end of the day, I have simply the
testimony of the Bible. :)
>> > Why
>> > should we surrender our capacity to judge what is right and wrong?
>>
>> Surrender as a Christian doctrine is a wonderful word. It affirms
>> that all I have, all I am, all that will be, comes from God. It
>> affirms that though I will never have infinite, full and exhaustive
>> knowledge, when I surrender to God, I can be infallibly and perfectly
>> informed on any topic that God chooses to share with me.
>
> Delusion.
But that assessment is simply your personal aesthetic. So an other
person's assessment that I am correct is at least as valid as your
assessment. :)
> You have no reason to think that there is omniscient being.
I have the testimony of the Bible.
> Hoping
> that by placing your faith in some ancient text you can get the
> benefits of some supernatural being's omniscience is just wishful
> thinking
"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they
shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary;
and they shall walk, and not faint."[3]
> and doing it in the absence of sufficient reason is the
> height of irresponsibility, like the man in the novel "The Dice Man"
> living his life by the throw of the dice. At least he was honest about
> what he was doing.
>
> As Sartre says in "Existentialism and Humanism", when the angel orders
> Abraham to sacrifice his son, he has to decide whether it is really an
> angel and whether he is really Abraham. He can't escape responsibility
> for his choice.
But humankind is not the measure of all things. In particular, I
believe Sartre discounts God's person and decree in the situation. A
fatal blunder in analysis.
> And does not Kierkegaard's stuff about Abraham's "teleological
> suspension of the ethical" make you worry just a little bit, given the
> bloody and brutal history of Christianity?
No.
> If I was Abraham I would go with ethics, myself.
One of the points of that story is that obedience to God is always right.
> Also, if I lived in
> the days of the Inquisition, I would examine this book on the basis of
> which people were being brutally tortured to death for their beliefs
> with a critical eye.
But you don't live in those days.
> Of course that's just a personal aesthetic.
And right there you've identified the problem with existentialism.
> But you too cannot escape the fact that you are living your life on
> the basis of your personal whims. As Sartre says, you need to face up
> to that reality. You are making your choices and have responsibility
> for them.
Humankind is not the measure of all things. In particular, my choices
are bound/limited by God's decrees.
>> It affirms
>> that my capacity to judge right and wrong is finite and incomplete,
>> and that I need the help and assistance of God's Holy Spirit in my
>> life.
>
> But there is no God to help you.
That is not the testimony of the Bible.
> You have to decide which text
> represents the Word of God. That's your decision and you get to decide
> the criteria on the basis of which you make it. You openly admit there
> are no rational criteria, that's central to your position, so that
> means you are rolling dice.
I think I'm more careful about my positions than you would indicate here.
> And your decision to live by this roll of
> the dice has to be re-affirmed each day. No-one is responsible for it
> but you. You are the one calling the shots. That is the way things
> are. It is time you took responsibility for your actions.
I like how the Confession puts it:
"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[4]
My choices are bounded by God's decrees.
> Your own understanding is all you've got. Gambling that there might be
> some "revealed knowledge of God" out there which will help you to live
> better is just rolling dice. It's a suspension of your rational
> faculties. But you're responsible for the fact that you chose to live
> your life by this roll of the dice, and that you keep choosing to live
> this way.
I think you overlook the important role of God's Holy Spirit:
"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by
infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by
accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing
wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by
imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical
obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the
obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and
resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have
not of themselves, it is the gift of God."[5]
> Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is the Word
> of God, the fact would remain that you were "just lucky" and that the
> real nature of your choice was to live by a roll of the dice, and that
> you bear responsibility for this choice.
I like how the Confession puts it:
"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[4]
My choices are bounded by God's decrees.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 1 S 4
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html Ch 2 S 2
[3] http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-31.htm
[4] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 3 S 1
[5] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 11 S 1
4praise
<reese@rawministry.org>> cannot exist without self-evaluation.
3Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't
consider the beam that is in your own eye?
4Or how will you tell your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your
eye;' and behold, the beam is in your own
eye? 5You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and
then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's
eye.
That sounds like self evaluation to me.
Christianity does not demand agreement with a text, it encourages
acceptance of a gift.
> There is no polite way to frame this debate without ignoring what it's
> about entirely.
> Either they're crazy and living a lie (and will
> probably end the human race because of it), or we deserve to go to
> Hell.
>> We have reason on our side,
entirely unreasonable.
>> and they have threats
Examples from Christians?
>>and strength in numbers.
Sorry about that. We (Christians) did champion religious freedom -
making it possible for atheists to have freedom of speech over 200
years ago. You would think that with "reason on your side" that
atheists would be the majority by now, but the numbers haven't changed
much - hmmmm???
> This is not a polite situation. Theistic ideologies are
> rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
> criticism,
> so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
> prefer as collateral damage.
- terrorists?
On Jun 15, 4:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>
> who complain of "bigotry" when peddling their hateful holy texts?
> is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> punishment for it. The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
> no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground. The
> unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 20, 12:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I reject Hume's "the science of man is the only solid foundation for
> >> the other sciences" argument as a valid axiomatic first principle
>
> > Can you give me a reference for this one, I might want to talk about
> > it further.
>
> http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92t/introduction.html
>
> >> And of course, though no one sound bite accurately captures all the
> >> subtle distinct nuances of these positions, "humankind is not the
> >> measure of all things" and "existential premises" are useful
> >> references to them.
>
> > Okay.
>
> > Well, some of these philosophers we may need to talk over in just a
> > bit more depth.
>
> > Humankind is not the measure of all things, no, in the sense that
> > there is objective truth, but nevertheless humans are the only ones
> > who are actually around to do any measuring
>
> I don't believe you can objectively substantiate or prove such a statement.
>
idea that there's anyone else around to do any measuring. Go for it if
you think you can do it.
> > and it's time you faced up
> > to that reality. If you're going to place your faith in some ancient
> > text then what you're doing is suspending your rational faculties and
> > handing responsibility for your life over to some other humans who
> > wrote this text without reasoning out for yourself whether that's
> > actually a good idea or not. Which is the height of irresponsibility.
>
> Thats not the claim of the Bible, as the Confession notes:
>
> "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
> believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or
> Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof;
> and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."[1]
>
picking some arbitrary text and treating as though it were the gospel
truth without the slightest evidence in favour of this assumption and
without subjecting the assumption to the slightest critical inquiry.
Will have to finish this later...
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 19, 9:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got.
>
> My position contrasts with yours,
If you decide that any particular source of values or propositions is
authoritative, then fine, either you've made an effort to reason the
point or you haven't. If you have, then your powers of reasoning are
the final arbiter. If not, then the reality is that all you've done is
roll some dice. If you end up getting any benefit from it then you
were just lucky.
> and is that the propositional truths
saying that it is our duty to submit to God. I don't think you've
explained why I should accept that yet.
about people's relationship to their own situation. How you evaluate
someone who has bad faith or is a coward is another matter.
Have you read Sartre's "Existentialism and Humanism"?
> > There is nothing to recommend
> > or not to recommend about it. But it is still a fact that that is the
> > way things are and that you are responsible for it. You are free, and
> > you are responsible for your actions. That is the human condition and
> > you cannot escape it.
>
> Essence precedes existence. Meaning originates from outside of humankind. :)
>
> > See, when you place your faith in the Bible you still cannot escape
> > responsibility for your actions. Each time you choose to do something
> > based on your faith, you are saying "I choose on this occasion to
> > place my faith in the Bible and act accordingly and I am advocating
> > that all of humanity do the same, despite the fact that by my own
> > admission I cannot offer rational grounds for doing so".
>
> I'm pretty sure that is not what I am saying.
>
I don't think I've heard them yet. By all means, fire away.
> > That is your
> > choice and you are responsible for it. That is the way things are. The
> > idea that you have handed over your life to the care of some higher
> > power who has better judgement than you is an illusion.
>
> I think the idea that you have better judgment than God is an illusion.
>
There are some who have better judgement than me, but if the reality
is that I decide to rely on someone else's judgement I still have to
exercise my own judgement about on whom to rely. This is Sartre's
>
>
> >> > It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
> >> > wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
>
> >> Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
> >> double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
> >> "arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>
> > No. It's not arbitrarily chosen. It's all you've got. You can't escape
> > the fact that you have to make your own choices and take
> > responsibility for them. This is Sartre's point.
>
> Of course its arbitrarily chosen;
> "existence precedes essence"
> predicates value at the individual level based on the arbitrary choice
> that individual makes.
>
are free to make your own choices and that you are also responsibile
for them, and that you cannot escape that responsibility just by
placing your faith in some ancient text. You are still answerable for
why you chose that ancient text over all the others. If you exercised
your reasoning powers in order to sort that matter out, great. Then
you grant that your reasoning powers are the final arbiter, and we are
agreed. If you did not exercise your reasoning powers in order to make
that choice, then the reality is that all you've done is roll a dice.
If something worthwhile comes of it then that is just luck. You're
living your life in bad faith because you're trying to sustain in
yourself the illusion that you can escape responsibility for your
actions. You're making an inauthentic choice.
> > And if you have not reasoned out your choices for yourself, then you
> > are acting in bad faith.
>
> But your "bad faith" is nothing more than a personal preference. Its
> not an objective truth.
>
> > This too is an inescapable fact. When I say
> > this it is "better" to act in good faith I am perhaps merely
> > expressing a personal preference. But the fact remains that in trying
> > to say "Someone else knows better than me" you are deceiving yourself.
>
> But you are subjectively making a value judgment
> that can, by your own
> standard, only be appropriate to yourself, yet you are applying it to
> another.
>
> > You cannot escape the fact that only you can make the judgement about
> > who knows best.
>
> There went your "bad faith" argument. If your standard is true, then
> by your standard you cannot criticize a person who does:
>
decision to live your life by the Bible is based on some sort of
reasoning process, then that's great, you accept that your reasoning
powers are the final arbiter and we can get around to trying to
evaluate the quality of the reasoning. If it's an attempt to surrender
your responsibility to use your reasoning powers to make your choices,
then you're deluding yourself into thinking that you can escape
responsibility for your choices and I can point out the fact that you
are deluding yourself. This indeed was precisely my point in what you
quote immediately above.
> > When you place your faith in the Bible without
> > attempting to reason the matter out
>
> because you have presumed your values upon them.
>
> (Of course, this is not my position, but it shows that existentialism
> is not tenable.)
>
What do you think my values are?
> >> >> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
> >> >> of God", is the "essence" that precedes "existence". It is the source
> >> >> of knowledge for the first principles that one should use to make
> >> >> value judgements.
>
> >> > I don't understand what that means.
>
> >> I reject relativism as a valid axiomatic first principle.
> >> I reject phenomenology as a valid axiomatic first principle.
> >> I reject Hume's "the science of man is the only solid foundation for
> >> the other sciences" argument as a valid axiomatic first principle
> >> I reject Sartre's "existence precedes essence" argument as a valid
> >> axiomatic first principle.
> >> I reject Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" argument as a valid
> >> axiomatic first principle.
> >> I reject Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" argument as a valid
> >> axiomatic first principle.
> >> I reject the application of existential premises as articulated in
> >> works by Philip K Dick (such as "A Scanner Darkly" and "Blade Runner")
> >> as a valid axiomatic first principle.
> >> I reject the application of existential premises as portrayed in
> >> "Objects in Space", (From Joss Whedon's Firefly) as a valid axiomatic
> >> first principle.
>
> > You realise that each of these requires some discussion. You've
> > certainly cut out your work for yourself.
>
> You asked for my position, and I shared it with you. :)
>
> >> To be clearer, my position is:
>
> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > I hang out on the newsgroup sci.logic a lot, you know.
>
> > Let me see if I can engage in some valid reasoning here.
>
> > (3) One of your beliefs is the proposition that the Bible is
> > objectively true (by (1) above).
> > (4) According to you, the proposition that the Bible is objectively
> > true is independent of each of your beliefs (by (2) above)
> > (5) Therefore, the proposition that the Bible is objectively true is
> > independent of the proposition that the Bible is objectively true.
>
> > Sound reasoning?
>
> More correctly:
>
> (5) Therefore, the truth of the proposition that the Bible is
> objectively true is independent my beliefs.
>
The point is that your assertion that the Bible is objective true is
just that, an assertion. You must provide some argument if you expect
other people to take it seriously.
> which is just:
>
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> >> > It would also be nice if you
> >> > could give one example of a truth in the Bible.
