navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Agnostism, Atheism, Beyond Atheism, and Deconstructionism
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Agnostism, Atheism, Beyond Atheism, and Deconstructionism Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

0 posted 2002-11-16 11:16 AM


Reading the last two columns in the Critical States thread left me with a lot to say. My first thought was to go after Ron's scenario, the Angel or God or whatever, that you just know, somehow, is telling the truth. I was going to respond with the movie 'Frailty' which I just watched tonight and with the guy who refused his baby any other food other than breast feeding -- the baby died of malnutrition -- because God told him to do it.

Stephan and Denise, on the other hand, had already seemed to counter his point, and I liked many of the commitments they are willing to make to one way of thinking. This is the way it is so to speak. Denise, of course, rattled my cage a bit with her taking a victim's stance with regard to Christianity. Christianity is not the most reviled religion on the planet and it's silly to think that it is. Judaism can probably make a good case for it, but I'm not sure the question even has an answer. What would the warrior Buddhist Ikka groups in pre-Tokugawa Japan have to say about that? They were completely destroyed. There is much evidence to support that the Untouchable Caste in India are actually descendants of Buddhist supporters of Ashoka about fifteen hundred years ago (I'm doing this from memory so feel free to correct me). No, the call to victimization is a rhetorical ploy and she knows better than to use it here. So, yes, I'm slightly chastizing you here Denise.  

Christians are a majority in the countries of the West, it isn't reviled more than any other religion, it is talked about more. When was the last time you heard an atheist have a chance at the presidency?

Unfortunately, they ultimately refer back to the Bible, a text, a group of words. While much has been talked about in terms of revelation and the word of God, it's still in words. But words are never transparent, they are as Derrida's deconstructive theory endlessly points out, a signature of absence. When you use the written word or the spoken word, you are signaling something that is not there -- even at the very least you are pointing out the significance of something that is happening 'now'. You use the words because something was missing without them. If you didn't feel an absence, you wouldn't need them.

But the certainty (even as a hypothetical) is also reflected in Opeth's posts (which I also like by the way) whose "reading" of the Bible is at odds with Stephan's and Denise's. How do we reconcile these three views and their certainty?

Well, all this brings us back to Ron's scenario. What I found interesting here was not God, not the statement, but the utter ease with which he can throw in, to my mind essential, modification: You know this is true, you know this is happening and, above all, you know the TRUTH.

Textual, revelational, empirical, or logical statements are subject to epistemological doubt. To think otherwise, in my opinion, would be not to see us as human beings, and ultimately, if it were true, we would have died off long ago. This doubt is a positive force in that it allows non-evolutionary adaptation (thought it may be precisely an evolutionary adaptation that created it.   ) without the need for any kind of formal consistency. You can change your mind without realizing you changed your mind.

The opposing side to this is what Derrida calls the metaphysics of Presence: the idea of the absolutely known to be true, a full presence of the thing in itself. Deconstruction's point is to free us from this need for absolute certainty. Whether or not deconstruction has failed in this endeavour, that it has become just the newest, "Now we know we don't know, stupid" mentality is arguable, but I'll save that for another time.

And that brings us to agnosticism and atheism. Phaedrus and Hush make much of the distinction but isn't that distinction simply between, "I don't know if there's a God," and "I know there is no God."? There is a third definition, "I can't know" but that muddy's up the waters too much here for the moment and, I hope, I can show you how both Hush and Phaedrus have a point in different realms.

For if we return to Derrida's point about a lack of certainty, if we see language as a signature of absence, we find ourselves in a huge dilemma: what he sometimes calls the abyss or infinite responsibility takes over and we have no clue what to do. We have no clue how to act because, given this uncertainty, we have to decide what is right or wrong, what is the proper action, but it is ultimately only us who can do this deciding (Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that). What does that mean? We have to take responsibility for our actions because we have no other recourse but ourselves.

We still have to act.

So, I see no contradiction, logically or not, between the point Phaedrus was making and the one Hush is making. A person can say quite correctly, "I don't know if there's a God," and act as if there is or act as if there isn't. You don't need to presuppose a belief in order to fulfill your functions in a society. There is simply no need to collapse the positions into one.  In fact, I don't think we should collapse the positions, we can agree on much if we simply start privileging the act over the thought: What is the right thing to do, not what is the right thing to think.  This is, of course, backwards from most traditional ways of thinking.

[added note]: By this last statement, I don't mean 'going through the motions' exactly, but nor am I going to deny that that is important. It's a lot more complicated than that.

One final comment, I put beyond atheism in there for still a third group. Beyond atheism is simply the point where the questions being asked about God simply no longer seem all that important. They can be fun and interesting and informative, but ultimately they simply hold no revelance to my life.

That is until Bill Paxton knocks on my door.

[This message has been edited by Brad (11-16-2002 11:25 AM).]

© Copyright 2002 Brad - All Rights Reserved
Phaedrus
Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180

1 posted 2002-11-16 02:32 PM


Brad,

There’s a whole bucketful of things I don’t agree with here:

quote:
So, I see no contradiction, logically or not, between the point Phaedrus was making and the one Hush is making. A person can say quite correctly, "I don't know if there's a God," and act as if there is or act as if there isn't.

I see quite clearly a contradiction in thinking one way and acting another, that would allow me to worship a God I didn’t believe existed and just as easily kill a human being though I thought it was wrong to do so.

quote:
You don't need to presuppose a belief in order to fulfill your functions in a society.

Even a belief in society itself?

quote:
There is simply no need to collapse the positions into one. In fact, I don't think we should collapse the positions, we can agree on much if we simply start privileging the act over the thought

Can you stop the collapse? Isn’t it true that as soon as a person is presented with a dilemma the process of deciding kicks in and the person arrives at the best attainable response within the available time.

quote:
What is the right thing to do, not what is the right thing to think. This is, of course, backwards from most traditional ways of thinking.

The question of right and wrong is a moot point unless you specify exactly whose right or wrong we’re talking about. My view is that every human being arrives at their own version of right, wrong simply doesn’t come into it, no human being has ever done anything they thought was the wrong thing to do.

Thinking and doing are inextricably linked as I pointed out above (Hush dust down you’re views on self-interest I’ve a feeling I may need them   ) people always do and think the right thing, it isn’t possible, on an individual level, for them to do anything else.

[This message has been edited by Phaedrus (11-16-2002 02:34 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
2 posted 2002-11-16 02:46 PM


At the end of this thread all of you will be Essorantists, you'll see!  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-16-2002 02:46 PM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
3 posted 2002-11-16 04:46 PM


Brad-

So what did you think of Frailty?

I don't think it was necessarily a good movie, what with the mediocre acting, the unbelievable dialogue, and the uncountable twists and turns- but it sure as hell drew me in conceptually if nothing else, and I've been thinking about it for the last few days, because I don't quite know what to make of it- were they actually killing demons? Or is it like an Edgar-Allen-Poe-Telltale-Heart phenomena, and you're supposed to doubt what you're being told because the source isn't exactly credible (or... uh.. sane)?

Sorry, didn't mean to go too far off on a tangent, I'll be back later for the rest of this.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
4 posted 2002-11-16 04:53 PM


quote:
What I found interesting here was not God, not the statement, but the utter ease with which he can throw in, to my mind essential, modification: You know this is true, you know this is happening and, above all, you know the TRUTH.

That was an attempt, and obviously a futile one, to circumvent the "It can't really be God" arguments I knew were just around the corner. My point was that even if you fully accept the scenario as outlined, it doesn't change the nature of faith. Unconditional trust in God eliminates contradictions.

Of course, as I just posted to that same thread, doubt is just another word for thought and you can't really have one without the other. Cogito, ergo ambigo.

That certainly doesn't mean that I agree with Derrida or his deconstructionism. I think we've had that discussion and you probably remember my conclusions. If you deconstruct deconstructionism, you end up with the same mindless babble you get when deconstructing anything else. The points Derrida makes should be considered interesting but otherwise quite useless.

The argument that deconstructionism frees us from Presence presumes that we need to be freed. I don't believe we do. It then tries to do that by denying the existence of absolute certainty. I don't believe that it does so convincingly. I prefer to think of absolute certainty as a journey, rather than a destination. I think it exists, but if it didn't, we'd still need to invent it so we'd have some place to go. If I wanted to get rich, I might set a goal, but the process would be one of accumulating money. As I accumulated more and more money, my definition of rich would change, and at some point, I might realize that rich, being a relative term, was unattainable. I would still have a whole lot of money, though.

I believe absolute certainty is impossible, and I even think I understand why. Absolute certainty is both the antithesis to faith and the foundation upon which faith is built. Were I to attain absolute certainty, I would have no need of faith. But were absolute certainty to not exist, there would be nothing in which to place my faith. Still, while I believe absolute certainty is unattainable, even undesirable, I also believe the attempt to find it brings its own rewards. Put another way, I would still have a whole lot of money.

As to the differences between agnosticism and atheism, I've already expressed my opinions. Belief is a continuum, and both absolute denial and absolute faith are unattainable end points. By Phaedrus's definition, the world is filled to overflowing with nothing but atheists. No one since Jesus has whole-heartedly worshipped God, and I think there's evidence to suggest even Jesus had doubts. I disagree with his quote from Michael Martin, not on the basis that certainty is needed to justify atheism, but rather because I think it distorts the meaning of the word by placing too much emphasis on belief and too little on action. I don't believe we will ever travel faster than the speed of light. That is much different from the growing body of scientists who reject the notion as nonsensical. My disbelief is passive and I certainly won't be hurt should I be proven wrong. Rejection is rarely passive. To my mind, an atheist doesn't just doubt God, as anyone with less than absolute certainly must do to some extent, but actively rejects the possibility of God.

Put another way, "I disbelieve" is not the same thing as "I don't believe." Throw in "I believe" and I think it's clear we need three divisions because there are necessarily three conditions. Where Phaedrus chooses to place himself is up to him, of course, because none of us can exist wholly in just one division. We ALL straddle the lines. Cogito, ergo ambigo.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

5 posted 2002-11-16 05:03 PM


Brad, I wasn't playing victim and certainly didn't intend to rattle your cage. Honest! I was merely stating that in religious discussions in which I have been involved, the level of 'angst' has been much more pronounced concerning Christianity than the others being discussed. Perhaps this is partly so due to the 'unfair' exclusivity that people perceive that Christianity teaches. I don't see it as exclusivity, when God's message and plan of redemption is for all mankind. I see it as just the opposite. But some folks just can't seem to get past the idea that God could make a decree, a plan, tell it to us, and then invite whosoever will....that just seems so dogmatic and narrow to many and I guess people, as a whole, are far more comfortable believing that there are many paths or plans.

I also believe that there are those who do hate Christians simply because they are Christians. It doesn't surprise me since it's stated in the bible that this will be so and I definitely don't feel victimized in the least. I agree with you that we in the West certainly do have a much easier time of it, persecution-wise, than those in other areas of the world, but we do experience it, believe me, albeit to a lesser degree.

Sorry again to have rankled your nerves, Brad. I hope I've made myself more clear.  

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
6 posted 2002-11-16 08:09 PM


quote:
Beyond atheism is simply the point where the questions being asked about God simply no longer seem all that important. They can be fun and interesting and informative, but ultimately they simply hold no revelance to my life.


This sounds like avoidance to me.  At least the atheist has the cajones to deny God's existence and the agnostic has the honesty to say "I don't know."  "Beyond atheism" sounds to me to be more of an escape position than anything else, refusing to confront the facts nomatter how compelling they may be.  I don't get it.

Jim

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
7 posted 2002-11-17 03:20 PM


Jim- no, not avoidance, I don;t think.

I have to force myself to ask questions about God, simply because otherwise I would just let it slide. Not intentionally, in an attempt to avoid pressing questions, but rather, because the questions aren't very pressing to me.

I actually think that I often fall into this category- I often don't have the drive to pursue religious questions. What is, is. I often think I'm happy leaving things at that- but I also think it's important to explore other positions.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
8 posted 2002-11-17 07:34 PM


Briefly and perhaps unsatisfactorally, let me address Jim's, Ron's, and Hush's concerns by talking about the movie, Frailty.

The truly scary part of the movie for me is not whether the Paxton character really had a vision from God, but that people think that having a vision from God can somehow put them above the laws of the world. The discussions over the movie will, of course, revolve around whether his visions were true or not but my point would be that he is a murderer even if he really did have a vision.

God, higher truth, or whatever can never be an excuse for actions in this world.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
9 posted 2002-11-17 10:01 PM


quote:
God, higher truth, or whatever can never be an excuse for actions in this world.

Depends on your viewpoint, I guess. I've never seen any evidence that non-personal revelation exists, but let's assume for a moment that it does and there was reason to trust it.

This is almost a cliché in the SF world, but let's play the game any way. In 1931, you are told who the next chancellor of Germany will be. It happens. In 1933, you are told the same man will rather suddenly become the President of Germany. It happens. In 1935, you're told this same man will soon put into motion events that will ultimately cause the death of millions of people. Given such revelation, and the opportunity, would you kill Hitler? Or, to phrase it in parallel with your absolute dictum, would you be justified in trying to prevent WWII?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
10 posted 2002-11-18 12:08 PM


It's a misleading scenario because most of us already know that happened and most of us would like to change it. A better one is that it's 2002 and you have a revelation that George Bush will launch a nuclear strike in 2003. Are you justified in assassinating Bush?

