-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Why Did Jesus Suffer?
Our review of Loftus’s book continues with a look at
the atonement. Why did it happen? The theory he chooses to address and I will defend as it’s the one I hold is the penal substitution view. It is the view that Christ took our place on the cross and he received our punishment and we in turn receive his righteousness. There is a brief history of various atonement theories before this (With some left out), but that is not relevant to the point at hand.
He starts out with asking about why this is? If the claim of Christianity is true, then Loftus does admit that he goes to Hell because of his sins. However, what has anyone ever done to deserve that? He states “All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never.
I guess that settles it. Judge Loftus has spoken.
I beg to differ of course. First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone. The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it.
Now who deserves eternal separation from God? I see someone every morning when I get up and look in the mirror who does. And I think this is shocking to some because we’ve lost what sin is.
To begin with, it’s not breaking an abstract rule. It’s violating the person of God. Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is.
Sin is telling that one that he is not what he says he is. In fact, every sin is ultimately the sin of Satan. Every sin is choosing your own good over the good of God. In effect, it is you telling yourself that you will be God instead of him. It is divine treason and it cuts one off from the source of goodness and life. God simply cannot allow that sin in his presence.
Now Loftus says that in our modern society we are humane in our punishments. Perhaps we are, and perhaps that is the problem. C.S. Lewis wrote on how we seek to cure criminals rather than punish them long ago. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html
The question is, is it just?Loftus mentions the death penalty. I support it. I know I probably lost some readers for that, but I do. I believe man is in the image of God and to murder a man is an attack on that image of God. I believe the murderer is to pay the price by having his own life be forfeit. Of course, this is when it’s shown beyond theshadow of a doubt that the accused did commit the crime. I have this strange belief that crime should be punished.
Loftus goes on to ask if it’s fair that he suffer eternally for one little white lie.
I’d like to meet the person whose only sin is one little white lie.
Loftus’s sins are at the beginning of his book. I have no need to go into them. My stance has been that they really don’t matter as long as one doesn’t live in them. I think they need to be confessed and repented of and the blame squarely accepted, but after that, I do believe in divine forgiveness. I know my sins and they’re not just little white lies either. We have all lived in constant rebellion against the Almighty and what we get is what we deserve.
Loftus says that we see in Scripture that God is willing to forgive if people will confess.
Yes. Absolutely. Getting out of Hell is quite simple. Just trust Christ. God does desire mercy and not sacrifice, but God is also just. He gives mercy to those who want it.
Loftus also wants to know since he became like us, why he can’t see sin from our perspective.
Let’s not consider that we shouldn’t want God to see it
from our perspective. I don’t want him to. I want him to see it from his perspective. Why? It’s the true one. How do I want to view something like myself even? Do I want to see me as I see me or do I want to see me as God sees me? It would obviously be the latter because that would be the true view.
Now we may intend God no wrong in sinning, but it does not matter. We have sinned and it cannot be ignored. Even Levitical Law had a sacrifice for unintentional sins. Death was still the price. (And frankly, I know I’ve committed sins in the past knowing they were sins and I seriously doubt anyone reading my blog is in a different position.)
For the third one, did Jesus pay an infinite price?
First off, Jesus did pay the price. Hebrews tells us that. The Son went and offered up his blood in the holiest sanctuary of all and God was pleased. What was the one who offered the sacrifice allowed to do with what was offered to him? Whatever he wanted. God restored the sacrifice he was given of the Son and
glorified him.
How does this work? I can only imagine that on some
level, there is an eternal reality in God of what happened on the cross. The Son is spoken of as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Do I understand this entirely? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It doesn’t mean though that I throw out the whole thing as nonsensical. (Makes you wonder if
since there’s no understood theory of naturalistic evolution out there why that isn’t thrown out as well.)
The next point is that supposedly, forgiveness doesn’t
require punishment.
On a human court, that’s true, however, there are still
consequences. If someone hits my car for instance, I can forgive them and tell them not to worry, but that car will still be damaged and someone will still have to fix it. On a divine level, we are violating justice itself and the price for being cut off from life is death. Someone has to die. God can’t put his holiness on a secondary level. He must treat himself as the greatest good of all.
So what happens at the cross? His justice is satisfied
and his mercy is offered to all.
The fifth objection is really along the same lines.
He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?
Ooooooh. Let me guess. We’re sinners? Sounds like a good reason to me.
And yes, God does understand us perfectly and he does
know about the moral law on our hearts. If there were any circumstances that put the sin in a lesser degree, God would know them better than we would. In the end, there is no one biblically who will be able to say “It was not fair.” Creation shows us that God exists plainly and the moral law on our hearts tells us that some things are right and some are wrong.
Loftus also asks where sin abides in us. This is one of
those things that just makes me wonder what kind of theology was being taught. Sin is an action. Actions do not abide in us. They affect our character though and our souls. The same happens with good actions. It is those of us that do not choose to live to be what we were meant to be who get eternity apart from God.
Another theory is commented on later, but it is not the atonement theory I hold, thus I will stick to what has been said thus far. I do not find anything here that really gives me pause. I look and see “Did Jesus die on the cross? Did he rise from the dead?” Then even if I don’t understand it all, I understand that it does work, for God has told us so himself.
55 comments:
Who does that idiot think he is? Didn't they know that Norman Geisler said that it was the best book he's ever read and that he found it irrefutable? I suppose they know more than Norman Geisler...NOT!!!
And now you've you've been interviewed on Britain's most influential radio show of the last 1000 years you really do have celebrity status and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. Do agree with your comments afterwards tho - you really need to work on sounding more arrogant when you're on the radio.
sound, thorough rebuttal!
keep up the good debunkin!!
Welldone! I don't think they'll be able to respond to such a sound rebuttal without resorting to childish attacks along the lines of 'no it isn't stupid' You've really got them in a corner with that response.
Wow John - just seen this...you really should become an agony aunt.
i hope that the holy spirit will work in you as there is none so blind as you lot. that review is very good and you should really address the arguments in it. Is anyone on your blog responsible for this as I found it from a link on your blog I've never seen something so stupid in all my life (and that's having just seen this entry), talk about stone hearted.
Good grief - someone actually wrote that in response to your book. I can't believe how stupid xians are. What is your book by the way as having looked through your blog i'd like to read more of the same stuff and so might buy a copy. Is is on Amazon an if so could you give me a link?
For someone who thinks Christians are stupid, did you take the time to notice this is a parody site and you're not talking to the real author of that book?
We welcome you at TheologyWeb
Hi Mike. The book you're after can be found here although there has been a slight delay in publishing it but don't worry as it'll be worth the wait. The previous book was recommended by Norman Geisler amongst others so you can always get that whilst you're waiting. Just ignore the J P Holding groupies here.
John, John, John, you're a funny little man
Yeah, Norm Geisler recommended the book alright, but only because it's an excellent example of just how poor atheistic arguments really are. Read all about it:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=111182
Here's a URL that's easier to cut and paste:
http://tinyurl.com/437wek
Poking the apparently dead hornet's nest again, since it's been about two weeks since MrFreeThinker did his hit and run.
Anyway, here's an actual atheist commenting on some of that, since the people running this site have obviously never paid attention to atheists:
Of course, the whole eternal torture sort of Hell is immoral on its face. Torture is wrong, and a deity who would allow that sort of place to exist when he could snap his fingers to poof it away and save anyone who might be in there would be criminally negligent, just like anyone who sees a serious crime happening and does nothing.
First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone. The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it.
Why would someone like me care about the random and arbitrary rulings of a deity's judgment? I don't roll dice every morning to determine how good I should feel about myself.
Now who deserves eternal separation from God? I see someone every morning when I get up and look in the mirror who does. And I think this is shocking to some because we’ve lost what sin is.
Sounds like this stone idol is unfamiliar with the concept of mercy.
To begin with, it’s not breaking an abstract rule. It’s violating the person of God. Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is.
Kind of defeats the idea that Hell is necessary. A good, loving, powerful, intelligent person would recognize that punishing someone for eternity is evil. Punishment is not legitimatized sadism. And if he's so great, why does he need to worry about so many trivial matters that don't hurt anyone, like polyester blends?
Sin is telling that one that he is not what he says he is. In fact, every sin is ultimately the sin of Satan. Every sin is choosing your own good over the good of God. In effect, it is you telling yourself that you will be God instead of him. It is divine treason and it cuts one off from the source of goodness and life. God simply cannot allow that sin in his presence.
If the stone idol is perfect, how can you do it any good? And why does its good take precedence over anyone else's? It's the same fundamental arbitrariness of "ethical" egoism. And my chunk of the blogosphere collectively groans when an Ayn Randroid shows up, for reasons that should be obvious.
Now Loftus says that in our modern society we are humane in our punishments. Perhaps we are, and perhaps that is the problem. C.S. Lewis wrote on how we seek to cure criminals rather than punish them long ago. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html
Punishment is supposed to correct behavior. If not directly, then by deterrence. That much is true.
The question is, is it just?Loftus mentions the death penalty. I support it. I know I probably lost some readers for that, but I do. I believe man is in the image of God and to murder a man is an attack on that image of God. I believe the murderer is to pay the price by having his own life be forfeit. Of course, this is when it’s shown beyond theshadow of a doubt that the accused did commit the crime. I have this strange belief that crime should be punished.
What's with this emphasis on appearance? Who cares what the stone idol looks like. Murder is wrong because it's wiping out a sapient being against his will. Slavery was often justified in the US by claiming that their unseen stone idol was obviously alabaster, and thus black people were not people, and thus could be mistreated. That line of thought scares me.
Also, the belief that crimes should be punished is not strange. What I find strange is the idea common to fundamentalists that the punishment must be infinite and the savagery of it be its own purpose. The "Might Makes Right" nature of omnipotent deities makes this surprisingly easy for people to accept.
Loftus goes on to ask if it’s fair that he suffer eternally for one little white lie.
I’d like to meet the person whose only sin is one little white lie.
Dodging a hypothetical that's actually quite relevant. It suggests to me that he's trying to quietly bury his disproportionate retribution out of shame. At least he still has a sliver of that.
We have all lived in constant rebellion against the Almighty and what we get is what we deserve.
Again, why is that particular "rebellion" more significant than others? Back into the equivalent arbitrariness of "ethical" egoism.
Loftus says that we see in Scripture that God is willing to forgive if people will confess.
Yes. Absolutely. Getting out of Hell is quite simple. Just trust Christ. God does desire mercy and not sacrifice, but God is also just. He gives mercy to those who want it.
And yet he neglects to provide evidence of higher quality than the alleged Roswell alien incident.
It hardly seems just that Hell would even exist. Purposeless sadism cannot be legitimatized.
Let’s not consider that we shouldn’t want God to see it
from our perspective. I don’t want him to. I want him to see it from his perspective. Why? It’s the true one. How do I want to view something like myself even? Do I want to see me as I see me or do I want to see me as God sees me? It would obviously be the latter because that would be the true view.
This is, quite frankly, some postmodernist newage hippie shit. Who does this action help? Who does this action hurt? Does this action set dangerous precedents? These sorts of questions are answerable. I would rather seek an answer from that firmer basis than the randomness of a stone idol that popped in from nothing.
Now we may intend God no wrong in sinning, but it does not matter. We have sinned and it cannot be ignored. Even Levitical Law had a sacrifice for unintentional sins. Death was still the price.
Again, what's with this emphasis on one particular being?
Unintentionally hurting someone isn't evil, but the harm has occurred, and the unwitting source of that harm should still apologize and attempt reparation.