>
> >> Consider:
>
> >> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
> >> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[3]
>
> > Right, so that is indeed our moral duty? Why is that? And how do we go
> > about deciding what counts as genuine revelation?
>
> I'm happy to share several of my resources:
>
> *http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html
> *http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
> *http://gsb.biblecommenter.com/genesis/1.htm
>
> >> "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
> >> consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
> >> recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
> >> objective force.""[2]
>
> > We probably should talk this over in more detail.
>
> That would be cool.
>
> >> >> Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine.
>
> >> > So much the worse for Christianity.
>
> >> I consider it to be a wonderful part of Christianity. :)
>
> > I find it revolting, for reasons which I hope I have done something to
> > articulate.
>
> Personal aesthetic?
>
Like my distaste for what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Inquisition
did.
> >> >> God has a moral claim on
> >> >> every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism notes:
>
> >> >> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
> >> >> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>
> >> > Well, that's precisely why Christianity must be rejected as evil. Why
> >> > should we obey God's will just because it happens to be his will?
>
> >> Now we get to the root objection. The doctrines of submission frequently are. :)
>
> > Quite. This is the root objection. Seems like a strong one to me.
> > Perhaps you could do something to address it.
>
> I'll do my best, but at the end of the day, I have simply the
> testimony of the Bible. :)
>
reason for placing your faith in the Bible or don't you?
> >> > Why
> >> > should we surrender our capacity to judge what is right and wrong?
>
> >> Surrender as a Christian doctrine is a wonderful word. It affirms
> >> that all I have, all I am, all that will be, comes from God. It
> >> affirms that though I will never have infinite, full and exhaustive
> >> knowledge, when I surrender to God, I can be infallibly and perfectly
> >> informed on any topic that God chooses to share with me.
>
> > Delusion.
>
> But that assessment is simply your personal aesthetic.
> So an other
> person's assessment that I am correct is at least as valid as your
> assessment. :)
>
Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, that is...
> > You have no reason to think that there is omniscient being.
>
> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>
I've read about Superman in comic books.
> > Hoping
> > that by placing your faith in some ancient text you can get the
> > benefits of some supernatural being's omniscience is just wishful
> > thinking
>
> "But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they
> shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary;
> and they shall walk, and not faint."[3]
>
> > and doing it in the absence of sufficient reason is the
> > height of irresponsibility, like the man in the novel "The Dice Man"
> > living his life by the throw of the dice. At least he was honest about
> > what he was doing.
>
> > As Sartre says in "Existentialism and Humanism", when the angel orders
> > Abraham to sacrifice his son, he has to decide whether it is really an
> > angel and whether he is really Abraham. He can't escape responsibility
> > for his choice.
>
> But humankind is not the measure of all things.
> In particular, I
> believe Sartre discounts God's person and decree in the situation. A
> fatal blunder in analysis.
>
the sun.
This is all just silly nonsense until you've given us some reason to
think that God exists.
> > And does not Kierkegaard's stuff about Abraham's "teleological
> > suspension of the ethical" make you worry just a little bit, given the
> > bloody and brutal history of Christianity?
>
> No.
>
> > If I was Abraham I would go with ethics, myself.
>
> One of the points of that story is that obedience to God is always right.
>
> > Also, if I lived in
> > the days of the Inquisition, I would examine this book on the basis of
> > which people were being brutally tortured to death for their beliefs
> > with a critical eye.
>
> But you don't live in those days.
>
> > Of course that's just a personal aesthetic.
>
> And right there you've identified the problem with existentialism.
>
> > But you too cannot escape the fact that you are living your life on
> > the basis of your personal whims. As Sartre says, you need to face up
> > to that reality. You are making your choices and have responsibility
> > for them.
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
interpretation.
> In particular, my choices
> are bound/limited by God's decrees.
>
> >> It affirms
> >> that my capacity to judge right and wrong is finite and incomplete,
> >> and that I need the help and assistance of God's Holy Spirit in my
> >> life.
>
> > But there is no God to help you.
>
> That is not the testimony of the Bible.
>
the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What's your point?
> > You have to decide which text
> > represents the Word of God. That's your decision and you get to decide
> > the criteria on the basis of which you make it. You openly admit there
> > are no rational criteria, that's central to your position, so that
> > means you are rolling dice.
>
> I think I'm more careful about my positions than you would indicate here.
>
> > And your decision to live by this roll of
> > the dice has to be re-affirmed each day. No-one is responsible for it
> > but you. You are the one calling the shots. That is the way things
> > are. It is time you took responsibility for your actions.
>
> I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
> own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
> so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
> offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
> contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[4]
>
> My choices are bounded by God's decrees.
>
> > Your own understanding is all you've got. Gambling that there might be
> > some "revealed knowledge of God" out there which will help you to live
> > better is just rolling dice. It's a suspension of your rational
> > faculties. But you're responsible for the fact that you chose to live
> > your life by this roll of the dice, and that you keep choosing to live
> > this way.
>
> I think you overlook the important role of God's Holy Spirit:
>
orbiting the sun, and the fact that my university is sending messages
to me through ads on the sides of buses.
You have to give me the slightest reason to believe in this Holy
Spirit before we have anything to talk about.
> "Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by
> infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by
> accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing
> wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by
> imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical
> obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the
> obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and
> resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have
> not of themselves, it is the gift of God."[5]
>
> > Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is the Word
> > of God, the fact would remain that you were "just lucky" and that the
> > real nature of your choice was to live by a roll of the dice, and that
> > you bear responsibility for this choice.
>
> I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
> own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
> so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
> offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
> contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[4]
>
> My choices are bounded by God's decrees.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [2]http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.htmlCh 2 S 2
> [3]http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-31.htm
> [4]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 3 S 1
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Jun 19, 9:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got.
>>
>> My position contrasts with yours,
>
> But you've said nothing in defence of it.
The first line of defence is a clear articulation of the position. :)
> If you decide that any particular source of values or propositions is
> authoritative, then fine, either you've made an effort to reason the
> point or you haven't. If you have, then your powers of reasoning are
> the final arbiter.
> If not, then the reality is that all you've done is
> roll some dice.
But this analysis is simply your subjective personal aesthetic; and
not objectively true. Of course, against your "dice", I'll simply
note is the person of God's Holy Spirit acting in my life, and the
entire creation. :)
> If you end up getting any benefit from it then you
> were just lucky.
This is an important distinction between our positions; Were you
subjectively posit "luck", I contrast it by noting the Bible testifies
to the complete involvement of a person, God's Holy Spirit in my life.
As I've noted before:
The Bible teaches that God has blessed, sustained and imparted all
manner of benefits and truth to each person, believers and
non-believers alike, even if they are not recognized as such and even
though a non-believer has enmity toward God because of sin. God
shares his benevolence in the many ways He sustains our lives. He
gives us each breath, He gives us the strength to earn an income and
provide for our families, He gives us our families. As the psalm
says:
"The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his
works. ... The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their
meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the
desire of every living thing."[1]
This even refers, in a general way, to many truths about his character
and nature, though not a specific revelation on the topic of
redemption/salvation:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth
knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not
heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words
to the end of the world."[2]
Of course, even some who have rejected God, articulate a view of God's
complete involvement and revelation in the lives of all people. For
example, Nietzsche says:
'Where has God gone?' he cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him
- you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were
we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the
entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its
sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from
all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward,
in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying
as through an infinite nothing?'[3]
God is completely associated with, and deeply involved in his
creation. Even to the point that the implication of Nietzsche's
"death of God" premise implies the entire universe is affected:
* "How were we able to drink up the sea?"
* "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?"
* "What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun?"
* "Is there any up or down left?"
* "Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?"
>> and is that the propositional truths
>
> Give me some examples of those again? I think you mentioned the one
> saying that it is our duty to submit to God. I don't think you've
> explained why I should accept that yet.
The citation from the Catechism was:
"Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[4]
>> >> "Roger Scruton claimed, in his book From Descartes to Wittgenstein,
>> >> that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept
>> >> of bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral
>> >> creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by
>> >> them. In chapter 18, he writes, "In what sense Sartre is able to
>> >> 'recommend' the authenticity which consists in the purely self-made
>> >> morality is unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument,
>> >> his recommendation can have no objective force.""[2]
>>
>> > It's not a recommendation. It's something you can't escape. The simple
>> > fact is, you are free and you have responsibility for your choices.
>> > When you make a choice, you are completely responsible for it and you
>> > are advocating that all of humanity make that choice. That's the human
>> > condition. That's what he's on about. Some people Sartre says have
>> > "bad faith" and are "cowards". Well, if you have bad faith or are a
>> > coward, then that is the way things are.
>>
>> The point is when using existential/humanistic premises, that the
>> evaluation of "bad faith" and "coward" do not have objective force,
>> and are simply arbitrary personal aesthetic.
>>
>
> No. They are not aesthetic judgements. They are objective judgements
> about people's relationship to their own situation.
This claim of objectivity from subjective premises is most interesting. :)
> Have you read Sartre's "Existentialism and Humanism"?
I've cited statements from it on this forum, contrasting my position
with it. For example:
>> > There is nothing to recommend
>> > or not to recommend about it. But it is still a fact that that is the
>> > way things are and that you are responsible for it. You are free, and
>> > you are responsible for your actions. That is the human condition and
>> > you cannot escape it.
>>
>> Essence precedes existence. Meaning originates from outside of humankind. :)
>
> Ipse dixit.
"Meaning originates from outside of humankind" hinges on the standard
used to measure proof, or what makes up the "first principles" used to
evaluate all others. Aristotle has traditionally articulated one of
the earliest, and most famous statements of first principles:
"Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them."[5]
I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
accurate[5a] I believe would be:
* Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them.
Which contrasts with "existence precedes essence". :)
>> > See, when you place your faith in the Bible you still cannot escape
>> > responsibility for your actions. Each time you choose to do something
>> > based on your faith, you are saying "I choose on this occasion to
>> > place my faith in the Bible and act accordingly and I am advocating
>> > that all of humanity do the same, despite the fact that by my own
>> > admission I cannot offer rational grounds for doing so".
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that is not what I am saying.
>>
>
> You can offer rational grounds for taking the Bible as authoritative?
> I don't think I've heard them yet. By all means, fire away.
That's precisely my point. Even conclusions based on rationality can
be limited and bounded when underpinned by existential premises.
Consider as an anecdotal example, one person's "rational ground" for
rejecting the Bible (as they articulated it to me):
Premise: People don't rise from the dead
Fact: The Bible claims Jesus rose from the dead, therefore
Conclusion: The Bible is not accurate
The argument may be a "rational" one, but its validity rests entirely
on the objective truth of its first principles, and can still be
incorrect.
>> > That is your
>> > choice and you are responsible for it. That is the way things are. The
>> > idea that you have handed over your life to the care of some higher
>> > power who has better judgement than you is an illusion.
>>
>> I think the idea that you have better judgment than God is an illusion.
>>
>
> It is God that is the illusion.
I like how the Confession puts it:
"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being
and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,
most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things
according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,
for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering,
abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and
sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most
just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no
means clear the guilty."[6]
> There are some who have better judgement than me, but if the reality
> is that I decide to rely on someone else's judgement I still have to
> exercise my own judgement about on whom to rely. This is Sartre's
> point.
But that disagrees with the testimony of the Bible. As the Confession notes:
"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[7]
Sartre's analysis does not account for the nature, character and
attributes of God (as described in the Bible), and does not account
for the active involvement in the lives of people by God.
>> >> > It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
>> >> > wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
>>
>> >> Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
>> >> double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
>> >> "arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>>
>> > No. It's not arbitrarily chosen. It's all you've got. You can't escape
>> > the fact that you have to make your own choices and take
>> > responsibility for them. This is Sartre's point.
Sartre's analysis does not account for the nature, character and
attributes of God (as described in the Bible), and does not account
for the active involvement in the lives of people by God.
>> Of course its arbitrarily chosen;
>
> No, it's not. There's no alternative.
There is an alternative, and He is a person: God's Holy Spirit. :)
>> "existence precedes essence"
>> predicates value at the individual level based on the arbitrary choice
>> that individual makes.
>>
>
> I am not making any judgements about value here. I am saying that you
> are free to make your own choices and that you are also responsibile
> for them, and that you cannot escape that responsibility just by
> placing your faith in some ancient text. You are still answerable for
> why you chose that ancient text over all the others. If you exercised
> your reasoning powers in order to sort that matter out, great.