If you do, it is my contention that you are insane and you should be treated like you're insaneeven if Bush does launch a nuclear strike in 2003 .

Revelation or not, you still have to play the game by our rules, there is no higher authority to appeal to if what you're doing goes against what the rest of us think is wrong.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
11 posted 2002-11-18 01:30 AM


I agree, Brad, though I suspect for entirely different reasons. You can't call the Hitler scenario misleading simply because we already know what happened. A persons who "knows" the future is in the same situation you and I are in as regards to the past.

If I lived in 1930 and knew what I knew now, I still don't think I would try to kill Hitler. I would, of course, do much else to STOP him, but I think "the end justifies the means" is the most dangerous proposition in the human repertoire. When push came to shove, though, and 1939 approached without having been able to stop his madness, I honestly don't know what I would do. Do I hold my own convictions above the lives of millions? Of course, the exploration of conflicting ethics is the foundation of philosophy.

BTW, to say that everyone must play the game "by our rules" is to imply that those rules should never change. Hitler certainly didn't play by those rules. But neither did Joan d'Arc, Ghandi, or Martin Luther King, Jr. The only way the rules ever seem to get changed is to break them. History then decides whether the rule-breaker was a monster or a pioneer. Personally, I think Bush is a rule-breaker, too, but I guess the jury is still out as to whether he will be monster or pioneer.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
12 posted 2002-11-18 09:57 AM


Doesn't speaking of "rules" without an absolute lawgiver create many problems?  What would one, admitting no God, precisely mean by saying that Hitler didn't "play by the rules"?  I suspect that these are questions more for those who view the world such as Brad does, than Ron... But what standard is there to affirm that Hitler's society was playing by the "wrong rules", besides world power and military might?  What if Hitler's Germany was such that it was the majority power?  In other words, what is to prevent the rules from being totally arbitrary on a societal scale?  


Some may refer me back to a "basic human decency", that prefers the good of the whole and tends to preserve societal order, and then assert that this will always win out.  But then my question ... Seeing that not all humans seem to have or abide by this basic sense of decency, what is to prevent the scales from tipping the other direction?  How are we assured that "decency" is not the pathological condition that just so happens to have the upper hand, while malevolence is the truest of our nature, even though presently contained?

Without an absolute governor of humanity and nature, we cannot truly account for a belief in uniformity of nature.  The best we can say is that such things appear to be uniform.  What is to prevent the "human decency" trait from giving way completely?  If it did, what recourse (being naturalists) would we really have?  Cruelty is part of nature as much as benevolence.  It seems only a lawgiver can arbitrate between the two.  "Might makes right" seems unavoidable in naturalism.


"God, higher truth, or whatever can never be an excuse for actions in this world"


I disagree.  Higher truth (than arbitrary humanity) must ultimately be the foundation for actions in this world. or else ...


Man, earthly truth, or whatever can always be an excuse for actions in this world.


Stephen    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-18-2002 10:23 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
13 posted 2002-11-18 10:16 AM


"you still have to play the game by our rules, there is no higher authority to appeal to if what you're doing goes against what the rest of us think is wrong."


Brad,

If the tables were turned, couldn't your words easily become the maxim of totalitarian government and despotism?  "The rest of us" can always be taken to mean "other than you".  If you are ever oppressed, and you realize that the State wasn't such a great god after all, then God (in his reality) may become a bit more relevant to you.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-18-2002 10:19 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
14 posted 2002-11-18 10:39 AM


Stephen,

Yes.

Phaedrus
Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180

15 posted 2002-11-18 12:08 PM



Stephan,

Interesting questions I had a few thoughts while reading them:

Have you ever watched a group of kids playing? It doesn’t matter what game their playing, it could be a game using marbles, one that they just made up perhaps, but whatever the origin of the game they always have a unique sense of fairness. They lay down or agree the rules and when a rule is broken they voice their distaste as a group, there is no perceivable “lawgiver” only an understanding of the rules and the knowledge that without an adherence to them the game can’t be played.

Into the playground comes a bully, he doesn’t want to play by the rules all he wants are the marbles, the original kids have to make a decision. They either hand over their marbles and stop playing the game or they stand and fight. That’s what happened in 1939, a bully went through Europe threatening to take all the marbles until some kids decided to stand and fight. They were fighting for their marbles, their right to play their game unhindered but most of all because they recognised that he’d broken the rules.

There is of course another option the kids could have taken, you touched upon it in your post, what would have happened if the kids had decided to join the bully instead of standing and fighting and was there reason to stop them doing that?

The only reason I can see that would stop them is the realisation that as soon as they joined the bully they would lose all hope of ever playing the game again. You see I don’t think man is a noble beast instilled with a sense of decency, man is driven by self-interest. Sometimes self interest dictates that he’s a bully but for every bully there’s another kid whose self-interest requires him to play the game by the rules, he just thinks it’s better for everyone.

Brad,

Your 2002 dilemma is extremely interesting especially if you apply it to similar scenarios:

It’s 2002 and the president of a world super power has a revelation that a country is building weapons of mass destruction and has the intention of using them. Does that super power have the right to declare war on that country and invade it to remove the potential threat?

In a country where the fervent belief in the existence of God is prevalent is a revelation by Him not as good as a revelation by the Intelligence Agencies?

Thanks for the chance to read and reply.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
16 posted 2002-11-18 05:52 PM


Phaedrus,

Your answer seems to be summed up in one of your quotes.

"Sometimes self interest dictates that he’s a bully but for every bully there’s another kid whose self-interest requires him to play the game by the rules, he just thinks it’s better for everyone."

It doesn't really satisfy my question however.  You are just restating the problem of naturalism for me.  If a world-view places self interest as arbiter on a planet of many "selves", it will always be a power struggle.  Bullys, as I remember from grade-school days, never cared that they could no longer play the games.  They had their own games.  If things like fairness, Justice, and equity are understood as merely conventional, what assurance do we have that they won't be overturned and one day forgotten?  


Even using your analogy of a playground ... there are adults who create the games for kids and establish the rules.  Even if games are created by the children themselves, the real function of the playground authorities is to umbrella the playing of all games with such concepts as fairness and respect.  No matter what games we play on Earth, my argument runs, there must be standards  above the players that are binding to all.  Else the big kids will rule on the playground.  No appeal can be made to the teacher!  Unfortunately in the world, this kind of thing results in more than a ruined game of hop-scotch and a few hurt feelings.  Blood is shed.  Atrocities are done.  And the ruling class doesn't mean the majority in number necessarily.  It can mean a few with the most weath, guns, charisma, or whatever controlling element will be used.  

notice that Communism and Marxism were founded upon atheistic worldviews.  This is a creed that dictators should love.  Seeing that the "rules" of the games are completely arbitrary, as naturalism necessitates, what is to prevent the traditional rules and games from someday being forgotten altogether?  Like evolutionary theory ... In the survival of the fittest, what is to prevent the cruel and evil from prevailing?  In a theistic worldview, it is God who says who is fittest and who is not.  "The meek shall inherit the Earth" ... "The First shall be last, and the last shall be first" ... "The foolish things will confound the wise".  I have an assurance that there is an ultimate justice in the universe that can't be had through naturalism.  The best that believers in a Godless universe can do is hope and strive for the best.  But they will always find themselves hoping and striving for that which other powers deem "not the best".  Self interest prevails right?  Actually the brawniest of self interest prevails.


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-18-2002 05:59 PM).]

Phaedrus
Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180

17 posted 2002-11-18 07:00 PM



Stephan,

There is no assurance, we may all end up as bullies, the only thing that’s stopping us is our in-built preference towards self-interest. Being a bully in a world of bullies would be less preferable to not being a bully, playing the game and keeping your marbles.

It’s true that kids will keep to the rules even when those rules are dictated by another, a teacher for instance, but I maintain that that isn’t always the case. Unless you can convince me that kids never make up their own games and never stick to the agreed rules they lay down my argument stands – there is no need for a higher lawgiver for rules to exist.

quote:
it is God who says who is fittest and who is not

Are you suggesting that in 1939 God decided Hitler was the fittest but in 1945 he decided he wasn’t or are the vagaries of humanity beyond Gods intervention?

quote:
The best that believers in a Godless universe can do is hope and strive for the best.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, God doesn’t play with dice – we do.

Thanks for the chance to read and reply

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
18 posted 2002-11-18 07:25 PM


Stephen and Phaedrus,

Again, my answer is yes.

All these things are possible. I have no guarantee to offer you, the guarantee is precisely the problem. All atrocities are justified by a higher truth whether that be theologism, scientism, or dialectical materialism.

It is no accident that the Communist party of the Soviet Union declared itself infallible.

But the "elimination" of higher truth or the refutation of infallibility do not guarantee the end of atrocities. It only eliminates an excuse.

Only we can eliminate atrocities.

And from that, Ron said that foreknowledge is the same as history. I couldn't disagree more and it seems an odd thing to say given his earlier comment that revelation is always individual. History is not an individual endeavour, revelation is.

When it comes to history, historians check each other. It's the possiblity of fallibility that forces us to check each other. With revelation, what check is there?

And Phaedrus, intelligence agencies can and must be checked.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
19 posted 2002-11-18 07:48 PM


Jim,

I was reading one of the links you posted in the Critical States thread:

quote:
Sad to say, nowadays many scholars are more interested in the challenges of the discipline of hermeneutics itself, than in the Bible that hermeneutics should help us handle more responsibly.


I'd put myself in that camp.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
20 posted 2002-11-18 09:21 PM


Phaedrus,

you wrote, "Being a bully in a world of bullies would be less preferable to not being a bully, playing the game and keeping your marbles."

Of course, I would agree.  But not all would agree.  Those weaker can always hope to rise and elimate the stronger.  And "not being a bully" in a world of bullies means bearing the yoke of whatever is over you.  This, though preferable to being an oppressor (which I mostly am assured of because of what God says about it), is not really a great world to imagine.  For who says that not being a bully in world full of bullies means you get to keep your marbles...  That's up to the bully.  Communism was a good example of limiting marbles and human expression itself.  I don't think democracy is the holy grail.  But I do find it interesting that the freedom we enjoy presently in America (though America has strayed far away from her foundations) is a direct result of our founders holding  certain truths to be "self-evident", and not conventional in nature.  Brad, and perhaps you also, thinks that certain modes of world etiquette can be maintained as self-evident apart from absolutism.  I think it's wishful thinking, and impossible.  In fact the Bible itself prophetically counters this line of thinking by painting a pretty dark picture of the world near the consummation of things... Where "nation rises against nation", and "Mother against daughter" etc.  


Anyway more time must clarify and reveal this principle.  However, I think it's pretty evident from the world right now that it's at work.  It is also God's grace that men are not currently allowed to be as wicked as they might.  There is a "cap" on lawlessness by the grace of God.  When God brings judgement in such a way as to remove the restraint, what will be "self evident" then?  Every man will be a law unto himself.  There is a time predicted when AntiChrist will rise fuller than ever before.  We saw it in Hitler and many other despots.  We will see it again, in greater  technicolor than before.  Technology, knowledge, and increased power has upped the ante.  


"Unless you can convince me that kids never make up their own games and never stick to the agreed rules they lay down my argument stands – there is no need for a higher lawgiver for rules to exist."


Unless I can convince you?  If history hasn't, I guess I never will.  But with no lawgiver rules can never matter.


"Are you suggesting that in 1939 God decided Hitler was the fittest but in 1945 he decided he wasn’t or are the vagaries of humanity beyond Gods intervention?"


No.  I am suggesting that God is a God of justice.  And the day of judgement is coming.  The spill has been allowed to run very far before it is wiped up, I admit.  The wheat has been allowed to grow with the tares for a long time, to use the parable that Jesus told.  But atheism offers this scenario forever, with no final satisfaction of justice.  If you are asking if God had a hand in the rise and fall of Hitler, I say yes to both.  God has intervened in History many times.  It is his prerogative to do so according to his own schedule.  But those who believe world ethics to be conventional have no compelling complaint against Hitler, and can only be glad that at that time, those who happened to feel differently had bigger guns.


Stephen.


  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
21 posted 2002-11-18 09:48 PM


Brad,

to say that God really isn't relevant, or doesn't matter is to live in denial.  Imagine men who breathe oxygenated air saying that it doesn't matter if plant life exists or not.  You are willfully unaware of God's relation to you and your total  dependence upon him in a myriad of ways.  The same goes for us all.  I know it is the most unpopular of Biblical assertions but it is nonetheless true.  Man's autonomy is a myth, not God's existence.