For the third one, did Jesus pay an infinite price?
First off, Jesus did pay the price. Hebrews tells us that. The Son went and offered up his blood in the holiest sanctuary of all and God was pleased. What was the one who offered the sacrifice allowed to do with what was offered to him? Whatever he wanted. God restored the sacrifice he was given of the Son and
glorified him.
Seems like a rather random set of rules for what should be obvious action: An intelligent, just being should be inherently merciful and lack sadism.
How does this work? I can only imagine that on some level, there is an eternal reality in God of what happened on the cross. The Son is spoken of as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Do I understand this entirely? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It doesn’t mean though that I throw out the whole thing as nonsensical. (Makes you wonder if since there’s no understood theory of naturalistic evolution out there why that isn’t thrown out as well.)
If it doesn't make sense, and the results are inherently invisible, there's no point in believing it.
Evolution, however, is quite well understood, and produces predictions reliable and visible enough that it's found practical applications.
The next point is that supposedly, forgiveness doesn’t
require punishment.
On a human court, that’s true, however, there are still
consequences.
Why would morality change so fundamentally, based on the practitioner's species?
If someone hits my car for instance, I can forgive them and tell them not to worry, but that car will still be damaged and someone will still have to fix it. On a divine level, we are violating justice itself and the price for being cut off from life is death. Someone has to die. God can’t put his holiness on a secondary level. He must treat himself as the greatest good of all.
That's a rather random, special exception.
So what happens at the cross? His justice is satisfied
and his mercy is offered to all.
Random blood sacrifices of sapient beings wipes away the need to be moral? Certainly explains a lot of fundie behavior.
He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?
Ooooooh. Let me guess. We’re sinners? Sounds like a good reason to me.
More attempts to legitimatize sadism.
And yes, God does understand us perfectly and he does
know about the moral law on our hearts. If there were any circumstances that put the sin in a lesser degree, God would know them better than we would. In the end, there is no one biblically who will be able to say “It was not fair.” Creation shows us that God exists plainly and the moral law on our hearts tells us that some things are right and some are wrong.
Given that the typical fundie rendition of God is that of a randomly popped in pagan-like deity who randomly and arbitrarily dictates "morality", there's not a great deal of coherency, here. Anecdotally speaking, I tend to see the greater shame in expressing "morality" in fundies, who know torture and slavery are wrong, yet still try to make special exceptions for Biblical law.
It is those of us that do not choose to live to be what we were meant to be who get eternity apart from God.
Why is this random deity's random whims given special consideration over any others? More crypto-Randroid lines of thought.
Then even if I don’t understand it all, I understand that it does work, for God has told us so himself.
And that's another level all this stuff fails on: It's all moot if this god doesn't exist. Theology is fanfiction.
Given that the god hypothesis makes no useful predictions about the world, I don't see much reason to entertain it any more than psychic powers, alien visitation, or "energy" "medicine".
What is the nature of God in orthodox Christian theism Bronzedog?
Finally, a response of some kind.
Doesn't particularly matter which version of the Abrahamic god we're talking about. About the only ones who don't seem random and psychotic to me are those that border on deism.
And deism would inherently make the whole thing moot, since a deist god would have no reason to create heaven or hell.
In addition... would that view of hell have the damned separated from each other, or is that part of the afterlife populated by billions of people who have had thousands of years to develop their own culture and technology? Said technology being free of any obligation to worry about safety.
Perhaps nothing should exist there to make into things, but humanity finds ways.
Bronze. You state that Hell is immoral on its face and that would naturally depend on the nature of God in orthodox Christian theism. When I ask you what that nature is, you say it doesn't really matter. I'd say it matters entirely. How can you say the Christian system is wrong in what it affirms about God without having an understanding of the nature of God that is being affirmed?
And as for Chase, I would say that they're all in isolation in Hell. Fellowship is an aspect of the nature of God and Hell is not known for showing the virtues in the nature of God.
The immorality that BD asserts comes from the duration of the punishment. As long as hell is a punishment, it is an unending punishment for 'crimes' committed over the space of no more than a century.
The addition of another zero at the end of a quantity seems trifling to people, but every such zero is an exponential leap in severity, of all previous punishment and suffering multiplied tenfold, and there is no escape.
The addition of zeroes never ends.
Yes. And that immorality claim depends on the nature of the God issuing the sentence, something that STILL hasn't been addressed.
Sentencing a person to everlasting, purposeless torture is evil. If anyone, deity or otherwise, were to perform that action, it would be overwhelmingly strong evidence that that person possessed an evil nature.
Somehow, though, I doubt you'll accept that as an answer.
No. I'm still waiting for you to tell me the nature of God in orthodox Christianity. Without hearing that, I see it as simply a rant not interested in the facts but in emotion.
It changes depending on who you ask, and typically according to the convenience of the person being asked.
Such is the way of your typical imaginary entity.
How about you define its nature so that I can narrow it down, rather than shotgun at a slew of versions I've heard people talk about.
If it can be anything then it can be a God who has the nature of it being moral to send people to Hell for eternity so you have no objection.
But no, it doesn't change depending on who you ask. If God exists, he has a nature regardless of what people think and in Christianity, there is an orthodox nature of God. There may be disagreement on some areas, but by and large, there is agreement.
Now do you know the nature of the being you argue about or not?
If it can be anything then it can be a God who has the nature of it being moral to send people to Hell for eternity so you have no objection.
So, you think I'd be okay with someone declaring morality to be inherently arbitrary and without reason?
But no, it doesn't change depending on who you ask. If God exists, he has a nature regardless of what people think and in Christianity, there is an orthodox nature of God. There may be disagreement on some areas, but by and large, there is agreement.
1. How can we objectively verify that nature, if it's as objective as you say?
2. I've seen vast disagreement among Christians. Some say God subscribes to an enlightened secular morality. Others unwittingly describe him as being like many savage pagan deities, permitting evil things like slavery and genocide. These two examples are pretty much opposite each other.
Now do you know the nature of the being you argue about or not?
You've narrowed it down a tad: Divine Command Theory. I think I can continue sprinkling in a lot of "random"s into my comments.
Bronze Dog:So, you think I'd be okay with someone declaring morality to be inherently arbitrary and without reason?
My reply: Um. No. First off, I didn't say that was his nature. I said if it was his nature and it was right because he said it was right, then your argument boils down to nothing. I don't believe that's the case, but you've just assumed that, like you've made a false assumption about morality anyway.
Bronze Dog: 1. How can we objectively verify that nature, if it's as objective as you say?
Me: By studying his revelation of himself in Scripture, in nature, in Christ, in morality, and in reason.
Bronze Dog: 2. I've seen vast disagreement among Christians. Some say God subscribes to an enlightened secular morality. Others unwittingly describe him as being like many savage pagan deities, permitting evil things like slavery and genocide. These two examples are pretty much opposite each other.
Me: Yes they are, which is why instead of going to most people today, you should go to people who know what they're talking about. I have my own basis on God and morality and I believe I can back it through philosophy and Scripture.
Bronze: You've narrowed it down a tad: Divine Command Theory. I think I can continue sprinkling in a lot of "random"s into my comments.
Me: Amazing you think that since I have a number of problems with Voluntarism and don't hold to it. I'm just saying if that was his nature, Hell would be right and you couldn't say anything about it.
Nick: Um. No. First off, I didn't say that was his nature. I said if it was his nature and it was right because he said it was right, then your argument boils down to nothing. I don't believe that's the case, but you've just assumed that, like you've made a false assumption about morality anyway.
Then why bring up that alleged issue? Why ask questions that lead me away from what you're actually arguing for?
Bronze Dog: 1. How can we objectively verify that nature, if it's as objective as you say?
Nick: By studying his revelation of himself in Scripture, in nature, in Christ, in morality, and in reason.
And how do we verify that that description is accurate?
Bronze Dog: 2. I've seen vast disagreement among Christians...
Nick: Yes they are, which is why instead of going to most people today, you should go to people who know what they're talking about. I have my own basis on God and morality and I believe I can back it through philosophy and Scripture.
I've seen no evidence that any theist knows what they're talking about, unless you count the way that a hardcore Trekkie knows what they're talking about. It doesn't impress me (much) if you can give the ID of a ladder Kirk climbed down if you can't prove that Kirk exists.
To put it briefly, you'll need to separate yourself from all the other various people I've talked with.
Make sure you stay consistent with your definitions, because, as I said, most people end up changing their particular god hypothesis in the middle of the discussion for their convenience.
Bronze: You've narrowed it down a tad: Divine Command Theory. I think I can continue sprinkling in a lot of "random"s into my comments.
Nick: Amazing you think that since I have a number of problems with Voluntarism and don't hold to it.
Then don't ask questions that suggest you hold to it.
I'm just saying if that was his nature, Hell would be right and you couldn't say anything about it.
That requires assuming up front that morality is as arbitrary and baseless as a random deity.
Then why bring up that alleged issue? Why ask questions that lead me away from what you're actually arguing for?
Reply: Because it all depends on the nature of God. You implied it didn't matter. It could be whatever. Well, here's a scenario where it's not whatever and there's no way you can say it's immoral if it's true. It's not one I hold to though but just showing that the nature does matter.
Bronze: And how do we verify that that description is accurate?
Me: Same as anything else. We look and see how consistently it fits in with the data that we have. We do this in every field.
Bronze: I've seen no evidence that any theist knows what they're talking about, unless you count the way that a hardcore Trekkie knows what they're talking about. It doesn't impress me (much) if you can give the ID of a ladder Kirk climbed down if you can't prove that Kirk exists.
To put it briefly, you'll need to separate yourself from all the other various people I've talked with.
Me: Then don't assume I belong with the rest of them. Your assumptions haven't been the best so far and I'm not really impressed. I'm waiting for a real argument than the simple "I don't like it!"
Bronze: Make sure you stay consistent with your definitions, because, as I said, most people end up changing their particular god hypothesis in the middle of the discussion for their convenience.
Me: Good thing the first thing I do is define my terms.
Bronze: Then don't ask questions that suggest you hold to it.
Me: I didn't. You drew an assumption.
Bronze: That requires assuming up front that morality is as arbitrary and baseless as a random deity.
January 30, 2009 5:57 PM
And if it was, you wouldn't be able to say anything, which means you need tougher grounds. Now I don't hold to voluntarism, but voluntarism would render your position false.
Bronze Dog: Then why bring up that alleged issue? Why ask questions that lead me away from what you're actually arguing for?
Nick: Because it all depends on the nature of God. You implied it didn't matter. It could be whatever. Well, here's a scenario where it's not whatever and there's no way you can say it's immoral if it's true. It's not one I hold to though but just showing that the nature does matter.
I meant it didn't matter because all the ones I've ever encountered were indefensible. That particular scenario is indefensible because it argues that morality is arbitrary. It's been covered.
Bronze: I've seen no evidence that any theist knows what they're talking about, unless you count the way that a hardcore Trekkie knows what they're talking about. It doesn't impress me (much) if you can give the ID of a ladder Kirk climbed down if you can't prove that Kirk exists.
To put it briefly, you'll need to separate yourself from all the other various people I've talked with.
Nick: Then don't assume I belong with the rest of them. Your assumptions haven't been the best so far and I'm not really impressed. I'm waiting for a real argument than the simple "I don't like it!"
If you won't inform me of your view, all I can do is rely on pattern recognition. I have yet to see a defensible argument for theism, so I will assume there are none until you separate yourself by providing one.
Bronze: Make sure you stay consistent with your definitions, because, as I said, most people end up changing their particular god hypothesis in the middle of the discussion for their convenience.