Its an interesting point, I believe the Confession speaks similarly with:
"God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world in
righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given
of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be
judged; but likewise all persons, that have lived upon earth, shall
appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their
thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have
done in the body, whether good or evil."[8]
and note that the additional context of God's character, nature and
active involvement provides a crucial difference to the existential
position.
> Then
> you grant that your reasoning powers are the final arbiter, and we are
> agreed.
Which is what I don't grant. As the Confession notes:
"God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself;
and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need
of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them,
but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is
the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom,
are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by
them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth."[9]
or more succinctly:
"God ... is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom,
and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over
them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself
pleaseth."[9]
God is the final arbiter, not humankind. This is a fundamental
distinction between my position and an existential one.
> If you did not exercise your reasoning powers in order to make
> that choice, then the reality is that all you've done is roll a dice.
> If something worthwhile comes of it then that is just luck. You're
> living your life in bad faith because you're trying to sustain in
> yourself the illusion that you can escape responsibility for your
> actions. You're making an inauthentic choice.
He's not a pair of dice. He's God. :)
You omit the active and personal role of God's Holy Spirit in your analysis.
>> > Sound reasoning?
>>
>> More correctly:
>>
>> (5) Therefore, the truth of the proposition that the Bible is
>> objectively true is independent my beliefs.
>>
>
> Yes, I see the misunderstanding now.
>
> The point is that your assertion that the Bible is objective true is
> just that, an assertion.
You make it sound bad. Of course, you don't particularly apply this
same standard when you articulate something like:
"Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got."
At a deeper level, as a presuppositionalist, I simply note that
assertions play a well defined and specific role in communicating an
epistemology; so simply calling something "an assertion" is not
necessarily a negative. :)
>> >> >> Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine.
>>
>> >> > So much the worse for Christianity.
>>
>> >> I consider it to be a wonderful part of Christianity. :)
>>
>> > I find it revolting, for reasons which I hope I have done something to
>> > articulate.
>>
>> Personal aesthetic?
>
> Yup.
>
> Like my distaste for what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Inquisition
> did.
I have a better reason than simply personal aesthetic to reject those
evils: They violate God's objective moral standard. :)
>
>> >> >> God has a moral claim on
>> >> >> every aspect of humankind's life. As the Catechism notes:
>>
>> >> >> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
>> >> >> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[1]
>>
>> >> > Well, that's precisely why Christianity must be rejected as evil. Why
>> >> > should we obey God's will just because it happens to be his will?
>>
>> >> Now we get to the root objection. The doctrines of submission frequently are. :)
>>
>> > Quite. This is the root objection. Seems like a strong one to me.
>> > Perhaps you could do something to address it.
>>
>> I'll do my best, but at the end of the day, I have simply the
>> testimony of the Bible. :)
>
> That sounds like a pretty damning admission to me.
Its in fact my perfect hope. As a poet has written:
"My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus' Name.
When darkness seems to hide His face,
I rest on His unchanging grace.
In every high and stormy gale,
My anchor holds within the veil.
His oath, His covenant, His blood,
Support me in the whelming flood.
When all around my soul gives way,
He then is all my Hope and Stay.
When He shall come with trumpet sound,
Oh may I then in Him be found.
Dressed in His righteousness alone,
Faultless to stand before the throne.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand."[9]
> Do you have some
> reason for placing your faith in the Bible or don't you?
Sorry you missed it earlier, I'll cite it again; I really like how
the Confession puts it:
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the
consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all
glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire
perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full
persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority
thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness
by and with the Word in our hearts."[10]
>> >> > Why
>> >> > should we surrender our capacity to judge what is right and wrong?
>>
>> >> Surrender as a Christian doctrine is a wonderful word. It affirms
>> >> that all I have, all I am, all that will be, comes from God. It
>> >> affirms that though I will never have infinite, full and exhaustive
>> >> knowledge, when I surrender to God, I can be infallibly and perfectly
>> >> informed on any topic that God chooses to share with me.
>>
>> > Delusion.
>>
>> But that assessment is simply your personal aesthetic.
>
> Nope. It's a fact.
Its certainly not the testimony of the Bible. :)
>> > You have no reason to think that there is omniscient being.
>>
>> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>
> As I said: not the slightest reason.
Its a reason. So you are not accurate to say "you have no reason".
I've just named one. :)
>> "But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they
>> shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary;
>> and they shall walk, and not faint."[3]
>
> This quotation does not alter my point.
It more specifically notes that positions and epistemologies and
axioms at the end of the day reside in context of reality. The Bible
testifies God will actively and objectively work in the life of the
believer. This contrasts with the "pair of dice" model you've
articulated.
>> In particular, I
>> believe Sartre discounts God's person and decree in the situation. A
>> fatal blunder in analysis.
>>
>
> I believe you've discounted the fact that there's a teapot orbiting
> the sun.
>
> This is all just silly nonsense until you've given us some reason to
> think that God exists.
I suspect the fault is elsewhere; you measure God's existence or
properties by using methods and processes that are inappropriate. Its
like using a thermometer to measure the radioactivity of a sample, and
concluding that there is no radiation because there was no evidence.
Existentialism is the wrong tool with which to measure God's existence
or properties.
>> In particular, my choices
>> are bound/limited by God's decrees.
>>
>
> You've offered no reason to think that God exists.
I have the testimony of the Bible.
> I have a text which will tell you about how you ought to be obeying
> the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What's your point?
The point is, I have offered a reason to think that God exists: The
testimony of the Bible.
>> My choices are bounded by God's decrees.
>>
>
> Where is the slightest reason to think that God exists?
I have the testimony of the Bible.
> You have to give me the slightest reason to believe in this Holy
> Spirit before we have anything to talk about.
I have the testimony of the Bible.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://www.carm.org/kjv/Psalms/Psalm_145.htm Psalm 145:9,15-16
[2] http://www.carm.org/kjv/Psalms/Psalm_19.htm Psalm 19:1-4
[3] http://www.rutc.ac.uk/rjp/rjp14_samuel.htm
[4] http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html
[5] http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Metaphysics
[5a] though not Aristotle's position ...
[6] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 2 S 1
[7] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 3 S 1
[8] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 33 S 1
[9] http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/m/y/myhopeis.htm
[10] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 1 S 5
bob600
<bobs@nireland.com>On 16 Jun, 00:50, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
cannot exist without self-evaluation.
determining personal growth and progress it can only provide a
snapshot of the state of your conscience/ethics at the time of the
self-evaluation. So any self-evaluation is a very unreliable guide to
the state of your long term conscience/ethics.
So what are we to make of followers of the three "great" monotheisms,
who complain of "bigotry" when peddling their hateful holy texts?
Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
ideas you are not only inferior but deserve the worst conceivable
punishment for it. The implication of Hell lodges any secular
retort--
no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground. The
incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
“bigotry” expressed by these theists is laughable coming from a self
confessed bigot. You “peddle” your hateful “unholy” texts, saying
theists are inferior and they won’t go to heaven (very similar to
going to hell). What hypocrisy you preach, you are just a mirror image
of them, and if they are incapable of self-evaluation then, according
to your own assessment then so are you.
There is no polite way to frame this debate without ignoring what
it's
about entirely. Either they're crazy and living a lie (and will
probably end the human race because of it), or we deserve to go to
Hell. We have reason on our side, and they have threats and strength
in numbers. This is not a polite situation. Theistic ideologies are
rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the
religious
prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
to you come to such extreme conclusions, living “someone else’s” lie
is an argument I can understand, but the others? I am uncertain who
had the reason and who the strength in numbers when the Nazis killed
the Jews, and the communists of various groupings times and countries
killed the believers in anything else other than communism. Extremism
kills be it theists, dictators, or socialists. Neither can I
understand what valid threats a theist can aim at an atheist “you will
go to hell” but you don’t believe in hell so how is that a threat? Or
“God will strike you down”, but as an agnostic you are reasonably sure
God does not exist, so that’s hardly a threat.
It has gotten so ridiculous that they claim "persecution" when people
object to having their kids surrounded by a moment of prayer in
schools, to a fictional sky monster who will supposedly damn their
mom
and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him. They
suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting
the
rights of others to marry, proving that of all the things theists are
capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
day.
but I can’t find one its generalized rambling gibberish.
So please, Uncle Tom atheists, don't hold back on criticizing theists
personally for their horrible beliefs. It very much does say
something
about their value as human beings when they're willing to sacrifice
sanity at the altar of the toxic death of the human race.
group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who
differ” You are an agnostic atheist bigot no different from those
agnostic theist bigots you criticize, and you want us to join in, not
for me, thanks, I would rather be an Uncle Tom.
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>On Jun 18, 9:20 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 9:26 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm stealing this one Dev.
>
> > > There's a lot that can be said about the phenomenon of religion, but a
> > > balanced discussion of the situation must include the fact that there
> > > are a very large number of theists who are good people
>
> > "Good people" in what way? And do you mean good with respect to their
> > religious beliefs or just that they have some extrareligious sense of
> > ethics?
>
> Surely the phrase "good person" is not too obscure? I mean that they
> are kind-hearted, treat their fellow humans with consideration,
> goodwill, tolerance, and respect and try to empathise with them and
> understand different points of view, are honest with their employers,
> helpful and kind towards their friends and spouses, don't lie, steal,
> cheat, rape, or murder, occasionally go out of their way to help
> strangers who are in need, and so forth. I mean that they are just as
> good as you or me, according to standards that will be widely agreed
> upon. Many many theists are like that.
"extrareligious sense of ethics". And though "good person" is
definitely a subjective sort of thing, if I were to apply the quality
"good" to different aspects of a person, I would most certainly come
to the conclusion that while the majority of theists might generally
reasonable or likable people even they're still sick dangerous people
lacking in proper consciences when it comes to some types of things --
in other words; bad people.
bob600 but i'll just repeat the last bit because you're a much more
clever dude]. The lie of religious parents comes not from saying "God
is real" it comes from saying explicitly (or otherwise communicating),
"i'm absolutely sure of it". AND, little kids don't know very much
about the world, and they're naturally good at absorbing all kinds of
culture from the people around them while they're growing up, even if
you don't see it as forcing it upon children the fact is, when thats
all the kid is being exposed to, thats exactly whats going on -- not
to mention all kinds of other factors like the need to fit in with the
group and other things like that.
> > > and there are also a fair number of theists who are quite
> > > intelligent.
>
> > I've never met or heard of a single adult theist who was intelligent
> > with regards to their theism.
>
> Ludwig Wittgenstein?
beliefs about god that he could speak about and argue for the validity
of, in any sort of reasonable way. But if you've got some arguments
of his, i'd be interested in reading them.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>> On 16 Jun, 00:50, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>
> Bob600 replies:- As self-evaluation is a CONTINUOUS process of
> determining personal growth and progress it can only provide a
> snapshot of the state of your conscience/ethics at the time of the
> self-evaluation. So any self-evaluation is a very unreliable guide to
> the state of your long term conscience/ethics.
the ability to evaluate their own moral positions.
> So what are we to make of followers of the three "great" monotheisms,
> who complain of "bigotry" when peddling their hateful holy texts?
> Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
> is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> ideas you are not only inferior but deserve the worst conceivable
> punishment for it. The implication of Hell lodges any secular
> retort--
> no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground. The
> incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
> unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>
> Bob600 replies:- The fake indignation you express at the so called
> “bigotry” expressed by these theists is laughable coming from a self
> confessed bigot.
> You “peddle” your hateful “unholy” texts, saying
> theists are inferior and they won’t go to heaven (very similar to
> going to hell). What hypocrisy you preach, you are just a mirror image
> of them, and if they are incapable of self-evaluation then, according
> to your own assessment then so are you.
was not "intolerance" in and of itself but the hypocrisy of attacking
"intolerance" in and of itself when you follow an intolerant ideology.
I think that some things should not be tolerated, and look at this as
not a tolerance versus intolerance debate but a right versus wrong
debate. When somebody follows something like Christianity and whines
that somebody is being intolerant towards them, they are being
hypocritical and are therefore incapable of holding any moral
standards to themselves. Likewise, when you say you're "anti-anti" and
don't see what a hypocrite you are for that it proves that you do not
have the capability for ethics that a human has. I am not being
hypocritical for attacking hypocrisy, no matter how much you
disingenuously try to distort my argument.