What you propose to be "beyond atheism" is really not beyond it.  It is just an assertion that for you, the question doesn't matter anymore.  This is not fundamentally different than the atheism of a more aggresive atheist.  It is just a further progression down the same road.   It is not the angry mob spirit, but "betraying the son of man with a kiss".  It's one thing to act as an enemy of God.  It's another thing to say "He's not even worth my enmity".  It is calling impotent, the God who gave you yourself the being you enjoy.  What does that assertion finally make you?  More than escapism, as Jim said, I think this is a more settled and hardened form of unbelief than the others.  It has moved beyond caring.


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-18-2002 09:50 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

22 posted 2002-11-18 11:31 PM


Brad,

quote:
The truly scary part of the movie for me is not whether the Paxton character really had a vision from God, but that people think that having a vision from God can somehow put them above the laws of the world. The discussions over the movie will, of course, revolve around whether his visions were true or not but my point would be that he is a murderer even if he really did have a vision.


The truly scary part of the movie for you is something that need not scare you at all, in the sense that you refer to, if you disect it. To begin with, who are "these people" [in my best Jerry Seinfeld impersonation!] that would think in this way? To me it would seem that they would be deluded and/or mentally ill and would manifest this proclivity to do themselves or another harm whether they ascribed it to a vision from God or from hearing the voice of Satan, or to just hearing disembodied voices. It is not something that would happen in society to/by the average well-adjusted person, whether they believe in God or do not believe in God.

Even if I granted that personal visions/revelations from God, in the sense as in the movie, were possible today, which I don't, they could not encourage violating societies generally accepted moral law, because moral law in fact originates with God. So I would agree with you that Paxton would be a murderer...period. God could have had absolutely nothing to do with this particular vision, but suppose that He did give a vision to someone...and the person misunderstood what was being revealed? That's something that would have to be considered a possibility, given the possibility of a vision/revelation being given in the first place, I would think.

Just as God did not impress upon people to crash planes into the World Trade Center or drown babies in a bathtub or drink cyanide, or set themselves on fire, He has nothing to do with any atrocities that people commit. None of it can be laid at God's doorstep. The full responsibility rests with each individual committing such acts against society, no matter who they ascribe it to.

Ron,

quote:
That was an attempt, and obviously a futile one, to circumvent the "It can't really be God" arguments I knew were just around the corner. My point was that even if you fully accept the scenario as outlined, it doesn't change the nature of faith. Unconditional trust in God eliminates contradictions.


Sorry! Didn't mean to give you a hard way to go. My mind just shuts down when faced with impossible scenarios. I knew what you were driving at and I agree with many of your points, especially the one of a parent giving bits of information at a time to a child which may seem contradictory to the child, but the scenario that you had happened to choose about God appearing and saying that "Jesus is not my Son", well, I just think that that is too much of a contradiction for faith to overcome when the whole basis of the Christian faith is in who Jesus claimed to be and in what He was able to do for us because of who He claimed to be. So by negating that, faith itself is negated, not proven. Faith/trust, in and of itself, is not the foundation, but Christ, the object of faith/trust, who He is and what He did, is the foundation, hence my mind shutting down with the scenario that you used.

[This message has been edited by Denise (11-18-2002 11:35 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
23 posted 2002-11-19 06:28 AM


quote:
Stephen asked Doesn't speaking of "rules" without an absolute lawgiver create many problems?

Go grab an oral thermometer, Stephen, and take your temperature. I'll bet it's within a few degrees of 98.6? Strangely enough, those who believe in creationism have pretty much the same temperature as those who believe in evolution.

quote:
Brad said And from that, Ron said that foreknowledge is the same as history. I couldn't disagree more and it seems an odd thing to say given his earlier comment that revelation is always individual. History is not an individual endeavour, revelation is.

Your implication, Brad, is that our perception of reality should only be determined by consensus, with I think too much emphasis on the word only. I know exactly what happened to me yesterday, and anyone who disagrees with my perceptions would have to persuade me their interpretation was more valid than mine. Not impossible, but certainly difficult. What I do today will, in large part, be predicated by what I know happened yesterday. If I had equally certain knowledge of what was going to happen to me tomorrow, I would have NO CHOICE but to act on that knowledge, too.

And, yes, I'm well aware that consensus dictates the difference between sanity and madness. That usually affects our actions, however, only after the consensus is reached to lock us up. The person who KNOWS what happened to them yesterday rarely questions their own sanity. A person who was convinced they knew the future, I think, would be little different.

quote:
Denise said My mind just shuts down when faced with impossible scenarios.

Me, too, Denise.

But that's really the whole point of my little scenario, outlandish though it might have been. If I could "understand" the contradiction, there would be no need for trust. For me, it's no different when I'm faced with the contradiction of a thousand different religious choices, whether it's the relatively minor differences between the Catholics and Protestants or the much bigger differences between the Christians and the Islams. All are part of God's plan. And I trust that when I "grow up," the contradictions will finally make sense.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
24 posted 2002-11-19 10:55 AM


Ron,
I think it is the other way around. I never said 'only', you did. I talked about history is done, you talked about what happened yesterday. You are more than welcome to write a book about yesterday and, as it should, it will be judged.

I'm not against personal insights (they are essential), I'm against personal insights
without a check.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
25 posted 2002-11-19 11:35 AM


And, again, I agree. But they should be the same checks in both instances.

If what happened to me yesterday prompted me to kill someone today, the checks would be law and morality. If foreknowledge of what happens to me tomorrow prompted me to kill someone today, the checks should STILL be law and morality, not your lack of belief.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
26 posted 2002-11-19 01:04 PM


Stephen asked "Doesn't speaking of "rules" without an absolute lawgiver create many problems?"


Ron replied "Go grab an oral thermometer, Stephen, and take your temperature. I'll bet it's within a few degrees of 98.6? Strangely enough, those who believe in creationism have pretty much the same temperature as those who believe in evolution."


At least you didn't tell me to go grab a rectal thermometer! (sigh of relief!)


Seriously though, I think you have taken what I said out of context.  Or at least you are trying to say that I'm saying something I'm not.  I never said that unbelievers don't have rules, or that rules never work for them.  But Brad made some comments about the State being ultimately the highest form of "rules" ... that there is no other authority to appeal to.    

The problems one runs into when placing the ultimate authority on us, autonomously, is that we lose any real basis upon which to have any valid  complaints against someone who "breaks the rules".  The only basis of our allegations and corrective measures, is the fact that we happen to be stronger.  What if Hitler Germany had prospered and become the dominate world philosophy?  I'm just having a problem with Brad's problem with absolutism, when he just embraces, unwittingly,  another form of what he criticizes.  This way of looking at things does not solve the problems of absolute power, or absolute say so, or absolute revelation, or whatever.  There will be a King on top of the mound.  And obscuring, or denying the supremacy of God over governmental matters will only make us more susceptable to having to deal with, or be dealt with by, morally decadent powers in the world.  "Rules" are whatever the big boy on the block says they are.  


Stephen.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
27 posted 2002-11-19 02:11 PM


Stephan:

quote:
And obscuring, or denying the supremacy of God over governmental matters will only make us more susceptable to having to deal with, or be dealt with by, morally decadent powers in the world.  "Rules" are whatever the big boy on the block says they are.


God is supreme over governmental matters regardless of "official" opinions.  Furthermore, the biblical jurisdiction apportioned to governments is to punish wrongdoers and uphold those who do good (I'm writing of the second table of the Law here).  To the extent governments do this, they are fulfilling His will.

Second, I disagree with you that rules are necessarily whatever the big boy on the block says they are.  I am somewhat involved in the disability movement in my region of the U.S. and even a cursory look at recent history will show you that organized and tenacious little people have caused "rules" to be set in place that are intended to ensure the most vulnerable of us to enjoy the rights many of us take for granted (e.g., handicapped accessibility, rights to appropriate education, healthcare benefits, etc.).

Perhaps you can argue that individual freedoms that form the foundation of our Constitutional government are rooted in biblical revelation, but it is important to note that, even though this may be true, it has been the efforts of little people that have made it possible for the most vulnerable among us to share in those freedoms.

What you are saying is certainly true about despotic governments, but not every government is tyrannical ... at least not completely.

Ron:

I think your analogy of the thermometer is unfair.  In the absense of an objective theological basis for determining justice and equity, jurisprudence has attempted to concoct substitutes that miss the mark.  One of the most popular alternatives is Economic Theory that seems to be driven by Millian thinking ... that the common good is the objective standard we should strive toward. This cannot be done without diminishing individual freedoms and, as Stephen correctly pointed out, this creates many problems within democratic systems.

Brad:

I can identify with the lure of the position in which you are encamped.  The Bible, regardless of the position you hold on its nature, is a fascinating and enduring literary achievement.  The challenge of interpreting such a document alone can be very gratifying.

But far more gratifying is the realization that what God has inspired, He is true to.  Drawing on what I have mentioned above and applying it personally, there is no way I could have set all of the events in motion that eventually led to my son enjoying the marvelous educational experience he is experiencing now.  I was one small player who was more a passenger along for a ride than a driver.  When mammoth-sized obstacles seemed to remove themselves (and continue to do so), how could I not believe it to be providential?  How could I rightfully take any credit for it?

The object of my faith is verifiable through careful interpretation, and what I believe works, and has been of priceless benefit to me, my son, and his classmates.

Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
28 posted 2002-11-19 02:58 PM


Jim,

you wrote, "To the extent governments do this, they are fulfilling His will."

Yes I agree, to the extent governments do this.  To what extent they will continue to do this, as anti-theistic philosophy is propagated more and more, I do not know.  But I am one to believe that we "reap what we sow".  While some may, while holding on to subjective ethics, sow a godless philosophy believing it will foment societal integrity, they will ultimately reap godless actions.  And when I say "godless", I am referring to the traditional and biblical understanding of the term, as morally deplorable actions resulting from a refusal to submit to the will of God.  I understand that not all governments are totalitarian or positively evil.  However I see this as a result more of the grace of God, than the goodness and integrity of  human government itself.  Whenever a totalitarian antiChrist pops up, it's as if God takes his restraint off for a moment to show us what can be, and what will be apart from submission to Christ.  That it has turned out not wholly disasterous, and the proponents of atheism and subjectivism can still say, "Look, it's not so bad, and we haven't believed in God for a while... Guess we didn't need him",  more commends the patience and grace of God than the merits and reasonableness of atheism.  The man who argues air doesn't exist breathes all the while he expounds.  A child or a simple man might reason fallaciously that the man's arguments are valid because he still breathes without air.  Let him in reality be made to live what he is saying and you will see a different man... cyanotic and silent!  This is precisely what God has said will happen.  Every hidden or decietful thing will be shown for what it is.  Every person will ultimately be forced to accept the full implications of their chosen worldview.

Thanks for your post, I will give these more thought.


Stephen.  


      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-19-2002 03:02 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
29 posted 2002-11-19 04:48 PM


quote:
I think your analogy of the thermometer is unfair.  In the absence of an objective theological basis for determining justice and equity, jurisprudence has attempted to concoct substitutes that miss the mark.
And my point, Jim, is that they might as well pass a law to change the temperature of the human body. A spiritual recognition of right and wrong exists, regardless of its origin, much in the same way the physical nature of our body exists. Giving everyone a legislative fever might cause some initial confusion, but it can't last long. We won't let it.

If one could logically prove that the Bible is the cornerstone of all morality, that argument would effectively prove the existence of God. That isn't going to happen, I think, because every time you cite the Bible the unbelievers smirk and point out that it, too, was formulated by men. Your arguments either preach to the choir or wholly fail to address their disbelief. Worse, I think the attempt and failure serves to encourage their disbelief. The existence of God cannot be proven. It can only be experienced.

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
30 posted 2002-11-20 12:11 PM


But neither can the nonexistence of God be proven.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
31 posted 2002-11-20 01:04 PM


Ron:

Logic is not the only tool at our disposal for discerning truth and falsehood.

I agree with you that, if God is to be know, He must make himself known to us in time and space.  The moment He reveals Himself in this way, His revelation of Himself become subject to historical inquiry.

And I must flatly disagree with you here:

quote:
Your arguments either preach to the choir or wholly fail to address their disbelief.


Those are most certainly [u]not[/u] the only possibilities.  History and my personal experience have demonstrated to me repeatedly that the evidence that supports the Christian claims have convinced tough minded, but serious, inquirers, myself included.  Far more convincing, anyway, than, A. H. Ackley's "You ask me how I know he lives?  He lives with in my heart."

If experience alone is what you are relying on, how can you be certain that the "burning in your bosom" is not merely heartburn?

quote:
Worse, I think the attempt and failure serves to encourage their disbelief.


I'm not trying to convince them.  In attempting to soundly refute their arguments, I am attempting to convince those who remain undecided.

quote:
The existence of God cannot be proven. It can only be experienced.


We "prove" things by relying on common experience every day.  Every day we pull facts together by observation.  Gathered facts often reveal patterns and we then make decisions based on those patterns.  This can be refined to yield very precise results.

Jim

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
32 posted 2002-11-20 07:45 PM


I think you misunderstood me, Jim. I am not arguing that Christianity should not be put under a magnifying glass, nor am I suggesting there aren't intellectual appeals to be made. For you, perhaps, it was historical accuracy. For me, it was the logical intricacies of provably fulfilled scripture and, surprisingly for some, the support lent to Christianity through modern science. There is, indeed, much that can be logically proven and much more, I think, that can be lent valuable credence.