Nick: Good thing the first thing I do is define my terms.
You should get started, then. If you've got a god hypothesis, I'll need to know what you're arguing.
Bronze: Then don't ask questions that suggest you hold to it.
Nick: I didn't. You drew an assumption.
I assume a person would ask questions relevant to the defense of their hypothesis, rather than some one else's. Was that too much?
Bronze: That requires assuming up front that morality is as arbitrary and baseless as a random deity.
And if it was, you wouldn't be able to say anything, which means you need tougher grounds. Now I don't hold to voluntarism, but voluntarism would render your position false.
The arbitrariness of Divine Command Theory is what makes it indefensible. It's been a long time since I've taken my ethics and morality course, so I may have slipped up in the expression of what I'm trying to say.
Besides, if you're assuming the conclusion, it kind of kills the point of arguing. They still have to prove the existence of the giver of these arbitrary laws, for one thing. And then they have to somehow prove that he's indeed the arbiter, and that it's not something else.
Bronze:I meant it didn't matter because all the ones I've ever encountered were indefensible. That particular scenario is indefensible because it argues that morality is arbitrary. It's been covered.
Me: Actually, it hasn't. I disagree with it but not because of any reason you've brought up. By the way, have you brought up your reference point whereby you know moral propositions have truth content?
Bronze: If you won't inform me of your view, all I can do is rely on pattern recognition. I have yet to see a defensible argument for theism, so I will assume there are none until you separate yourself by providing one.
Me: Not my burden at this point. You've made your claim that such and such a doctrine is evil on the face and indefensible. I'm waiting for you to back that claim.
Bronze: You should get started, then. If you've got a god hypothesis, I'll need to know what you're arguing.
Me:Nope. I've asked you to give the nature of the God you're arguing against. You apparently know of the voluntarist type of deity. Are you not aware of others? I assume there's some type of deity you think I believe in that makes this indefensible.
Bronze: I assume a person would ask questions relevant to the defense of their hypothesis, rather than some one else's. Was that too much?
Me: And that was correct. The false assumption was that that was my belief. I had said "What if God is?" and you drew out something that I don't hold to instead of asking me if I hold to it. My only point is to show that it does matter the kind of nature God has.
Bronze: The arbitrariness of Divine Command Theory is what makes it indefensible. It's been a long time since I've taken my ethics and morality course, so I may have slipped up in the expression of what I'm trying to say.
Me: The voluntaristic theory says that whatever God says is right is right by virtue of his saying it. Thus, if God said Hell would be right and he couldn't be wrong, then Hell would be right.
I don't accept it because I think it's a tautology.
Bronze: Besides, if you're assuming the conclusion, it kind of kills the point of arguing. They still have to prove the existence of the giver of these arbitrary laws, for one thing. And then they have to somehow prove that he's indeed the arbiter, and that it's not something else.
Me: Are you saying the laws of morality are arbitrary? If so, by who? If not, then what are they? Are they transcendent? Are they objective?
Nick: By the way, have you brought up your reference point whereby you know moral propositions have truth content?
It comes from the nature of sapient beings. Overall, we don't want to be harmed, so it's wrong to harm someone.
Bronze: If you won't inform me of your view, all I can do is rely on pattern recognition. I have yet to see a defensible argument for theism, so I will assume there are none until you separate yourself by providing one.
Nick: Not my burden at this point. You've made your claim that such and such a doctrine is evil on the face and indefensible. I'm waiting for you to back that claim.
I would think the burden is on you: Justify eternally torturing someone.
Bronze: You should get started, then. If you've got a god hypothesis, I'll need to know what you're arguing.
Nick: Nope. I've asked you to give the nature of the God you're arguing against. You apparently know of the voluntarist type of deity. Are you not aware of others? I assume there's some type of deity you think I believe in that makes this indefensible.
Gods, plural. Why should I reenact every single absurd theological argument I've ever had before you'll start arguing for your own?
Bronze: I assume a person would ask questions relevant to the defense of their hypothesis, rather than some one else's. Was that too much?
Nick: And that was correct. The false assumption was that that was my belief. I had said "What if God is?" and you drew out something that I don't hold to instead of asking me if I hold to it. My only point is to show that it does matter the kind of nature God has.
So, you posted a pointless circular argument for a position you don't believe in for some casual generalizations I made. Are you just posting for shits and giggles at this point?
Bronze: Besides, if you're assuming the conclusion, it kind of kills the point of arguing. They still have to prove the existence of the giver of these arbitrary laws, for one thing. And then they have to somehow prove that he's indeed the arbiter, and that it's not something else.
Nick: Are you saying the laws of morality are arbitrary? If so, by who? If not, then what are they? Are they transcendent? Are they objective?
Arbitrary? Of course not. You're the one who posted that circular argument, possibly for the sake of making fun of someone not present. I don't know, since you won't commit to making an argument.
Transcendent? Just what the hell does "transcendent" mean?
Objective: Not quite going to commit completely to the word, but I will say the morality I subscribe to is pretty solid in comparison to those I often hear spouted by the religious.
Okay. This'll most likely be my last post of the night and I don't know how much I'll be on tomorrow, but I'll go on for tonight.
Bronze:It comes from the nature of sapient beings. Overall, we don't want to be harmed, so it's wrong to harm someone.
Me: Two points. First off, if morality comes from us, then it is something that we can change. do you believe morality is relative to us then?
Second, because I don't want to be harmed, it does not follow that it's wrong for me to harm another.
A Hobbesian approach to morality is based on this idea that man is natural this ruthless brute that destroys everything in sight unless he establishes some society.
Frankly, if man was like that, society would have never come about. Hobbes's critics said that when he wrote Leviathan and he had no anthropological data to back his claims.
Bronze: I would think the burden is on you: Justify eternally torturing someone.
Me: First off, I don't believe in eternal torture. I believe in Hell, but it is not torture. That comes more from Dante.
Second off, that's why I decided to speak about the nature of God first. I establish God's nature and then the nature of sin and then the nature of Hell as a result.
Now that doesn't prove Christianity is true, but it will show Christianity is not inconsistent, which is a necessity for truth.
Bronze: Gods, plural. Why should I reenact every single absurd theological argument I've ever had before you'll start arguing for your own?
Me: Because you're making the assertion. You've got this weird idea that every theist has a different idea and then you seem to say that all the arguments are the same. Now I'll be glad to say I believe in a God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, but I won't hesitate to bring out the insights of Plato and Aristotle, particularly Aristotle as he said more on this point.
Bronze: So, you posted a pointless circular argument for a position you don't believe in for some casual generalizations I made. Are you just posting for shits and giggles at this point?
Me: No. I want to get rid of casual generalizations and at that I succeeded. Now that I've shown that there is a God concept that is not inconsistent, then it could be that there is another one.
Bronze: Arbitrary? Of course not. You're the one who posted that circular argument, possibly for the sake of making fun of someone not present. I don't know, since you won't commit to making an argument.
Me:Why should I? You're the one who came and told me my God is sending people to a torture chamber and that's immoral. I figured you knew something about my God when you made that assertion. Was that wrong?
Bronze: Transcendent? Just what the hell does "transcendent" mean?
Me:Very wise to ask. Socrates would be pleased. Transcendent means that it is beyond us and is not dependent on us, much like the laws of logic. If morality is transcendent, it umbrellas us.
Bronze: Objective: Not quite going to commit completely to the word, but I will say the morality I subscribe to is pretty solid in comparison to those I often hear spouted by the religious.
Me: But you must have objective morality or else your argument boils down to "I don't like being tortured forever" (Even though I don't believe in such.) Because you don't like something doesn't mean it's immoral though. If all you say is it disagrees with your preferences, then it simply disagrees, but there's no truth content then behind saying "Hell is immoral." It's simply a perception that cannot be correct if there's no objective truth.
Bronze: It comes from the nature of sapient beings. Overall, we don't want to be harmed, so it's wrong to harm someone.
Nick: Two points. First off, if morality comes from us, then it is something that we can change. do you believe morality is relative to us then?
First point would require extensive genetic reengineering of the entire human species, all the way down to stuff like core survival instincts. I think we can call that unlikely enough to render it moot.
What do you mean exactly by "relative to us"?
Nick: Second, because I don't want to be harmed, it does not follow that it's wrong for me to harm another.
Not directly. The fact that harming others makes it more likely for them to harm you in return means that it's a good strategy to not harm others.
Nick: A Hobbesian approach to morality is based on this idea that man is natural this ruthless brute that destroys everything in sight unless he establishes some society.
I might have some resemblance to Hobbes, but I don't believe humans are naturally brutes. Humans are naturally social animals. Solitary brutes are abnormal.
Nick: Frankly, if man was like that, society would have never come about. Hobbes's critics said that when he wrote Leviathan and he had no anthropological data to back his claims.
Not relevant, since humans aren't like that.
Bronze: I would think the burden is on you: Justify eternally torturing someone.
Nick: First off, I don't believe in eternal torture. I believe in Hell, but it is not torture. That comes more from Dante.
Then you're at least one notch above the typical sadistic fundie. Just one, so far.
Nick: Second off, that's why I decided to speak about the nature of God first. I establish God's nature and then the nature of sin and then the nature of Hell as a result.
Null hypothesis: Morality and gods are not related.
Now that doesn't prove Christianity is true, but it will show Christianity is not inconsistent, which is a necessity for truth.
You'll need to define Christianity in a consistent manner. I haven't seen a consistent definition to date.
Bronze: Gods, plural. Why should I reenact every single absurd theological argument I've ever had before you'll start arguing for your own?
Nick: Because you're making the assertion. You've got this weird idea that every theist has a different idea and then you seem to say that all the arguments are the same. Now I'll be glad to say I believe in a God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, but I won't hesitate to bring out the insights of Plato and Aristotle, particularly Aristotle as he said more on this point.
They all believe in different deities. Many of them make many of the same fallacies, which I point out when possible. I recognize that not every type will be covered. When a defensible version of Christianity shows up, they will be able to defend themselves from a more detailed and comprehensive inquiry.
The god "revealed" by the Old and New Testament cannot be independently verified by scientific evidence, and contains contradictions.
Oh, and don't bother namedropping. I'm not impressed by a fallacy if it's made by a famous person.
I'm not ready to jump into this long discussion, so I just have a quick question:
I don't accept it because I think it's a tautology.
Now, I'm not sure what sense you mean that in, since tautologies are always true; rejecting them in inherently contradictory. (Rhetorical tautologies aren't useful except to manipulate people, but logical tautologies can be.) Maybe you meant it in some other sense, but I'm not quite clear what that sense would be.
Bronze:First point would require extensive genetic reengineering of the entire human species, all the way down to stuff like core survival instincts. I think we can call that unlikely enough to render it moot.
Me: Are you saying that morality is genetic? That it's all in my genes? If it's in my genes, then why ought I to obey it? Shouldn't I rise above the selfish gene?
Bronze: What do you mean exactly by "relative to us"?
Me: I mean are we the determiners as a whole of humanity somehow or are various societies or are various individuals?
Bronze: Not directly. The fact that harming others makes it more likely for them to harm you in return means that it's a good strategy to not harm others.
Me: There's that "good" word that has yet to have content given to it. It seems also your only reason for the ought is that it is good for me. What happened to good for the sake of the good? Also, if I can harm others and get away with it and still appear as good, why not do so?
Bronze: I might have some resemblance to Hobbes, but I don't believe humans are naturally brutes. Humans are naturally social animals. Solitary brutes are abnormal.