> There is no polite way to frame this debate without ignoring what
> it's
> about entirely. Either they're crazy and living a lie (and will
> probably end the human race because of it), or we deserve to go to
> Hell. We have reason on our side, and they have threats and strength
> in numbers. This is not a polite situation. Theistic ideologies are
> rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
> criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the
> religious
> prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
> faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
> the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
> remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
>
> Bob600 replies:- Crazy, living a lie, and will end the human race? How
> to you come to such extreme conclusions, living “someone else’s” lie
> is an argument I can understand, but the others? I am uncertain who
> had the reason and who the strength in numbers when the Nazis killed
> the Jews, and the communists of various groupings times and countries
> killed the believers in anything else other than communism. Extremism
> kills be it theists, dictators, or socialists.
extreme now, so you are essentially playing to a moral relativist
position that can only be described as "might makes right".
> Neither can I
> understand what valid threats a theist can aim at an atheist “you will
> go to hell” but you don’t believe in hell so how is that a threat? Or
> “God will strike you down”, but as an agnostic you are reasonably sure
> God does not exist, so that’s hardly a threat.
fact that you cover for them makes you an accessory to murder.
> It has gotten so ridiculous that they claim "persecution" when people
> object to having their kids surrounded by a moment of prayer in
> schools, to a fictional sky monster who will supposedly damn their
> mom
> and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him. They
> suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting
> the
> rights of others to marry, proving that of all the things theists are
> capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
> this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
> day.
>
> Bob600 replies:- I would love to address any point in this statement
> but I can’t find one its generalized rambling gibberish.
again? It isn't my fault you're too retarded to even do that right,
much less make sense of an argument.
> So please, Uncle Tom atheists, don't hold back on criticizing theists
> personally for their horrible beliefs. It very much does say
> something
> about their value as human beings when they're willing to sacrifice
> sanity at the altar of the toxic death of the human race.
>
> Bob600 replies:- Bigot:- “ One who is strongly partial to one's own
> group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who
> differ” You are an agnostic atheist bigot no different from those
> agnostic theist bigots you criticize, and you want us to join in, not
> for me, thanks, I would rather be an Uncle Tom.
see the absurd hypocrisy of your post. Just because you're only
intolerant towards rational people doesn't make it okay.
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 21, 12:53 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 9:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got.
>
> >> My position contrasts with yours,
>
> > But you've said nothing in defence of it.
>
> The first line of defence is a clear articulation of the position. :)
>
you've said nothing in defence of your position.
> > If you decide that any particular source of values or propositions is
> > authoritative, then fine, either you've made an effort to reason the
> > point or you haven't. If you have, then your powers of reasoning are
> > the final arbiter.
> > If not, then the reality is that all you've done is
> > roll some dice.
>
> But this analysis is simply your subjective personal aesthetic; and
> not objectively true.
have no reasoning to back up your decision then what you've done is
roll some dice.
> Of course, against your "dice", I'll simply
> note is the person of God's Holy Spirit acting in my life, and the
> entire creation. :)
>
What I said is undeniable. If you have no reasoning on which to base
your decision then you are rolling some dice, regardless of whether or
not the Holy Spirit is in fact acting in your life and the entire
creation. And your statement about the Holy Spirit is unargued and no
more credible than a statement about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
> > If you end up getting any benefit from it then you
> > were just lucky.
>
> This is an important distinction between our positions; Were you
> subjectively posit "luck", I contrast it by noting the Bible testifies
> to the complete involvement of a person, God's Holy Spirit in my life.
comic book. Unless you can offer some reason to give the slightest
credence to the Bible, then any benefit you get from putting your
faith in the Bible is just luck. It may turn out that the Bible is
indeed inspired by God, but even if that is so you did not have the
slightest rational ground for coming to this conclusion. The fact that
you happened to hit on the truth would just be "luck". Anyway, there
is no rational ground for thinking you hit on the truth, any more than
there is rational ground for believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns or
the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
me to accept that this is a truth?
> >> >> "Roger Scruton claimed, in his book From Descartes to Wittgenstein,
> >> >> that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept
> >> >> of bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral
> >> >> creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by
> >> >> them. In chapter 18, he writes, "In what sense Sartre is able to
> >> >> 'recommend' the authenticity which consists in the purely self-made
> >> >> morality is unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument,
> >> >> his recommendation can have no objective force.""[2]
>
> >> > It's not a recommendation. It's something you can't escape. The simple
> >> > fact is, you are free and you have responsibility for your choices.
> >> > When you make a choice, you are completely responsible for it and you
> >> > are advocating that all of humanity make that choice. That's the human
> >> > condition. That's what he's on about. Some people Sartre says have
> >> > "bad faith" and are "cowards". Well, if you have bad faith or are a
> >> > coward, then that is the way things are.
>
> >> The point is when using existential/humanistic premises, that the
> >> evaluation of "bad faith" and "coward" do not have objective force,
> >> and are simply arbitrary personal aesthetic.
>
> > No. They are not aesthetic judgements. They are objective judgements
> > about people's relationship to their own situation.
>
> This claim of objectivity from subjective premises is most interesting. :)
>
> > Have you read Sartre's "Existentialism and Humanism"?
>
> I've cited statements from it on this forum, contrasting my position
> with it. For example:
>
> >> > There is nothing to recommend
> >> > or not to recommend about it. But it is still a fact that that is the
> >> > way things are and that you are responsible for it. You are free, and
> >> > you are responsible for your actions. That is the human condition and
> >> > you cannot escape it.
>
> >> Essence precedes existence. Meaning originates from outside of humankind. :)
>
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> "Meaning originates from outside of humankind" hinges on the standard
> used to measure proof, or what makes up the "first principles" used to
> evaluate all others. Aristotle has traditionally articulated one of
> the earliest, and most famous statements of first principles:
>
> "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them."[5]
>
I wrote
"There is nothing to recommend
or not to recommend about it. But it is still a fact that that is the
way things are and that you are responsible for it. You are free, and
you are responsible for your actions. That is the human condition and
you cannot escape it."
I was saying.
> I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
> intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
> accurate[5a] I believe would be:
>
> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them.
>
> Which contrasts with "existence precedes essence". :)
>
whose existence precedes their essence.
> >> > See, when you place your faith in the Bible you still cannot escape
> >> > responsibility for your actions. Each time you choose to do something
> >> > based on your faith, you are saying "I choose on this occasion to
> >> > place my faith in the Bible and act accordingly and I am advocating
> >> > that all of humanity do the same, despite the fact that by my own
> >> > admission I cannot offer rational grounds for doing so".
>
> >> I'm pretty sure that is not what I am saying.
>
> > You can offer rational grounds for taking the Bible as authoritative?
> > I don't think I've heard them yet. By all means, fire away.
>
> That's precisely my point. Even conclusions based on rationality can
> be limited and bounded when underpinned by existential premises.
> Consider as an anecdotal example, one person's "rational ground" for
> rejecting the Bible (as they articulated it to me):
>
> Premise: People don't rise from the dead
> Fact: The Bible claims Jesus rose from the dead, therefore
> Conclusion: The Bible is not accurate
>
> The argument may be a "rational" one, but its validity rests entirely
> on the objective truth of its first principles, and can still be
> incorrect.
>
than arbitrarily placing your faith in the Holy Spirit or Invisible
Pink Unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
> >> > That is your
> >> > choice and you are responsible for it. That is the way things are. The
> >> > idea that you have handed over your life to the care of some higher
> >> > power who has better judgement than you is an illusion.
>
> >> I think the idea that you have better judgment than God is an illusion.
>
> > It is God that is the illusion.
>
> I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> "There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being
> and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
> passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,
> most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things
> according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,
> for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering,
> abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and
> sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most
> just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no
> means clear the guilty."[6]
>
statement of your faith. I might as well talk about the Flying
Spaghetti Monster and those who have been touched by his noodly
appendage. What on earth do you think you are achieving? Is this your
idea of rational discourse?
> > There are some who have better judgement than me, but if the reality
> > is that I decide to rely on someone else's judgement I still have to
> > exercise my own judgement about on whom to rely. This is Sartre's
> > point.
>
> But that disagrees with the testimony of the Bible.
or other too. I don't care unless you have some kind of rational
argument against it. It's an undeniable reality about the human
condition. Kierkegaard, a Christian existentialist, would have agreed.
> As the Confession notes:
>
> "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
> own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
> so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
> offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
> contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[7]
>
> Sartre's analysis does not account for the nature, character and
> attributes of God (as described in the Bible), and does not account
> for the active involvement in the lives of people by God.
>
either. He doesn't have to account for fantasies with no rational
basis.
> >> >> > It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
> >> >> > wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
>
> >> >> Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
> >> >> double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
> >> >> "arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>
> >> > No. It's not arbitrarily chosen. It's all you've got. You can't escape
> >> > the fact that you have to make your own choices and take
> >> > responsibility for them. This is Sartre's point.
>
> Sartre's analysis does not account for the nature, character and
> attributes of God (as described in the Bible), and does not account
> for the active involvement in the lives of people by God.
>
> >> Of course its arbitrarily chosen;
>
> > No, it's not. There's no alternative.
>
> There is an alternative, and He is a person: God's Holy Spirit. :)
>
deluding yourself if you think you can escape the fact that you have
to make your own choices and take responsibility for them in that way.
> >> "existence precedes essence"
> >> predicates value at the individual level based on the arbitrary choice
> >> that individual makes.
>
> > I am not making any judgements about value here. I am saying that you
> > are free to make your own choices and that you are also responsibile
> > for them, and that you cannot escape that responsibility just by
> > placing your faith in some ancient text. You are still answerable for
> > why you chose that ancient text over all the others. If you exercised
> > your reasoning powers in order to sort that matter out, great.
>
> Its an interesting point, I believe the Confession speaks similarly with:
>
> "God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world in
> righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given
> of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be
> judged; but likewise all persons, that have lived upon earth, shall
> appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their
> thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have
> done in the body, whether good or evil."[8]
>
> and note that the additional context of God's character, nature and
> active involvement provides a crucial difference to the existential
> position.
>
> > Then
> > you grant that your reasoning powers are the final arbiter, and we are
> > agreed.
>
> Which is what I don't grant.
dice. That's the only other option.
This is true regardless of whether or not you happened to hit on the
truth.
> As the Confession notes:
>
> "God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself;
> and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need
> of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them,
> but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is
> the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom,
> are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by
> them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth."[9]
>
> or more succinctly:
>
> "God ... is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom,
> and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over
> them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself
> pleaseth."[9]
>
> God is the final arbiter, not humankind. This is a fundamental
> distinction between my position and an existential one.
>
you think are the words of God, if any, and how to interpret them.
> > If you did not exercise your reasoning powers in order to make
> > that choice, then the reality is that all you've done is roll a dice.
> > If something worthwhile comes of it then that is just luck. You're
> > living your life in bad faith because you're trying to sustain in
> > yourself the illusion that you can escape responsibility for your
> > actions. You're making an inauthentic choice.
>
> He's not a pair of dice. He's God. :)
>
change the fact that you are rolling dice.
> You omit the active and personal role of God's Holy Spirit in your analysis.
>
Monster, and Russell's teapot as well, and am perfectly justified in
doing so. If the Holy Spirit does indeed play an active role, that
does not affect my analysis. If there are no rational grounds for your
concluding that the Holy Spirit exists, then what you are doing is
rolling some dice. If you happened to hit on the truth you were just
lucky.
> >> > Sound reasoning?
>
> >> More correctly:
>
> >> (5) Therefore, the truth of the proposition that the Bible is
> >> objectively true is independent my beliefs.
>
> > Yes, I see the misunderstanding now.
>
> > The point is that your assertion that the Bible is objective true is
> > just that, an assertion.
>
> You make it sound bad.
> Of course, you don't particularly apply this
> same standard when you articulate something like:
>
> "Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got."
>
why it's an undeniable reality.
> At a deeper level, as a presuppositionalist, I simply note that
> assertions play a well defined and specific role in communicating an
> epistemology; so simply calling something "an assertion" is not
> necessarily a negative. :)
>
assertion, and to me it is no more plausible than an assertion about
the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so if your goal is to convince me that
you have some kind of rational foundation for your position then that
approach is not going to get you very far.
> >> >> >> Submission is a crucial Christian doctrine.