I don't think, however, that citing God and the Bible as the origins of man's innate morality is one of those things that can be proven or even logically inferred. It's a chicken and egg thing. We believe killing is wrong because the Bible told us so? Or the Bible told us so because men already knew it was wrong when they wrote the Bible? Stephen's contention that only a lawgiver can arbitrate and that we are potentially lost without such arbitration is less than convincing considering we've gone without any apparent divine intervention for at least a few thousand years. He says that might makes right seems unavoidable in naturalism, apparently not realizing that might makes right is equally unavoidable in Christianity. If one accepts the treatise of free will, God is the ultimate judge but is NOT the current arbitrator. We are.

Put another way, and to return to my earlier analogy, you can't prove that God created man to shine in at 98.6 degrees F. simply by showing that our temperature is 98.6 degrees F. That argument is only going to convince those already convinced.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
33 posted 2002-11-20 08:08 PM


Well, I admit I've had to step back a bit. If Ron can read 'only' and Stephen can say that I said anything about 'the State' and Jim's worry is who takes credit for good things happening, I'm at a loss.

Ron's last post is pretty much what I want to say except, from that point, we can then simply drop the whole ultimate judge thing. Let me add one more thing, you are responsible for you.

Unfortunately, most people don't realize how truly scary (and yet necessary) that is.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
34 posted 2002-11-20 09:28 PM


Brad, responsibility for one's self is just another way of saying free will. And I think it's supposed to be scary.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
35 posted 2002-11-20 11:54 PM


Ron,


I agree that the Bible cannot be logically or historically taken as the source for man's morality.  And the texts of the Bible never claimed that either.  But what they do claim is that God himself is the ultimate source of morality in mankind, not the bible itself.  Remember the "created in my image" thing?  This goes for unbelievers as well as believers.  He created men before the Bible.  The Bible did not create God, nor did it's writers.  


This moral awareness common to humanity is the law of God written on their  hearts.  Read Romans chapter one and if you think I'm interpreting this wrong, I would like to hear your exegesis on that passage.  I am of course is presupposing the Bible as the Christian's ultimate authoritative text.  But even taking a view not centering on authoritative statements of the Bible ... (Though some Biblical teaching has to be presupposed here if we are to talk about God)  Let's say that you believe in a Creator who is all Good and has revealed to mankind that he cares very much about right and wrong behavior, and that he created you and everything else.  And he explains that he especially created you "in his image".  How would it logically follow that your moral beliefs did not originate with this creative act?  Especially seeing that every person on Earth without exception has been unable to follow the moral injunctions of the concience?  What is an alternative explanation?


It is undeniably biblical that the moral awareness that humans possess is from God (even pre-bible) and makes all men accountable to him.  I think you agree with me here that it is taught in the  scriptures.  If not, I would like to see from the bible, any support for your argument.  


And if you don't want to come at it from the Bible... given the Christian concept of God, how would it logically follow that we have an autonomous morality?  I understand that I am presupposing the God of the Bible, but I assume you are too, by your own confession.  Taking this God for granted, how would it not be logical to infer that our moral awareness must come from him?


"Stephen's contention that only a lawgiver can arbitrate and that we are potentially lost without such arbitration is less than convincing considering we've gone without any apparent divine intervention for at least a few thousand years."


The biblical answer is that man has done nothing at all without "divine intervention".  If you are speaking of direct miracles, I still disagree.  But even if I gave you that one, God's governance and providence over all things (especially the hearts of men) is not presented biblically as miraculous, but as the natural order of things.  


Biblically I am wondering how you can support the "doctrine", if I may call it that, of man's total autonomy?  If not biblically, given the Christian God, how can you logically prove it?


"Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe"...  Book I of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis presents in clarity this whole idea.  But I think this universal morality from God has been presupposed by Christians since it was taught by Paul ... taught (not invented) by Paul.  From the Judeo-Christian worldview, I don't see how it can be avoided.  Presupposing God, I am only stating what I see as necessarily imposed on us by our belief.  

  


Stephen.    

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
36 posted 2002-11-21 12:17 PM


"you are responsible for you."


To some degree.  I gladly cannot accept the existentialist idea of our total responsibility.  One comforting doctrine Christians hold is Grace (undeserved favor) from God, both here and at the day of judgement.   Denying the total autonomy of man, we accept the fearful state of being made accountable to a morally just God who will judge every thought, every deed.  Seems worse at first consideration.  But one thing is gained by denying man's total autonomy, the avoidance of man's total resposiblity... total responsibility for every action good or bad is a burden we are not able to bear.  This is exactly what is taught in believing God for salvation.  Jesus Christ, through the cross, became responsible for our ill actions and paid a price we couldn't.  The bill is astronomical.  I am glad to not be the bearer of this.  This can never be used as an excuse to do wrong, or to live without responsibility ... Because God left us with responsibility.  But I'm afraid that claiming to be totally responsible and autonomous apart from God is an assertion made, only when the depth and severity of our spiritual condition is not recognized.  


It takes humility to admit we need help.  Maybe that's why Jesus said things like "It's not those who are well who need a physician but the sick".  But people who deny their sickness tend not to go to doctors.  "Patient heal thyself" is not palatable advice for the terminally ill.  You may say it is an unavoidable maxim.  But it isn't.  There is outside help, for which I am eternally grateful.

Stephen.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
37 posted 2002-11-21 01:25 AM


Stephen, your arguments carry immense weight to a Christian. I believe that ALL things come from God, first and foremost among them our concepts of right and wrong. I'm only saying that the logic of your arguments necessarily presupposes a Christian God and can't be expected to carry the same weight when directed at those who are not Christian. I admire your faith, and your willingness to share it with others. To do so convincingly, however, I think you need to be able to see and appreciate the viewpoints of the non-believer. We are all inevitably blinded, to some extent, by our own belief system, but when our logic is founded on unrecognized preconceptions not shared by others, it fails to be logic. And I think it most certainly fails to convince.

Case in point. Your interpretation of "created in my image" is given as proof that our morality is derived from our creator. The assumptions inherent in that statement are almost too numerous to count. Were I not aware of some of those assumptions, my response might be to ask if that means God has a temperature of 98.6 degrees F., too. You are taking a belief that is itself based on many other beliefs and presenting it as fact.

Biblically I am wondering how you can support the "doctrine", if I may call it that, of man's total autonomy?

I believe that free will is one of the three key concepts of the Bible. However, free will is certainly not synonymous with total autonomy. I specifically said "without any apparent divine intervention" in my earlier post for a reason. Yes, God is present in our lives. We can no more be autonomous from God than our children can free themselves of the influence of our genes. We are bound. But I believe God's ACTIVE participation in our lives comes only through invitation. We have a choice. Without that choice, without free will, I believe we would be nothing but marionettes. And I don't think that was ever God's intention.

Like you, I believe our moral certitudes come from God. I do not, however, believe they are enforced by God. If they were, we would all be perfect little angels. Literally, not just figuratively. On a superficial level, that really doesn't differ greatly from naturalism. Not since the time of Noah has God stepped in and said enough is enough. We make our choices, through the gift of free will, and I think those choices are largely reflected in the quality of our life on Earth. A few of those choice will determine the quality of our life beyond Earth, too. There are some interpretations of naturalism that are at obvious odds with Christianity, but I don't believe that means that naturalism is an enemy. On the contrary, I think naturalism is little more than the eons-long process of humanity making its choices. A blink of the eye in terms of eternity. The only real danger in naturalism is accepting it as a complete answer.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
38 posted 2002-11-21 10:10 AM


"The only real danger in naturalism is accepting it as a complete answer."


And so many are doing just that, I'm afraid.


Thanks for replying, Ron.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-21-2002 10:11 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
39 posted 2002-11-21 10:14 AM


Stephan,

At some point, my daughter is going to ask why am I here. I want to tell her love. But you want to tell her God. My wife is a Confucianist. She wants to say family. I want to bring your point of view together with my wife's, how should I do that?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
40 posted 2002-11-21 11:02 AM


When I referred to naturalism this is the definition that I meant ...

"the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual"


While Christianity has it's presuppositions, so does naturalism.  ie, There can be no supernatural explanation for anything.  It is unavoidable in these kinds of discussions not to state them.  In that sense both sides are "preaching to the choir" as Ron said.  But the theistic side of things has two things going for it which are very promising.  1) it is the only view of the two, which can philosophically and epistemologically account for intelligible life at all.  and 2) it asserts that there is no real "neutral" ground.


The fact that God created all men, necessitates that his truth has the power to relate with what he put inside them.  Their moral nature, intellectual nature, and emotional nature are all the handiwork of God.  And so he promises that in proclaiming the truth, there will be a recogition of that truth, since it matches what is already there (albeit supressed by unbelief and sin).  The specific revelation will match & confirm the general one.


Now this is not to say that some will not believe, or that all responses will be favorable.  But it is certain that the truth will be recognized at some point or another.  And the truth of God is like seed.  With a little water and light who knows when it will spring up?  Preaching takes a different light when even those not in the Choir have musical roots.  And this is what we're promised.  God is a weak God indeed if he could not make his truth known to the men he created.  


The truth can be denied, suppressed, and dismantled, but it is always present in the human heart.  I myself painted the truth of God in a corner for so long that I'd forgotten.  But it came back, as it will with us all.  God loves us too much us to leave us forever with the false notions of naturalism.  To those who will never submit to God, this means loving them enough to reveal his full truth, while respecting their final choice.  To those who are seeking the truth, this means giving every aid possible to help us come to a saving knowledge of himself.  But how will they believe if there is no preacher?  If no one is saying it, how will they know?  What good is the "Great Comission", if preaching is only suited for the choir?


Just some thoughts.


Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
41 posted 2002-11-21 11:28 AM


"But neither can the nonexistence of God be proven."

Remove the term "God" and insert any of the following...

aliens
witches
The Lockness Monster
leprachauns
Big Foot

etc...etc...

The onus of proof is on those who believe in an existence, otherwise people could create whatever deity, creature, etc that they want to...all they would need then is a majority to accept it in order to obtain credibility, which would then lead to this statement...

"But neither can the nonexistence of God (or your choice) be proven."

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-21-2002 11:33 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
42 posted 2002-11-21 01:04 PM


Imagination will always have a bigger operation than knowledge.  Knowledge is not there as often as the mind needs to feel certain about things that the visionary human mind will take into its own hands, adding additions and complements in symbol and suggestion of its own, that will never be a complete miss of what the truth is for there is no pallette to work from but reality is ultimatly every colour in one way or another--it is only the mathematical shapes that don't always correspond.  
I believe imagination is a divine collaborator in everything that the human mind labors with or attends.  Nature needs to feel more than know and imagination gives hope and transcending vision.  If we cannot believe in what we imagine, there is little direction in life and worse doing in little feeling.    
I would not put it past divine to be human, nor human to be divine--but we seem least either! if we can't imagine!
Our ancestors imagined enlightenment and higher being and because they most believed in what they imagined and retained the terms in which they did, they succeeded and created civilizations.
If they had put their heart in smother for what thier minds didn't have of strict knowledge they would not have had the informing pulse that created what we live upon today...and I believe there is more in that than just nature.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-22-2002 01:15 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
43 posted 2002-11-21 02:23 PM


Brad,

     I'm not well studied on Confucianism, but from what I have read about it, I see many harmonies between it and Christianity.  It's moral teachings and emphasis on obtaining wisdom is to be admired.  If you or your wife were to come to believe in Christ, you would not have to lose these aspects of Confucianism.  In fact I believe what you have learned may actually confirm and compliment Christianity and vice versa.


For example... You said that you want to reply to your daughter that we are here because of love.  If any concept can be called central to the Christian faith, it is love.  


"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." (John 3:16)

"Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for he who loves one another has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8)

"And we have known and believed the love that God has for us.  God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." (1 John 4:16)


What a belief in God provides, is a foundation for love.  


Now I know that Confucianism is not materialistic, right?  It does give a transcedental status to love through "Jen"?  But where Christianity parts with Confucianism is in its assertion that we cannot be the self-attesting source of any meaningful love.  (not that non-Christians do not have meaningful love)  For we are a part of nature, not above it.  If we are the source of love, and it resides intrinsically within us and is not from our Creator, or a reflection of him, then it is only a part of nature.  Therefore the meaning we ascribe to it is arbitrary and transient.  Love becomes atomistic.  It is only a link in the chain, and has no advantage really over any other thing.  But with God, love has an eternal purpose.  And we are told that the principle of love will ultimately triumph, not dissipate when the universe implodes, or cease to exist when we die.  This is what makes the promise of eternal life so wonderful.  We are able to live in love and relationship with God and with others for eternity... not just for a few painful years.  But Christianity also shares with confucianism the idea that these things have value here and now.