Me: You know, I find this fascinating seeing as I believe Christianity alone can explain man as a social character. However, your position is largely Hobbesian. Is there any reason to believe it has validity though?
Bronze: Not relevant, since humans aren't like that.
Me: Then I would say I question the morality that is based on that argument. It could still be true, but it would have to have some other basis. (And for the record, I doubt it's true.)
Bronze: Then you're at least one notch above the typical sadistic fundie. Just one, so far.
Me: Keep in mind I do think Hell is a place of awful suffering and a place no one should want to go to, but it's not a torture chamber and you'll find my position is a common one in evangelicalism.
Bronze: Null hypothesis: Morality and gods are not related.
Me: This is simply an assertion and it's why I decided to start with the nature of God and see his representation to what Plato would call "The good." Now please, if you're wanting to discuss this, I'll need more than assertions. I'll need actual arguments.
Bronze: You'll need to define Christianity in a consistent manner. I haven't seen a consistent definition to date.
Me: I say it is the worldview that teaches that the second person of the triune God dwelt among us in fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures, lived as a man, died for the atonement of our sins, rose again, and is returning physically at our future date. The God that the Son revealed is the ultimate reality in Christianity and our purpose in life is to know and glorify him.
Bronze:They all believe in different deities. Many of them make many of the same fallacies, which I point out when possible. I recognize that not every type will be covered. When a defensible version of Christianity shows up, they will be able to defend themselves from a more detailed and comprehensive inquiry.
Me: That would be like saying because different scientists have different ideas on evolutionary theory, they all believe in different universes. There are some underlying essentials. You wouldn't accept someone saying "I'm a macroevolutionist. I just believe everything showed up by fiat creation." In the same way, someone couldn't say "I'm a Christian. I just believe there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" or "I'm a Christian. I just don't believe Jesus existed." There are some fundamental underlying agreements amongst all Christians. That does not mean there is total unanimity. It just means unity.
Bronze: The god "revealed" by the Old and New Testament cannot be independently verified by scientific evidence, and contains contradictions.
Me: First off, the laws of logic can't be independently verified by scientific evidence. The idea that Hell is immoral can't be verified by independent scientific evidence. The idea that all ideas must be independently verified by scientific evidence can't be independently verified by scientific evidence.
Scientism as a source for truth doesn't work. Science can give us great truths. It just can't tell us all truths.
Second, with regards to contradictions, you're testing Christianity on one point here to see if it has contradictions. I could have it be true that Jesus rose from the dead and Christianity is true and still have a Bible with errors. I don't believe it has errors as I do hold to inerrancy, but that's not the point. It's a red herring. We're debating if Hell is consistent with Christianity and not if Christianity is true.
Bronze: Oh, and don't bother namedropping. I'm not impressed by a fallacy if it's made by a famous person.
Me: Just wanting you to know where my arguments come from. I don't care who commits a fallacy be it Plato or Joe Blow. It's a fallacy. Likewise, I don't care who said truth be it Aristotle or Adolf Hitler. It's true. I bring up the philosophers though because they tend to be wiser than us.
Chase:I'm not ready to jump into this long discussion, so I just have a quick question:
I don't accept it because I think it's a tautology.
Now, I'm not sure what sense you mean that in, since tautologies are always true; rejecting them in inherently contradictory. (Rhetorical tautologies aren't useful except to manipulate people, but logical tautologies can be.) Maybe you meant it in some other sense, but I'm not quite clear what that sense would be.
Me: Understood and an excellent point. I say that what God wills is right, but it's not because God wills it. In that case, you are simply defining right by what God wills. I don't think that's the proper way to define good. I believe in defining good first and then looking to see how God's relation is to the good. Does that explain it?
So, you contend that this morality that God follows is also reflected in the bible?
How do we know which parts of the bible reflect this, and which... don't? For example, do both Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 18 reflect it? (I understand there are hermeneutics that explain this, but there are a lot of them. I want yours, because presumably you trust it the most out of all choices.)
Chase:So, you contend that this morality that God follows is also reflected in the bible?
How do we know which parts of the bible reflect this, and which... don't? For example, do both Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 18 reflect it? (I understand there are hermeneutics that explain this, but there are a lot of them. I want yours, because presumably you trust it the most out of all choices.)
Me: Another good question. Leviticus 18 which is mirrored in 20 reflect what I believe is the natural law. Why? Look at how the passages end. They end with telling Israel that these practices are the reason that these nations are being driven out. It's not because they ate shellfish or wore mixed fabrics. That was for Israel alone and for a purpose.
Note also the differing in the word for abomination. In Leviticus 11, it just refers to something detestable. The word in Leviticus 18 can refer to ritual uncleanliness, but it can also refer to wickedness. The context lets us know that it's considered in the latter.
Leviticus 18 then reflects universal morality, whereas as 11 refers to ceremonial uncleanliness.
Bronze: First point would require extensive genetic reengineering of the entire human species, all the way down to stuff like core survival instincts. I think we can call that unlikely enough to render it moot.
Nick: Are you saying that morality is genetic? That it's all in my genes? If it's in my genes, then why ought I to obey it? Shouldn't I rise above the selfish gene?
It's partially genetic. Many of the fundamental values come from our DNA: Survival, defense, etcetera. Higher values such as freedom, equality, justice, and so forth come from using our reason to derive complex social structures to support those things.
Dawkins did a good job of explaining some of it in God Delusion. I liked his covering of altruism in chapter six.
Bronze: What do you mean exactly by "relative to us"?
Nick: I mean are we the determiners as a whole of humanity somehow or are various societies or are various individuals?
Our nature as social beings plus reason determines morality.
Bronze: Not directly. The fact that harming others makes it more likely for them to harm you in return means that it's a good strategy to not harm others.
Nick: There's that "good" word that has yet to have content given to it. It seems also your only reason for the ought is that it is good for me. What happened to good for the sake of the good? Also, if I can harm others and get away with it and still appear as good, why not do so?
First, in that sentence, I meant "good" as in effective, useful, sound. Duh.
Second, that's where we move to the next level of moral development: Principles. That's where, as a society, we enforce higher ideals like freedom, justice, equality, and so forth. Additionally, add in the built-in sympathy we're supposed to feel for other social beings. I don't wrong others because it feels bad to know I've caused someone else suffering. I can put myself in another's position. I never think, 'what if I can get away with it?' because my social brain tends not to be aware that my social instincts are ultimately a way for my selfish genes to ensure their survival. Those genes that promote altruism ensure their "selfish" survival by seeing to it other copies will survive, even if they aren't the ones in my body.
Bronze: I might have some resemblance to Hobbes, but I don't believe humans are naturally brutes. Humans are naturally social animals. Solitary brutes are abnormal.
Nick: You know, I find this fascinating seeing as I believe Christianity alone can explain man as a social character. However, your position is largely Hobbesian. Is there any reason to believe it has validity though?
This should be entertaining. How does Christianity explain our social character?
I think I've taken some steps to validating it with my earlier paragraph.
Bronze: Then you're at least one notch above the typical sadistic fundie. Just one, so far.
Nick: Keep in mind I do think Hell is a place of awful suffering and a place no one should want to go to, but it's not a torture chamber and you'll find my position is a common one in evangelicalism.
If it's still a place of suffering, then it's still immoral for your god to allow anyone to go there. It's still causing suffering without purpose.
Bronze: Null hypothesis: Morality and gods are not related.
Nick: This is simply an assertion and it's why I decided to start with the nature of God and see his representation to what Plato would call "The good." Now please, if you're wanting to discuss this, I'll need more than assertions. I'll need actual arguments.
Someone needs to catch up. You start with null hypotheses, and attempt to falsify them. I have yet to see any good evidence for gods and I have yet to see a good argument for how gods would be related to morality. So, unless you've got an argument that establishes the relationship, I think I can continue assuming that null hypothesis to be true.
Bronze: You'll need to define Christianity in a consistent manner. I haven't seen a consistent definition to date.
Nick: I say it is the worldview that teaches that the second person of the triune God dwelt among us in fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures, lived as a man, died for the atonement of our sins, rose again, and is returning physically at our future date. The God that the Son revealed is the ultimate reality in Christianity and our purpose in life is to know and glorify him.
Bronze: They all believe in different deities. Many of them make many of the same fallacies, which I point out when possible. I recognize that not every type will be covered. When a defensible version of Christianity shows up, they will be able to defend themselves from a more detailed and comprehensive inquiry.
Nick: That would be like saying because different scientists have different ideas on evolutionary theory, they all believe in different universes. There are some underlying essentials. You wouldn't accept someone saying "I'm a macroevolutionist. I just believe everything showed up by fiat creation." In the same way, someone couldn't say "I'm a Christian. I just believe there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" or "I'm a Christian. I just don't believe Jesus existed." There are some fundamental underlying agreements amongst all Christians. That does not mean there is total unanimity. It just means unity.
The difference is that scientists have much, much broader areas of consensus.
As for Christians, on the nature of their god, about the only agreement I've been able to find is that they believe in a vague something they call a god, and that there's only one of it. Kind of hard to get that as a solid target.
Bronze: The god "revealed" by the Old and New Testament cannot be independently verified by scientific evidence, and contains contradictions.
Nick: First off, the laws of logic can't be independently verified by scientific evidence. The idea that Hell is immoral can't be verified by independent scientific evidence. The idea that all ideas must be independently verified by scientific evidence can't be independently verified by scientific evidence.
I'm not a logical positivist. Moral claims aren't scientific claims. The existence of an entity that has an effect on the universe is a scientific claim.
Nick: Scientism as a source for truth doesn't work. Science can give us great truths. It just can't tell us all truths.
Straw man, for reasons stated above.
Nick: Second, with regards to contradictions, you're testing Christianity on one point here to see if it has contradictions. I could have it be true that Jesus rose from the dead and Christianity is true and still have a Bible with errors. I don't believe it has errors as I do hold to inerrancy, but that's not the point. It's a red herring. We're debating if Hell is consistent with Christianity and not if Christianity is true.
Then you'll need to provide evidence of that resurrection and all the other scientific claims.
Bronze:It's partially genetic. Many of the fundamental values come from our DNA: Survival, defense, etcetera. Higher values such as freedom, equality, justice, and so forth come from using our reason to derive complex social structures to support those things.
Me: And in all of this, I did not see one genetic claim. Are you saying reason is only in our genes? Then how can I override my genes? How can I be sure my genes are giving me true ideas about reality rather than ideas that help me survive? Also, if partially in our genes, what part isn't?
Bronze: Dawkins did a good job of explaining some of it in God Delusion. I liked his covering of altruism in chapter six.
Me: Dawkins did a terrible job. He is a scientist. He is not a philosopher and he was playing in an area he is not skilled in. Dawkins says altruism is good, but then gives me no reason to believe it's good. He assumes it. I have a problem with that since in River Out of Eden, he said that there is no good or evil. DNA neither knows nor cares, it just is, and we dance to its music.
Bronze: Our nature as social beings plus reason determines morality.
Me: How can we have a moral nature and yet create morality? That would be like saying we are human beings and we create humanity. No. If we're human beings, we can continue humanity, but we can't create it.
Also, if reason determines morality, then there must be some justification for Hell since in Christian thought, God is omniscient and if he's omniscient, he'd know all the good reasons.
Bronze: First, in that sentence, I meant "good" as in effective, useful, sound. Duh.
Me: It's not a "duh." A lie can be effective if I want to get out of something, but that doesn't mean it's good. I have many abilities I use in argument. Mind-reading is not one of them.