>
> >> >> > So much the worse for Christianity.
>
> >> >> I consider it to be a wonderful part of Christianity. :)
>
> >> > I find it revolting, for reasons which I hope I have done something to
> >> > articulate.
>
> >> Personal aesthetic?
>
> > Yup.
>
> > Like my distaste for what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Inquisition
> > did.
>
> I have a better reason than simply personal aesthetic to reject those
> evils:
> They violate God's objective moral standard. :)
standard is based on your own personal decision about which text to
regard as the word of God, and how to interpret that text. I too can
believe in objective moral truths as an atheist if I want to. But I
acknowledge the reality that I only have my own judgement to fall back
on in deciding what counts as an objective moral truth. I can treat
some text as authoritative if I like, but only I can make the decision
as to which texts to count as authoritative and how to interpret them.
I acknowledge that reality about my situation. It is the human
condition. You cannot escape it either.
> >> >> > Why
> >> >> > should we surrender our capacity to judge what is right and wrong?
>
> >> >> Surrender as a Christian doctrine is a wonderful word. It affirms
> >> >> that all I have, all I am, all that will be, comes from God. It
> >> >> affirms that though I will never have infinite, full and exhaustive
> >> >> knowledge, when I surrender to God, I can be infallibly and perfectly
> >> >> informed on any topic that God chooses to share with me.
>
> >> > Delusion.
>
> >> But that assessment is simply your personal aesthetic.
>
> > Nope. It's a fact.
>
> Its certainly not the testimony of the Bible. :)
>
comic book.
> >> > You have no reason to think that there is omniscient being.
>
> >> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>
> > As I said: not the slightest reason.
>
> Its a reason.
> So you are not accurate to say "you have no reason".
> I've just named one. :)
>
reason.
You have totally lost touch with rationality.
> >> "But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they
> >> shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary;
> >> and they shall walk, and not faint."[3]
>
> > This quotation does not alter my point.
>
> It more specifically notes that positions and epistemologies and
> axioms at the end of the day reside in context of reality. The Bible
> testifies God will actively and objectively work in the life of the
> believer. This contrasts with the "pair of dice" model you've
> articulated.
>
actively and objectively works in your life, that does not alter the
fact that you rolled some dice when you made the initial decision. If
you had some objective reason to think that God was actively and
objective working in your life now, then your decision to continue to
place your faith in the Bible would not a roll of the dice, it would
be based upon reasoning. But you have no such objective reason, it is
a delusion.
> >> In particular, I
> >> believe Sartre discounts God's person and decree in the situation. A
> >> fatal blunder in analysis.
>
> > I believe you've discounted the fact that there's a teapot orbiting
> > the sun.
>
> > This is all just silly nonsense until you've given us some reason to
> > think that God exists.
>
> I suspect the fault is elsewhere; you measure God's existence or
> properties by using methods and processes that are inappropriate. Its
> like using a thermometer to measure the radioactivity of a sample, and
> concluding that there is no radiation because there was no evidence.
>
suggest that I am required to provide the slightest evidence for this,
that is like using a thermometer to measure radioactivity. Praise be
to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Blessed are those who are touched by
his noodly appendage.
> Existentialism is the wrong tool with which to measure God's existence
> or properties.
>
very minimal level of rationality here.
> >> In particular, my choices
> >> are bound/limited by God's decrees.
>
> > You've offered no reason to think that God exists.
>
> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>
> > I have a text which will tell you about how you ought to be obeying
> > the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What's your point?
>
> The point is, I have offered a reason to think that God exists: The
> testimony of the Bible.
>
is.
Get a grip.
> >> My choices are bounded by God's decrees.
>
> > Where is the slightest reason to think that God exists?
>
> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>
> > You have to give me the slightest reason to believe in this Holy
> > Spirit before we have anything to talk about.
>
> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://www.carm.org/kjv/Psalms/Psalm_145.htmPsalm 145:9,15-16
> [2]http://www.carm.org/kjv/Psalms/Psalm_19.htmPsalm 19:1-4
> [4]http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html
> [5]http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Metaphysics
> [5a] though not Aristotle's position ...
> [7]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 3 S 1
> [8]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 33 S 1
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/4090c8867f675834
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>No problem. Thanks for your consideration. :)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry to take so long to respond. I was thinking about your comments.
>> > Dev didn't say the process of self-evaluation necessarily leads toHere's where we may agree to disagree. :)
>> > objective
>> > truth.
>>
>> For fundamental premises, a lack of objectivity can be fatal.
>
> I agree.
> However, the Bible doesn't meet those requirements.
>> > Does that mean we shouldn't test it to ensure it works properly and that
>> > we
>> > shouldn't apply error checking and security features?
>>
>> But this can only make sense when you understand the limitations of
>> your testing process. For all but the simplest and trivial of
>> software programs, organizations cannot objectively declare the
>> product to be defect free, usually because the number of input
>> permutations and code paths is too large to test in the allocated
>> development schedule.
>
> True. The fact is that All processes have limitations. There are no perfect
> processes.
<snipped>
To assess objective truth by subjective methods is simply using the
wrong tool for the job. And of course, you illustrate the danger in
the text of your response. You talk about doing "the best you can" as
if you can even objectively know what "the best you can" is by only
subjective methods; Scruton's argument above shows the problem with
that.
>> >> >> And whats so excellent about self-evaluation anyway? Surely theBut if you based that conclusion on subjective premises, your
>> >> >> self-
>> >> >> evaluation of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot was such that in their
>> >> >> own eyes their actions were justified.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem was that they didn't self evaluate, Brock.
>> >>
>> >> I suspect you underestimate them to characterize it so simplistically.
>> >
>> > Well, in reality, neither you nor I can say definitively that they did
>> > or
>> > didn't.
>>
>> But if you rely upon existential premises, you can't even make that
>> statement with objective certainty (Of course, my position doesn't
>> accept such premises, for just such a reason). As noted earlier:
>>
>> "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity which
>> consists in the purely self-made morality is unclear. He does
>> recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no
>> objective force."[2]
>
> Neither can the Bible because it's not an objective truth for the reasons I
> stated before.
conclusion does not have objective force.
Surely stronger than simply possibly. :)
>> > Why do you believe that I've underestimated them and characterized it
>> > too
>> > simplistically?
>>
>> For example, Stalin was a student at a georgian orthodox seminary,
>> yet, while there, became an atheist[3]. Surely an example or
>> indication, from your point of view, of "honest self-evaluation"[4].
>
> Possibly.
Atheists on this forum are frequently articulating a similar process
of "honest self-evaluation" to become an atheist, yet here is an
example of that very thing and all you'll say is "possibly". Tsk tsk.
But again, your conclusion:
* "The problem was that they didn't self evaluate ... They follow a
Dogma and simply believed they were right."in the context of:
shows that your conclusion does not have objective force. Yet, you
* "We just don't know what his motivations were other than what he said"
advance the conclusion as if it did.
<snipped dodges>
--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
-- Thomas Henry Huxley
Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown
Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>your profile and page and noticed you were an animal rights guy so I
sympathize, somewhat, with your position of defending stupid critters.
I agree with Dag, I think, that theists can be decent and intelligent
only to the extent that they behave like atheists. When they are using
the uninfected part of their brains, they can behave more or less like
the rest of us, although most theists really are just stupid assholes
in general from my experience. When discussing religion with them, you
are not addressing the sane, human part of them but instead a walking,
talking delusion. Theism is an indefensible position, and it makes
theists behave indefensibly. I don't believe in respecting them in
this context because I don't believe in respecting something that is
deplorable. Theists are only not our enemies, and not the enemies of
each other, themselves and all life on earth, to the extent that we
pretend otherwise. When in conflict, we only have the options of
reason or violent hostility at our disposal, and part of what makes
theism inherently evil is that it rejects reason as the solution for
resolving disagreements. The goal of the religious, then, is to put us
in a position where we must fight or submit. To appeal to a theist,
you have to appeal to their better nature, which is not their theistic
nature, and if they haven't been entirely corrupted you can
occasionally reach something still resembling a semblance of humanity
that will naturally find the stupid, dangerous delusions of theism
shameful and disgusting like all reasonable people do.
On Jun 18, 9:46 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Whatever you want to call it--conscience, ethics, a "moral core"--it
> > cannot exist without self-evaluation.
>
> > who complain of "bigotry" when peddling their hateful holy texts?
> > Whether these works are viewed literally or figuratively, the message
> > is the same: if you don't agree with their stupid, unsubstantiated
> > ideas you are not only inferior but deserve the worst conceivable
> > punishment for it. The implication of Hell lodges any secular retort--
> > no matter how dehumanizing--firmly in the higher moral ground. The
> > incredible hypocrisy in their whining is evidence that it is not just
> > unlikely, but impossible, for them to have the capability for self-
> > evaluation required to be accurately defined as ethical creatures.
>
> > about entirely. Either they're crazy and living a lie (and will
> > probably end the human race because of it), or we deserve to go to
> > Hell. We have reason on our side, and they have threats and strength
> > in numbers. This is not a polite situation. Theistic ideologies are
> > rarely willing to lay down their lives in the face of rational
> > criticism, so in the war of ideas it is human beings who the religious
> > prefer as collateral damage. They will no doubt claim otherwise, but
> > faced with the inadequacy of their beliefs in the face of reason, and
> > the irrefutable consequences of the faith they perpetuate without
> > remorse, no other conclusion can rationally be drawn.
>
> > object to having their kids surrounded by a moment of prayer in
> > schools, to a fictional sky monster who will supposedly damn their mom
> > and dad and probably them to Hell for not believing in Him. They
> > suggest that their marriages are somehow contingent on persecuting the
> > rights of others to marry, proving that of all the things theists are
> > capable of, "love" is most certainly not one of them. Their abuse of
> > this term to condescend, threaten and rationalize proves this every
> > day.
>
> > personally for their horrible beliefs. It very much does say something
> > about their value as human beings when they're willing to sacrifice
> > sanity at the altar of the toxic death of the human race.
>
> balanced discussion of the situation must include the fact that there
> intelligent.- Hide quoted text -
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Jun 21, 12:53 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 19, 9:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got.
>>
>> >> My position contrasts with yours,
>>
>> > But you've said nothing in defence of it.
>>
>> The first line of defence is a clear articulation of the position. :)
>
> Your playing with words notwithstanding, what I said is correct:
> you've said nothing in defence of your position.
Clarity in articulation of position is a definite advantage on this forum. :)
>> > authoritative, then fine, either you've made an effort to reason the
>> > point or you haven't. If you have, then your powers of reasoning are
>> > the final arbiter.
>> > If not, then the reality is that all you've done is
>> > roll some dice.
>>
>> But this analysis is simply your subjective personal aesthetic; and
>> not objectively true.
>
> Of course it is objectively true.
My objection to conclusions that are derived from existential premise
is that they are not tenable, precisely because of the limitations of
the subjective premises, there is no assurance that self-evaluation
is sufficient or capable for evaluating objective truth. Frankly, the
Bible contrasts by noting that humankind is hindered in an objective
evaluation by the nature of sin:
"The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not
inclined to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, as God
requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests
over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Even
religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these
originate from a human imagination, passions, and will. Therefore, in
Reformed Theology, God must predestine individuals into salvation
since man is incapable of choosing God.
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as
possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may
intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its
implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities
that can correct this condition. "[1]
> How can you argue with it? If you
> have no reasoning to back up your decision then what you've done is
> roll some dice.
Where's the statistical analysis? You've compared my position with a
definite, specific quantifiable statistical process. Show me the
event space you use to make the comparison; show me that the expected
values of "if you have no reasoning to back up your decision" is
statistically comparable to a dice roll.
Of course, I don't believe you've done the statistical analysis. So
my suspicion is that you've confused your personal subjective
aesthetic with objective reality, and then you simply co-opt the
credibility of "mathematical analysis" by couching your response in
those terms. Thats not a flattering epistemology.
>> Of course, against your "dice", I'll simply
>> note is the person of God's Holy Spirit acting in my life, and the
>> entire creation. :)
>
> You might as well note that Superman just flew past the window.
>
> What I said is undeniable.
The inability to admit the principles that say differently is one of
the major limiting characteristics of existential premises.
> If you have no reasoning on which to base
> your decision then you are rolling some dice, regardless of whether or
> not the Holy Spirit is in fact acting in your life and the entire
> creation.