This is where the answer to your wife will come in.  She values family as the supreme value.  But as with love, Christianity provides an eternal value to family.  The Bible teaches that we get our biology for it, and our concepts of it, from God.  The triune nature of God suggests that God is a God of community.  He is called "Our Father".  Christ is called "our brother".  Jerusalem (spiritually speaking) is called "the Mother of us all".  The Judeo-Christian tradition has a long history of seeing the family as a sacred community.  This is in line with confucianism...


"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12)

"Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Ephesians 5:33)

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord for this is right" (Ephesians 6:1)

"But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them frist learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this good and acceptable before God." (1 Timothy 5:4)

"But if any anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Timothy 5:8)


Christianity seems to me a fulfilling rather than a refuting of what I see in Confucianism.  It provides a source and a reason for the sacredness of family.


"For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Ephesians 3:14,15)

(the greek for 'the whole family' can also be translated 'all fatherhood')


I don't really think there would be a loss of what traditional values you hold.  Christ would provide enhancement and fulfillment to these.  I respect the values you hold, and agree with you that they are good.  They can be even better and more secure.  


Personally for a moment... Do you ever look at your daughter and wish or hope that it could be more than a few years on earth... that death might not finally separate you?  Do you ever pine after the assurance that this might be an eternal personality that you are so in love with?  There is a worldview which holds that this longing in you is a desire for the deepest reality... not wishful thinking, and not just some aspect of your biology.  It is a God-given longing, to draw you to his truth.


While my answer would indeed be to your daughter "God",  certainly love and family are thrown into the package.


Not sure I answered exactly what you were asking.  But this is what came to mind.


Stephen

      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-21-2002 02:34 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
44 posted 2002-11-22 05:15 PM


Stephan,

You said that many people have decided Naturalism is the complete answer, but a complete answer in any form is an anathema of Pragmatism, not because there are no answers, but because no one answer can solve all problems. I think you're right that Confucianism and Christianity are not theoretically at odds with each other but practically and traditionally, it is also a practice of ancestor worship in Korea (though Confucius himself is far more ambiguous on this issue). Just before I left graduate school for Korea, a few of my professors put forth the thesis that Confucianism is indeed a type of religion. At the time, I found it unconvincing, living here (Japan was too modernized, I think, for me to see this clearly), it makes a lot more sense.

But my point wasn't to discuss Confucianism, it was to find some way to resolve contradictions in the beliefs of different people with regard to the transendent, ultimate 'reality' you speak of. My solution is to avoid the question, and, if you put a negative spin on what I've said, I think your earlier statement on 'beyond atheism' is a pretty accurate one. But, as Ron pointed out, you have a difficult time persuading anyone who is not already a believer. Your appeal to the Bible or to the intuitive (I sometimes call this the cellular phone inside your head) simply doesn't persuade because there really is no shock of recognition for me, no way to put this in my own experience in a meaningful way (I suspect you would call this denial.).  But if you call it denial, you are not being liberal enough. You are not allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong. I freely admit that I may be wrong in acting as if the question were unimportant, but the only reason you and Jim find it escapist or, what, deplorable is because both of you think the question is so damned important.

Furthermore, I have no real interest in persuading you to my position, it wouldn't/shouldn't change your life in anyway for all it does do is avoid giving final answers to questions and all you would have to do is say, "Well, that's just how we do things around here." Believe it or not that's a pretty good justification for many innocuous and interesting things that people do around the planet. On the other hand, the 'God' justification is often used to explain many things that I don't agree with, that I think are appalling, and that I think need to be changed (dancing with snakes, self-mutilation, rape, murder etc.). Denise points out that I shouldn't be scared of well-adjusted believers and I think she's right, but I would also argue that well-adjusted is a conventional term. It means your normal, and the people I like talking to are usually people who aren't trying to be normal. But, I'm not sure how normal you want to call people who can't wait for the New Jerusalem, who seem positively giddy at the prospect of a driverless car during the rapture (Maybe Christians should be barred from driving ). Where is the value of the here and now in any of this?

When given these questions, many here will respond, it's unfair to characterize all Christians by a handful of zealots, but I suspect that those zealots would respond that well-adjusted Christians aren't all that Christian. Denise said we should be leery of any supposed visions people have and I agree, but Pat Robertson has had made vision claims, am I wrong?

Because, regardless of what you say, spiritualism, just as much as science, is still dependent on a kind of proof, people still desperately want to prove that they truly believe the truth and that the truth is what they truly believe. Opeth is correct when he says the responsibility is to prove God's existence, not to disprove it (Though a few hundred years ago it was the other way around).  Some people will go to extra-ordinary lengths to do just that. I'm sure you're aware of the Osama bin-Laden video where he giggles as he speaks of his knowledge of engineering, his belief that the two towers would not go down, and his complete surprise that they did, Praise Allah.

A lot of fun was made of that video, a lot of fun was made of his knowledge of engineering (that was my first thought), but he doesn't mean it that way. He means that with his knowledge of engineering, the towers shouldn't have collapsed. His engineering knowledge is sound from his point of view, so what could have caused the collapse?

Why an act of God, of course, Praise Allah.

Again, you might say this has nothing to do with what you are talking about and that's fine because I'm not trying to attack you nor am I trying to persuade you to change your belief. Denise can deny victim status all she wants, but it's a splendid rhetorical status to maintain when, in fact, Christians are a majority in the United States and at this site.  Phaedrus, in the Critical States thread, mentions a kind of patronizing manner among Christians with regard to other faiths/non-faiths and he's right. It's always there, but not because you are victimized, but because you are the majority. A while back I remember a thread where one praised Pip and it's unusual comraderie as a result of the fact that we were all Christians. Really? When did that happen? Take it or leave it, Christians still, in practice, maintain an 'us and them' relationship with the rest of the world and this goes specifically counter to the openness rhetoric voiced but, to repeat, hardly ever practiced (Not that Christians are the only ones). This relationship, however, can only be maintained by continuing a line of thought that forces you to take the victim status. Why do they attack us? What did we do to them? Ah, the Bible teaches us that this will happen. We must endure. It's all wonderfully self-righteous.

1)That is, victim status encourages solidarity.
2)This solidarity excludes other who can then claim victim status.
3)This new victim status encourages a new solidarity and a diligence to fight the good fight.
4)And so it goes.

Nothing works better to promote unjustified acts than to believe that unjustified acts have been perpetrated against you.

Now, we seem to accept the basic condition of humanity as a kind of Sartrean terrible freedom, but you see the solution in Christianity (not simply the belief in God, but a specific form of that belief in God), and I think that any transcendent solution is irrelevant to the condition itself. I do not believe, however, that you are wrong in finding guidance, I also believe in guidance, and I'll take it anywhere I can get it. Our disagreement is not, however, over the difficulties of living a life, but over the possibility of revealed/complete truth. I find the idea of exhausted truth to be of little use in my life, you have it at the center of yours.

How do we reconcile this?

One, shrug our shoulders, and let people believe what they want to believe.

Two, you become persuaded to my point of view.

Three, I become persuaded to your point of view.

I think all three positions are false starts. The first is a recipe for silence, it's the agree to disagree argument, it's selfish and static. The second forces you to be persuaded by my arguments without any objective grounding to do so (I have no ground to stand on. ). The third is simply the reversal of the second and is subject to the same objections. From my point of view, you have no more a ground to stand on than I do.

But wait a second, you might say (of course you might not), if you only come to see my point of view, you will have a ground, you will see the value of ultimate, grounding truth, just try it and you'll see. Admittedly, I cannot offer the same assurances back to you, but there's an element of submission, of hierarchy, here. If I give in, if I submit to your ideas without any personal revelation on my part, without any reason other than this promise, I indeed might see the light. But then again I might not. What happens when the promise is broken?

What usually happens when a promise is broken, especially one as important as this?

Betrayal creates hatred (and I'm thinking of Columbine right now).  Now I'm not saying Christianity caused Columbine anymore than I would say that America deserved 911, the issues are far more complex than that (Denise use of 'well-adjusted' becomes extremely useful here). But what I am saying is that by focusing on the two-fold God, the transcendent being beyond logic, beyond human understanding (I call this the super-semantic), and, at the same time, a strictly personal God, a God that 'you know to be true through personal revelation' (I call this the subsemantic), you form a  dilemma.

There is simply no way to argue about God on these terms.

Now, you might say (or again you might not) say that I'm missing the point, I shouldn't be listening to you, Stephan, I should be listening to God. But unfortunately you've given me nothing outside of yourself that can be pointed to. Your God, because you deny any atrocity, any vision, any other interpretation, any difference at all (the ultimate tends to be like that, you know), you leave me with no other choice but to search, if I were so inclined to submit, for your God, the God you see and feel, and not another. The only way I can do that is by listening and submitting to you (Remember I have not experienced personal revelation either from the Bible or in terms of a vision).

You might say, I suppose, that I'm missing the whole point, I'm not submitting or deferring to you, you are just as fallible as I am, it is God, God, God, it is Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. You defer to them, you submit to them.  Okay, but in order to do that you have to point to something that is outside you, something that we can both agree on is a proof of God.

You have to make a prediction.

I don't suggest that you do that on my account. I don't wish that kind of responsibility on anyone (believe me, I'm sure we both agree that we already have a lot to handle.)

Ironically, it is the statements that seem the most modest (It's not me, it's God.) and the most common sensical (God would never do that.) that make God inarguable (the strong agnostic condition). Why? Simply put, you sit in judgement of acts in the name of God without, at the same time, accepting a privileged postion in relation to others who also claim to believe in God.  You can't have it both ways.

Okay, that's enough for now.            

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
45 posted 2002-11-22 11:25 PM


Brad,

I’ll try to get around to answering all 50 loosely connected points sometime or another   .  Forgive me... they really weren't that loose. I'm just picking a bit.


You really put a lot out here.  But I will attempt to address a few things the best I can.

You said that many people have decided Naturalism is the complete answer, but a complete answer in any form is an anathema of Pragmatism, not because there are no answers, but because no one answer can solve all problems


Faith in Christ is not an really an ‘answer’ in the context you are using here,  as if he were a tool we should utilize to perform a task, or a program we could implement to accomplish our goals.  Biblically he is presented as the person whom this whole universe is about.  The purpose and direction of the universe belongs to him.  The revelation is that everything is his.  So no, Christ is not the solution to all of problems met in meeting our goals.  The Lord’s prayer taught us to pray “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”.  So the center is wrong here.  While man is thinking in the manner of his alleged autonomy, Christ and God seem foolish to him.  But an interesting thing happens when submission to Christ is reached in one’s personal life...  All things become pragmatic toward his goals.  It just so happens that his heart toward us is love.  His will becomes better for us than our own.  His love for us assures us of that.  He incorporates many “answers” to our problems in life... They’re lying all around us, at our feet.    When the whole world is his, there is great liberty to use what he created.  This is pragmatic enough for me.  The only difference is that I don’t base my ultimate world view on what I call “pragmatic”.  Brad, I beg to differ.  Pragmatism seems to me, to have become your complete answer.  Atrocities can be done in the name of pragmatism (the good of the whole) as much as in the name of anything else.  I cannot believe you have eliminated absolutism in your life.  You have made yourself that absolute, and your own ideas about what is proper.  


I freely admit that I may be wrong in acting as if the question were unimportant, but the only reason you and Jim find it escapist or, what, deplorable is because both of you think the question is so damned important.”


Brad, think about it ... Eternal life with purpose, and joy and industry and glory forever and ever in contrast to hopelessness, despair, eternal pain, misery, and confusion.  Yeah.  I do think it’s important.  I think it’s important for you.  Men, including you and I, cannot be autonomous.  God has not left you without a witness of his truth.  If you want to say that I’m foolish and insensitive for saying this, then I’ll bear that.  I believe this because God said it through his word and that he is truthful.  He doesn’t lie.  He has given you sufficient knowledge that he is God.    


On the other hand, the 'God' justification is often used to explain many things that I don't agree with, that I think are appalling, and that I think need to be changed (dancing with snakes, self-mutilation, rape, murder etc.)

I will agree with you here Brad.  A lot of things need to be changed.  The Biblical answer is that people don’t need a creed in order to do evil things.  It is a principle at work within them, called sin.  It works in the religious and the irreligious.  It is a trans-cultural, trans-religious problem.  People ditching “ultimate answers” don’t escape the problem of sin any more than people who espouse them.  Christ is the only living person who claims to be able to solve our personal problem with sin.  In doing so he give us a standard, himself.  We know when things are of the flesh and not of God.  The very fact that you find these things “appalling” is evidence that God has communicated to you truth.  This is a reaction to evil in the universe.  Trust me, if you find anything appalling, you believe in evil ... that is more than contrary to your preference.  Nobody ever said finding the right credal truth among the maze of human tradition is easy.  This apparant difficulty is not a sufficient cause for throwing in the towel.  You can’t point to the errors of religion to repudiate ultimate answers, if there is one.  I think if you really believed there to be no ultimate answers, you wouldn’t have landed on the one you have.  “There are no ultimate answers” IS an ultimate answer.  Jesus said “Seek and you shall find”.  In some sense, you do have to believe that there is something to find.  There is a pre-faith faith, if you will.  It is a brightness in the eyes, and a desire to find “truth”.  Pontius Pilate, prophesied about this age when he asked “What is truth”?  You are right in saying that my request for you to seek with nothing to go on is unreasonable.  I just don’t think that’s totally true for you.  I don’t think you are truely satisfied with the skepticism and pessimism of humanistic philosophy, and what it has to offer.  I constantly pray for you and I don’t say that in pretense.  