Bronze: Second, that's where we move to the next level of moral development: Principles. That's where, as a society, we enforce higher ideals like freedom, justice, equality, and so forth. Additionally, add in the built-in sympathy we're supposed to feel for other social beings. I don't wrong others because it feels bad to know I've caused someone else suffering. I can put myself in another's position. I never think, 'what if I can get away with it?' because my social brain tends not to be aware that my social instincts are ultimately a way for my selfish genes to ensure their survival. Those genes that promote altruism ensure their "selfish" survival by seeing to it other copies will survive, even if they aren't the ones in my body.
Me: First off, moral development assumes there is something prior that is being developed meaning that it is independent of us.
Second, you speak of how we're supposed to feel for other beings. As soon as you say that, you imply an ought that is based on something outside of us and that comes with some goal in mind. Now if you say the goal is survival, I can say "So what? Why should I care about the survival of the species?" As soon as you give me one reason to do so, you are assuming a predicate about survival such as it being a good thing and I need to know what that goodness is.
Third, even if rooted in genetics, that only shows the way things are. That doesn't make them right. That would be like saying if alcoholism is genetic, then it's okay for the alcoholic to get drunk and kill people while driving. It's his genes after all! No. Even if it's genetic, he ought not to get drunk and drive.
Bronze: This should be entertaining. How does Christianity explain our social character?
Me: It's an important aspect. Angels seem to have some hierarchy amongst themselves in Christian thought. We people are social. Animals work together in an ecosystem. Protons and electrons work together to cancel each other out. Planets affect other planets with gravity. There's an inter-relatedness amongst the universe in that things have a relation to one another.
And God is a Trinity in that he has relationality within his nature. We are social in the effect because our cause is social in his essence.
Bronze: I think I've taken some steps to validating it with my earlier paragraph.
Me: You've given me some assertions, but I see no reason to believe them. It's because science can only tell you what something is and not what it ought to be so if you want to know morality, you'll have to look beyond science.
Bronze: If it's still a place of suffering, then it's still immoral for your god to allow anyone to go there. It's still causing suffering without purpose.
Me: False. Suffering has purpose and not all suffering is for the purpose of rehabilitation and neither is all punishment. We send people to jail for life with no parole. Does that mean that that's immoral?
Also, you've yet to give me a reference point for morality.
Bronze: Someone needs to catch up. You start with null hypotheses, and attempt to falsify them. I have yet to see any good evidence for gods and I have yet to see a good argument for how gods would be related to morality. So, unless you've got an argument that establishes the relationship, I think I can continue assuming that null hypothesis to be true.
Me: False. Your argument was not "God doesn't exist" but "Hell is immoral." Your question was related to something internal to the system which means one for the sake of argument assumes the truth of the system to see if its coherent within itself. Now once we establish its coherent, I'll be glad to show that the God whose nature allows for Hell is one who exists.
Bronze: The difference is that scientists have much, much broader areas of consensus.
Me: False. Scientists have disagreed on more things throughout history than Christians have. The Christian message has remained essentially the same throughout history. Scientific theories have changed constantly. Theories that scientists used to put their foot firmly on and say "This is the truth" can no longer be called such. No doubt, some things we believe true today will have future generations wondering how we could believe such things.
This idea of consensus would have to be shown. The history of science doesn't show it.
Bronze: As for Christians, on the nature of their god, about the only agreement I've been able to find is that they believe in a vague something they call a god, and that there's only one of it. Kind of hard to get that as a solid target.
Me: I would suggest not going to average Christians but reading Christian texts by Christian scholars. I'll be blunt about this. The average lay person in the church is clueless about the content of their faith. They just are and it's something I hate to say. When I do talk to several Christians though in the intellectual field, I find that while we may disagree on some things like Calvinism vs. Arminianism, there is a general consensus about God, such as his triune nature.
Bronze: I'm not a logical positivist. Moral claims aren't scientific claims. The existence of an entity that has an effect on the universe is a scientific claim.
Me: False. Science relates to things of the physical nature. Now if this being has a physical nature, then it does relate, but then that being would be one that could be scientifically examined and I have huge philosophical problems with a God who is by nature physical.
The claim of a being outside of the known universe is not scientific. It is philosophical and theological.
Bronze: Straw man, for reasons stated above.
Me: Nope. Stated truth. You asked if the claim had been scientifically verified. I pointed out that not all truth can be of that nature. Was that a false statement?
Also, if not all truth is scientifically verified, then do give the method whereby you see if some claims are true.
Bronze: Then you'll need to provide evidence of that resurrection and all the other scientific claims.
Me: First off, this again is not a scientific claim. Did Hannibal cross the Alps? We can study science forever and never know the answer to that question. It's a question of history as is the question of the resurrection.
Second, I'm not arguing for the resurrection yet. I'm arguing for your point of contention. Once we see that Christianity is consistent with Hell based on the nature of the God who is described in Christianity, I'll be glad to show that that God exists and then that he revealed himself in Christ which will entail the resurrection. That bridge will be crossed when we get there. For now, it's Hell though.
"Christianity is consistent with Hell based on the nature of the God who is described in Christianity"
2 Kings:
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
I'm having trouble disagreeing with you there, no offense.
Bronze: It's partially genetic. Many of the fundamental values come from our DNA: Survival, defense, etcetera. Higher values such as freedom, equality, justice, and so forth come from using our reason to derive complex social structures to support those things.
Nick: And in all of this, I did not see one genetic claim. Are you saying reason is only in our genes? Then how can I override my genes? How can I be sure my genes are giving me true ideas about reality rather than ideas that help me survive? Also, if partially in our genes, what part isn't?
We value our survival, etcetera because our genes tell us to. Morality is the large set of rules and precedents that help us satisfy those instincts.
We use the scientific method (which isn't in our genes) to determine what we can about reality because knowing what the situation is lets you reason what you ought to do.
Bronze: Dawkins did a good job of explaining some of it in God Delusion. I liked his covering of altruism in chapter six.
Nick: Dawkins did a terrible job. He is a scientist. He is not a philosopher and he was playing in an area he is not skilled in. Dawkins says altruism is good, but then gives me no reason to believe it's good. He assumes it. I have a problem with that since in River Out of Eden, he said that there is no good or evil. DNA neither knows nor cares, it just is, and we dance to its music.
First, science is the most successful branch of philosophy.
Second, what would you think is a good reason to believe something's good? I'm getting this sneaking suspicion you're treading into moral nihilism.
Bronze: Our nature as social beings plus reason determines morality.
Nick: How can we have a moral nature and yet create morality? That would be like saying we are human beings and we create humanity. No. If we're human beings, we can continue humanity, but we can't create it.
I didn't say moral, I said social.
Bronze: First, in that sentence, I meant "good" as in effective, useful, sound. Duh.
Nick: It's not a "duh." A lie can be effective if I want to get out of something, but that doesn't mean it's good. I have many abilities I use in argument. Mind-reading is not one of them.
I thought it was bleedingly obvious from context.
As for lying as an effective strategy, it didn't have a beneficial net effect on the boy who cried wolf.
Bronze: [Long paragraph]
Nick: First off, moral development assumes there is something prior that is being developed meaning that it is independent of us.
Not quite. I was referencing a person's moral awareness that develops as they're able to reason on higher levels.
Nick: Second, you speak of how we're supposed to feel for other beings. As soon as you say that, you imply an ought that is based on something outside of us and that comes with some goal in mind. Now if you say the goal is survival, I can say "So what? Why should I care about the survival of the species?" As soon as you give me one reason to do so, you are assuming a predicate about survival such as it being a good thing and I need to know what that goodness is.
I mean "supposed to" as in what's physically expected. Normal on a physiological and psychological level.
Nick: Third, even if rooted in genetics, that only shows the way things are. That doesn't make them right. That would be like saying if alcoholism is genetic, then it's okay for the alcoholic to get drunk and kill people while driving. It's his genes after all! No. Even if it's genetic, he ought not to get drunk and drive.
Where the hell did you get that idea?
Bronze: This should be entertaining. How does Christianity explain our social character?
Nick: It's an important aspect. Angels seem to have some hierarchy amongst themselves in Christian thought. We people are social. Animals work together in an ecosystem. Protons and electrons work together to cancel each other out. Planets affect other planets with gravity. There's an inter-relatedness amongst the universe in that things have a relation to one another.
And God is a Trinity in that he has relationality within his nature. We are social in the effect because our cause is social in his essence.
Last time I read the Bible, "social" wasn't a word I'd find fitting for the god described.
Bronze: I think I've taken some steps to validating it with my earlier paragraph.
Nick: You've given me some assertions, but I see no reason to believe them. It's because science can only tell you what something is and not what it ought to be so if you want to know morality, you'll have to look beyond science.
This is getting a lot deeper down than I'm used to discussing. Of course, I have yet to see anything nearly as satisfying come from Christianity. I'm glad many merely stick a few "supernatural" bows onto secular morality.
Bronze: If it's still a place of suffering, then it's still immoral for your god to allow anyone to go there. It's still causing suffering without purpose.
Nick: False. Suffering has purpose and not all suffering is for the purpose of rehabilitation and neither is all punishment. We send people to jail for life with no parole. Does that mean that that's immoral?
Some suffering has purpose. The prison sentence is intended to act as a deterrent against immoral behavior. Additionally, we can hope to develop some new sort rehabilitation during that time that allows the sentence to be commuted, leave room for pardons, and so forth.
If you're going to try to argue that Hell is a deterrent, it's a very poor one and falls into the same general category as criminal negligence.
Nick: Also, you've yet to give me a reference point for morality.
It seems to me that you're either asking for something absurdly concrete (i.e. asking me for a complete book that covers all secular morality), or asking me for something no moral or ethical philosophy has ever provided.
Bronze: Someone needs to catch up. You start with null hypotheses, and attempt to falsify them. I have yet to see any good evidence for gods and I have yet to see a good argument for how gods would be related to morality. So, unless you've got an argument that establishes the relationship, I think I can continue assuming that null hypothesis to be true.
Nick: False. Your argument was not "God doesn't exist" but "Hell is immoral." Your question was related to something internal to the system which means one for the sake of argument assumes the truth of the system to see if its coherent within itself. Now once we establish its coherent, I'll be glad to show that the God whose nature allows for Hell is one who exists.
It sounds like we're getting into a moral analog of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Bronze: The difference is that scientists have much, much broader areas of consensus.
Nick: False. Scientists have disagreed on more things throughout history than Christians have. The Christian message has remained essentially the same throughout history. Scientific theories have changed constantly. Theories that scientists used to put their foot firmly on and say "This is the truth" can no longer be called such. No doubt, some things we believe true today will have future generations wondering how we could believe such things.
Wow, someone hasn't been paying attention to what he's saying. The number of things scientists agree on has been climbing steadily, and the number of things science can predict has also been rising steadily. There's still disagreement, but those disagreements are about increasingly subtle matters.
Christianity, meanwhile, looks to me like it's constantly losing ground on how much they agree on as it splinters into more and more factions. As for that fundamental message, what is it, and how do we know it's true?
Nick: This idea of consensus would have to be shown. The history of science doesn't show it.
Scientific consensus grows and grows as time goes on.
Bronze: As for Christians, on the nature of their god, about the only agreement I've been able to find is that they believe in a vague something they call a god, and that there's only one of it. Kind of hard to get that as a solid target.
Nick: I would suggest not going to average Christians but reading Christian texts by Christian scholars. I'll be blunt about this. The average lay person in the church is clueless about the content of their faith. They just are and it's something I hate to say. When I do talk to several Christians though in the intellectual field, I find that while we may disagree on some things like Calvinism vs. Arminianism, there is a general consensus about God, such as his triune nature.
Sounds like the Courtier's Reply. The scholars I've read to date are just about equally divided.
Bronze: I'm not a logical positivist. Moral claims aren't scientific claims. The existence of an entity that has an effect on the universe is a scientific claim.
Nick: False. Science relates to things of the physical nature. Now if this being has a physical nature, then it does relate, but then that being would be one that could be scientifically examined and I have huge philosophical problems with a God who is by nature physical.
The claim of a being outside of the known universe is not scientific. It is philosophical and theological.
Science covers everything that has observable effects. It sounds to me like you're arguing for one of the following: A non-creating version of the deist god, a completely random god who never has consistent behavior, or some kind of metaphor.
Bronze: Straw man, for reasons stated above.
Nick: Nope. Stated truth. You asked if the claim had been scientifically verified. I pointed out that not all truth can be of that nature. Was that a false statement?
Now you're claiming mind-reading ability?
Moral claims are not scientific claims.
God, if it has effects and is therefore natural, is a scientific claim.
I never claimed all claims are scientific claims, only that one of the claims you made, "God exists and has effects on the universe" is a scientific claim.
Bronze: Then you'll need to provide evidence of that resurrection and all the other scientific claims.
Nick: First off, this again is not a scientific claim. Did Hannibal cross the Alps? We can study science forever and never know the answer to that question. It's a question of history as is the question of the resurrection.
History is a science. So is forensics.
Nick: Second, I'm not arguing for the resurrection yet. I'm arguing for your point of contention. Once we see that Christianity is consistent with Hell based on the nature of the God who is described in Christianity, I'll be glad to show that that God exists and then that he revealed himself in Christ which will entail the resurrection. That bridge will be crossed when we get there. For now, it's Hell though.
Can I go ahead and concede that Hell is consistent with the evil god of Christianity so that we can move on to that, then?
Bronze:We value our survival, etcetera because our genes tell us to. Morality is the large set of rules and precedents that help us satisfy those instincts.
Me: Why should I care what genes say? (It'd be interesting to know if I have any free-will in the matter.) As soon as I learn that what I see as good is not really good, why do it? If loving my neighbor is not good, why think it is? If my neighbor is not good but just is, why think that they are good?
Bronze: We use the scientific method (which isn't in our genes) to determine what we can about reality because knowing what the situation is lets you reason what you ought to do.
Me: Most of us in moral situations aren't thinking the scientific method. It's the test for doing science, but most of us aren't spending our days doing science. Science can only tell us what is any way. It cannot tell us what we ought to do.
Bronze: First, science is the most successful branch of philosophy.
Me: That would depend on how you define successful. I would say it isn't. Science may be able to find a cure for cancer, but science cannot produce good people. Ethics does that. I would rather have a society of good people then a society that could cure cancer.
Bronze: Second, what would you think is a good reason to believe something's good? I'm getting this sneaking suspicion you're treading into moral nihilism.
Me: Nope. I'd say atheism leads to moral nihilism. There's no reason to think anything is good because nothing truly is in that system.
For me, I would say we think things are good for one reason. They really are. I would use the definitions of Aristotle and Augustine then later taken by Aquinas. Goodness is that which is desirable for its own sake. Augustine would later say that goodness is in actuality. Goodness is being.
Bronze: I didn't say moral, I said social.
Me: I will take that as my bad.
Bronze: I thought it was bleedingly obvious from context.
Me: Nope. It sounds like more of a pragmatic or utilitarian sense.
Bronze: As for lying as an effective strategy, it didn't have a beneficial net effect on the boy who cried wolf.
Me: It doesn't always have a beneficial effect, but it sure seems to help a lot of people. Worked wonders for O.J.
Bronze: Not quite. I was referencing a person's moral awareness that develops as they're able to reason on higher levels.
Me: And if that's the case, then Aristotle would agree and say we need to refine our tastes so we recognize moral truths. However, that would definitely mean that there are moral truths and like any truths, they would be unchanging and eternal.
Bronze: I mean "supposed to" as in what's physically expected. Normal on a physiological and psychological level.
Me: It may be normal, but that does not mean automatically it's good. It's normal for infants and toddlers to make demands and need to be disciplined. We discipline them not because they're abnormal but because they are doing what is normal for them and we need to get them past normal to doing what's right.
Bronze: Where the hell did you get that idea?
Me: From pondering the nature of morality. Morality is an imperative and prescriptive idea. Science is only indicative and descriptive. Our genes can tell us what we are to a degree. They cannot tell us what we ought to do. Our genes may say we're alcoholic or prone to alcoholism. Fine. Not much that can be done about that. They cannot say that it is right to act on a desire for alcohol or that any wrong committed in a drunken state is justified.
Bronze: Last time I read the Bible, "social" wasn't a word I'd find fitting for the god described.
Me: Social is a great word for him. God is love and that only makes sense in a Trinitarian framework as God has relational love amidst himself in the Trinity.
Bronze: This is getting a lot deeper down than I'm used to discussing. Of course, I have yet to see anything nearly as satisfying come from Christianity. I'm glad many merely stick a few "supernatural" bows onto secular morality.
Me: I believe in going deep. That's why I decided to start with the nature of God. Might as well go as deep as possible to start up with and when we come up for air, things will seem a lot clearer.
Bronze: Some suffering has purpose. The prison sentence is intended to act as a deterrent against immoral behavior. Additionally, we can hope to develop some new sort rehabilitation during that time that allows the sentence to be commuted, leave room for pardons, and so forth.
If you're going to try to argue that Hell is a deterrent, it's a very poor one and falls into the same general category as criminal negligence.
Me: Nope. I'm going to argue that Hell is the serving of justice which is the real point of prison. You treat evil like a disease that needs treatment and you mistreat it. It may be a disease, but it goes beyond psychology and physiology. The real purpose is justice.
Bronze:It seems to me that you're either asking for something absurdly concrete (i.e. asking me for a complete book that covers all secular morality), or asking me for something no moral or ethical philosophy has ever provided.
Me: Nope. It's been provided, but just not from a secular viewpoint. If you don't have a frame of reference though and an ontology of goodness, then there's nothing that is truly good. This is what I want in the end. We take a proposition.
X is good.
That proposition needs to have truth content to it. If X is loving your neighbor, I need to know if good is something that can be truly attributed to the act in that if anyone disagrees, they are wrong. If it is the case, what are we saying about it if we are calling it good? How do we account for truth content in moral propositions if all there is is matter?
Bronze: It sounds like we're getting into a moral analog of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Me: Perhaps, though it would depend on what you mean by prove. If you mean prove in a scientific sense, then no. You won't prove it. Of course, not proving it does not mean it isn't true. There are many things I'd call you crazy if you didn't believe but that you probably could not begin to prove. (Say, do you agree that the universe didn't pop into existence five minutes ago with false memories in our brains and false foods in our stomachs.) It'd be interesting to see a proof that it didn't, but if you really thought that that was true, I'd question your sanity.
Which is why we start by defining our terms. What is good?
Bronze: Wow, someone hasn't been paying attention to what he's saying. The number of things scientists agree on has been climbing steadily, and the number of things science can predict has also been rising steadily. There's still disagreement, but those disagreements are about increasingly subtle matters.
Me: Oh there is steadying increase, but then that will change in a generation or so. Also, I see much of the scientific organization as moving up because one agrees with the ones on top.
Bronze:Christianity, meanwhile, looks to me like it's constantly losing ground on how much they agree on as it splinters into more and more factions. As for that fundamental message, what is it, and how do we know it's true?
Me: That fundamental message is the one I used earlier to describe Christianity. How we know it's true will be a long discussion, but one I'd be glad to do as we discuss history, philosophy, and theology mainly.
Bronze: Scientific consensus grows and grows as time goes on.
Me: Which means it wasn't and wasn't as time goes back. Meanwhile, Christians all across time have been united on these essentials. As a Protestant of a more Baptist bent, I can fellowship with a Roman Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, etc. If they hold to a statement of faith like, say, the Nicene Creed, they're in.
Bronze: Sounds like the Courtier's Reply. The scholars I've read to date are just about equally divided.
Me: Which ones and on what topics? If you mean peripheral issues, then yes. There is disagreement there. If you mean central issues. No. You won't find much there.
Bronze: Science covers everything that has observable effects. It sounds to me like you're arguing for one of the following: A non-creating version of the deist god, a completely random god who never has consistent behavior, or some kind of metaphor.
Me: Nope. I'm arguing for the God I see revealed in the Old and New Testaments. Science can deal with observable effects, yes. It cannot always tell us everything about the cause. Science can tell you that I'm typing now and what happens as my fingers hit the keys, but it cannot tell you why I am typing. It can tell you about my physical make-up, but it cannot tell you who I am.
Bronze: Now you're claiming mind-reading ability?
Me: Nope. Just claiming to state truth.
Bronze: Moral claims are not scientific claims.
Me: Correct.
Bronze: God, if it has effects and is therefore natural, is a scientific claim.
Me: The effects are physical, but it does not mean the cause is. If I am more than my genes, for instance, then that means there is a "me-ness" to me. If that is something immaterial, then we have an immaterial reality working on a material cause and the immaterial may be somehow detectable by its effects but not itself testable.
Bronze: I never claimed all claims are scientific claims, only that one of the claims you made, "God exists and has effects on the universe" is a scientific claim.
Me: Science can help us to an extent, but it cannot give a definitive answer about God nor can it give a definitive disproof. Science deals with what is observable in itself and God is not. He is outside of space and time and therefore not bound by them.
Bronze: History is a science. So is forensics.
Me: In that sense, yes, but if we speak of historical truth, we don't use the scientific method. We use historical methods.
Bronze: Can I go ahead and concede that Hell is consistent with the evil god of Christianity so that we can move on to that, then?
Me: Just realize I don't accept God as evil as that would be an impossibility as one understands the nature of the good.
Now to get to the truth of Christianity, I would like to ask what you affirm. Do you, for instance, affirm the existence of Jesus as a real historical figure that lived around the time that the New Testament lives and do you see any historical value in the New Testament documents?
And yes, this will be a long back and forth exchange, but I'm willing.
And now to answer MWChase who sees an evil God in Christianity.
Chase:2 Kings:
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
I'm having trouble disagreeing with you there, no offense.
Me: Only offense since the facts are not straight. (And by the way, I do note the no response that I see to Leviticus 11 and 18.) Let's look at some facts about this story.
First off, you're using the KJV and the translation is not the best there. This was not a group of little children. The word is used even to describe youths that are in the military. This was a group of young men and most likely, a sizable one seeing as there were 42 of them.
Second, the baldness was done for Elisha either to show he was a prophet or an act of mourning for Elijah. Either way, it pointed to his unique relationship to the prophet of God so this is more than making fun of his lack of hair.
Third, this was on the heels of the taking up of Elijah to Heaven in a chariot. Such was a mark of the divine call on his life and was apparently known.
Fourth, the mocking then was a new generation growing up in a society where they were under the law of a holy God and meant to live accordingly that was outright mocking their creator and God. This was a generation without reverence.
Fifth, in an honor-shame context, this was a direct challenge on the honor of Elisha as a prophet and an attempt to bring about shame on the prophet.
Sixth, The boys were in rebellion more since the bears killed 42 of them. The large number indicates that some of these boys actually stayed behind to fight the bears, still being resistant to the judgment of God.
Point being, God takes sin seriously and when he does so, he does so righteously. The reason it is not seen is because sin is not seen as it is and sin is not seen as it is because God is not seen as he is.
Which is why we need to start with the nature of God.
I admit I'm not enough of a scholar to get into the fine details, so just one quick thing for the moment:
Science deals in observable effects. As I see it, it's your view that your belief in God is contingent upon his existence. That is, if you were to imagine a world that, unlike this one, had no God, but there was still a 'you', then that you would not believe in God. Right?
(Ow. That was as painful to write as it must have been to read.)
Anyway, this is something that you must hold up as evidence of God. You have some way of knowing, and that way of knowing has profound physical effects upon the world.
The portion of the brain responsible for religious experiences has, in fact, been identified. As I see it, if God exists, and is making himself known in people's minds, it must be through the temporal lobe. Yet this should provide a test... Anybody who isn't "truly" in contact should have different temporal lobe activity than one who is.
All right, so I lied about it being short.
One thing I wonder though... how come we aren't seeing the divine retribution for modern-day rejection of faith? Getting killed by bears is a pretty direct and immediate condemnation of their behavior. I'm not saying that it would be endearing if something similar were to miraculously happen to, say, Bill Maher (I haven't actually seen Religulous, but he came to mind as somebody who'd worked hard to offend everybody), but it would be somewhat convincing.
Chase:I admit I'm not enough of a scholar to get into the fine details, so just one quick thing for the moment:
Me: Then congratulations. You just earned some respect there.
Chase: Science deals in observable effects. As I see it, it's your view that your belief in God is contingent upon his existence. That is, if you were to imagine a world that, unlike this one, had no God, but there was still a 'you', then that you would not believe in God. Right?
Me: Hmmmm. My belief in God is contingent on his existence? I'm not sure what that means. It's as if if he didn't exist, I would suddenly not believe? (Well, I wouldn't since I wouldn't be here any more.) My belief in God is based on following the evidence where I believe it leads.
Chase: (Ow. That was as painful to write as it must have been to read.)
Me: Yeah. I think it needs to be rephrased better.
Chase: Anyway, this is something that you must hold up as evidence of God. You have some way of knowing, and that way of knowing has profound physical effects upon the world.
Me: I hold up as evidence of God what I believe constitutes evidence. There are various arguments that I use as well as I do have an idea that God belief is properly basic.
Chase: The portion of the brain responsible for religious experiences has, in fact, been identified. As I see it, if God exists, and is making himself known in people's minds, it must be through the temporal lobe. Yet this should provide a test... Anybody who isn't "truly" in contact should have different temporal lobe activity than one who is.
Me: I believe you're confusing an effect with a cause. If people have a religious belief, it could be that that is the part of the brain being effected, but that does not mean that that is the cause of the belief. I would think it could be the religious experience is the cause of what's going on in the temporal lobe. I would also add that I do not consider myself a person who has "religious experiences." I even wonder what the term means.
Chase: All right, so I lied about it being short.
Me: No biggie. I've said and you can probably see that the term "short answer" does not exist in my vocabulary and frankly, there can't be short answers for a lot of questions.
Chase: One thing I wonder though... how come we aren't seeing the divine retribution for modern-day rejection of faith? Getting killed by bears is a pretty direct and immediate condemnation of their behavior. I'm not saying that it would be endearing if something similar were to miraculously happen to, say, Bill Maher (I haven't actually seen Religulous, but he came to mind as somebody who'd worked hard to offend everybody), but it would be somewhat convincing.
Me: We could just as well ask why we don't see as many miracles. Now I'll go on and tell you that being in my position, I would have people ask me when Katrina struck New Orleans, "Is this God's judgment?" I always gave the same answer. "I can't tell you if it is or not. All I can do is say repent in case it happens." (It's a good answer. Christ used it in Luke 13 after all.)
One reason is that we don't live in a theocracy. Israel was a special people chosen for a special purpose. They were to be a light to the world and a government uniquely committed to God. That's one reason God took sin so seriously in their midst yet when dealing with other nations would often not be as serious. Acts 14 and 17 tell us that he was giving them a witness and overlooking their ignorance for a time.
These events usually happened to confirm new revelation that was being given out. Once the people got the message, the miraculous didn't happen as much. Right now, I believe the message of the cross is going out and people are giving the arguments for belief in the resurrection. Why not miracles now? Because I believe God is looking for those who are truly seeking him and not for those who seek miracles. Besides, miracles don't really produce strong believers. Christ did several and got crucified anyway.
As for Religulous, I actually did go and see it and I think it was on the day it came out. I will put a link to my review and yes, it's the same site that did the review of Loftus's book in the OP.
http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/religulous/
I think that interpretation is a little off... Temporal lobe epilepsy appears connected with extremely fervent religious belief. In essence, if the belief does not come from the lobe, wherever it's coming from is overloading it in a fashion that can't be seen in medical scans. So, I'm pretty sure that that indicates that certain kinds of belief originate in the temporal lobe.
Back from my sidetrack, the issue I meant to argue is that asserting the existence of god is a statement that, if true, should tell us things about the world: there is something (a spirit, according to MrFreeThinker) that has the power to alter anything. I'm presuming (and I'm sure you'll agree) that your belief has an influence on your life. What I'm looking for is any proven way in which your belief aids your understanding of the world.
In other words, what is an area scientific understanding that is inadequate, but you think could be improved (e.g., in predictive power) by combining that area's knowledge with whatever theology you (you personally, not "you" in the generic sense) choose? What I'm looking for is not merely "science cannot explain this" (which I see tiresome often), but "Given these theologically-derived propositions, I can explain why this is as it is, and not as science says it 'should be', or any other way it could be."
I kind of wish I'd come up with that in the beginning. It would have saved us some back-and-forth, as it's a much more direct way of framing the argument/question.
(OHNOEZ FRAMING! I just surrendered Czechoslovakia![possibly-obscure-sarcastic-reference-mode off])
As to natural disasters, attacks, etc, all I can think is that they're a little scattershot. Surely there were reverent Christians who were hit by the same events that took out the kind of people I'm getting the impression they were meant to take out.
Chase:I think that interpretation is a little off... Temporal lobe epilepsy appears connected with extremely fervent religious belief. In essence, if the belief does not come from the lobe, wherever it's coming from is overloading it in a fashion that can't be seen in medical scans. So, I'm pretty sure that that indicates that certain kinds of belief originate in the temporal lobe.
Me: First off, all I've seen so far is a correlation, but I don't see any reason to think it is because of what happens in the temporal lobe.
Second off, the argument doesn't really concern me too much as I don't consider myself one to have religious experiences, whatever that means. My faith is based on thinking and not on feeling.
Chase:Back from my sidetrack, the issue I meant to argue is that asserting the existence of god is a statement that, if true, should tell us things about the world: there is something (a spirit, according to MrFreeThinker) that has the power to alter anything. I'm presuming (and I'm sure you'll agree) that your belief has an influence on your life. What I'm looking for is any proven way in which your belief aids your understanding of the world.
Me: Certainly. It aids me in a number of ways. God makes sense of the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of goodness, truth, beauty, laws of logic, mathematics, reason, existence itself vis a vis the existence/essence distinction, the Bible as I read it, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Belief in God gives meaning in life as well. I find now that whatever road I take, I find God at the end of it.
Chase:In other words, what is an area scientific understanding that is inadequate, but you think could be improved (e.g., in predictive power) by combining that area's knowledge with whatever theology you (you personally, not "you" in the generic sense) choose? What I'm looking for is not merely "science cannot explain this" (which I see tiresome often), but "Given these theologically-derived propositions, I can explain why this is as it is, and not as science says it 'should be', or any other way it could be."
Me: As I demonstrated earlier, I'm not just going with science, however, I think God makes sense of science itself. Science assumes that the universe is rational and our minds can accurately grasp the universe. For all we know, we could be living in Berkeley's world. Science can't tell you. For all we know, we could be studying the phenomena of Kant. Science can't tell you. Now any areas specifically from science are mentioned above, but science itself needs to be explained.
Chase: I kind of wish I'd come up with that in the beginning. It would have saved us some back-and-forth, as it's a much more direct way of framing the argument/question.
Me: I'm really not sure how as I don't think the answer to the question lies in science but in philosophy and theology.
Chase: (OHNOEZ FRAMING! I just surrendered Czechoslovakia![possibly-obscure-sarcastic-reference-mode off])
Me:????
Chase: As to natural disasters, attacks, etc, all I can think is that they're a little scattershot. Surely there were reverent Christians who were hit by the same events that took out the kind of people I'm getting the impression they were meant to take out.
Me:I agree, which is why my message is to tell people to simply believe the gospel. Natural disasters don't play favorites or non-favorites. You don't automatically get put in a cocoon for being a Christian nor do you get a bullseye put on you for being a skeptic.
Hmm... that wasn't quite what I was asking, but what I was asking was the wrong question.
(Don't worry about the parenthetical comment. It wasn't actually relevant; I just thought I'd give something for other skeptics to laugh at.)
I suppose that explanation works. I might have something later in a slightly different vein. (In the wake of some very annoying arguments at the Bronze Blog, I'll point out that saying I might have something later has no currency in an argument. Being explicit about this makes me feel better.)
With regards to how my question was wrong, I'm going to try summarizing what I think you were saying, just so I'm clear on what you mean.
There are various ways to discover things about the world, one of which is the scientific method, another of which is the historical method. You were talking about scientific claims (testable?) (I mean, I'll readily concede that there isn't a way to test morality empirically.) and moral claims. Going along with your philosophical discomfort with the idea of a physical god, you're saying that god is 'predictable' purely in the context of morality (and history?). (That was from memory, so there could be omissions or gaps.) Let's see...
What I was trying to say earlier (and failing in some rather interesting ways) was that you'll only convince me that a god, that doesn't have physical evidence for its existence, exists, is if you demonstrate that the universe cannot exist without it. Otherwise, since we live in a natural world, god would be logically indeterminate, at a deeper level than theological argument. In other words, show that a purely physical world is impossible, or I'll assume that we live in one.
(I think that's finally asking the right question. Maybe not, though.)
Chase:There are various ways to discover things about the world, one of which is the scientific method, another of which is the historical method. You were talking about scientific claims (testable?) (I mean, I'll readily concede that there isn't a way to test morality empirically.) and moral claims. Going along with your philosophical discomfort with the idea of a physical god, you're saying that god is 'predictable' purely in the context of morality (and history?). (That was from memory, so there could be omissions or gaps.) Let's see...
NKP: God is predictable? Not sure what that even means seeing as God is eternally acting and I doubt anyone expected what happened in Christ before he came. He even tells us in Habakkuk that he is going to do something that we would not believe even if we were told, and I believe that refers to the ministry of Christ.
Now I think it's interesting that you have opened up truth content to moral claims in that moral claims can have truth but that truth cannot be known or shown either scientifically or historically. In fact, I would say many of the questions we wrestle with every day in normal life cannot be explained scientifically or historically. Science and history can help, but the questions are not of that nature.
My discomfort with a physical god is not so much discomfort as in saying "I don't like the idea" but in that there are a number of philosophical problems. If there was one thing Dawkins got right in The God Delusion (And this might be the only thing) it's that a designed designer would need a designer. If God is physical in his nature, he is bound by space and time and thus is not the greatest being that there is. In fact, this is the Mormon concept of God and as one who has spoken often with the Mormon Missionaries, it's one that they've never been able to defend successfully. As one who holds to the simplicity of God, which is very helpful in understanding his nature, a physical god by nature is a contradiction.
Chase: What I was trying to say earlier (and failing in some rather interesting ways) was that you'll only convince me that a god, that doesn't have physical evidence for its existence, exists, is if you demonstrate that the universe cannot exist without it. Otherwise, since we live in a natural world, god would be logically indeterminate, at a deeper level than theological argument. In other words, show that a purely physical world is impossible, or I'll assume that we live in one.
(I think that's finally asking the right question. Maybe not, though.)
Me: Certainly. I would first point out that I do not believe in an infinite regress of time seeing as that would mean that at this point if time had been going on eternally, we would have completed an infinite number of moments of time. However, to complete an infinite set is an impossibility. Therefore, we have a finite past that we're dealing with and space and time had a beginning. (Which seems to ring true with Big Bang cosmology.)
If that wasn't enough, there is also the point that there is a chain of existence in that all things that are exist but they are not the cause of their existence and for each thing that exists we must ask what is the cause not only of its existence but then we can ask what is the cause of its existing. (There is some thing or event that brought you into being but something is the cause of your existing now.) Whatever is the cause of your existing must itself be existing. However, if that is existing it needs something that is making it exist. We keep going until we get to something whose existence is its essence and this is what we call God.
And lastly, why should we assume that we live in a physical world alone even if all theistic arguments fail, which I doubt they will. It does not show that there is no deity, but simply shows we had bad reasons for believing in him. If the position you hold now is atheism, I would at least change it to agnosticism in that case.
Just to clarify, I was accepting the idea of a "moral proposition" for the sake of argument.
Let me try to make my position a bit more clear: there can be statements about "is" or "ought to be", and, as I see it, I'm purely physical, so any "is" that isn't a physical statement (excluding, eg, "ought not to"s rephrased as "it is wrong to"s) can't matter to me.
(In the style of one shared joke at the Bronze Blog, it doesn't matter to me if Glarb created Flornath, because there's no way to show that anything flarschnikit has any kind of effect on me.)
From a purely physical standpoint, the existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our understanding of the world.
As a physicalist, I see morality as a human construct. When independently developed systems have similar ideas, that reflect some shared aspect or other of human behavior and thought (or, to be fair, the occasional coincidence.) (More generally, morality has to have a physical source, and with no physical god, we're it.)
Now, unless I'm very confused, you're not a physicalist, but... well... what does it mean to assert the existence of a non-physical entity?
(In a similar vein, what use is it to be an agnostic?)
(Also, as a tangent, it occurs to me that your idea of how religion can help science is a bit... Science will produce the same statements no matter how you interpret them, and most people haven't gone through enough "what if we live inside a cave/the Matrix/a MMORPG/a book"-style thought experiments to worry that some higher being could accidentally spill coffee on them, or something. It's possible to construct an "objective" reality such that what is observed by science is in some sense "not real" or an "illusion", but the results will be just as real to the scientists and everybody else, no matter how you think about the world.)
(Also, I normally don't comment on word verification, but "sessess"? Really?)
Chase: Just to clarify, I was accepting the idea of a "moral proposition" for the sake of argument.
Let me try to make my position a bit more clear: there can be statements about "is" or "ought to be", and, as I see it, I'm purely physical, so any "is" that isn't a physical statement (excluding, eg, "ought not to"s rephrased as "it is wrong to"s) can't matter to me.
Me: This only holds if your proposition that you are purely physical is true, but is it? If you are simply your body, I ask who the you is then since the body is in a constant state of flux. If all we are is matter also, then our thoughts must simply be the result of material laws at work and thus, we think we are matter simply because we are forced to. If the position is true, we could never know it for we would not choose to believe something but be forced to.
Chase:(In the style of one shared joke at the Bronze Blog, it doesn't matter to me if Glarb created Flornath, because there's no way to show that anything flarschnikit has any kind of effect on me.)
Me: Only if the proposition is true. Of course, with meaningless words, nothing is being said anyway.
Chase: From a purely physical standpoint, the existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our understanding of the world.
Me: I am sure some anthropological monist Christians would disagree, but I would prefer to challenge the idea that we are purely physical by pointing to an underlying I that I see that cannot be described in physical terms.
Chase: As a physicalist, I see morality as a human construct. When independently developed systems have similar ideas, that reflect some shared aspect or other of human behavior and thought (or, to be fair, the occasional coincidence.) (More generally, morality has to have a physical source, and with no physical god, we're it.)
Me: Which would make me ask if morality is physical. However, if morality is a human construct, then I am pleased to see that you and Bronze are both not speaking any more about the nature of God being evil. When you spoke of that, you seemed to be speaking of the nature of God as it is and not as we perceive it to be.
Also, if morality is a human construct, like the rules of baseball, then we can change it if we see fit. Do you believe then that we can change the laws so that rape is moral?
Chase: Now, unless I'm very confused, you're not a physicalist, but... well... what does it mean to assert the existence of a non-physical entity?
Me: It means to assert the existence of an entity that is not physical. I have no more problem with that than I have with other non-physical realities like laws of logic, mathematical truths, morality, etc.
Chase: (In a similar vein, what use is it to be an agnostic?)
Me: None that I know of.
Chase: (Also, as a tangent, it occurs to me that your idea of how religion can help science is a bit... Science will produce the same statements no matter how you interpret them, and most people haven't gone through enough "what if we live inside a cave/the Matrix/a MMORPG/a book"-style thought experiments to worry that some higher being could accidentally spill coffee on them, or something. It's possible to construct an "objective" reality such that what is observed by science is in some sense "not real" or an "illusion", but the results will be just as real to the scientists and everybody else, no matter how you think about the world.)
Me: First off, I think you have a category fallacy in saying science will produce the same statements. Science is a method and not a worldview. It is scientists that produce the statements and of course, not all scientists agree.
Second, we can no more construct an objective universe than we could create a new primary color. Reality is what it is and that is essential for science. If the universe is subjective, science has no place in being able to give objective truth about a subjective universe.
Truth is truth regardless of the source or what category it is in. I see no problem with religion and science working together.
Chase: (Also, I normally don't comment on word verification, but "sessess"? Really?)
Me: Grumble Grumble....
What I meant was that it's possible to construct an interpretation of the universe in which there is some "true reality" that can't be grasped for whatever reason. See for example, the allegory of the cave.
I can see that my position will have to be a bit more nuanced, so my train of thought might wander even more as I work it out... Mathematical truth is... Well, it depends on the axioms you're using. And one property of axioms is that they don't imply each other, else they'd be theorems. Therefore, replace one of a system's axioms with its negation, and you'd still have a consistent (if possibly uninteresting) system that allows for theorems. For the most famous example, see hyperbolic geometry.
(I realize I'm addressing these in more-or-less reverse order. Don't care.) I'm not sure if my 'category fallacy' was metonymy or synecdoche or just plain laziness, but the point I meant to make is still valid: a given experiment will have produced the same results no matter how you decide to view the universe.
And, in a subjective universe, could I not perceive science as a way to reveal truth?
Back to morality, if Bronze's and my contention that morality derives from human thought (and commonalities in our behavior stemming from shared ancestry), then any human would be justified in attempting to pass moral judgment upon any moral ideal that other humans hold up.
As to how identity works without some immaterial thing hanging out somewhere around us, I subscribe to the idea of continuity of mind. It is highly unlikely that another person would suddenly be deluded into thinking that they're me. This doesn't quite work, as my mind wasn't obviously doing anything at any of the times I went under anesthesia (I was promised a nice dream for the first time. Pout, whinge.) At the current level of medical technology, it's usually enough to keep track of the brain, though some problematic situations can still occur. But yeah... what makes me me is my experiences, my attitudes, my likes and dislikes, and other aspects of thought which more-or-less reside in the brain (with the caveats of hormone production and blood flow to other parts of the body).
What would (I assume) a soul be for? You seem to associate with identity, but there's been a lot of progress in efforts to explain the kind of things that I listed in terms of different areas of the brain. Does a soul just act as some sort of very limited identification system, whispering in my ear "You're you. You're you. ... Yep. Still you."?
Chase:What I meant was that it's possible to construct an interpretation of the universe in which there is some "true reality" that can't be grasped for whatever reason. See for example, the allegory of the cave.
Me: My thanks to Kant for pretty much destroying the idea of knowledge....
Yes. We can construct interpretations but the only interpretations I'm interested in are true interpretations.
Chase: I can see that my position will have to be a bit more nuanced, so my train of thought might wander even more as I work it out... Mathematical truth is... Well, it depends on the axioms you're using. And one property of axioms is that they don't imply each other, else they'd be theorems. Therefore, replace one of a system's axioms with its negation, and you'd still have a consistent (if possibly uninteresting) system that allows for theorems. For the most famous example, see hyperbolic geometry.
Me: Which is all very interesting, but the one question I'm wanting to know is "Do mathematical truths exist?"
Chase:(I realize I'm addressing these in more-or-less reverse order. Don't care.) I'm not sure if my 'category fallacy' was metonymy or synecdoche or just plain laziness, but the point I meant to make is still valid: a given experiment will have produced the same results no matter how you decide to view the universe.
Me: Correct. If an atheistic Darwinian and a fundamentalist YECer both do the same experiment the same way, the results will be the same. Reality has a way of being like that.
Chase: And, in a subjective universe, could I not perceive science as a way to reveal truth?
Me: What is truth then? I figure science ought to tell us something about the nature of the physical world and not just how it appears to me. If I stick the pencil in a glass of water, it appears broken, but using science tells me otherwise. We speak of the sunrise, but through the work of scientists, we see that that is just an appearance.
If all is subjective, there is no truth to be known about the universe. The universe does not re-adjust for each person.
Chase:Back to morality, if Bronze's and my contention that morality derives from human thought (and commonalities in our behavior stemming from shared ancestry), then any human would be justified in attempting to pass moral judgment upon any moral ideal that other humans hold up.
Me: Why? What does this "justified" mean? If it's purely a human construct, then it has no reality to it. It's just this idea, but the idea isn't true. If that's the case, why should I care?
Chase: As to how identity works without some immaterial thing hanging out somewhere around us, I subscribe to the idea of continuity of mind. It is highly unlikely that another person would suddenly be deluded into thinking that they're me. This doesn't quite work, as my mind wasn't obviously doing anything at any of the times I went under anesthesia (I was promised a nice dream for the first time. Pout, whinge.) At the current level of medical technology, it's usually enough to keep track of the brain, though some problematic situations can still occur. But yeah... what makes me me is my experiences, my attitudes, my likes and dislikes, and other aspects of thought which more-or-less reside in the brain (with the caveats of hormone production and blood flow to other parts of the body).
Me: I don't see how this addresses the problem of no free-will in your worldview. Also, it is not obvious your mind isn't doing anything under anesthesia. It could be you are dreaming and like many dream periods, you don't remember it. I also wonder what is this continuity of mind? If you have amnesia, do you cease to be you?
Chase: What would (I assume) a soul be for? You seem to associate with identity, but there's been a lot of progress in efforts to explain the kind of things that I listed in terms of different areas of the brain. Does a soul just act as some sort of very limited identification system, whispering in my ear "You're you. You're you. ... Yep. Still you."?
Me: More than that, the soul accounts for first person experiences and the universe being able to be described that way as well as accounting for free-will. Of course, it does provide continuity for me apart from the body, though I still see the body as important.
Since comments are getting pretty long here, and since this place is pretty much dead except for the three of us, I've set up a post on my blog where we can continue.
It's not uncommon for my readers to express a point more eloquently than I would.
Post a Comment