But you beg the question to presume "rolling dice" and to exclude the
valid work of God's Wonderful Holy Spirit. :)
> And your statement about the Holy Spirit is unargued and no
> more credible than a statement about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The truth is that by using existential premises, one cannot
objectively compare the existence of God with any other religious
statement. But you are incorrect to presume that such a statement
hurts the case for the existence of God, rather, it shows the weakness
of your epistemology, that you cannot even decide between the two
alternatives.
>> > If you end up getting any benefit from it then you
>> > were just lucky.
>>
>> This is an important distinction between our positions; Were you
>> subjectively posit "luck", I contrast it by noting the Bible testifies
>> to the complete involvement of a person, God's Holy Spirit in my life.
>
> But you have no more reason to believe the Bible than to believe a
> comic book.
I have much more reason, and I cited it earlier[2].
> Unless you can offer some reason to give the slightest
> credence to the Bible, then any benefit you get from putting your
> faith in the Bible is just luck. It may turn out that the Bible is
> indeed inspired by God, but even if that is so you did not have the
> slightest rational ground for coming to this conclusion. The fact that
> you happened to hit on the truth would just be "luck". Anyway, there
> is no rational ground for thinking you hit on the truth, any more than
> there is rational ground for believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns or
> the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The truth is that by using existential premises, one cannot
objectively compare the existence of God with any other religious
statement. But you are incorrect to presume that such a statement
hurts the case for the existence of God, rather, it shows the weakness
of your epistemology, that you cannot even decide between the two
alternatives.
>> The citation from the Catechism was:
>>
>> "Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
>> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will."[4]
>>
>
> Yes, thanks for repeating yourself.
I was happy to do it.
> Where is the slightest reason for
> me to accept that this is a truth?
As I cited earlier, I offer the testimony of the Bible. I find it
compelling, and specific and direct and clear about the nature of sin,
and the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
>> >> > It's not a recommendation. It's something you can't escape. The simple
>> >> > fact is, you are free and you have responsibility for your choices.
>> >> > When you make a choice, you are completely responsible for it and you
>> >> > are advocating that all of humanity make that choice. That's the human
>> >> > condition. That's what he's on about. Some people Sartre says have
>> >> > "bad faith" and are "cowards". Well, if you have bad faith or are a
>> >> > coward, then that is the way things are.
>>
>> >> The point is when using existential/humanistic premises, that the
>> >> evaluation of "bad faith" and "coward" do not have objective force,
>> >> and are simply arbitrary personal aesthetic.
>>
>> > No. They are not aesthetic judgements. They are objective judgements
>> > about people's relationship to their own situation.
>>
>> This claim of objectivity from subjective premises is most interesting. :)
>
> No subjective premises.
The insufficiency of self-evaluation disqualifies that answer and
makes it no more than a subjective personal aesthetic.
>> >> Essence precedes existence. Meaning originates from outside of humankind. :)
>>
>> > Ipse dixit.
>>
>> "Meaning originates from outside of humankind" hinges on the standard
>> used to measure proof, or what makes up the "first principles" used to
>> evaluate all others. Aristotle has traditionally articulated one of
>> the earliest, and most famous statements of first principles:
>>
>> "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
>> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
>> what follows from them."[5]
>
> Our conception of metaphysics has come a long way since then.
>
> I wrote
>
> "There is nothing to recommend
> or not to recommend about it. But it is still a fact that that is the
> way things are
But that is only a presumption backed by your personal aesthetic. The
insufficiency of self-evaluation disqualifies that answer and makes it
no more than a subjective personal aesthetic.
>> I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
>> intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
>> accurate[5a] I believe would be:
>>
>> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
>> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
>> what follows from them.
>>
>> Which contrasts with "existence precedes essence". :)
>
> It doesn't. It's a separate issue. For Sartre, humans are the beings
> whose existence precedes their essence.
You've simply restated the existential position, which my position
contrasts so well with:
* Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them.
>> >> I'm pretty sure that is not what I am saying.
>>
>> > You can offer rational grounds for taking the Bible as authoritative?
>> > I don't think I've heard them yet. By all means, fire away.
>>
>> That's precisely my point. Even conclusions based on rationality can
>> be limited and bounded when underpinned by existential premises.
>> Consider as an anecdotal example, one person's "rational ground" for
>> rejecting the Bible (as they articulated it to me):
>>
>> Premise: People don't rise from the dead
>> Fact: The Bible claims Jesus rose from the dead, therefore
>> Conclusion: The Bible is not accurate
>
> Sounds pretty sensible to me.
The limitation of the argument rests with the premise. Establish
objectively that people don't rise from the dead. :)
> Might conceivably be mistaken, yes. A lot less likely to be mistaken
> than arbitrarily placing your faith in the Holy Spirit or Invisible
> Pink Unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The truth is that by using existential premises, your evaluation for
"a lot less likely" is simply a subjective personal aesthetic.
>> >> > That is your
>> >> > choice and you are responsible for it. That is the way things are. The
>> >> > idea that you have handed over your life to the care of some higher
>> >> > power who has better judgement than you is an illusion.
>>
>> >> I think the idea that you have better judgment than God is an illusion.
>>
>> > It is God that is the illusion.
>>
>> I like how the Confession puts it:
>>
>> "There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being
>> and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
>> passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,
>> most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things
>> according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,
>> for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering,
>> abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and
>> sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most
>> just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no
>> means clear the guilty."[6]
>>
>
> What is the point of this quote, for God's sake?
Its an excellent counter point to your claim:
> It is God that is the illusion.
The specificity of the Bible is independent of my person and my
personal beliefs; the exact character, attributes and nature of God
is not dependent upon my perception of Him, rather, his qualities are
completely independent of my person. Or as the Confession notes:
"he (God) is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom,
and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over
them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself
pleaseth."[3]
> That is just a
> statement of your faith. I might as well talk about the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster and those who have been touched by his noodly
> appendage. What on earth do you think you are achieving? Is this your
> idea of rational discourse?
What's so interesting is how you paint "rational discourse" in such an
exclusive manner.
>
>> > There are some who have better judgement than me, but if the reality
>> > is that I decide to rely on someone else's judgement I still have to
>> > exercise my own judgement about on whom to rely. This is Sartre's
>> > point.
>>
>> But that disagrees with the testimony of the Bible.
>
> And for all I know it disagrees with the testimony of some comic book
> or other too. I don't care unless you have some kind of rational
> argument against it. It's an undeniable reality about the human
> condition.
The truth is that by using existential premises, one cannot
objectively compare the existence of God with any other religious
statement. But you are incorrect to presume that such a statement
hurts the case for the testimony of the Bible, rather, it shows the
weakness of your epistemology, that you cannot even objectively decide
between the alternatives.
> Kierkegaard, a Christian existentialist, would have agreed.
That doesn't advance your position. :)
>
>> As the Confession notes:
>>
>> "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
>> own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
>> so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
>> offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
>> contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[7]
>>
>> Sartre's analysis does not account for the nature, character and
>> attributes of God (as described in the Bible), and does not account
>> for the active involvement in the lives of people by God.
>
> He didn't accout for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's teapot,
> either. He doesn't have to account for fantasies with no rational
> basis.
But if the "rational basis" rely s upon existential premises, its
simply a personal aesthetic. You, using existential premises, might
claim as objective fact:
> If you have no reasoning on which to base
> your decision then you are rolling some dice, regardless of whether or
> not the Holy Spirit is in fact acting in your life and the entire
> creation.
Of course, a Christian existentialist, using the same underlying
premises you articulate, may conclude quite differently, and find you
are mistaken to compare the existence of God with the other
alternatives you've listed above. This doesn't weaken my position,
rather it simply notes existentialism is not the right tool for the
job.
>> >> >> > It is much better to think for yourself about what's right and what's
>> >> >> > wrong than to place blind faith in some arbitrarily chosen authority.
>>
>> >> >> Your suggestion itself, if based upon existential premises, is a
>> >> >> double standard, because "thinking for one's self" is exactly an
>> >> >> "arbitrarily chosen authority". :)
>>
>> >> > No. It's not arbitrarily chosen. It's all you've got. You can't escape
>> >> > the fact that you have to make your own choices and take
>> >> > responsibility for them. This is Sartre's point.
>>
>> Sartre's analysis does not account for the nature, character and
>> attributes of God (as described in the Bible), and does not account
>> for the active involvement in the lives of people by God.
>>
>> >> Of course its arbitrarily chosen;
>>
>> > No, it's not. There's no alternative.
So you've subjectively stated (with objective certainty?). Let's see
if you can see the obvious contradiction. Here's a hint:
(You're making a conclusion that claims to be objectively certain on
the basis of a subjective premises)
>> There is an alternative, and He is a person: God's Holy Spirit. :)
>>
>
> As I keep explaining to you, that's not a genuine alternative. You're
> deluding yourself if you think you can escape the fact that you have
> to make your own choices and take responsibility for them in that way.
But the problem is that if you use existential premises to measure or
evaluation "genuine" then your conclusion is limited by the
unfortunate subjectivity of the premises. So your
"that's not a genuine alternative" has no objective force.
>> >> "existence precedes essence"
>> >> predicates value at the individual level based on the arbitrary choice
>> >> that individual makes.
>>
>> > I am not making any judgements about value here. I am saying that you
>> > are free to make your own choices and that you are also responsibile
>> > for them, and that you cannot escape that responsibility just by
>> > placing your faith in some ancient text. You are still answerable for
>> > why you chose that ancient text over all the others. If you exercised
>> > your reasoning powers in order to sort that matter out, great.
>>
>> Its an interesting point, I believe the Confession speaks similarly with:
>>
>> "God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world in
>> righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given
>> of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be
>> judged; but likewise all persons, that have lived upon earth, shall
>> appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their
>> thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have
>> done in the body, whether good or evil."[8]
>>
>> and note that the additional context of God's character, nature and
>> active involvement provides a crucial difference to the existential
>> position.
>>
>
> Babble.
I think the Confession authors were quite excellent in their descriptions. :)
>
>> > Then
>> > you grant that your reasoning powers are the final arbiter, and we are
>> > agreed.
>>
>> Which is what I don't grant.
>
> In that case you didn't exercise your reasoning powers and rolled some
> dice. That's the only other option.
Prove "thats the only option". :)
> This is true regardless of whether or not you happened to hit on the
> truth.
But that is not the characterization. My claim is that the person of
God's Holy Spirit acts, and acts in a completely perfect and
infallible manner. So when He reveals spiritual truth to me, through
the text of the Bible, I am completely, objectively and infallibly
informed.
Thats completely different from your "rolled some dice" characterization.
>> God is the final arbiter, not humankind. This is a fundamental
>> distinction between my position and an existential one.
>>
>
> Your own judgement is all you've got.
Of course, the contrasting position I've presented is that, in
addition to one's self, the person of God's Holy Spirit acting in your
life is complete and perfect. This makes any comparison with "dice
rolling" inadequate.
> You've got to decide which words
> you think are the words of God, if any, and how to interpret them.
Its not my own action, rather its God's own Holy Spirit acts in my
heart, mind and life, and He works His grace in me! Praise God!
>> > If you did not exercise your reasoning powers in order to make
>> > that choice, then the reality is that all you've done is roll a dice.
>> > If something worthwhile comes of it then that is just luck. You're
>> > living your life in bad faith because you're trying to sustain in
>> > yourself the illusion that you can escape responsibility for your
>> > actions. You're making an inauthentic choice.
>>
>> He's not a pair of dice. He's God. :)
>
> There is no reason to think he exists, but if he does that does not
> change the fact that you are rolling dice.
Of course there's a reason: the testimony of the Bible.
Still waiting for the statistical analysis for the "rolling dice" comparison.
>
>> You omit the active and personal role of God's Holy Spirit in your analysis.
>>
>
> I omit the role of Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, and Russell's teapot as well, and am perfectly justified in
> doing so. If the Holy Spirit does indeed play an active role, that
> does not affect my analysis. If there are no rational grounds for your
> concluding that the Holy Spirit exists
The insufficiency of self-evaluation disqualifies that answer and
makes your objection no more than a subjective personal aesthetic.
> , then what you are doing is
> rolling some dice. If you happened to hit on the truth you were just
> lucky.
I've articulated a position quite different from your "rolling the
dice" premise: A perfect, compete and thorough work of a person,
God's Holy Spirit in the heart, mind and life of every believer.
>> Of course, you don't particularly apply this
>> same standard when you articulate something like:
>>
>> "Your own powers of reasoning are all you've got."
>
> I've done more than just assert that. I've been explaining ad nauseam
> why it's an undeniable reality.
>
>> At a deeper level, as a presuppositionalist, I simply note that
>> assertions play a well defined and specific role in communicating an
>> epistemology; so simply calling something "an assertion" is not
>> necessarily a negative. :)
>
> None of which alters the fact that it is nothing more than an
> assertion, and to me it is no more plausible than an assertion about
> the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so if your goal is to convince me that
> you have some kind of rational foundation for your position then that
> approach is not going to get you very far.
Humankind is not the measure of all things. :)
>> They violate God's objective moral standard. :)
>
> But any conclusions you come to about what God's objective moral
> standard is based on your own personal decision
No, its based upon the objective work of God's Holy Spirit in my
heart, mind and life. :)
> But I
> acknowledge the reality that I only have my own judgement to fall back
> on in deciding what counts as an objective moral truth.
And thus do you concede my point: Your "objective moral truth" is
simply your own personal aesthetic.
> I can treat
> some text as authoritative if I like, but only I can make the decision
> as to which texts to count as authoritative and how to interpret them.
> I acknowledge that reality about my situation. It is the human
> condition. You cannot escape it either.
I can escape it, because God's Holy Spirit is the actor, not I. It is
He who works the objective nature of the gospel in me, not I. Any
limitations of my nature do not limit His power and purpose.
>> >> > You have no reason to think that there is omniscient being.
>>
>> >> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>>
>> > As I said: not the slightest reason.
>>
>> Its a reason.
>
> No, it's *not*. That is *not* a reason.
>
>> So you are not accurate to say "you have no reason".
>
> I'm absolutely spot on.
>
>> I've just named one. :)
>>
>
> That is no reason, any more than the testimony of a comic book is a
> reason.
Of course its a reason. And much different from the testimony of a
comic book. A telling limitation of existential premises comes with
the admission that you can't distinguish between them.
> You have totally lost touch with rationality.
But that assessment is simply your subjective aesthetic; as you've
noted yourself:
> But I
> acknowledge the reality that I only have my own judgement to fall back
> on in deciding what counts as an objective moral truth.
And thus do you concede my point: Your "objective moral truth" is
simply your own personal aesthetic.
>> It more specifically notes that positions and epistemologies and
>> axioms at the end of the day reside in context of reality. The Bible
>> testifies God will actively and objectively work in the life of the
>> believer. This contrasts with the "pair of dice" model you've
>> articulated.
>>
>
> No, it does not, as I have repeatedly explained. Whether or not God
> actively and objectively works in your life, that does not alter the
> fact that you rolled some dice when you made the initial decision.
I rolled no dice. God's Holy Spirit did the acting. As the Confession notes:
"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."[4]
> The world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you dare to
> suggest that I am required to provide the slightest evidence for this,
> that is like using a thermometer to measure radioactivity. Praise be
> to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Blessed are those who are touched by
> his noodly appendage.
>
>> Existentialism is the wrong tool with which to measure God's existence
>> or properties.
>>
>
> This is nothing to do with existentialism, we're just talking about a
> very minimal level of rationality here.
But that assessment is simply your subjective aesthetic; as you've
noted yourself:
> But I
> acknowledge the reality that I only have my own judgement to fall back
> on in deciding what counts as an objective moral truth.
And thus do you concede my point: Your "objective moral truth" is
simply your own personal aesthetic.
>> >> In particular, my choices
>> >> are bound/limited by God's decrees.
>>
>> > You've offered no reason to think that God exists.
>>
>> I have the testimony of the Bible.
>>
>
> Not... a... reason.
Of course its a reason. A very compelling one. :)
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 1 S 5
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 2 S 2
[4] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 3 S 1
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>explanation, the reason why it is so.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>have been caught up with various stuff.
I guess first of all I should mention that my girlfriend says she
believes in God. She doesn't go to church or identify with any major
religious tradition, but she says she believes in God. Most of my
extended family would be atheists, including my parents and my living
grandparents, and my paternal grandfather while he was alive, but my
great-aunt may possibly be a theist, and my maternal grandmother may
have been while she was alive. I don't think I have any especially
close friends who are theists apart from my girlfriend. Used to sing
in a choir and hang out with a few theists there, that was quite a few
years ago. Also got involved with a girl in that choir who appeared
not to take her Catholic upbringing very seriously, but you know, once
in an email she said "Oh, I didn't know you were an atheist, why?" So
she might be a borderline case. Also the first girlfriend I had in my
adult life was in a transition period when I met her and we had some
fairly intense arguments about the issue, she didn't like me saying it
wasn't intellectually respectable.
Anyway, my current girlfriend is a theist and I guess I should
acknowledge that this makes it a bit hard for me to be objective about
what you're saying.
So, a theist is someone who believes that some sort of intelligent
being with superhuman powers deliberately designed and created the
universe and everything in it, including us, are you happy enough with
that definition? And I'm thinking that probably covers my girlfriend.
I'm not aware of any defence of theism that a rational person would
regard as adequate, no. I checked out Richard Swinburne's book "Is
There A God?" and one of these days we should have a talk on this
board about what's wrong with it, but my position would be that it's
not an adequate defence and that a reasonably objective, rational
person would recognise it as not being an adequate defence.
Richard Swinburne is not the most intelligent philosopher I've ever
read but I guess you'd have a hard time saying he's not a smart guy.
And Ludwig Wittgenstein, a lot of people say he's a major figure in
the history of Western philosophy and will continue to be regarded as
such, you probably have to agree that he's a smart guy, the poor chap
was tormented by religious guilt about his homosexuality all his life.
Very sad, that. I brought this up with Dag Yo, I see he's replied but
I haven't had a chance to read his reply yet, we'll see what he says
about that one.
I was having a chat in the pub with a guy the other week, and he was
going with the memetics model, it's a virus. I guess saying "it's a
virus" doesn't by itself explain very much. I know in my own case,
when I was about six I started thinking to myself "I'm not so sure
about this stuff they're teaching me at school", so I discussed it
with my parents and they said "No, we don't believe in it either".
Theism has never been a live proposition for me since then. That's me.
But there would be those who would say "Well, that's just your
background". Obviously my parents were an influence but I think it's
more than just that. But yeah, I just don't get how anyone can take it
seriously, and I guess I'll probably be getting empathy from you on
this point.
The whole thing of, it's a major influence on your decisions about how
you live your life, but you don't subject it to the ordinary standards
of rational scrutiny, yes, I'd be with you there, that's a serious
problem.
I was having a chat with a co-worker the other day, a Catholic, and I
was just thrashing it out with her. I and another atheist co-worker
initiated the conversation. Anyway, I said "So masturbation is
immoral?" and she said yes. She's sleeping with another co-worker,
they're not married. And she says, "well, I'm a sinner, but if I
repent and ask for forgiveness it will be all right". And then I say
"Pragmatically speaking, what should I do to avoid hell?" and she says
"You should marry your girlfriend". So I'd be thinking that deep down
she doesn't take this hell idea too seriously.
My own version of that problem would be that I have this thing where I
don't think that discrimination on the basis of species can be
justified, but on the other hand for example I use electricity, and
power plants kill trillions of fish. But at least I'm making an effort
to sort that one out, I'm thinking the problem over and I may ending
up changing my position or my behaviour. But yeah, this would
illustrate how this whole secular humanist project of, you live a
reflective ethical life, you think reflectively about the rules that
should govern your behaviour and take responsibility for your own
actions, I myself don't necessarily always find all that easy, I often
find myself running into confusion and inner conflict. So I'd hesitate
to be excessively harsh when condemning others.
Just a few thoughts.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jun 21, 9:23 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry about taking so damned long to reply i've been a bit busy.
>
> On Jun 18, 9:20 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 9:26 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm stealing this one Dev.
>
> > > > There's a lot that can be said about the phenomenon of religion, but a
> > > > balanced discussion of the situation must include the fact that there
> > > "Good people" in what way? And do you mean good with respect to their
> > > religious beliefs or just that they have some extrareligious sense of
> > > ethics?
>
> > Surely the phrase "good person" is not too obscure? I mean that they
> > are kind-hearted, treat their fellow humans with consideration,
> > goodwill, tolerance, and respect and try to empathise with them and
> > understand different points of view, are honest with their employers,
> > helpful and kind towards their friends and spouses, don't lie, steal,
> > cheat, rape, or murder, occasionally go out of their way to help
> > strangers who are in need, and so forth. I mean that they are just as
> > good as you or me, according to standards that will be widely agreed
> Umm...sure I guess, but thats what I generally meant by
> "extrareligious sense of ethics". And though "good person" is
> definitely a subjective sort of thing, if I were to apply the quality
> "good" to different aspects of a person, I would most certainly come
> lacking in proper consciences when it comes to some types of things --
> in other words; bad people.
>
for laws that violate people's rights, is that what you mean?
>
>
>
>
> > > > and do not want
> > > > the government to violate the rights of those who do not share their
> > > > beliefs,
>
> > > Though by a vast vast majority they still find it perfectly acceptable
> > > to lie to their children and force their religious beliefs onto them.
>
> > false. Except for the Santa Claus thing, but a lot of atheists do that
> > too and it might be argued that it's a harmless myth which adds to the
> > sense of excitement around Christmastime. When I was six I said to my
> > parents "I'm not sure about all this God stuff they're teaching me at
> > school" and they said "Well, we don't believe it either, but you must
> > religious beliefs onto them"... well, let's analyse that further. I
> > don't morally approve of encouraging your child to attend a
> > confirmation ceremony at the age of ten, no, but there are worse
> > things and I'm not sure how widespread that is. We all have to make
> > some decision about what school to send our children to, I'm not
> > convinced that sending your child to a school which is run by people
> > who share your religious beliefs is the same thing as "forcing your
> > religious beliefs" onto your child. I've known people who work for
> > Catholic schools who aren't religious at all, and I've known people
> > who attended Religious Studies classes in high school and I've been
> > told the discussion was fairly broadminded. This is in Australia of
> > course, it may be different in the US.
>
> Real quick: [I just got done writing this out in greater detail for
> bob600 but i'll just repeat the last bit because you're a much more
> clever dude]. The lie of religious parents comes not from saying "God
> is real" it comes from saying explicitly (or otherwise communicating),
> "i'm absolutely sure of it". AND, little kids don't know very much
> about the world, and they're naturally good at absorbing all kinds of
> culture from the people around them while they're growing up, even if
> you don't see it as forcing it upon children the fact is, when thats
> all the kid is being exposed to, thats exactly whats going on -- not
> to mention all kinds of other factors like the need to fit in with the
> group and other things like that.
>
> > > > and there are also a fair number oftheistswho are quite
>
> > > I've never met or heard of a single adult theist who was intelligent
> > > with regards to their theism.
>
> > Ludwig Wittgenstein?
>
> I've never read anything by him, but I rather doubt that he had any
> beliefs about god that he could speak about and argue for the validity
> of, in any sort of reasonable way. But if you've got some arguments
> of his, i'd be interested in reading them.
>
called the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" where he said that the
world had a logical structure which was reflected in the structure of
language. He said that ultimately the world was composed of these
entities called "objects" which stood to one another in elementary
relations, and these relations were depicted by propositions. The task
of the philosopher is to analyse language and bring out the structure
that lies hidden. And most of the concerns of philosophers arise out
of attempts to step beyond the limits of language. Concerns about
ethics and God are examples of this. The last sentence in the book is
very famous, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
So then he decided that that book had solved all the problems of
philosophy and became a schoolteacher and an architect for a while,
but then he decided that he'd got it all wrong and went back to
university and started working on new ideas about language which are
presented in the "Philosophical Investigations" and other texts. In
this phase he's concerned with things like the philosophy of
psychology and the philosophy of mathematics. He never really wrote
all that much about religion but there's a set of lecture notes one of
his students took called "Lectures on Aesthetics, Psychoanalysis, and
Religious Belief." There are also some remarks about it in "Culture
and Value". Maybe we should have a look at the lectures on religious
belief sometime.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>First of all, I hope you find time to drop by here more often. That
was an honest, thoughtful post and I certainly understand your
position.
Funny you should mention species discrimination. I wouldn't say I
agree with you but I wouldn't say I disagree with you, either. I eat
meat. I'm not of the mind that all living creatures are equal, but I
do think all living creatures should be judged as individuals. So when
I talk to a disingenuous, hypocritical, stupid asshole human I don't
consider them more worthy of life or respect than, say, a dog or a
dolphin (or sometimes even a poisonous insect) simply by "virtue" of
the fact that they're technically, biologically human. I'd fight for a
dog's right to live, in other words, if it was a good dog. I get
yelled at a lot on this group for asking people why it's okay to kill
a cow but not kill, say, Keith MacNevins, but I have yet to get a
rational response.
Anyway, getting back on topic. Like I said, I eat meat. I don't have a
moral problem with eating animals, but I do try to cut back on the red
stuff when I think of the environmental perspective. The higher up on
the food chain we eat, the more energy it expends. I can't argue with
the reasoning of a hardcore vegan, and even if I did strongly disagree
they at least have a position based on reason and ethics. I can't
really enjoy a meal without eating meat, and believe me I've thought
about this--by eating meat, I'm not living as ethically as I could be
because of my personal desire to enjoy food. I'm not one to
rationalize this kind of thing--I know it's essentially a character
flaw. So where do I get off demonizing theists?
I think we should be at least as critical of ourselves as we are of
others, but I don't see the benefit in letting certain things go by
unchecked. None of the great "freedom fighters" in history were
perfect, and some historians and journalists make a career out of
reminding us of this. But nobody ever says, "Where did those civil
rights guys get off criticizing other people like they were so damned
perfect?" The difference is between somebody getting up in arms about
racism and somebody getting their panties in a wad about another adult
smoking. The former is noble, the latter is obnoxious. But I consider
being a theist more akin to being a racist than being a smoker, or
even a drug addict. I actually consider being a theist worse than
being a racist, because theism contributes to racism _and_ a whole
bunch of other stuff that's evil. Pretty much every great evil in the
world--genocide, rape, child abuse--is exacerbated by theism. To truly
be against anything that's clearly evil, the way I see it, it's
hypocritical _not_ to be an antitheist.
Theists, unlike drug addicts or a schizophrenics, believe their state
to be superior--otherwise, they wouldn't be theists. To acknowledge
theism as a flaw is to acknowledge that there probably isn't a God, in
which case you aren't really a theist at all. So it makes me laugh
when theists whine about the "arrogance" of atheists--both sides think
their position is superior to the other, and our side simply has the
entirety of reason and knowledge and sanity to back us up. Many, I
dare say most, theists believe that you and I deserve to be severely
punished in the worst way for our positions. Even if I tell these
theists to go fuck themselves with chainsaws for what they believe,
there is no way I can lose the moral high ground because I don't
believe in Hell. It is an absolute double-standard that the mainstream
religions teach that we deserve to go to Hell, but if I say
"Christians deserve to be shot in their heads" I will be labelled an
absolute bigot, especially considering getting shot in the head isn't
supposed to be _nearly_ as bad as their Hell. Of the minority who
thinks "all paths lead to Heaven" and whatnot, knowing that I tend to
go easy on them, but they still by nature lend credibility to the
other ones and probably even respect their fire-and-brimstone beliefs.
Theism and racism are analogous in that they are both groupings of
ideologies, in which any racist or theist who perpetuates racism or
theism is partially responsible for the consequences. We tend to
accept this about racists, and condemn anyone who preaches racial
"hate speech" for spreading the kind of thinking that results in
racist crime. But we have a double-standard for theists. Whenever
theism has drastic consequences, which is often, theists can get away
with saying they had nothing to do with it. But they did have
something to do with it--they are perpetuating exactly what causes
those things to happen. When theists criticize the 9/11 bombers, they
are essentially holding them to a higher standard than they hold
themselves--it is okay, in other words, for _them_ to believe they
know what God wants and act on it but not for the terrorists to hold
equally irrational beliefs. There is no way to envision a scenario in
which the "fundamentalist" or "extremist" theists would have the
influence they have, or even exist, without the "moderate" or
"liberal" theists. Still, when the few of us atheists point out the
double-standard, we are ironically compared to racists--which makes as
much sense as saying being opposed to racism is like racism.
If theists were treated like racists, I wouldn't be so aggressive. If
theists were treated like drug addicts, I wouldn't be so aggressive.
If theists were treated like children or schizophrenics, I would not
be making a point to even call myself an "antitheist". But that's not
how the world works. Here in the US, polls show that most americans
wouldn't even vote for an atheist. Most of them think I deserve to go
to Hell.
So of course my response, to all of them, is this:
"I'm not the delusional fucktard. You are. I don't base my life around
a belief that, if it can't be called stupid, then nothing in the
history of human belief can be considered stupid. I grew out of the
fairy tales. You didn't. I think rationally and live in reality. You
don't. I can explain, with _reason_, why the terrorists were wrong
without being a hypocrite. You can't. I don't perpetuate an
unnecessary way of thinking and not thinking that provides no real
benefit to the human race but has tormented it forever and torments it
today and could very well kill it off. You do."
At which point I kind of want to kick those smug, self-righteous
smiles right to the other end of their faces.
But I digress. Being an atheist yourself, you probably understand this
perspective--although maybe not as well as someone who grew up
surrounded by practically nothing but theists, having grown out of it
on his own at an early age, would. I like some theists, but only when
they aren't being theists. When the subject turns to religion, their
eyes glaze over and it's like talking to the living dead.
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May I publish it on my New Atheism blog?
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Funny you should mention species discrimination. I wouldn't say I
> agree with you but I wouldn't say I disagree with you, either. I eat
> meat. I'm not of the mind that all living creatures are equal, but I
> do think all living creatures should be judged as individuals.
So what did the steer do as an individual that you judge its ok to eat
him in a hamburger? What did the carrot do to you as an individual
to deserve the death you inflicted on it? On what moral basis do you
spray your house for "pests"?
Of course, these are rhetorical questions becauses you've not
articulated any such "individual living creature analysis" like you
claim. :)
> I'd fight for a
> dog's right to live, in other words, if it was a good dog.
But on what objective moral basis do you measure "good"? That is the
key point. You only articulate a personal aesthetic if you base your
measurements of "good" on existential or humanistic principles. :)
> I can't argue with
> the reasoning of a hardcore vegan,
Its worse than that. If basing your standard of "good" on existential
principles, you have no objective basis with which to criticize any
competing beliefs. But that is because existential/humanistics
premises are not tenable. :)
> and even if I did strongly disagree
> they at least have a position based on reason and ethics.
Even "reason" and "ethics", if based on personal aesthetics, can be
insufficient to articulate an objective standard for behavior.
> I can't
> really enjoy a meal without eating meat, and believe me I've thought
> about this--by eating meat, I'm not living as ethically as I could be
> because of my personal desire to enjoy food. I'm not one to
> rationalize this kind of thing--I know it's essentially a character
> flaw. So where do I get off demonizing theists?
Well said. To the degree that you base your conclusions on
existential and humanistic premises (which are simply subjective
personal aesthetics) you have no objective standard with which to
criticize any competing belief system. You've identified a fatal flaw
in your position.
Yet, in a double standard, you do not abandon the position even though
you know it is flawed. An excellent example of the moral depravity
that sin places on humans:
"Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as
possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may
intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its
implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities
that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and
altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise."[1]
> None of the great "freedom fighters" in history were
> perfect,
Jesus Christ was perfect.
And the freedoms He purchased for believers are simply amazing. As
the Confession notes:
"The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the
gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning
wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered
from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin,
from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the
grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God,
and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a
childlike love, and a willing mind."[2]
> But I consider
> being a theist more akin to being a racist than being a smoker, or
> even a drug addict.
But you only articulate a personal aesthetic, a subjective opinion
that has no objective force. If you articulate such a position, it is
simple to note that other people articulate personal preferences that
differ from yours. Many prefer Christianity. Of course, I don't
claim that their subjective preferences are the basis for objective
force, rather, the objective truth of the gospel establishes the
basis. :)
> I actually consider being a theist worse than
> being a racist,
But you only articulate a personal aesthetic, a subjective opinion
that has no objective force. If you articulate such a position, it is
simple to note that other people articulate personal preferences that
differ from yours. Many prefer Christianity. Of course, I don't
claim that their subjective preferences are the basis for objective
force, rather, the objective truth of the gospel establishes the
basis. :)
> To truly
> be against anything that's clearly evil, the way I see it, it's
> hypocritical _not_ to be an antitheist.
Consider the implications of your phrase:
"the way I see it"
But you only articulate a personal aesthetic, a subjective opinion
that has no objective force. If you articulate such a position, it is
simple to note that other people articulate personal preferences that
differ from yours. Many prefer Christianity. Some prefer other
beliefs. Of course, I don't claim that their subjective preferences
are the basis for objective force, rather, the objective truth of the
gospel establishes the basis. :)
> Theists, unlike drug addicts or a schizophrenics, believe their state
> to be superior--otherwise, they wouldn't be theists.
But here you presume a position on theists. As I've articulated on
this forum many times, a believer is simply a sinner who has been
saved by the righteousness of God. For example, there is no merit
that I have done, or bring, or have that earns my salvation, it is a
free gift from God to any sinner who will believe and accept it.
> So it makes me laugh
> when theists whine about the "arrogance" of atheists--both sides think
> their position is superior to the other, and our side simply has the
> entirety of reason and knowledge and sanity to back us up.
Even "reason", and "knowledge" and "sanity", when based upon and
measured by existential premises, are simply a personal aesthetic.
> Many, I
> dare say most, theists believe that you and I deserve to be severely
> punished in the worst way for our positions.
All sinners deserve to be treated according to God's justice. But
God's justice includes mercy: the gospel of Jesus Christ. Pardon,
assurance and an eternal inheritance is promised and certain to any
sinner who accepts the freely given gift of the gospel of Jesus
Christ. :)
> Even if I tell these
> theists to go fuck themselves with chainsaws for what they believe,
> there is no way I can lose the moral high ground
What a true lack of discernment. :)
> because I don't
> believe in Hell.
Its existence is independent of your beliefs. :)
> It is an absolute double-standard that the mainstream
> religions teach that we deserve to go to Hell
To the degree that you base your conclusions on existential and
humanistic premises (which are simply subjective personal aesthetics)
you have no objective standard with which to criticize any competing
belief system. You've identified a fatal flaw in your position.
Yet, in a double standard, you do not abandon the position even though
you know it is flawed. An excellent example of the moral depravity
that sin places on humans:
"Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as
possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may
intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its
implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities
that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and
altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise."[1]
> Here in the US, polls show that most americans
> wouldn't even vote for an atheist. Most of them think I deserve to go
> to Hell.
The Bible teaches that all sinners deserve to go to hell. Many won't
because God has provided a free gift of salvation. A believer is not
perfect, simply forgiven.
> So of course my response, to all of them, is this:
>
> "I'm not the delusional fucktard. You are."
And you wonder why you get polarized responses. :)
> At which point I kind of want to kick those smug, self-righteous
> smiles right to the other end of their faces.
Its interesting double standard to note that you articulate your own
"self-righteous" position, but indict "self-righteousness" in others.
Of course, lacking an objective basis with which to criticize any
competing beliefs, existential and humanistic premises are simply
untenable.
> I like some theists, but only when they aren't being theists. When the subject turns to religion, their
> eyes glaze over and it's like talking to the living dead.
Sin: its a real problem for humankind.
The gospel of Jesus Christ: pardon for sinners and a blessed
inheritance, all given by a loving, excellent, just and holy God. :)
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 20 S 1
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>>
> read more »
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>> > lacking in proper consciences when it comes to some types of things --
> > in other words; bad people.
>
> Well, can you elaborate on this point? What types of things? Lobbying
> for laws that violate people's rights, is that what you mean?
comes to religion, indoctrinating children into belief systems which
they themselves know are very likely unjustified [and knowing full
well that this indoctrination of their own children might leave them
terrified of things which in all probability ARE not real], spreading
hatred for those that do not share in their beliefs even though they
know those beliefs might very well be wrongly held to begin with, and
spreading hatred for people for things that they cannot help.
And thats just the lighter side of what "good" theists get away with
that I find completely morally reprehensible.
> > > Ludwig Wittgenstein?
I understand he's a clever guy, but if he's not speaking intelligently
of his own theism, then bringing him up in the first place is useless.
On Jul 4, 8:22 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sorry about taking so damned long to reply i've been a bit busy.
>
> > On Jun 18, 9:20 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>