Opeth is correct when he says the responsibility is to prove God's existence, not to disprove it (Though a few hundred years ago it was the other way around)

This is a perfect example of your belief that majority dictates truth.  You say it was different a hundred years ago.  And I agree that a great shift toward secularization and atheism has occurred.  But where the burden of proof lies depends only upon God.  His claims are the same as always.  He has proven himself sufficiently and does so incessantly day after day after day.  The burden of proof is on the atheist, if God has indeed revealed himself sufficiently enough for all to at least know he exists, and to set out on expedition.  Brad, I don’t keep the stars burning in deep space.  I never formed the mountains, or the wonders of the human eye.  I know I cannot “prove” God, in the sense of making someone believe and trust in him.  I only witness to his truth.  His Spirit must reveal saving faith to a man.  But it’s not an arbitary picking.  He provided enough to get started, and a promise that those who seek the truth will find.  In doing so he also gives a standard to judge truth... (and by inference individual claims to revelation)  His word, his Spirit, and the Character of Christ.  He doesn’t ask us to believe and to trust, and then say that we must believe anything that claims to be revelation.  “Men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another”.  There is a standard.  However, by naturalism, no standard really exists for anything that I can see.


About the “Victim status”...


Brad, truly suffering for doing what is right, and getting a martyr’s complex are two different things.  One manifests in self righteousness and usually bitterness on part of the victim through vengeance.  The other manifests in humility and a genuine pity and desire for the best of those who are attacking.  Jesus prayed “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”... and he “spoke not a word” of protest to his adversaries when that time of persecution came.  Do all Christians act in like manner?  No.  Sadly, the children can’t always well imitate their Father in Heaven.  And often many suffer because of their own faults, not because of true “righteousness” from God.  But some have done it with honor and true love.  We have our bad examples and our good ones.  It’s wrong to be contentious for it’s own sake, and then when anger is aroused cry “persecution!”  I’ve made this mistake before.  My flesh shows often.  I speak in coldness and not in love many times.  Often, even to you Brad.  I am sorry for that.  I often think I hide Christ from you as much as you hide him from you.  But God has grace on us all.  And I hope we can all be more like him in the future.  Bottom line, Christ did say that if we followed him, persecution would come... is all that is claimed to be that kind, really that kind??? No.  Is all that is claimed to be self righteous really so?  I doubt it.


Now, we seem to accept the basic condition of humanity as a kind of Sartrean terrible freedom, but you see the solution in Christianity . . . and I think that any transcendent solution is irrelevant to the condition itself.


Brad, you claim that this “Sartrean terrible freedom” is a basic condition that you merely accept.  Doesn’t even this kind of language reveal that you are taking this kind of “freedom” as a transcendent solution?  Again, you have not done away with absolutism itself, merely every form other than the one you prefer.  It reminds me of a man in a villiage, who set out to cut off all hands, in an obsessive anti-hand campaign.  He cut and hacked and sliced, until only one of his hands remained with a knife in it.  And he realized that he was both unable and unwilling to cut that one off.  I know you can say the same of me.  But I am not the one criticizing ultimate answers.  I think they are unavoidable... they are however, in the final analysis right or wrong.  (I’m not saying that every choice in life is black and white... remember I’m speaking of worldviews).  Even your claim that transcendent solutions are irrelevant is a transcendental answer of sorts... coming from a transcendental (postmodern) worldview... a transcendental worldview that ironically cannot account for anything transcendental.


But what I am saying is that by focusing on the two-fold God, the transcendent being beyond logic, beyond human understanding (I call this the super-semantic), and, at the same time, a strictly personal God, a God that 'you know to be true through personal revelation' (I call this the subsemantic), you form a  dilemma.


I think you are misunderstanding the claims of God from a Biblical perspective.  God is not presented in any way as a two-fold God.  It is true that the dialectical tension between monism and atomism is resolved in the Christian revelation of God.  He is the God who is universal in truth and transcendent (monism) and yet he clearly reaveals himself to individual men (atomism).  But to say that these two form a dichotomy that is irresolvable is not true.  An apple can still be called and handled as an “apple” (one entity) and yet be made of million and millions of molecules.  Remember that the Biblical concept of God is that he has revealed himself to humanity through the fact that he created us with a likeness to himself, and that he even became a man through Christ.  We are not subject to the problems of the existentialist concept of God as being completely “other”.  This is not the Christian concept of God.  God is a personal God.  He relates to men as individuals.  Nothing is logically incoherent about the claim that he does this while relating to humankind as a whole.  One thing I do see clearly is that a naturalistic concept of the universe fails to provide us with any preconditions for abstract uniform concepts, such as logic, at all.  The existence of God is the only foundation for knowledge of anything, really for intelligible life.  In that sense, God is not “beyond logic” at all.  Believing in him, causes logic to finally make sense conceptually.  Why does logic seem so well ... logical?  In naturalism, thought is merely thought... a chain in the sequence, no freedom.  In fact God is the precondition for logic (or any inferrential thinking) to even exist.  Naturalism is bankrupt at providing a base for knowledge at all.  Therefore you have quite an epistemological dilemma yourself.  You debate here as if your debating has real validity, and yet how can one piece of a mindless nature claim to be more valid than another?  I think many of your points are valid, BTW.  It's just that you happen to own a view of things which undermines what validity you use.


Brad, you are right.  I cannot myself convince you.  You (and Ron, a believer!) are wrong however to say that preaching the truth is only good for the “choir”.  The Gospel is called “good news” and is something to be told, preached, shared, in manifold ways.  Many believe, who have not believed.  Yes God must confirm what is said, but how will they even consider without a preacher?  Many hard and fast naturalists, atheists, agnostics, etc... have heard and ended up at some point believing.  But everyone that has, relates that God confirmed the truth that they were hearing.  You should read C.S. Lewis’ account of his conversion.  A quite intelligent and ruthless debater, being taken from atheism to Christianity is interesting to read about.  He called himself “the most reluctant convert in all of England” at the time.  The truth didn’t seem at first, as something he particularly liked, but it became close, personal, and undeniable, as this “something” behind everything became personal to him.  The same may yet happen to you.  I always pray that it does.  In the meantime, I am your friend, not an enemy (ever).  I enjoy debating, talking, and reasoning with you.


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-22-2002 11:39 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
46 posted 2002-11-23 01:38 AM


You're putting words into my mouth, Stephen, and that ain't sanitary.

I never said that preaching the truth is only good for the choir. What I said was that cloaking personal beliefs in the guise of logic will never convince anyone except those already in the choir.

Phaedrus
Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180

47 posted 2002-11-23 12:32 PM



As one who doesn’t believe in God I have to agree wholeheartedly with what Brad and Ron have been saying, in this and other threads, concerning preaching to the converted. Their comments pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to how I perceive the argument in favour of a God based on biblical recitations and the acceptance of fundamental and crucial points based, as I see it, on nothing more than belief.

Let’s take the argument from biblical reference, I don’t believe in God so it’s highly unlikely that I’m going to lend any credence to the assertion that the bible is the word of God, agreed? Unless you can convince me that the bible is a historically correct representation and description of the life of Jesus Christ backed by independent and unbiased evidence I’m left with no option but to accept or reject it and passages from it based solely on my belief (or disbelief). Quoting from the bible will work perfectly well on a believer but carries about as much weight as a quote from Lord of the Rings to one who doesn’t believe.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
48 posted 2002-11-23 12:46 PM


Excellent point.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
49 posted 2002-11-23 06:32 PM


There has been a shift to secularism but not to atheism. I think this is a good idea politically, I advocate it for all theocratic states now existing. Why? Because I don't see a gradual fall in the quality of life, I see a gradual rise in the quality of life beginning with the Enlightenment and carrying all the way through to today. I find it difficult to view the two or three hundred years otherwise. At the same time, we have also had a Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, this is not so much a return to pre-enlightenment thinking, as a psuedo-religious emphasis on the individual, on the special individual, who can take us further, who can carry us along to, you guessed it, the promised land. I'm generalizing of course, but roughly speaking we can divide this into three parts (only for the West):

Pre-enlightenment: God/Christ is the answer

Enlightenment: Reason is the answer

Enlightenment reaction: Genius is the answer

It's a mistake to see this as a linear progression though many want to see it that way, but, even if crude, we can certainly see it as a kind of  dialectical progression.  First, there was God, but the believers in God started the thirty years war, okay, let's try Reason. Ah, but reason, displaces creativity, that creativity must be around here somewhere. Ah, it is embodied, not in God, but in Man, Man now is Divine.  We make our own history.

Always forgetting the rest of that quote, the part that says but we do not make it exactly as we choose.

This 'progression', as reductionist as my little outline is, led to the two great tragedies of the twentieth century: Communism and Fascism. However, while neither of these movements had much use for God, it's important to understand that neither extricated themselves from the belief in ONE WAY to go about things. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. still had the power to assert a kind of monolithism.

Looked at from a Christ/God point of view, these atrocities were created from moving away from God. From the point of view or Reason, these atrocities were created by pointing to the Divine in either Man or God. From the point of view of the Romantics, it is the technocracy of Reason and those who Need a Divine Other (because they can't help it themselves) that created these tragedies.

I think all three arguments have some empirical validity. That is, you can find some evidence for all three (Hitler was no Christian for example, the USSR's official atheism etc. in the God/Christ point of view) but all three views still share a taste, a need for monolithism.  What if we simply dropped that?

I've made much of Denise's term well-adjusted because, for me, it also means adjusted well (adaptability, flexibility) but I also made a mistake, I conflated it with being normal. There's really nobody out there who is normal, we're all weird and it's just a matter of time before finding something that is idiosyncratic or contingent in the way someone lives there lives. Or if you want the norm of life is the Abbie, Abbie something, Abbie Normal in all of us.

But, in this sense, Stephan, well adjusted is an apt term for what I want to advocate. You say that we aren't enemies, I agree, you say that you'll pray for me, I'm flattered (Really, it's a nice thing to hear.), but at the same time, you have to realize that you've privileged yourself above me in your world view, you have a personal relationship with God, I don't (for whatever reason), therefore you wish to use that personal relationship for my benefit. That's okay, I think, to some extent, we have to do this; at any rate, we probably should do it.  When you say that my two-fold interpretaton of God is a Biblical misunderstanding, I think you are correct because I wasn't referring to the Bible, I was referring to what I see as the current compromise that many make in adjusting to the current situation. I do not see God, the concept, as always the same, but as different for different people at different times. The two fold interpretation replaces the Heavens (above) with something outside the universe, distant, the uncaused cause, the Prime Mover, the Alpha and the Omega, and so on so forth. This is a very cold picture of God for many and for many they add that a relationship with God is a strictly personal one, a private relationship. I agree that there is no theological contradiction in accepting both. There is a problem with rhetorical strategy however.

But before I explain that, it's important to understand that I am neither attempting to prove or disprove God. I am looking at the arguments that the carbon based unit Stephan (and others) has given me and attempting to explain my view, my reaction to them.  This may help you form better arguments in the future, it may not, but, if I'm right, your rhetorical strategy isn't something you can really change, it's essential that you maintain certain absolute truth claims or otherwise you'll fill something is missing. Personally, I think this has very little to do with a relationship to God, and much more with the inability to come to terms with uncertainty and contingency.  

Stephan said:

quote:
Do you ever pine after the assurance that this might be an eternal personality that you are so in love with?  There is a worldview which holds that this longing in you is a desire for the deepest reality... not wishful thinking, and not just some aspect of your biology.  It is a God-given longing, to draw you to his truth.


I think many people want this, not because of some deep seated wish, but because the intensity of the moment to be permanent. This is contradictory for intensity can only be a relational feeling (insomuch as we are human at any rate). I do not think eternity is something to wish for so long as I am human, and I think those who do so do not understand eternity. For me, it is nothing more than the restatement, "And they lived happily ever after." But there have been many feminist tracts that seek to describe what it would be like after that last sentence.

To put it another way, the film "AI" presents a view of humanity that I find truly disgusting. The boy is not human because he does not grow up, he does not change his goals (to be with his mother). Is there any worse hell a parent can imagine for his or her child? That they not be allowed to grow up and feel what it is to be a parent or to do what they want?

Daughter's up, gotta go.
              

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
50 posted 2002-11-23 10:24 PM


Ron,

you wrote, "I never said that preaching the truth is only good for the choir. What I said was that cloaking personal beliefs in the guise of logic will never convince anyone except those already in the choir. "


Are you saying that the gospel, the truth, is merely a personal belief, and not a universal one that applies to all people?  I get the feeling you will say, "no I'm not saying that".  Then are you saying that Christians should stick to traditional preaching, and not try to show that Christianity actually presents a cogent worldview epistemically?  You seem to suggest that the gospel should be preached almost in a Kirkegaardian dialectic, where it is true in one sense, but illogical in another.  It's kind of like saying, "Believe, but leave your minds at the door".  I don't buy this fragmented view of reality, nor this view of the Gospel.  Granted there are some things about the Gospel that are above man's reason, but not contrary to it.  My assertion is that believing the gospel is a reasonable thing to do.  I think this is the Biblical view as well.  There is also the biblical assertion that "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'".  This seems to suggest that not believing in God ultimately results in intellectual suicide and leads to absurdity in thought.  If this is not evident in the course of humanistic philosophy (especially modern), I don't know what is!


Ron, if you don't intend me to take what you are saying as what I describe above, then please explain.  I haven't made all my appeals to logic, or to the Bible.  I have been drawing upon both for my assertions.  In your opinion, what would a proper "preaching of the Gospel" to unbelievers entail?  By the way, I have no faith in my own feeble words.  It is the Holy Spirit that I believe will convict people deep in their hearts of the truth I speak (which is not my own).  How can I convert anyone?  How can I persuade someone adequately enough?  This is where I must depend upon something that is far greater than "li'l ol' me" to accomplish anything.  But if your criticism is that the Gospel can be better presented (and I already agree), I am willing to take some counsel from a brother on how to do it better.  Usually, by example is the best way for one to do this.  I can learn best by listening to your apologetic in action, Ron.  I am even more willing to recieve your prayers on the matter.  Either way, I think that proclaiming the Gospel, however you do it, is a matter of obedience to Christ.  Remember it was the "foolishness" of preaching that Paul said would save men.  But if what I say is foolish in your sight, you will have to show me what is better.  And I'm not saying this defiantly.  Christians do need each other in all things.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-24-2002 12:40 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
51 posted 2002-11-23 10:52 PM


Phaedrus,

It doesn't surprise me that being in a position of unbelief, you will say that biblically based argumentation is ineffective for you.  You don't really even have to make that statement for me to know that.  Your stance of atheism is enough to let me know how you feel.  


Just a couple of things however to consider.  I have not brought all of my assertions out of the bible alone.  I have spoken much from philosophy.  I have attempted to draw out the irreconcilable  presuppositional dilemmas of atheism, and to show that belief in God and it's presuppostions present a cogent view of reality where self contradiction is avoided, and knowledge is preserved.  I have attempted to show that skepticism, subjectivism, pessimism, nihilism, and a general hopelessness are the necessary fruits of atheism.  I have not done this with my own reasoning, but by referring to some of the top minds of atheism.  The most logically consistent men of atheism would agree with me.  Their gospel is to "endure the nothingness".  Their purpose is found in facing a purposeless existence, and fighting a war without victory.  Hume, Kant, Russell, Nietzche, are all prime examples.  These men are checks for the naively optimistic atheists of our day.


My assertion still is that the truth of the Bible, and the truth of God in nature, and the truth of God in the human mind, will and do speak to men who do not believe.  God will use even my pitiful attempt at explaining the truth to shake things up and get people questioning.  The truth of God will touch a place of resonance in the hearts and minds of those he created.  We are not "foreign terriroty" to the God who made us.  He has not left himself without a voice inside of  even unbelievers.  This is how he works.  He will even take something I may be wrong about and use it to demonstrate truth.  I am wrong about a lot of things.  I'm sure that you yourself have corrected me in your mind (rightly so) on different occasions.  But the assertion of Christians still stands, "God is here.  And he is not silent".  Time will tell if this proves true for you or not.  

Stephen.  


  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-23-2002 10:54 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

52 posted 2002-11-24 12:18 PM


Stephen,

Thank you for explaining so well what I was trying to explain, yet did so poorly, regarding the experience of persecution. I really couldn't think of a way to get across the reality of it and at the same time try to convey that it in no way had anything to do with having the mindset of a "victim" as in a "martyr" complex. I've certainly never felt victimized, nor had the mindset of an "us vs. them" perception in my day to day reality and in my relationships, and know well the difference between the suffering we bring on ourselves through sin and the suffering experienced through well doing. I'm also fully aware that anything we have suffered so far is nothing in comparison to the folks who have given their lives for the faith in past centuries, and to this day around the globe. In all things we are blessed, whether in good times or bad, whether we are respected or mocked, whether we live out our days safely to old age, or die a martyr's death. It's all in His hands and to His glory. I can't think of a better place to be.

Brad, Phaedrus, Opeth,

I agree with Stephen that there really is no proof, per se, that can be offered to convince anyone of the existence of God, just as there is no way to offer proof against it. If anyone is interested in independent, historical data that lends considerable weight as to the authenticity of the Bible and the claims of Christianity, it's out there. Search it out. I'm always fascinated by stories of those who set out to disprove the claims of Christianity and in so doing could come to no other conclusion than to embrace it as true.

Juno
New Member
since 2002-11-16
Posts 8

53 posted 2002-11-24 01:27 AM


The staring truth is pouring down with a million rays to its passion of wanting to be only observed and acknowledged and yet the human insight so gordian knotted and sandblind by excess, for all its confusion cannot give so often just leastways, benefit of the doubt and abstinence from ignorance?  None should say it has to be this way or that way, it can be a million ways, it is of a million rays--if it is is believed in it is acknowledged.  It is hope and I believe rewarded.

Juno!

[This message has been edited by Juno (11-24-2002 02:57 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
54 posted 2002-11-24 03:46 AM


Stephan,

Why only Christian brothers?

Denise,

Why aren't you interested in the stories of those who leave the Faith?

Juno,

Uh huh, wrong language game. Try writing a poem.



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
55 posted 2002-11-24 04:38 AM


quote:
Stephen asked Then are you saying that Christians should stick to traditional preaching, and not try to show that Christianity actually presents a cogent worldview epistemically?

Either or both would be fine with me, Stephen. It's doing the former and calling it the latter that I think creates a problem. I know you think some of your statements are self-evident, but many are deeply mired in your own perspective. Here are just a few of the things you've said in this thread:

"Without an absolute governor of humanity and nature, we cannot truly account for a belief in uniformity of nature."

"The problems one runs into when placing the ultimate authority on us, autonomously, is that we lose any real basis upon which to have any valid  complaints against someone who 'breaks the rules'."

"One thing I do see clearly is that a naturalistic concept of the universe fails to provide us with any preconditions for abstract uniform concepts, such as logic, at all. The existence of God is the only foundation for knowledge of anything, really for intelligible life."

"I have attempted to show that skepticism, subjectivism, pessimism, nihilism, and a general hopelessness are the necessary fruits of atheism."

I think each one of these statements, though presented as logic and fact, represent a worldview colored by your own belief system. These statements are the RESULTS of being a Christian rather than convincing reasons to become a Christian. More, and I think much worse, they unnecessarily denigrate the belief of others with, not truth, but what I see as unreasoned fervor. I believe I can unequivocally say that each of these conclusions is wrong.

A few years ago, I was teaching a computer class and showing the students how to mix colors using the three primary colors of red, green, and blue (RGB). Wait a minute, someone said, didn't we learn way back in kindergarten that the primary colors were red, blue, and yellow? To be honest, I didn't have an answer for them at the time, nor was it easy to track one down. Turns out what we learned in grade school is called the Additive Color Theory and is based on reflected light. When you see a pure blue paint, what you are really seeing is a substance that absorbs light in the red and yellow spectrum and reflects only blue. Computer screens and photography, however, rely on the Subtractive Color Theory because we deal with emitted light rather than reflected light. Though similar, there are real differences, too. Add equal amounts of red, blue, and yellow paint and you end up with muddy black. Add red, green, and blue pixels on a computer screen and you end up with white.

Faced with two very different worldviews on mixing colors, it's easy to say that one is right and one is wrong - even when both seem to work. Only with an understanding of the difference between reflected and emitted light does it become apparent that both worldviews can be true. I think it is equally easy to look at a worldview that excludes God and call it wrong - even when it otherwise seems to work. I submit that when something works without presupposing God, there's probably an issue of reflected or emitted light that we aren't seeing. For Christianity to be right doesn't require that everything else be wholly wrong if you but accept that our understanding is less than perfect. Worse, when you call something else wholly wrong, something that seems to work, you perpetuate the myth of an either/or proposition and force people to choose, making what may be the wrong choice. For example, that line in the sand separating Evolutionists from Creationists probably exists only because we put it there. There is actually remarkable agreement between Genesis and science, and I suspect the differences arise only because we don't fully understand either.

The naturalists asks, "Why do I exist as I do?" And the question becomes its own answer. "If I didn't exist as I do, I wouldn't be here to ask the question." To return to an earlier analogy, "Why is my temperature 98.6 degrees?" Because if it was 97.6 degrees, I would be extinct. Things are the way they are because if they were even marginally different, WE wouldn't be here to question it. Did you know that water is the only substance known to science that has a lower density in its frozen state than in its liquid state? Ice floats. If it didn't, bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up, instead of being covered by insulating ice, and life could not exist. A miracle? Sure. But if it wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here to recognize it as one. Naturalism essentially side-steps the issue of why with a very simple, "Just because."

And it works. Naturalism is completely self-consistent. It doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism, any more than any other philosophy and much less than so than many. Why do we have an inherent reason to exist? Because if we didn't, we wouldn't exist.

How can I so unequivocally say all the statements that I cited above are wrong? I know they're wrong because they MUST be wrong. If even one of your statements could be demonstrably proven, it would provide the basis for a chain inevitably leading to a proof that God exists. If even one of your statements is right, there is no longer a need for faith.

Logic is a double-edged sword, I think. Yes, it can be used to persuade and, as I said earlier to Jim, I think there are countless ways that logic and history and science can be used to support the Bible. But when the logic is flawed and based on hidden beliefs, it cuts both ways. It dissuades. Far better, I think, to call them opinions founded on faith than to cite them as inescapable truths.

Stephen, I don't think we need to minimize naturalism or evolutionism or even atheism in order to maximize Christianity. Trivializing the beliefs of others isn't productive. You cannot logically prove that Christianity is the only answer because all the others don't work, because very obviously, for many people they do work. Instead, we should try to show Christianity as a better answer. Jesus, after all, didn't come to destroy Jewish law. He just showed us that the difference between reflective and emitting light can change our perspective of truth. He gave us a deeper understanding.


Juno
New Member
since 2002-11-16
Posts 8

56 posted 2002-11-24 04:52 AM


Brad
I have a hand would prefer you above the common class of men in offhand manners as much as you seem in philosphy already.  But I will leave you where you are for now and see if you don't prove that I don't need to.
In other word, maybe you will show a Goddess a welcome and some courtesy !

[This message has been edited by Juno (11-24-2002 04:53 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
57 posted 2002-11-24 06:22 AM


On the last post (Juno's), I have no idea what that means. Like the first one, I have no idea what the meaning is?

Help!


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
58 posted 2002-11-24 08:57 AM


Brad,

"Why only Christian Brothers"?

Did I suggest that I only need Christian brothers?  I was addressing a Christian at the time, right?


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-24-2002 08:57 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
59 posted 2002-11-24 08:57 AM


Juno,

Are you postmodern generator?

Juno
New Member
since 2002-11-16
Posts 8

60 posted 2002-11-24 01:26 PM


I am present to as much as I can be,  who can be more?
I feel words are difficult medium for the most part. people have  different abilities and ways of sayings that feel more accurate to their own experiences and imaginations.  We should be able always to be present to this diversity, and not try to say from our own personal stand--this is the way it can only be, this is the way we should talk about God(s) and experiences and truths.  People approach these in different ways and often they approach people in different ways as well.  Just a thought.

[This message has been edited by Juno (11-24-2002 01:34 PM).]

Juno
New Member
since 2002-11-16
Posts 8

61 posted 2002-11-24 03:33 PM



One who is a Christian right now would not perceive God as she does presently if she hadn't been brought up without the influences of the bible, christian enviroment and culture.  
And if brought up perhaps in very different state would have a very opposite stand based on history of origins, influences and truths and what is better...perhaps would believe in many Gods, or not even believe in Gods at all.  The same God might be present, but that God would not be perceived the same or may be perceived as just a part of nature. Different experiences, and imaginations create different ways of perceiving.  But there is no reason to call a stand  or way in any way better or worse but to your own approach and question, if it is respectful, it is respectable.  



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
62 posted 2002-11-24 05:45 PM


Juno,

You're making sense to me now. Your first post, the best I could make of it, was an estatic revelation of the TRUTH, but it was placed in the wrong language game. I wasn't being disrespectful any more than the people who escort the man who screams, "God doesn't exist!" out of a Church.

You say that one should respect those who are respectful, but you also do a number of things in that first post:

quote:
The staring truth is pouring down with a million rays to its passion of wanting to be only observed and acknowledged


This is an assertion of Truth, a truth that you are apparently in possession of. We come to a problem immediately for:

quote:
and yet the human insight so gordian knotted and sandblind by excess,


By abstracting something into 'the human insight', you may think you avoid pointing to real people, but what you do is point to all people including yourself. You are either not human, above humanity, or subject to the same problems (provided the above statement is true). The solution, of course, is to deny that the message is from you, it is from something else. Unfortunately, that something else cannot be pointed to, it is inside you.

quote:
for all its confusion cannot give so often just leastways, benefit of the doubt and abstinence from ignorance?


We must abstain from ignorance, we must give the benefit of the doubt to what. Again, you attempt to objectify what in the end can only be your own opinion, your own viewpoint and tell me, "You should listen to me."

quote:
None should say it has to be this way or that way, it can be a million ways, it is of a million rays--if it is is believed in it is acknowledged.  It is hope and I believe rewarded.


I might agree with this except that it kind of contradicts what you said in the first sentence, but I would argue, if I understand you correctly, that it can be a million different ways/rays because it really doesn't matter what it is.

Now, later you say:

quote:
One who is a Christian right now would not perceive God as she does presently if she hadn't been brought up without the influences of the bible, christian enviroment and culture.  
And if brought up perhaps in very different state would have a very opposite stand based on history of origins, influences and truths and what is better...perhaps would believe in many Gods, or not even believe in Gods at all.


Actually, this is close but not quite what I think. You wouldn't exist is a better way of putting it.

quote:
The same God might be present, but that God would not be perceived the same or may be perceived as just a part of nature. Different experiences, and imaginations create different ways of perceiving.  But there is no reason to call a stand  or way in any way better or worse but to your own approach and question


But this doesn't mean we refrain from judgement, it means we have to judge. If things were clear there would be no need to judge at all.

Stephan,

No, you didn't say only but you did perk up to Ron's criticism rather than my criticism of your rhetorical strategy. Why? Because, quite frankly, you are more comfortable with people who are 'on your side' than with those who are not (or you didn't see what I was doing, always a possibility.). Others do this as well (In a certain way, everybody does it.), but Christians seem hell bent on denying that they do it. I see it as a sign that you need validation. That is not a bad thing even if it shows cracks in your armor of certainty.

But why deny it? I think, to a large extent, you have to because you intuitively (or consciously) realize that intersubjective validation gives more credence to my 'majority rules' argument.

I can't explain it, but hey there are other people out there who feel it too, I must be right then. But this doesn't prove you wrong, you can't be proven wrong. Unfortunately, as long as you refuse the risk of being proven wrong, you can never be proven right.

There's a reason that Denise is far more interested in people who come to believe in what she believes rather than with people who come to believe in something different than she does.

Ron said:

quote:
Why do we have an inherent reason to exist? Because if we didn't, we wouldn't exist.


This is essentialism, not Naturalism. The anthropic principle simply says that any description of the universe must include the preconditions for our existence. It says nothing about inherent reasons for existence. Naturalism gives no reason for our existence at all. We're here now, what do we do?

But I suspect that's what you mean, Ron. Personally, I like Martin Gardner's CRAP, the completely ridiculous anthropic principle.

On a different note, I sometimes think the hardest thing to understand is that, for some of us, it's precisely the impermanence (temporality), the meaninglessness, the insignificance of our lives that give our lives gravity, meaning, and significance.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
63 posted 2002-11-24 06:25 PM


Brad,

I think it's pretty natural for those who believe in the "Truth" of Christ, to seek support from others who have the same revelation.  I've never denied this.  Nor do I deny the special relationship of the Believer with God in one sense.  He says that through faith we are "adopted" into a family, a brotherhood of believers.  This does put Christians in a unique status with God.  If this were not so, what would we have to preach?  Christians actually claim that they have come into such a relationship with God, where their very sins are all forgiven!  Yet they readily admit (or certainly should) that it is not their virtue that saved them, but the virtue of Christ and what he accomplished on Calvary's cross.  I am not denying that Christians should and do recognize their privileged status.  They should however do this with much humility.  And the grace that makes them privileged should make them more willing to be servants to those who aren't there yet.


There is a reason that I took up the issue of this whole thing with Ron, rather than you ... at least the "preaching" part.  For you have expressed in the past that Ron appeared to be trying to "have it both ways" so to speak.  You yourself have never tried to lend credence to claiming the gospel on one hand, and denying that you have ultimate truth on the other.  You rather say that we should "grow up" beyond the question altogether... (still an ultimate conclusion, I will again mention).  I was talking to Ron about this because it seems peculiarly incongruous with his world view.  Whether I am right, or Ron is right is a different issue, that he and I are currently speaking of.  But the point I am trying to make is that we all approach our "own" differently.  I am more apt to say to Ron, or him to me,  "You should know better than that".  Is often a more personal, more direct approach to things, yet with a more emotional appeal.  (Not that I haven't been direct with you )     But your opinion of how we should (or should not, more accurately) live didactically, at least comports with your basic assumptions about reality.  I think Ron's may counter each other.  Then again, maybe I am misunderstanding him.  I'm sure we will hit on this some more.  My whole point, the claims of you and the claims of Ron are two different situations.  And you marvel that I relate differently to him?  This is not some kind of favoritism, or  family abuse, whichever way you percieve I am erring.  You and Ron are very different and are saying very different things, which elicit very different responses, naturally and reasonably so.  Do you agree?


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-24-2002 06:30 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
64 posted 2002-11-24 06:49 PM


Actually, I agree with just about everything there.

I particularly appreciate:

quote:
I am not denying that Christians should and do recognize their privileged status.  They should however do this with much humility.


The danger of humility is that you defer the responsibility of that privilege. I've at least tentatively tried to associate Russian State Socialism with religion and it's interesting that Lenin felt that members of the Communist Party should be held to a higher standard than non-members when it came to breaking the law.

He lost that battle and Communist Party members became immune to that law.

I suspect a similar tension among Christians.    

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
65 posted 2002-11-24 07:23 PM


I was just going to add that I don't think Ron's views are inconsistent. It's certainly okay, from my point of view, to believe whatever you want about the transcendent realm. The point, like Ron's references to Hawking's black holes, is that you can believe whatever you want and no way to determine which is better unless you bring it back to the mundane world. Ron is certainly correct that something that works may be untrue, but the only way you'll convince others is to find something that works better.

I don't see Christianity working better (or worse) than anything else.

Off the subject perhaps, but something I wanted to add:

Is there a difference between saying that if you disagree with me, you are damned and if you disagree with me, you will be killed?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
66 posted 2002-11-24 07:25 PM


It is disappointing that they are getting ever smaller and more select as groups that really care about these religious things in true, and worship faithfully, and practice the customs ongoing in their lives with permanance.  Most people it seems now a day do not have much of their official religion in their daily carriage but put it in the closet and wear it only on a Sunday morning, or rare occassion that crops up and asks for religious accent.  This is long of the current the vicious trinity of moneybusiness, ignorance and hedonism and the image and attitudes that go a long circulating in media.  Time is business, populations of people are forced and forcing themselves to a point where they get so exhausted that they need the personal binges of pleasure and ignorance in order to get away, feel and keep sane, even though they know its wrong.  There is both guilt and innocence here.  The human world would be saved by ourselves in a quickness if we could slow down and behave as we most would like, but we don't have very much time in this lifestyle for the ghostly interests of morals and religion, everything must keep turning, money must keep flowing 24 hours, electricity must be everywhere at once.  
The decline of religion is not really more of any peoples concious choice than it is a forcement of their own working conditions that they didn't forsee would fall upon them in this manner.  
It is hard to know what to convert to when the world is thus.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-24-2002 08:32 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

67 posted 2002-11-24 08:22 PM


quote:

Denise,

Why aren't you interested in the stories of those who leave the Faith?


Brad, I didn't say that I was not interested in anything, but that I was fascinated with the stories of skeptics who deliberately set out to disprove the Christian faith yet became convinced of the truth of it. So far I haven't read anything that has struck me as a legitimate, convincing argument against the Christian faith, either by those who have left the faith or by those who have other belief systems.

quote:
There's a reason that Denise is far more interested in people who come to believe in what she believes rather than with people who come to believe in something different than she does.


Again, Brad, I didn't say that I was far more interested in one as oppossed to the other. I've always been open to listening to differing viewpoints and reaching my own conclusions based upon the evidences presented. Perhaps that is why I am fascinated by the stories of those who are entrenched skeptics, people not really open to considering the possibility of the truth of Christianity, people who are only setting out to disprove it, because they are coming from a totally opposite mindset than I have of being a naturally open-minded type of person, and yet we've all come to the same conclusions. From my perspective as a Christian, I see the hand of God at work in that, and I think it is awesome.

What is your opinion of why I find that fascinating?



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
68 posted 2002-11-24 10:46 PM


Brad,

you wrote, "The danger of humility is that you defer the responsibility of that privilege."


Wouldn't a more accurate statement be, "The danger of humility is that you might defer the responsibility of that priviledge"?

All priviledges come with inherent risks.  Jesus taught that Kingdom .responsibilites and Kingdom blessings go hand in hand.  Paul warned Christians that they would have to stand before the Judgement seat of Christ and give account for what they did and did not do in the body.  Hebrews chapter twelve also describes the discipline and chastening hand of God in a believer's life to make him holy.  There are also the affirmations that there will be bad examples among the faithful.  This is nothing new.  There are good examples too, for those with eyes to see.  

Remember how many there were who did not even laud the greatest example there ever was, Jesus himself.  They still had to have another "sign" from Heaven.  So there is a double-edged sword to your point here.  How long will you have access to examples of godliness, piety, humility, and sainthood that God has, by his grace, allowed to give us light in the world, and say that God has done nothing.  How many times did Jesus say "For those who have eyes to see".  The pathology may not always reside in the objects viewed, but in the eye itself.  If you don't see a "pearl of great price" hidden in the earthen field of humanity, then how can you believe?  But how hard are you looking?  Are your final conclusions based on an exhausted search, or an a priori belief that there just can't be such a pearl?  Do you see a "potter's field", or a field that may harbor a great treasure?  You've got your points, Brad,   many of which I agree with.  But don't exclude yourself from this critical view.  Jesus never claimed to really come for the "well adjusted" anyway did he?  He came for those who knew their illness, admitted their spiritual poverty, and so were in a position of having enough humility to recieve with meekness "the engrafted word which is able to save your souls".


"Is there a difference between saying that if you disagree with me, you are damned and if you disagree with me, you will be killed? "


What are you getting at?  Yes there is a difference between these two statements.  But neither of these are very descriptive of  what God says through the gospel.


Stephen.  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
69 posted 2002-11-24 11:13 PM


Oh, that's easy. Validation. The only problem I see is that my belief system and think any belief system requires validation (This is what Stephan affectionately refers to as my 'majority rules' argument.). What I don't understand is that absolute certainty, as far as I can understand it, would not seem to need this. So, why does it fascinate you so? Don't get me wrong, I'd very much like to read the story of CS Lewis's conversion, but I suspect that fervent atheists are far more easily converted than Liberal Humanists. Much is made of the shift from the Far Left to the Far Right for example (Mussolini is perhaps the most famous convert).

As far as seeing nothing that disproves Christianity, I agree, but we both also accept that there is nothing to prove it either. I believe that as long as Christian believers refuse to offer up any candidate for proof, it will remain neither provable nor disprovable.

And therefore I don't have to worry about it.

A simple thought question, close your eyes, and think, "There is a God," open and see the beauty of the world around you. Then close your eyes and think, "There is no God," open and see the beauty of the world around you.

A Christian would argue that a belief does not make God go away. I would argue that a disbelief in God doesn't make beauty go away.

Still, I think there are some ideas that Stephan brought up earlier that I haven't been able to address yet: Autonomy and love. I won't convince anyone to my position but it might help you and others why so many of the arguments for a Christian God fall flat for someone like me. Some of our most basic concepts (the self, love, thought, value etc.) are actually quite different.

The vision of a Christian world, if I took it seriously, wouldn't simply be,"Oh, now I believe in God." To see the hand of God in everything would destroy many of the things that I value today.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
70 posted 2002-11-25 12:11 PM


Brad,

"I would argue that a disbelief in God doesn't make beauty go away. "

And I would agree.  There is always a period of time after a fire has been put out, that we can enjoy the warmth.  This is what Christians call "grace".  He rains on the just and the unjust alike.  But this grace has a purpose.


Stephen.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

71 posted 2002-11-25 08:54 PM


I think you are correct Brad, absolute certainty should not need validation. Inasmuch as you don't buy absolute certainty in a belief system, I think you would necessarily need some type of validation, as in a type of "majority rules" scenario. For those who do ascribe to the possibility of absolute certainty in a belief system, as I do, validation, as such, would not be necessary. The way I see it, if there are no absolutes or the possibility of absolute certainty in an absolute, what could faith ever be based upon?  Wishful thinking, hopeful wishing, never really being certain of anything?

I really don't know who would be harder to convert, an fervent atheist or a liberal humanist. I suppose the person who is the most closed to considering the reality of God and His plan of redemption would have the more difficult time of it. I suppose there are open and closed minds in either persuasion. But, I really don't know, just guessing.

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Agnostism, Atheism, Beyond Atheism, and Deconstructionism

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary