BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Non Christian Perspective => Topic started by: Oscar_Kipling on April 14, 2022, 05:17:07 PM
-
Well, I think I literally saw a tumbleweed roll across my screen lol. Its been so long since I've even thought about Christianity in depth much less had a perspective, but the desolate nature of this sub makes me want to contribute as I might be the only one of me here. I tried to read a thread earlier that amounted to the classic problem of evil (at least that was the heart of it imo) and the responses were more or less what I remember them being, and after about 2 pages I was bored or disappointed , or both maybe. I guess I just think one of the worst things about Christians is that there are so many bad answers that Christians expect non believers to find compelling, and if we don't then clearly we are dishonest or woefully broken. I do understand that for most Christians it cannot be the case that their explanations or apologies fail miserably at explaining or apologizing because of course they address the issue because the Christ is alive and in heaven checking his watch for the moment he returns... Its just obvious that at least when the explanations or apologies are mutually exclusive that someone must be wrong, and it seems to occur to Christians far too infrequently that they could be wrong because they have to believe that ultimately they are not wrong, perhaps a detail here or there was missed or misapprehended, but overall they must be right. IDK its not even really a Christian deal although I first noticed it in religious communities and I think that overconfidence is still rampant with in them, its just that the religion seems like a perfect machine designed to prevent a person from being able to accurately modulate their confidence. So alright lets put this in the form of a question...As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?
I didn't really have a point when I started writing, but I knew I wanted to talk about something that I genuinely find frustrating about Christianity, though I don't meant this to be especially disrespectful, so apologies if that is what I ended up doing.
-
As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?
I suppose, broadly: study, metaphysics, Plato, Plantinga, warrant, justification, etc. etc.
Yourself?
-
As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?
I suppose, broadly: study, metaphysics, Plato, Plantinga, warrant, justification, etc. etc.
Yourself?
Essentially the same, I suppose I also actively try to stay conscious of the fact that my interior world and the exterior world is full of distractions, diversions, distortions, delusions, deceptions, prejudices, biases and all manner of stuff that I'm not thinking of or paying attention to that makes it challenging and sometime even impossible to determine the truth or to correctly access whether or not I've determined the truth. I also spend alot of time trying to interrogate or relitigate conclusions as well...still none of it is 100% effective, which I guess in and of itself is another thing I try to remind myself of try as I might I'm still always vulnerable to some failure or foible or well crafted deception.
I should say that being a Christian doesn't necessarily preclude anyone from practicing good epistemological hygiene except that I do not see how a person could be a Christian and also maintain that they could be wrong fundamentally on at least some set of pretty wild and far reaching ideas about the nature of nature, themselves, the universe, History and the future, which imo is at the very least potentially troublesome in the area of calibrating confidence.
-
Essentially the same, I suppose I also actively try to stay conscious of the fact that my interior world and the exterior world is full of distractions, diversions, distortions, delusions, deceptions, prejudices, biases and all manner of stuff that I'm not thinking of or paying attention to that makes it challenging and sometime even impossible to determine the truth or to correctly access whether or not I've determined the truth. I also spend alot of time trying to interrogate or relitigate conclusions as well...still none of it is 100% effective, which I guess in and of itself is another thing I try to remind myself of try as I might I'm still always vulnerable to some failure or foible or well crafted deception.
Are we talking about Christian overconfidence, or the appearance of Christian overconfidence, or utterances by Christians actively doing what you describe above but who are at different stages in their lives, beliefs, and so on? I suppose it's difficult to talk about broad nebulous masses of people. I've no doubt there are Christians who have replaced their brains with dogma.
If you think it might be possible to determine the truth, how do you know someone else hasn't (as in, how do you assess the claim)?
I should say that being a Christian doesn't necessarily preclude anyone from practicing good epistemological hygiene except that I do not see how a person could be a Christian and also maintain that they could be wrong fundamentally on at least some set of pretty wild and far reaching ideas about the nature of nature, themselves, the universe, History and the future, which imo is at the very least potentially troublesome in the area of calibrating confidence.
I'm a Christian, and I could be wrong. This could all be a simulation, or perhaps I'm a brain in a jar, or maybe, I'm merely a fiction of your imagination. Why do you think the epistemic position is difficult? Of course, there are differences between theology and philosophy, and one of those is faith -- in X, Y, and Z axiomatically. To be wrong is to risk being really wrong. But that's true of everyone. Or, are those overconfident Christians merely agreeing with your assessment, and thus, their overconfidence is exactly the epistemic position they ought to be taking?
-
Are we talking about Christian overconfidence, or the appearance of Christian overconfidence, or utterances by Christians actively doing what you describe above but who are at different stages in their lives, beliefs, and so on? I suppose it's difficult to talk about broad nebulous masses of people. I've no doubt there are Christians who have replaced their brains with dogma.
If you think it might be possible to determine the truth, how do you know someone else hasn't (as in, how do you assess the claim)?
yeah, lets just agree there as cannot rightly say in the broad general sense what exactly i'm seeing in that regard. I will say though that I do not feel that this is a problem just at the extremes where a person has dogma-for-brains, i mean place anything-for-brains and you're probably in a bad way. what i'm getting at (and believe me i'm still internally trying to get at what i'm getting at) is these sort of baked in propositions that Christians take as axiomatic. For instance there is the expectation that saying and doing good true and proper Christian things ill be met with energetic opposition & protests and will be disputed particularly in a way that is learned and wise by the standards of the world. Now i've seen many ways that any of these forecasted reactions have been interpreted, but suffice it to say at the heart of it is that such a reaction is indistinguishable from legitimate disagreement, that is disagreement that may very well have epistemologically sound basis. From where i'm perched this reaction doesn't necessarily tell a Christian anything about the legitimacy of their position except that it seems to be baked into Christianity that it actually does inform the legitimacy of their position. So what i'm saying is that even without replacing all sense with nonsense christianity is full of things like this that would to many average non dogma headed seem to provide diagnostic value regarding their degree of confidence but are actually i'd argue demonstrably and uniformly indistinguishable from reactions motivated by actually being incorrect.
As far as accessing claims go there is not a single tool or method, but as in the case above sometimes it can be determined by counterexamples or mutual exclusivity, and it's true that doesn't necessarily get you to what the truth is just that it cannot all be true or that something must be false.
I'm a Christian, and I could be wrong. This could all be a simulation, or perhaps I'm a brain in a jar, or maybe, I'm merely a fiction of your imagination. Why do you think the epistemic position is difficult? Of course, there are differences between theology and philosophy, and one of those is faith -- in X, Y, and Z axiomatically. To be wrong is to risk being really wrong. But that's true of everyone. Or, are those overconfident Christians merely agreeing with your assessment, and thus, their overconfidence is exactly the epistemic position they ought to be taking?
Again, you are not the first or probably the last Christian i'll come across that at the very least has claimed to be able to hold such a position in a meaningful way, still i'd wager that you believe some facts about reality that are informed by your christian faith that bias you toward confidence in some very far out ideas (at least from my perspective). I'd argue that they bias you against brainjarianism and simulation conjecture as well (although those are both pretty far out propositions themselves imo and aren't at all necessary in most cases to maintain a healthy sense of how difficult the truth can be to get at). I would be more interested in your notions on the reality of supernatural revelation and the nature and character of that phenomena as I think that could very well cause you (or maybe not you but a person) to place a very high degree of confidence into some truth that you (or not you but a person) believes has been supernaturally revealed to them.
-
I'm a Christian, and I could be wrong. This could all be a simulation, or perhaps I'm a brain in a jar, or maybe, I'm merely a fiction of your imagination. Why do you think the epistemic position is difficult? Of course, there are differences between theology and philosophy, and one of those is faith -- in X, Y, and Z axiomatically. To be wrong is to risk being really wrong. But that's true of everyone. Or, are those overconfident Christians merely agreeing with your assessment, and thus, their overconfidence is exactly the epistemic position they ought to be taking?
Again, you are not the first or probably the last Christian i'll come across that at the very least has claimed to be able to hold such a position in a meaningful way, still i'd wager that you believe some facts about reality that are informed by your christian faith that bias you toward confidence in some very far out ideas (at least from my perspective). I'd argue that they bias you against brainjarianism and simulation conjecture as well (although those are both pretty far out propositions themselves imo and aren't at all necessary in most cases to maintain a healthy sense of how difficult the truth can be to get at). I would be more interested in your notions on the reality of supernatural revelation and the nature and character of that phenomena as I think that could very well cause you (or maybe not you but a person) to place a very high degree of confidence into some truth that you (or not you but a person) believes has been supernaturally revealed to them.
I am confident Ath will answer for himself.
Me, I (in 1974) had 2 overwhelming experiences with God in ~30 minutes and thereafter never again. It made me an instant believer in God, it was not even a choice, I just knew from that moment on, a life changing experience. Anno 2020 I believe that Christianity (in the person of Christ) and the very basics of it, in its purest form (by far) is the most convincing religion of all.
-
I will say though that I do not feel that this is a problem just at the extremes where a person has dogma-for-brains, i mean place anything-for-brains and you're probably in a bad way. what i'm getting at (and believe me i'm still internally trying to get at what i'm getting at) is these sort of baked in propositions that Christians take as axiomatic. For instance there is the expectation that saying and doing good true and proper Christian things ill be met with energetic opposition & protests and will be disputed particularly in a way that is learned and wise by the standards of the world.
Now i've seen many ways that any of these forecasted reactions have been interpreted, but suffice it to say at the heart of it is that such a reaction is indistinguishable from legitimate disagreement, that is disagreement that may very well have epistemologically sound basis. From where i'm perched this reaction doesn't necessarily tell a Christian anything about the legitimacy of their position except that it seems to be baked into Christianity that it actually does inform the legitimacy of their position. So what i'm saying is that even without replacing all sense with nonsense christianity is full of things like this that would to many average non dogma headed seem to provide diagnostic value regarding their degree of confidence but are actually i'd argue demonstrably and uniformly indistinguishable from reactions motivated by actually being incorrect.
This kind of "the world tells me I'm wrong so I must be right" modus operandi is quite unfortunate indeed. Should we blame Paul, or Jesus, or both? It's a problem, but hardly one exclusive to Christianity. I wonder what interactions there are between misplaced confidence, arrogance, and so on.
I think I'd argue these are nonsensical all the same because what's in question isn't just this-or-that teaching, but the axiom that is built upon the purported teaching. "The world hates me therefore I'm right" is a pretty piss-poor axiom that I don't think any serious Christian subscribes to. By 'serious' I of course mean anyone who isn't trapped in the grip of dogma or ideology and such.
For every mention of Matthew 10:22, there is a Luke 9:50. So, how 'baked' into Christianity are these positions? Hmm. I suppose a related problem is that most everyday Christians aren't sophisticated theologians.
Again, you are not the first or probably the last Christian i'll come across that at the very least has claimed to be able to hold such a position in a meaningful way, still i'd wager that you believe some facts about reality that are informed by your christian faith that bias you toward confidence in some very far out ideas (at least from my perspective).
We all believe facts about reality that are informed by such-and-such belief, view, perspective, etc., that biases us towards confidence is this-or-that idea.
I'd argue that they bias you against brainjarianism and simulation conjecture as well (although those are both pretty far out propositions themselves imo and aren't at all necessary in most cases to maintain a healthy sense of how difficult the truth can be to get at).
The at-the-edge examples were to demonstrate that there is no tension necessarily between "I'm a Christian" and "I could be wrong". Of course, I don't think I'm a brain in a jar, and I don't think we live in a holographic universe, but neither do most people who are informed by their own biases and perspectives. Biases aren't an issue necessarily, but failing to recognise them is.
I would be more interested in your notions on the reality of supernatural revelation and the nature and character of that phenomena as I think that could very well cause you (or maybe not you but a person) to place a very high degree of confidence into some truth that you (or not you but a person) believes has been supernaturally revealed to them.
What sort of notions are you looking for? If think that if we accept that God is a being who is alien to our very reality, and also the creator of this reality, then any communication between God and God's creation will be revelation necessarily as God's creation would be otherwise unable to comprehend God. I would imagine no method of communication is impossible for such a being, and either way, we're firmly into metaphysics. I don't know, do you prefer talking about God with purely religious language? It's interesting, the utility of religious language.
As for myself, I met Jesus when I was younger.
-
I’m a fairly simple man and the older I get and the more of life I experience the more simple I become
Christian doctrine for me is a difficult thing. I fully recognize my biases and presuppositions, all of which are metaphysical. I don’t like the reality of sacrifice or sin or guilt or redemption. I want to do it myself; I want to be captain if my own ship, but alas, I find that I can’t even find the bridge.
If humans wish to prove anything, at the end root is always faith. Faith that atoms exist, or that higher math and physics have the ability to define or prove anything related to our perception of a physical reality. Faith that my wife actually loves me. Faith that the chair I sit in isn’t the result of the blue pill. Faith that all the dystopia fiction I’ve read over the years is really fiction and not an instructional manual. Faith that “To Serve Man” is not a cookbook. Faith that Pascals Wager isn’t a bad bet.
I’ve examined other options. None satisfy. So I’ll stumble on through the darkness in my soul with what some deem a Christian overconfidence in my faith and my presuppositions concerning that faith because I have reached a point at which if I ever lose faith in Christ, I’ll just put a bullet in my head. I have no other options.
-
As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?
Follow in the steps of our Lord Jesus. Confidence is evaluated by the tests that follow.
-
I am confident Ath will answer for himself.
Me, I (in 1974) had 2 overwhelming experiences with God in ~30 minutes and thereafter never again. It made me an instant believer in God, it was not even a choice, I just knew from that moment on, a life changing experience. Anno 2020 I believe that Christianity (in the person of Christ) and the very basics of it, in its purest form (by far) is the most convincing religion of all.
Thanks for your reply, this is very interesting because it really is one of the things that I've always found problematic about Christianity. Outside of the idea that I've never encountered a compelling explanation of why every man woman and child throughout all time hasn't gotten one of these experiences, I feel that in some way that expirience might have given you confidence in interpretations of scripture and how they can and should apply to reality that isn't actually justified by the expirience except in that it was supernatural. That is just my inclination though, do you mind telling me a bit more about your expirience and whether or not you put any effort into considering how confident you should be in your beliefs and what steps you take if you do?
-
I’m a fairly simple man and the older I get and the more of life I experience the more simple I become
haha, I think I feel similarly...I used to be so afraid of getting old, but darn if it doesn't have some advantages in peace of mind , its just a whole lot less "sweaty" lol if that means anything to you.
Christian doctrine for me is a difficult thing. I fully recognize my biases and presuppositions, all of which are metaphysical. I don’t like the reality of sacrifice or sin or guilt or redemption. I want to do it myself; I want to be captain if my own ship, but alas, I find that I can’t even find the bridge.
This idea too has always bothered me about Christianity, its like being the mouse watching Dumbo give all the credit for his amazing flights to the magic feather. I've seen Christians do amazing, laborious and brave things because they think they have a magic feather (I've seen the same trick work for non Christians, heck I've even seen some objectively dumb ideas inspire some very not dumb feats of human achievement...just wanted to be clear that I don't think Christians are special or especially worthy of singling out). Anyway whenever I see Christians say stuff like this I always get a little sad and think "don't you see peter, the magic-key-knowledge-McGuffin was inside you all along"...admittedly I don't usually say this to people because its sort of an obnoxious move, lucky you I guess ...sorry
If humans wish to prove anything, at the end root is always faith. Faith that atoms exist, or that higher math and physics have the ability to define or prove anything related to our perception of a physical reality. Faith that my wife actually loves me. Faith that the chair I sit in isn’t the result of the blue pill. Faith that all the dystopia fiction I’ve read over the years is really fiction and not an instructional manual. Faith that “To Serve Man” is not a cookbook. Faith that Pascals Wager isn’t a bad bet.
I mean yeah in the sense that this is true its not profound and in the sense that this is profound its not applicable. What I mean is faith based folks seem to be compelled to draw equivalences between faith as they practice it and the acceptance of some fundamental truths without evidence in order to move forward with any cogent work toward deciphering reality. The belief that Jesus' death & resurrection somehow changed the relationship we all have with death and the proposition that A cannot also be not A are not equivalent. the existence of atoms is not a question of faith in the sense that Jesus' divinity is, there is evidence of atoms that are built up from many thousands of discreet intersupporting bits of information that admittedly ultimately rest upon the idea that stuff both exists and makes sense, but to act as if the chain of evidence from Bernoulli to Higgs is mirrored in quality, quantity, depth or breadth by anything between genesis & revelations is an exercise in doing a thing that just doesn't make that much sense to do....okay I ran out of steam a little at the end there but you get my point, I feel the distinctions are too great to act as if what you mean by faith and what I mean by evidence that atoms exist are playing the same sports ball.
I’ve examined other options. None satisfy. So I’ll stumble on through the darkness in my soul with what some deem a Christian overconfidence in my faith and my presuppositions concerning that faith because I have reached a point at which if I ever lose faith in Christ, I’ll just put a bullet in my head. I have no other options.
well, That's dark. Yea, you should remain a Christian, go in peace.
-
As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?
Follow in the steps of our Lord Jesus. Confidence is evaluated by the tests that follow.
Is that from the bible, it sounds bibly? You want to explain this a little more? perhaps provide an example?
-
This kind of "the world tells me I'm wrong so I must be right" modus operandi is quite unfortunate indeed. Should we blame Paul, or Jesus, or both? It's a problem, but hardly one exclusive to Christianity. I wonder what interactions there are between misplaced confidence, arrogance, and so on.
I think I'd argue these are nonsensical all the same because what's in question isn't just this-or-that teaching, but the axiom that is built upon the purported teaching. "The world hates me therefore I'm right" is a pretty piss-poor axiom that I don't think any serious Christian subscribes to. By 'serious' I of course mean anyone who isn't trapped in the grip of dogma or ideology and such.
For every mention of Matthew 10:22, there is a Luke 9:50. So, how 'baked' into Christianity are these positions? Hmm. I suppose a related problem is that most everyday Christians aren't sophisticated theologians.
I mean isn't it kind of a problem that you have to be a sophisticated theologian to not fall into the many similar pitfalls and landmines laid out in the bible? Seems like the folks who have the time and ability to be sophisticated are but a fraction of people... and its supposed to be a book full of nourishing words for everyone not just the fancy 1% in their ivory towers with lots of free time to casually ponder what is and isn't properly basic on a chaise lounge while the unsophisticated are too busy fanning them with palm fronds to realize that their miserable job as exploited-palm-frond-boy isn't actually validation that they are good Christians.
The at-the-edge examples were to demonstrate that there is no tension necessarily between "I'm a Christian" and "I could be wrong". Of course, I don't think I'm a brain in a jar, and I don't think we live in a holographic universe, but neither do most people who are informed by their own biases and perspectives. Biases aren't an issue necessarily, but failing to recognise them is.
haha well, you're sophisticated enough to sidestep these tensions and I feel like I acknowledged that plenty of "yous" exist in the first place. I mean I used to do this for fun so I've run across many very impressive Christian minds.... but on the other hand I bet I could also throw a rock out of my window and hit someone who would feel the tension even in those extreme examples, isn't that bad?. but, yes point taken, we are in agreement.
What sort of notions are you looking for? If think that if we accept that God is a being who is alien to our very reality, and also the creator of this reality, then any communication between God and God's creation will be revelation necessarily as God's creation would be otherwise unable to comprehend God. I would imagine no method of communication is impossible for such a being, and either way, we're firmly into metaphysics. I don't know, do you prefer talking about God with purely religious language? It's interesting, the utility of religious language.
You know, I actually don't know what you mean by this, but I can tell that you believe that there is a very clear line of reasoning that points from A to B...so, please lay that out for me because I'm extremely interested! I don't have any preferences, maybe I used to but its been so long that I'll probably need clarification here and there no matter what you use, so use whatever language you like and if I need further explanation I'll just ask.
As for myself, I met Jesus when I was younger.
Okay, tell me what you mean by that please.
-
I’m a fairly simple man and the older I get and the more of life I experience the more simple I become
haha, I think I feel similarly...I used to be so afraid of getting old, but darn if it doesn't have some advantages in peace of mind , its just a whole lot less "sweaty" lol if that means anything to you.
Christian doctrine for me is a difficult thing. I fully recognize my biases and presuppositions, all of which are metaphysical. I don’t like the reality of sacrifice or sin or guilt or redemption. I want to do it myself; I want to be captain if my own ship, but alas, I find that I can’t even find the bridge.
This idea too has always bothered me about Christianity, its like being the mouse watching Dumbo give all the credit for his amazing flights to the magic feather. I've seen Christians do amazing, laborious and brave things because they think they have a magic feather (I've seen the same trick work for non Christians, heck I've even seen some objectively dumb ideas inspire some very not dumb feats of human achievement...just wanted to be clear that I don't think Christians are special or especially worthy of singling out). Anyway whenever I see Christians say stuff like this I always get a little sad and think "don't you see peter, the magic-key-knowledge-McGuffin was inside you all along"...admittedly I don't usually say this to people because its sort of an obnoxious move, lucky you I guess ...sorry
If humans wish to prove anything, at the end root is always faith. Faith that atoms exist, or that higher math and physics have the ability to define or prove anything related to our perception of a physical reality. Faith that my wife actually loves me. Faith that the chair I sit in isn’t the result of the blue pill. Faith that all the dystopia fiction I’ve read over the years is really fiction and not an instructional manual. Faith that “To Serve Man” is not a cookbook. Faith that Pascals Wager isn’t a bad bet.
I mean yeah in the sense that this is true its not profound and in the sense that this is profound its not applicable. What I mean is faith based folks seem to be compelled to draw equivalences between faith as they practice it and the acceptance of some fundamental truths without evidence in order to move forward with any cogent work toward deciphering reality. The belief that Jesus' death & resurrection somehow changed the relationship we all have with death and the proposition that A cannot also be not A are not equivalent. the existence of atoms is not a question of faith in the sense that Jesus' divinity is, there is evidence of atoms that are built up from many thousands of discreet intersupporting bits of information that admittedly ultimately rest upon the idea that stuff both exists and makes sense, but to act as if the chain of evidence from Bernoulli to Higgs is mirrored in quality, quantity, depth or breadth by anything between genesis & revelations is an exercise in doing a thing that just doesn't make that much sense to do....okay I ran out of steam a little at the end there but you get my point, I feel the distinctions are too great to act as if what you mean by faith and what I mean by evidence that atoms exist are playing the same sports ball.
I’ve examined other options. None satisfy. So I’ll stumble on through the darkness in my soul with what some deem a Christian overconfidence in my faith and my presuppositions concerning that faith because I have reached a point at which if I ever lose faith in Christ, I’ll just put a bullet in my head. I have no other options.
well, That's dark. Yea, you should remain a Christian, go in peace.
Why? Why should I remain Christian? If my faith is truly just the result of an unjustified overconfidence in dogma wouldn’t I objectively be better if eating a bullet?
-
I mean isn't it kind of a problem that you have to be a sophisticated theologian to not fall into the many similar pitfalls and landmines laid out in the bible? Seems like the folks who have the time and ability to be sophisticated are but a fraction of people... and its supposed to be a book full of nourishing words for everyone not just the fancy 1% in their ivory towers with lots of free time to casually ponder what is and isn't properly basic on a chaise lounge while the unsophisticated are too busy fanning them with palm fronds to realize that their miserable job as exploited-palm-frond-boy isn't actually validation that they are good Christians.
This is an image you've painted.
It's not as if sophistication is insulation against basic errors, or that the unsophisticated are assuredly lost to basic errors. We wouldn't claim that philosophers are beyond error. I think the kinds of things you're getting at speak towards a failure of teaching, destructive social mimetics (e.g. around COVID measures or Trump), propagandizing, and any number of other social phenomena. These are issues for everyone, and if it's a problem, then it's a problem for all: a person must navigate existence and should they fail in their responsibility their position is precarious indeed.
You know, I actually don't know what you mean by this, but I can tell that you believe that there is a very clear line of reasoning that points from A to B...so, please lay that out for me because I'm extremely interested! I don't have any preferences, maybe I used to but its been so long that I'll probably need clarification here and there no matter what you use, so use whatever language you like and if I need further explanation I'll just ask.
I'm mostly thinking about God through non-religious language. People will talk pejoratively about God the old man in the sky, for example, but how do you talk pejoratively about other propositions, like the being we refer to as God pre-existed our very reality. Or, the being we refer to as God is of such alien intelligence that revelation is a necessity of communication. Obviously, this isn't perfect language and if God is indeed the creator of everything we are and know then there's surely a more appropriate way to relate to God. But, I suppose I'm digging at the reality that familiarity breeds contempt, and if we take a step back and use something other than theological language to think about God, then we arrive at something much less worthy of
Okay, tell me what you mean by that please.
I was 12 or 13 or so and experience a vision wherein a bunch of stuff happened, I saw some things, and I met Jesus, he hugged me, and so on. That was quite weird at the time, because when it happened, at that moment, I was crying profusely, and at the time couldn't figure out why. These days, I know more about the crying and wonder why I was hugged. So, it was quite an emotionally impacting thing.
-
Why? Why should I remain Christian? If my faith is truly just the result of an unjustified overconfidence in dogma wouldn’t I objectively be better if eating a bullet?
okay...I mean far be it from me to tell you to continue living a life that you don't feel is worth living, but personally I think that leading what I assume is a pretty happy and fulfilling life as Christian is better for you , your friends & family, whoever would find your partially beheaded corpse and have to scrape your brains off the walls, heck and even the realtor who would then have to try to sell your suicide house than it would be if you create a shotgun Pollock because you realized Christianity was just one of many mostly made up things that people mostly made up. Unlike you I do see why my life is worth living even if there is no God and I see no value in someone eating a bullet because they found out that something they really value isn't true...call me crazy I guess. So yeah I'd rather you be wrong and alive than correct and dead since those were the only options...If there was another option where you could not believe in God and still find value and fulfillment in your life that would be fine too.
Also to be clear my initial post wasn't about overconfidence leading to Christian faith, it was more about Christianity having built in propositions that can lead one to overconfidence or an inability to properly calibrate their confidence in things like the interpretation and proper application of prescriptions drawn from the bible or revelation. For instance the Idea that the husband should be the leader of the household could lead to less than optimal outcomes when a person is extremely confident in what that means and how it should be applied in a marriage even if their interpretation is off even by the standards of the internal logic of Christianity...it may be difficult for a person to understand and accept that they are wrong especially when the social/familial evidences that they are wrong could also be construed as "the world" or the unrighteous or sinful nature of those around them rejecting a godly way of life.....something along those lines.
Last thing, I think you said you essentially had a supernatural expirience that lead you to the faith, that may actually be an example of overconfidence in an expirience that may be better explained by something else but I don't know.....I would be delighted if you would tell me about your supernatural experiences if you don't mind me poking at them with a stick.
-
Unlike you I do see why my life is worth living even if there is no God...
I don't know about you or RK, but if this life is the end in itself, then I wouldn't be particularly interested in meaning-making. It's interesting that the social element is appealed to, but even there it can be the source and cause of great suffering. To invent meaning for oneself where no meaning otherwise exists seems like an insane exercise in justification. This life isn't all that great, so why bother, or why not check out when one wants?
My family can attend my funeral or I can attend theirs. Either way, we both die eventually. That's catastrophically fatalistic thinking, but why embrace freedom? Why endure anxiety? Why put up with sickness and taxes for the next new burger from McDonalds? Sometimes it's suggested that religious people are religious because it's more comfortable than facing the cold reality of existence, but as soon as that cold reality is faced we're told about relationships and meaning, embracing freedom, and curiosity. Who cares if it's for nought?
-
I am confident Ath will answer for himself.
Me, I (in 1974) had 2 overwhelming experiences with God in ~30 minutes and thereafter never again. It made me an instant believer in God, it was not even a choice, I just knew from that moment on, a life changing experience. Anno 2020 I believe that Christianity (in the person of Christ) and the very basics of it, in its purest form (by far) is the most convincing religion of all.
Thanks for your reply, this is very interesting because it really is one of the things that I've always found problematic about Christianity. Outside of the idea that I've never encountered a compelling explanation of why every man woman and child throughout all time hasn't gotten one of these experiences, I feel that in some way that expirience might have given you confidence in interpretations of scripture and how they can and should apply to reality that isn't actually justified by the expirience except in that it was supernatural. That is just my inclination though, do you mind telling me a bit more about your expirience and whether or not you put any effort into considering how confident you should be in your beliefs and what steps you take if you do?
Alright, here is my testimony.
The year is 1974, the month is June. Life smiled at me, good job, about to marry my fiance in December, my country (Holland) was doing extremely well in the world soccer championship in West Germany when suddenly out the blue I developed a phobia resulting in panic attacks that became worse and worse while the weeks and months passed.
It was on Saturday September 28 about 18:00 I came up to a point I realized nobody could help me, probably the most frightening moment in my life, totally lost and helpless. On the very same moment a thought crossed my mind, what about God? probably due to my Christian upbringing. And while I expected nothing I went to the bedroom, kneel down and said, God if You exist help me. Not a very devout prayer, quite insulting. But the words had not left my mouth and then it happened. There are no words to describe, at best I was baptized in love, a love not from this Earth, so intense and pure while knowing it was God, it completely cleansed my soul, I never felt better in my life.
And I was sitting there on a chair in the bedroom wondering what just happened to me. And I did not understand. 5-10 minutes past and I still did not understand. But I decided the least I could do was to thank God, the part that He existed that was already clear to me. And so I kneel down again to thank Him and then it happened again, the same overwhelming purifying love was my experience again. And it made me an instant believer (not a Christian that came later), there was simply no defense.
Fast forward to today, I am not a very good believer, I question everything, looking for the big picture, as science is looking for the theory of all I am looking for an answer on all the questions I have. I have researched my 2 experiences, did I fool myself?, does medical science mentioned comparable cases with rational explanations? None of that.
And I am so glad God gave me the second experience, knowing myself I would have rationalized the first one to death, time and increasing knowledge are ingredients for fading memories. I realized that 35 years after, when my faith was crumbling. But of course God knew on beforehand what was needed so He in His mercy gave me two. And 2 of such experiences in half an hour (and never after) is just too much, even for my critical brain that wants to understand everything.
-
This is an image you've painted.
It's not as if sophistication is insulation against basic errors, or that the unsophisticated are assuredly lost to basic errors. We wouldn't claim that philosophers are beyond error. I think the kinds of things you're getting at speak towards a failure of teaching, destructive social mimetics (e.g. around COVID measures or Trump), propagandizing, and any number of other social phenomena. These are issues for everyone, and if it's a problem, then it's a problem for all: a person must navigate existence and should they fail in their responsibility their position is precarious indeed.
Well I have been called the Thomas Kinkade of idiosyncratic punctuation and run on sentences lol.
You're right to point out that I misspoke, I didn't mean to say that sophistication is perfect insulation, but still I think we both can agree that it is insulation. You can still freeze even with a triple fat goose on, however it will probably be useful to get you out of some chilly situations that would otherwise prove fatal. I think that a sophisticated theologian will actually avoid some of the common quagmires of a naïve interpretation of this or that bible verse, but might end up in the sort of traps that only sophisticated Christians can find themselves in, sort of like how you will probably catch a crab in a crab-trap but not in years long dark-web cryptocurrency based black market FBI honey-pot sting operation. All that to say that yes humans are vulnerable to a great many thinking/perception/reasoning failures, but it still seems like a failure of the bible itself as an effective mechanism for transmitting supernatural wisdom that it takes a degree of sophistication to avoid many of the very common and very widespread Christian misconceptions like the whole "they mad, I must be right fallacy". I do not look at the bible and think that it is an extraordinarily well optimized teaching tool, or and especially elegant information transmission device, or that it is even a book that has basic error correction features...its honestly kind of a mess and lends itself to misinterpretation at least as often if not more than it does provide clear concise nibbles of useful information. When that is combined with the idea that its literally a compendium of all of the stuff God wants humans to know in order to live a life worth living and an afterlife that isn't torment it seems like an accident waiting to happen, actually it seems like a series of accidents that have frequently happened throughout history and continue to happen with no end in sight.
I'm mostly thinking about God through non-religious language. People will talk pejoratively about God the old man in the sky, for example, but how do you talk pejoratively about other propositions, like the being we refer to as God pre-existed our very reality. Or, the being we refer to as God is of such alien intelligence that revelation is a necessity of communication. Obviously, this isn't perfect language and if God is indeed the creator of everything we are and know then there's surely a more appropriate way to relate to God. But, I suppose I'm digging at the reality that familiarity breeds contempt, and if we take a step back and use something other than theological language to think about God, then we arrive at something much less worthy of
I'm personally partial to "Sky Daddy" which is kinda snarky but also pretty accurate imo. I mean usually when we want you talk about things that are well outside of our scale we use math or other scientific terminology, If I have a problem with theological terminology is that it is sometimes, and sometimes by design nebulous. Anyway what I Actually meant was that I genuinely do not understand why you think that "any communication between God and God's creation will be revelation necessarily as God's creation would be otherwise unable to comprehend God" Like i'm not sure what you mean or why it seems obvious to you.
I was 12 or 13 or so and experience a vision wherein a bunch of stuff happened, I saw some things, and I met Jesus, he hugged me, and so on. That was quite weird at the time, because when it happened, at that moment, I was crying profusely, and at the time couldn't figure out why. These days, I know more about the crying and wonder why I was hugged. So, it was quite an emotionally impacting thing.
Ha, you really did mean that you met Jesus...'ve found most people dont mean that as literally as you do, neat! could you tell me a bit more about the expirience, like were you just riding your donkey to damascus when all of a sudden, or were you in church or had you just been given a heroic dose of dissociative drugs and carted into surgery...iow what was the context? why were you crying, i'm thinking its sort of like Beatlemania or Beiber fever but with Jesus, but please do tell me what you have come to believe about your tears in this personal expirience?
-
I don't know about you or RK, but if this life is the end in itself, then I wouldn't be particularly interested in meaning-making. It's interesting that the social element is appealed to, but even there it can be the source and cause of great suffering. To invent meaning for oneself where no meaning otherwise exists seems like an insane exercise in justification. This life isn't all that great, so why bother, or why not check out when one wants?
Weird, I'm actually rather fond of it, I mean I don't know if it shines through but I'm wildly entertained by myself. In some sense I can agree that meaning making is somewhat pointless but not merely for the futility of it but because I actually enjoy stuff, I love sweets and more than anything I like making stuff...and this is something I've though a lot about, the why and for what, but really I just like doing it. If no one paid me for it I would do it, if I was the only man on earth I'd make stuff, meaning or not my constitution is such that I derive pleasure and satisfaction from making things so seeking something deeper is akin to asking why do I find pleasure pleasing. Eating, Sex, walking, music, pointless conversations on the internet , oh and jokes I love jokes, I don't think any of that is meaning but I like it all, I like it all so much that I do things that I don't particularly like so that I can do more of it. I also agree that a person has every right to check out when they want, I just still have stuff I'd like to do so, you know. I don't think this is the long and short of my existence but if it was it would make sense to me, other animals are doing something very similar, biology is a hell of a drug. I mean we can talk more about this if you like but suicides are pretty common so maybe you would of yourself but I don't think that is like the default .
My family can attend my funeral or I can attend theirs. Either way, we both die eventually. That's catastrophically fatalistic thinking, but why embrace freedom? Why endure anxiety? Why put up with sickness and taxes for the next new burger from McDonalds? Sometimes it's suggested that religious people are religious because it's more comfortable than facing the cold reality of existence, but as soon as that cold reality is faced we're told about relationships and meaning, embracing freedom, and curiosity. Who cares if it's for nought?
haha I'd never say anything so pat and lazy as that especially since one of the main reasons for being religious is that you guys actually believe it. I too understand that when i'm dead, how my family feels will not affect me, but I'm not dead so the thought does affect me and I happen to have emotions and those thoughts bring about icky ones. I can definitely imagine my life being in such a state that I wouldn't want to do it anymore and in that situation I can imagine that I might only hesitate due to biological drive to continue living or perhaps the fear that it might not actually be the end or the fear that it may actually be the end, idk and I'm not champing t the bit to find out. I must admit that I think it would be a huge waste if someone killed themselves because they stopped believing in god when they could continue believing and perhaps make me a burger or write a story or be a sex partner....but ultimately if you would rather be dead then I'll take your word for it, just do me the solid of taking mine for it that I actually like stuff and could list it for days.
Also Mcdonalds? step your food game up, I mean actually like their garbage from time to time, but exploring food is something you could do for as long as you live and you'd scarcely have to repeat yourself.
-
Is that from the bible, it sounds bibly?
Yes, It's from the Bible. Jn.7:17, Isa.58:6-11 and much more explain it perfectly.
You want to explain this a little more? perhaps provide an example?
1Jn.3:20 explains it nicely. I didn't think about it for a it as a "Christian".
-
Alright, here is my testimony.
The year is 1974, the month is June. Life smiled at me, good job, about to marry my fiance in December, my country (Holland) was doing extremely well in the world soccer championship in West Germany when suddenly out the blue I developed a phobia resulting in panic attacks that became worse and worse while the weeks and months passed.
It was on Saturday September 28 about 18:00 I came up to a point I realized nobody could help me, probably the most frightening moment in my life, totally lost and helpless. On the very same moment a thought crossed my mind, what about God? probably due to my Christian upbringing. And while I expected nothing I went to the bedroom, kneel down and said, God if You exist help me. Not a very devout prayer, quite insulting. But the words had not left my mouth and then it happened. There are no words to describe, at best I was baptized in love, a love not from this Earth, so intense and pure while knowing it was God, it completely cleansed my soul, I never felt better in my life.
And I was sitting there on a chair in the bedroom wondering what just happened to me. And I did not understand. 5-10 minutes past and I still did not understand. But I decided the least I could do was to thank God, the part that He existed that was already clear to me. And so I kneel down again to thank Him and then it happened again, the same overwhelming purifying love was my experience again. And it made me an instant believer (not a Christian that came later), there was simply no defense.
Fast forward to today, I am not a very good believer, I question everything, looking for the big picture, as science is looking for the theory of all I am looking for an answer on all the questions I have. I have researched my 2 experiences, did I fool myself?, does medical science mentioned comparable cases with rational explanations? None of that.
And I am so glad God gave me the second experience, knowing myself I would have rationalized the first one to death, time and increasing knowledge are ingredients for fading memories. I realized that 35 years after, when my faith was crumbling. But of course God knew on beforehand what was needed so He in His mercy gave me two. And 2 of such experiences in half an hour (and never after) is just too much, even for my critical brain that wants to understand everything.
Thanks for sharing your testimony, I do have a few questions. Did you ever get a medical diagnosis for you phobia/panic attack situation? Did you marry your fiancée? Did Holland win the series against Germany? When you say that you realized that no one could help you what do you mean, like were all of your doctors telling you that they couldn't help you and no one else could either? How did you know that your soul was cleansed, also what does that mean? You haven't found any instances of similar cases in medical science? if not what do you think it would mean if you did find similar cases? What caused your crisis of faith 35 years later and how did you overcome it? Why couldn't the same non-supernatural phenomena be responsible for 2 experiences spaced 30 minutes apart?
-
Is that from the bible, it sounds bibly?
Yes, It's from the Bible. Jn.7:17, Isa.58:6-11 and much more explain it perfectly.
You want to explain this a little more? perhaps provide an example?
1Jn.3:20 explains it nicely. I didn't think about it for a it as a "Christian".
well, thanks.
-
Why? Why should I remain Christian? If my faith is truly just the result of an unjustified overconfidence in dogma wouldn’t I objectively be better if eating a bullet?
okay...I mean far be it from me to tell you to continue living a life that you don't feel is worth living, but personally I think that leading what I assume is a pretty happy and fulfilling life as Christian is better for you , your friends & family, whoever would find your partially beheaded corpse and have to scrape your brains off the walls, heck and even the realtor who would then have to try to sell your suicide house than it would be if you create a shotgun Pollock because you realized Christianity was just one of many mostly made up things that people mostly made up. Unlike you I do see why my life is worth living even if there is no God and I see no value in someone eating a bullet because they found out that something they really value isn't true...call me crazy I guess. So yeah I'd rather you be wrong and alive than correct and dead since those were the only options...If there was another option where you could not believe in God and still find value and fulfillment in your life that would be fine too.
Also to be clear my initial post wasn't about overconfidence leading to Christian faith, it was more about Christianity having built in propositions that can lead one to overconfidence or an inability to properly calibrate their confidence in things like the interpretation and proper application of prescriptions drawn from the bible or revelation. For instance the Idea that the husband should be the leader of the household could lead to less than optimal outcomes when a person is extremely confident in what that means and how it should be applied in a marriage even if their interpretation is off even by the standards of the internal logic of Christianity...it may be difficult for a person to understand and accept that they are wrong especially when the social/familial evidences that they are wrong could also be construed as "the world" or the unrighteous or sinful nature of those around them rejecting a godly way of life.....something along those lines.
Last thing, I think you said you essentially had a supernatural expirience that lead you to the faith, that may actually be an example of overconfidence in an expirience that may be better explained by something else but I don't know.....I would be delighted if you would tell me about your supernatural experiences if you don't mind me poking at them with a stick.
I’ve never had a supernaturally experience. No visions, no dreams, no voices, no miraculous events. Just boring rational faith that I find compelling but them I’m probably just overconfident of my faith.
If this is all there is to life, I want none of it. So your epistemological argument just doesn’t satisfy. For me, outside of my metaphysical relationship with God, even temporal relationships with other humans are only so much chaff.
Life desiring the intimacy of sex with my wife but getting the underwear section if the Sears catalogue instead…
-
All that to say that yes humans are vulnerable to a great many thinking/perception/reasoning failures, but it still seems like a failure of the bible itself as an effective mechanism for transmitting supernatural wisdom that it takes a degree of sophistication to avoid many of the very common and very widespread Christian misconceptions like the whole "they mad, I must be right fallacy".
It takes a degree of understanding, sure. Is that sophistication, or a basic task demanded of all? Any communication requires interpretation, and we'd have a very thick book if the Bible needed to explicitly spell things out like, "just because you're hated doesn't mean you're right". Human understanding is still human understanding, and as you've been pointing out, humans are subject to their biases, upbringing, perspectives, and life experiences. If you're looking at the Bible as a book that trumps this because of its content then I'd struggle to see that as a reasonable expectation.
I do not look at the bible and think that it is an extraordinarily well optimized teaching tool, or and especially elegant information transmission device, or that it is even a book that has basic error correction features...its honestly kind of a mess and lends itself to misinterpretation at least as often if not more than it does provide clear concise nibbles of useful information.
I don't know what you mean by "basic error correction features". Do you have an example of a book that does? Any book can be misinterpreted, let alone a collection of books. Although, these days I've heard that misinterpretation doesn't exist given the privileged position of the reader. But anyway, of course, ~66 books collated over ~millennia, the product of human work even if divinely inspired, isn't going to be an easy read.
I'm personally partial to "Sky Daddy" which is kinda snarky but also pretty accurate imo. I mean usually when we want you talk about things that are well outside of our scale we use math or other scientific terminology, If I have a problem with theological terminology is that it is sometimes, and sometimes by design nebulous. Anyway what I Actually meant was that I genuinely do not understand why you think that "any communication between God and God's creation will be revelation necessarily as God's creation would be otherwise unable to comprehend God" Like i'm not sure what you mean or why it seems obvious to you.
You could maybe think of it analogically, like communicating with an ant, or maybe AI when we get to that point (human explanations of being human will be revelatory to the AI). God is beyond our understanding necessarily, and so, by default, when God tells us about God that is revelation. Do you think, if God exists, that we'd be able to commune with God one-to-one? Or would we continue to be subject to our own human limitations? Would it be understandable of misunderstandings happened? If people misunderstood? If they approached a text and didn't quite get it right?
Ha, you really did mean that you met Jesus...'ve found most people dont mean that as literally as you do, neat! could you tell me a bit more about the expirience, like were you just riding your donkey to damascus when all of a sudden, or were you in church or had you just been given a heroic dose of dissociative drugs and carted into surgery...iow what was the context? why were you crying, i'm thinking its sort of like Beatlemania or Beiber fever but with Jesus, but please do tell me what you have come to believe about your tears in this personal expirience?
Nothing exciting I'm afraid, I simply went to sleep the night before. I was diagnosed with cancer a couple of years later, so you could possibly tie it into that. I also struggle with gender dysphoria, and it was getting much worse around that time. My parents were also somewhat distant emotionally, so there's that, too. I didn't exactly ask, "why?"
As for the tears, see gender dysphoria (I'm sure you can imagine the dynamics of this within a church context), and also regrets and mistakes in the years between then and now. Anyway, that's life. The embrace itself is I think something along the lines of what Brennan Manning and others have said: that God loves us as we are and not as we should be. I find that difficult.
-
Weird, I'm actually rather fond of it, I mean I don't know if it shines through but I'm wildly entertained by myself. In some sense I can agree that meaning making is somewhat pointless but not merely for the futility of it but because I actually enjoy stuff, I love sweets and more than anything I like making stuff...and this is something I've though a lot about, the why and for what, but really I just like doing it. If no one paid me for it I would do it, if I was the only man on earth I'd make stuff, meaning or not my constitution is such that I derive pleasure and satisfaction from making things so seeking something deeper is akin to asking why do I find pleasure pleasing. Eating, Sex, walking, music, pointless conversations on the internet , oh and jokes I love jokes, I don't think any of that is meaning but I like it all, I like it all so much that I do things that I don't particularly like so that I can do more of it. I also agree that a person has every right to check out when they want, I just still have stuff I'd like to do so, you know. I don't think this is the long and short of my existence but if it was it would make sense to me, other animals are doing something very similar, biology is a hell of a drug. I mean we can talk more about this if you like but suicides are pretty common so maybe you would of yourself but I don't think that is like the default .
I don't think many people kill themselves because they think life is meaningless. Well, it wasn't the case for me, anyway.
haha I'd never say anything so pat and lazy as that especially since one of the main reasons for being religious is that you guys actually believe it. I too understand that when i'm dead, how my family feels will not affect me, but I'm not dead so the thought does affect me and I happen to have emotions and those thoughts bring about icky ones. I can definitely imagine my life being in such a state that I wouldn't want to do it anymore and in that situation I can imagine that I might only hesitate due to biological drive to continue living or perhaps the fear that it might not actually be the end or the fear that it may actually be the end, idk and I'm not champing t the bit to find out. I must admit that I think it would be a huge waste if someone killed themselves because they stopped believing in god when they could continue believing and perhaps make me a burger or write a story or be a sex partner....but ultimately if you would rather be dead then I'll take your word for it, just do me the solid of taking mine for it that I actually like stuff and could list it for days.
It would be a waste of what, exactly? Do you perceive any conflict between this idea of meaning-making and your OP about Christian overconfidence?
Also Mcdonalds? step your food game up, I mean actually like their garbage from time to time, but exploring food is something you could do for as long as you live and you'd scarcely have to repeat yourself.
The point was that in a universe that lacks meaning inherently, there is no difference between the most delicious hamburger and a quarter pounder with cheese. It's all reduced, in the end. What do you make of that biological drive to keep going when you claim to know that there's no greater meaning 'out there'? Or maybe you do, and the drive to continue doing the things you love is evidence of that? Word and act and all the rest.
-
I’ve never had a supernaturally experience. No visions, no dreams, no voices, no miraculous events. Just boring rational faith that I find compelling but them I’m probably just overconfident of my faith.
If this is all there is to life, I want none of it. So your epistemological argument just doesn’t satisfy. For me, outside of my metaphysical relationship with God, even temporal relationships with other humans are only so much chaff.
Life desiring the intimacy of sex with my wife but getting the underwear section if the Sears catalogue instead…
right, looks like I had you mixed up with someone else, my mistake. Well, hey if that is how you feel then that is how you feel. I guess having never experienced a metaphysical relationship with God the regular ole non-supernatural stuff like sex and Sears and cabbage and sunsets haven't been turned into comparatively bitter ash in my mouth by the singular expirience of knowing God.
-
It takes a degree of understanding, sure. Is that sophistication, or a basic task demanded of all? Any communication requires interpretation, and we'd have a very thick book if the Bible needed to explicitly spell things out like, "just because you're hated doesn't mean you're right". Human understanding is still human understanding, and as you've been pointing out, humans are subject to their biases, upbringing, perspectives, and life experiences. If you're looking at the Bible as a book that trumps this because of its content then I'd struggle to see that as a reasonable expectation.
Oh, I guess I simply cannot agree on this point. Well, I mean of course I agree that everything that can be communicated requires that the receiver have some prerequisite ability to decode (I guess some concepts of supernatural revelation wouldn't), however I cannot rightly credit the bible with being a highly efficient means of communicating ideas, that is to say efficiency in this case meaning that the encode-transmit-decode chain for relevant information is done in a manner that is least likely to suffer from errors or is constructed to provide the greatest possible chance of being correctly received and construed by humankind. I would argue that its pretty rare that even most christians will argue that the bible does not require theological sophistication to properly understand, or that it requires some manner of revelation to correctly interpret or that one must have a relationship with God to truly grasp the actual meaning. I'd be here all day if I tried to count the number of times I've seen it said about a reading or interpretation of some section of the bible that the interpretation is incorrect because the decoder was unwilling or unable to access or wield some spiritual qualia or quanta that is not optional for correct interpretation. More disturbing than that is that one can be absolutely convinced that they are using their spiritual decoder ring and be completely and utterly wrong, at least it is so according to many Christians i've run across. These faults are especially clear in the realm of apologies as there you can find 50 interpretations of a single verse ranging from fairly mundane to spectacularly intellectually acrobatic and many of them will be mutually exclusive claims all the while none of them ever runs the risk of being confused for a plain reading where the meanings of the words are taken at face value . In my world this is evidence that there is a fault in the encode, the decode or the transmission or all of them. I'm not so in love with the technical aspects of communication that I would claim that it is not communication if there are several ways for a decoded message to be interpreted, languages are like that, but if better fidelity can be achieved with human languages and even better fidelity can be achieved when science is applied then I am at a loss as to why a God couldn't or wouldn't have done what was both possible and advantageous for the stated goal of communicating ideas instead of going for what the bible achieves in practice. The long and short of it is that there are very few metrics by which I would call the Bible a book that is especially good at transmitting information....and even the decoder rings are faulty, if it requires some supernatural phenomena or revelation to be used then it is a shame that its not obvious to the user whether or not they are even using it or using it correctly. If it requires theological sophistication then there are obvious hurdles for most of the population to accumulate let alone apply that knowledge. I just cannot even pretend that this system seems like the best thing that the all singing all dancing god of the universe could come up with even while being hobbled by needing to work with pitiful broken humans, to me it's really unconvincing...like, your point is valid generally speaking but it just doesn't begin to put a dent in the illogic of the Bible being cast as really good at doing what it was created to do by the greatest possible creator of things.
I don't know what you mean by "basic error correction features". Do you have an example of a book that does? Any book can be misinterpreted, let alone a collection of books. Although, these days I've heard that misinterpretation doesn't exist given the privileged position of the reader. But anyway, of course, ~66 books collated over ~millennia, the product of human work even if divinely inspired, isn't going to be an easy read.
In the context of books, Glossaries and appendices are a couple of commonly used methods.
You could maybe think of it analogically, like communicating with an ant, or maybe AI when we get to that point (human explanations of being human will be revelatory to the AI). God is beyond our understanding necessarily, and so, by default, when God tells us about God that is revelation. Do you think, if God exists, that we'd be able to commune with God one-to-one? Or would we continue to be subject to our own human limitations? Would it be understandable of misunderstandings happened? If people misunderstood? If they approached a text and didn't quite get it right?
okay, good analogy I think, it would be pretty difficult to find the right mix of ant chemicals to convey the idea of love to an ant....still mostly because ants most likely have any capacity to understand concepts like love. I think that is all well and good, but its clear that humans can create better communication methods than the bible demonstrates, so why not do that, or if we must stick with the idea that that somehow breaks free will or that humans must progress unimpeded by being taught in a way that is incrementally better to the degree that it is indistinguishable from natural human development over time then I still think that the contemporary portions of the bible should be the absolute greatest examples of what humans were capable of. I do not think the bible is that, but I would be delighted if that is an argument you want to make because it sounds genuinely interesting.
Nothing exciting I'm afraid, I simply went to sleep the night before. I was diagnosed with cancer a couple of years later, so you could possibly tie it into that. I also struggle with gender dysphoria, and it was getting much worse around that time. My parents were also somewhat distant emotionally, so there's that, too. I didn't exactly ask, "why?"
As for the tears, see gender dysphoria (I'm sure you can imagine the dynamics of this within a church context), and also regrets and mistakes in the years between then and now. Anyway, that's life. The embrace itself is I think something along the lines of what Brennan Manning and others have said: that God loves us as we are and not as we should be. I find that difficult.
wow, thank you for sharing that. not to be a bugaboo, but what about the actual expirience, it happened in the morning when you woke up, or while you slept? I'm curious about the context you supplied and i appreciate it, but i'm also curious about the actual expirience, like did you bolt up from your bed? Oh how could i forget , what did jesus look like?
-
Maybe an aside, but NT scripture actually demands revelatory experience and assurance.
"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" Rm 8:9
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children." Rm 8:16
So there is a definite point where the believer enters into a relationship with God as he or she believes the Gospel as it pertains to one's spiritual condition and eternal remedy, namely, the Cross. Experiences for believers following that initial revelation are varied or do not necessarily happen to all.
Beyond that point, the point of saving faith, the believer is not assured that he or she will know all things or will be able to apprehend every detail of existence aside what Scripture, which he or she is compelled to both trust and fear, clearly teaches.
True salvation gives the believer confidence in the revelations of Scripture. Supreme confidence, whether or not he or she can explain or justify every claim by rationality alone.
Faith is the initial and essential element of both salvation and assurance. Until that first encounter, which Scripture demands, is what is called "darkness."
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb 11:6
No human has ever thought his or her way into the intimate experience called salvation, and no human can erase it's claims on the soul.
-
LOL, so many questions, are you a professional journalist? Just kidding.
Thanks for sharing your testimony, I do have a few questions.
A few? I counted 9 ;D
Did you ever get a medical diagnosis for you phobia/panic attack situation?
Yep.
Did you marry your fiancée?
Still are.
Did Holland win the series against Germany?
We lost the final, became vice world champion. We forgave the Germans for WW2 but never for the lost final in 1974 :)
When you say that you realized that no one could help you what do you mean, like were all of your doctors telling you that they couldn't help you and no one else could either?
It's more that in those days there was not much knowledge, you did not get the right treatment, unlike nowadays.
How did you know that your soul was cleansed, also what does that mean?
Good question. And hard to answer. Giving you my best shot, after my 2 baptisms in God's love I went (as every Saturday evening) to my fiance and she said, what happened to you? You glow! I must have looked surprised but felt insecure to tell her at that moment, that came later. Secondly, while walking home I realized 3 things, 1) God exists, 2) He is full of love and 3) He is holy. The latter (His holiness) became apparent to me because while walking home in thoughts I suddenly without any rational explanation saw the world with different eyes, as sinful and evil, but not in a judgemental way, on the contrary, I asked God, why me? so why not everybody else? That question was never answered. It was if I was given a glimpse how God looks at His world, with passion and love. I later learned about Christ and His sacrifice fits so well. The feelings slowly faded away and after about 2-3 weeks and it was time to make some choices.
You haven't found any instances of similar cases in medical science? if not what do you think it would mean if you did find similar cases?
I did found similar cases but not in medical science, I found lots of similar testimonies from other people. What they have in common is a changed life afterwards.
What caused your crisis of faith 35 years later and how did you overcome it?
I save that for a separate posting.
Why couldn't the same non-supernatural phenomena be responsible for 2 experiences spaced 30 minutes apart?
I don't understand the question, if it is important please rephrase.
-
Oh, I guess I simply cannot agree, on this point. Well, I mean of course I agree that everything that can be communicated requires that the receiver have some prerequisite ability to decode (I guess some concepts of supernatural revelation wouldn't), however I cannot rightly credit the bible with being a highly efficient means of communicating ideas, that is to say efficiency in this case meaning that it encodes relevant information in a manner that is least likely to suffer from decoding errors or is constructed to provide the greatest possible chance of being correctly construed by humankind.
I don't know what you mean by 'highly efficient means of communicating ideas' given the broad timeframes, audiences, and genres of the books of the Bible. But whatever you mean, I don't think you'll find any Christian making the claim in question.
Again, I think your criticism is utopic. You want a book that spans thousands of years, countless genres, languages, etc. etc., to be an efficient communicator across space and time. I just don't see it. I also don't see why we would assume the Bible itself is a poor communicator, rather than the issue lying with the interpretor -- or both. Clearly there are Pauline phrases that leave one scratching one's head, but I don't know, are you hoping for an alien artifact instead of a book?
I would argue that its pretty rare that even most christians will argue that the bible does not require theological sophistication to properly understand, or that it requires some manner of revelation to correctly interpret or that one must have a relationship with God to truly grasp the actual meaning. I'd be here all day if I tried to count the number of times I've seen it said about a reading or interpretation of some section of the bible that the interpretation is incorrect because the decoder was unwilling or unable to access or wield some spiritual qualia or quanta that is not optional for correct interpretation. More disturbing that that is that one can be absolutely convinced that they are using their spiritual decoder ring and be completely and utterly wrong, at least it is so according to many Christians i've un across. It is especially clear in the realm of apologies as there you can find 50 interpretations of a verse ranging from fairly mundane to spectacularly intellectually acrobatic and many of them mutually exclusive claims while still none of them ever runs the risk of being confused for a plain reading where the meanings of the words are taken at face value . In my world this is evidence that there is a fault in the encode, the decode or the transmission or all of them. I'm not so indoctrinated in information theory that I would claim that it is not communication if there are several ways configurations for a decoded message to appear in, languages are like that, but if better fidelity can be achieved with human languages and perfect fidelity when science is applied then I am at a loss as to why a God couldn't or wouldn't have done what was both possible and offered advantages in the stated goal of communicating ideas over what the bible achieves in practice.
Science requires scientific understanding, so why would theological sophistication be a problem, but not scientific sophistication? But also, scientific communication is hardly infallible, and it's purely descriptive, not prescriptive. Why would we expect God to communicate scientifically to a scientifically illiterate audience? Is this a bias showing through?
like your point is valid generally speaking but it just doesn't begin to put a dent in the illogic of the Bible cast as being really good at doing what it was created to do by the greatest possible creator of things.
Again, I don't know that anyone would make that claim (except maybe those who believe in dictation, and then, this criticism is better put towards Islam). I think the broader issue is that you're operating on dubious ideas of the construction of the bible, and possibly inspiration. You're looking for dents when the conception itself is eager for its very own false vacuum collapse.
In the context of books, Glossaries and appendices are a couple of commonly used methods.
Do I need to point out the shortcomings of this suggestion, or were you already not quite convinced when you wrote the above?
okay, good analogy I think, it would be pretty difficult to find the right mix of ant chemicals to convey the idea of love to an ant....still mostly because ants most likely have any capacity to understand concepts like love. I think that is all well and good, but its clear that humans can create better communication methods than the bible demonstrates, so why not do that, or if we must stick with the idea that that somehow breaks free will or that humans must progress unimpeded by being taught in a way that is incrementally better to the degree that it is indistinguishable from natural human development over time then I still think that the contemporary portions of the bible should be the absolute greatest examples of what humans were capable of. I do not think the bible is that, but I would be delighted if that is an argument you want to make because it sounds genuinely interesting.
There isn't a bible v2 because the bible is fine, and even at times conveys its message beautifully. The bible doesn't assume that its readers are idiots, and if its readers are idiots, then that's not the bible's problem to address. Could you imagine, having to address the various idiocies of thousands of years? The glossaries would reach to the moon and back.
The most well written book in the history of books can't make up for human disinterest, agenda, apathy.
wow, thank you for sharing that. not to be a bugaboo, but what about the actual expirience, it happened in the morning when you woke up, or while you slept? I'm curious about the context you supplied and i appreciate it, but i'm also curious about the actual expirience, like did you bolt up from your bed? Oh how could i forget , what did jesus look like?
I was asleep so :shrug: It happened at some point between falling asleep and waking up, although I woke up straight after. I didn't bolt up, no. I'm not sure I could describe the emotion afterwards though, either. I couldn't tell you what Jesus looked like, he was too bright. Actually it was incredibly bright at that point in the... dream? vision? It was a strange kind of bright that didn't hurt my eyes, but it would have made our sunniest day look dark in comparison.
-
I don't think many people kill themselves because they think life is meaningless. Well, it wasn't the case for me, anyway.
Well, I mean I don't either because as i tried to point out, the pleasure and satisfaction that many of us get from life probably overwhelmingly isn't based in meaning...I'd go as far as to say that often meaning is ascribed to things because they are pleasing or satisfying or useful and not the other way around... but really I guess it's not even clear to me what we are even talking about. I like being alive, if I didnt I might kill myself, I think there is plenty of stuff to like about life and I think many of us can not believe in God and also not kill ourselves, I don't think that overarching meaning is required to enjoy life, making up meaning in order to create fulfillment might work sometimes for some folks but i dont think its sure fire by any means...are we disagreeing on any of these points?
It would be a waste of what, exactly? Do you perceive any conflict between this idea of meaning-making and your OP about Christian overconfidence?
Well first I think it's just a pretty poor reasoning because there was never a God in the first place so realizing that God doesn't exist means that you've been alive for no reason for all of your life and couldn't tell the difference, so you could continue to do so. I think that again, emotionally the prospect of a person killing themselves for this reason causes a negative reaction in me and i'm okay with that being a basis for my negative "feelings" about it. On the more academic/selfish side of things though I happen to like people, in fact i'd argue that humans are social animals and so to some degree other people have an effect on us as individuals and as a group emotionally/psychologically, I believe that this is how we are and so we can either fight against this and try to be a different way (which to a degree i think is doomed to failure) or we can make choices and such that take into account how we are and attempt to optimize for that. Finally a lot of not only my favorite stuff but the stuff that I depend on to continue to be alive is and was generated by people, it would be a waste of the potential stuff that that person could have done for me or society or the future. I get that christians often cannot understand why I care about how my neighbor might be affected by a suicide, but we all live together here, we almost to a man live in groups and what we do affects each other, it affects how we feel, how we think, how we act, what laws we create, what kind of art we generate we are not islands. Okay this is getting long but I'll end with a super selfish example that might help. So somewhere in new york this Billionaire weirdo built a big weird art installation with a bunch of stairs where you can go look over the city, its pretty cool looking. Since it was built several people have leapt to their deaths from it...and now it is closed to the public. I can't go explore it and enjoy the view because some people killed themselves. This is very minor, but its an example of how suicide can have an effect on what i'm able to do, and i bet if your tried you could come up with a million other ways that suicides, murders, rapes and even littering can all have an affect on society butterfly effect style. The choices that others make and the behaviors they engage in directly or indirectly affect me, and even when they have no appreciable affect they can still effect me emotionally/Psychologically because that's how we are built generally speaking.
The point was that in a universe that lacks meaning inherently, there is no difference between the most delicious hamburger and a quarter pounder with cheese. It's all reduced, in the end. What do you make of that biological drive to keep going when you claim to know that there's no greater meaning 'out there'? Or maybe you do, and the drive to continue doing the things you love is evidence of that? Word and act and all the rest.
Oh boy, well first off I don't think either of us is pointing to meaning as the reason anyone enjoys burgers...I mean unless you are then you're going to have to really clarify your position. The difference between the worst burger and the best burger isn't in its ultimate meaning in the universe, its in its flavor, its presentation, its aroma the context of the dining expirience, it is in the perception and sensation of having that burger and how that interacts with the particular human enjoying it. People enjoy burgers because we have all sorts of apparatus that are able to sense burger components, because we gotta eat and there is a biological drive to sate hunger and a sensation of what its like to have that hunger sated, because we grew up in a culture where our memories and sense memories of the smell of flame broiled beef and catsup and pickles and sesame seed and yeast and toasted bread is tied to summer days and baseball games or 4th of july fireworks. Sometimes when some of us has a burger at a cookout we get to partially re-expirience that time when we had a pool party when we were 11 and the girl you had a crush on kissed you on the cheek over by the swings and your big cousin saw it and high fived you later, and that felt amazing. Again none of this has anything to do with the ultimate place platonic ideal hamburgers hold in the metaphysical framework of meat based products, still I could go on for pages about burgers and how they affect me, because that is what happens when we enjoy things. Its this whole mix of sense and memory and thought and emotion and expirience and It's not like i'm alone in this , this is just stuff we know about humans and even other animals. I feel like there is a tendency for Christians when making points in this realm to entirely ignore that there is a way that if feels to be a human and it has absolutely nothing to do with meaning that may or may not be attributed to it, but then we also attribute meaning to to things which also goes into the soup of what it's like to eat a burger or drink a tall sweaty glass of lemonade. Eventually we may be able to scan a brain and even replicate all of these things because they are occuring in our heads, but i'll bet that to the person experiencing it it would be indistinguishable, does that mean that it doesn't feel good or meaningful or is somehow not worthwhile to the experiencer? i'd argue that it doesn't, and luckily that is a perspective that I can have and you are free to poo poo it as having been reduced, drained of its magic or lack ultimate meaning, but I don't believe in magic so that's all it ever was to me in the first place and even believing the mundanity and the lack of mystical aspect to this physically based atoms and neurons explanation of it I still get a kick out of it...Knowing that thunder isn't angry gods doesnt stop it from startling me.... idk if thats where you were gonna go so sorry if i jumped the gun and i'll take the correction gracefully XD.
Okay on to the biological drive to keep living. Well I do think its a real thing of course but now that we are focusing here I want to add some nuance. I'm going to admit something here, as a child I watched alot of small animals die...don't get me wrong I didn't kill lots of small animals because i'm a sicko, but my environment afforded me opportunities to see it, trapping and extermination and such. Cockroaches, lizards, skunks, crocs, deer they all actually display fight or flight, its real, its common to nearly every animal and so from an evolutionary perspective its very old. I would think the usefulness of it is obvious, if the main point is to carry on and keep making slightly imperfect copies of yourself, then not dying is crucial. You also see in nature lots of things die immediately after they finish reproducing especially if they are only going to do it once. That's a strategy I can understand, one big hurrah then lights out. In those animals they often just take their deaths lying down, little to no fight, little to no flight. You also see other animals give up and just wait to die too, not just people but animals that seem to just give up in a trap or due to injury or illness. Even if you set them free they may just sit there and die. All that to say that it seems to me that this old biological impetus is fight, flight or eff it, i'm dead. The greater meaning in many of our simpler cousins is to reproduce, in our less simple cousins its reproduce, protect the young, survive to reproduce some more. Moving up we can see other behaviors that would take some explaining to relate back to reproduction but i think we can generate some compelling hypotheses. In humans though, I think we have that same old mechanism that found its usefulness in protecting reproduction in simpler beings, but we (and maybe a few other animals) are both social and intelligent, so we get to repurpose that instinct for self preservation, preservation of the young , preservation of the group, and then preservation of some very abstract ideas that only our brains can probably ascribe value. I don't think this is any more mysterious than the fact that wings are essentially made of really long weird looking fingers or that hooves are grotesque fingernails, just an old feature repurposed to work with new upgrades (please don't rake me over the coals for using upgrade , that's not what i think evolution is or how it works it was just a convenient term)...anyway something like that, doesn't seem especially difficult that it should exist without God.
-
Maybe an aside, but NT scripture actually demands revelatory experience and assurance.
"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" Rm 8:9
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children." Rm 8:16
So there is a definite point where the believer enters into a relationship with God as he or she believes the Gospel as it pertains to one's spiritual condition and eternal remedy, namely, the Cross. Experiences for believers following that initial revelation are varied or do not necessarily happen to all.
Beyond that point, the point of saving faith, the believer is not assured that he or she will know all things or will be able to apprehend every detail of existence aside what Scripture, which he or she is compelled to both trust and fear, clearly teaches.
True salvation gives the believer confidence in the revelations of Scripture. Supreme confidence, whether or not he or she can explain or justify every claim by rationality alone.
Faith is the initial and essential element of both salvation and assurance. Until that first encounter, which Scripture demands, is what is called "darkness."
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb 11:6
No human has ever thought his or her way into the intimate experience called salvation, and no human can erase it's claims on the soul.
I mean, yeah I agree I think it does make this requirement, I think that's a huge issue but, yeah agreed.
-
A few? I counted 9 ;D
Haha, not a journalist just nosy lol.
Yep.
Well, what was it?
Still are.
Aww, congratulation.
We lost the final, became vice world champion. We forgave the Germans for WW2 but never for the lost final in 1974 :)
Haha, some things are just unforgivable lol.
It's more that in those days there was not much knowledge, you did not get the right treatment, unlike nowadays.
Oh yeah, okay i see.
Good question. And hard to answer. Giving you my best shot, after my 2 baptisms in God's love I went (as every Saturday evening) to my fiance and she said, what happened to you? You glow! I must have looked surprised but felt insecure to tell her at that moment, that came later. Secondly, while walking home I realized 3 things, 1) God exists, 2) He is full of love and 3) He is holy. The latter (His holiness) became apparent to me because while walking home in thoughts I suddenly without any rational explanation saw the world with different eyes, as sinful and evil, but not in a judgemental way, on the contrary, I asked God, why me? so why not everybody else? That question was never answered. It was if I was given a glimpse how God looks at His world, with passion and love. I later learned about Christ and His sacrifice fits so well. The feelings slowly faded away and after about 2-3 weeks and it was time to make some choices.
Hm, maybe i should be a journalist lol. Sounds a little bit like mushrooms, without the mushrooms...well except that you were glowing, so mushrooms and pregnancy. I'm mostly kidding thank you for sharing that.
I did found similar cases but not in medical science, I found lots of similar testimonies from other people. What they have in common is a changed life afterwards.
Okay, but what if you did find that medical science could induce these experiences? Would you give one of these medically induced experiences if it were possible? Do you think that what you felt is something that humans are incapable of feeling without supernatural augmentation or do you think that what you felt is something that humans are capable of feeling and that God just used your existing hardware to convey feelings and ideas?
I save that for a separate posting.
Well, I can't wait to hear it.
I don't understand the question, if it is important please rephrase.
Okay, i'll try. It seems that you felt that you would have been able to rationalize a single expirience away with some natural explanation, but not 2. Why are 2 experiences naturally inexplicable whereas 1 would be... What makes the 2 experiences less susceptible to non-supernatural explanation. Why would a natural phenomena that could explain your first expirience not equally apply to the second expirience?
-
I don't know what you mean by 'highly efficient means of communicating ideas' given the broad timeframes, audiences, and genres of the books of the Bible. But whatever you mean, I don't think you'll find any Christian making the claim in question.
Again, I think your criticism is utopic. You want a book that spans thousands of years, countless genres, languages, etc. etc., to be an efficient communicator across space and time. I just don't see it. I also don't see why we would assume the Bible itself is a poor communicator, rather than the issue lying with the interpretor -- or both. Clearly there are Pauline phrases that leave one scratching one's head, but I don't know, are you hoping for an alien artifact instead of a book?
I guess you've never heard Christians staunchly claim that the Bible is in fact the best book ever created, contains the greatest most useful and insightful information ever compiled, was transmitted with supernaturally high fidelity, is completely error free, and can be decoded/received/interpreted perfectly if you use the supernatural decode mechanism which everyone can access if they want to...but I have. I take communication to be the whole system kinda simply put the encode, the transmission and the decode (maybe I shouldn't put it this way, but it's about the simplest way I could think of to get across my manner of thinking). I think the best argument for the bible would be that its an especially good transmitter, that is things that were encoded many millennia ago have been transmitted into the future and all around the world.... but the information encode and decode stages are not especially unique or imo good. You might argue that the decode is all on the receiver, but not only would I argue that communication can be constructed to provide better or worse chances of being accurately decoded and that is what i'm criticizing, I would also say that many Christians claim that the encode and decode stages are rely on supernatural phenomena that are accessible to humans. This supernatural decode seems to me to be either wildly unreliable or extremely difficult to employ and or extremely difficult to detect whether or not the decoder is employing it correctly or at all. Could you imagine if I sent you an encoded message with an invisible decoder ring in a box full of hundreds of other incorrect decoder rings many of which also produce an incorrect output message that is not easily distinguishable from the correct output. That's kind of what the bible looks like to me when I try consider it as the supernaturally inspired word of God created to teach and guide humanity and help us form and sustain a relationship with the almighty creator of the universe. When I consider it as a collection of writings that people across time and cultures wrote as they struggled to describe and explain reality and sought to find the best ways to live that has undergone copies and edits and translations then it makes perfect sense that it is the way it is. I think your response to my criticisms work extremely well for a book written by and for people over a long period, but that isn't all the bible purports to be is it? I mean when considering what the bible is claimed to be your response inherently asserts (at least to me) that given the conditions, the God of the universe could not have possibly done any better or different, the bible is as good as it possibly could be at everything that it does...and when put that way I wonder why the greatest possible example of a Bible isn't appreciably distinct or measurably superior to other surviving contemporary literature of similar genre and purpose. My criticisms aren't utopic, they are beatific because if God made a burger I would expect it to fall within the constraints of what a burger is, I would expect to recognize it as a burger, but I would not expect to be unable to distinguish it from a 99 cent cheeseburger from McDonalds.
Science requires scientific understanding, so why would theological sophistication be a problem, but not scientific sophistication? But also, scientific communication is hardly infallible, and it's purely descriptive, not prescriptive. Why would we expect God to communicate scientifically to a scientifically illiterate audience? Is this a bias showing through?
Of course that's my bias showing through, I'm wearing it like a convention nametag lol. But to your point I actually do think it would be a problem if the bible required 10,000 years of scientific development to read, but if it imparted 10,000 years of scientific development to the reader i'd be impressed. Anyway my point wasn't that the bible should have been IEEE encoded, I meant that we know that it doesn't match the greatest human methods ever developed and arguably isn't even an example of the apex of what was possible at the time. Most of the world was illiterate in every way for most of the existence of the bible, and even as literacy grew most people were illiterate in the languages that the bible was recorded in, so why is it a book at all and not a series of plays or better yet beamed into our minds at birth... These are actual issues I have too, but i feel like it is out of scope. The point is that even though it wasn't my point, people had to catch up to the bible as a book anyway, so if God had used a mechanism that was inaccessible to most people for most of history it might not have been that different except that a guy like me might be forced to concede that the bible doesn't look like anything else from its time and we are only just deciphering its mathematical elegance....but again, wasn't my point.
Again, I don't know that anyone would make that claim (except maybe those who believe in dictation, and then, this criticism is better put towards Islam). I think the broader issue is that you're operating on dubious ideas of the construction of the bible, and possibly inspiration. You're looking for dents when the conception itself is eager for its very own false vacuum collapse.
Again i'll have to beg to differ and insist that plenty of Christians do too... but outside of that maybe, I'd be interested in you defending why the bible is the absolute best it could have possibly been.
Do I need to point out the shortcomings of this suggestion, or were you already not quite convinced when you wrote the above?
No, but you asked for widely used examples, and short of perfect as glossaries may be, the bible in fact does not have a glossary of terms to my knowledge. The way I see it, the bible didn't even make this imperfect attempt.
There isn't a bible v2 because the bible is fine, and even at times conveys its message beautifully. The bible doesn't assume that its readers are idiots, and if its readers are idiots, then that's not the bible's problem to address. Could you imagine, having to address the various idiocies of thousands of years? The glossaries would reach to the moon and back.
Is the length of the bible also perfect? Are annotated study bibles somehow diminishing the bible's perfect ability to transmit its messages to humanity like how the added chairs in the Contact craft led to excess vibrations?Every idiocy, sure that's too much, but I don't know why its a problem if the bible took into consideration that many of its readers would be ignorant of many of its terms and the cultural and historical contexts in which it was written and many idiosyncrasies of its original languages. It's not exactly idiocy to be born 1200 years later and half a world away is it? Did it come as a surprise to God that people would need the book many thousands of years after its original languages and cultures died and many of its readers would have no easy way to accumulate this context? I mean if these sorts of things were predicted and accounted for i'd at least find the idea that it was intentional to be a bit more compelling. Here is where lots of christians would tell me that the supernatural would take over to fill in these gaps, of course I think we can just look around and see overwhelming amounts of examples to the contrary, but I do wonder why you believe that such considerations wouldn't have made the bible a communications device?
The most well written book in the history of books can't make up for human disinterest, agenda, apathy.
Yeah, but my argument is that its not even the most well written book. I propose that the best written book gives it the best possible chance. I mean the insinuation here is that perhaps god didn't bother to create the most well written book because he knew there would still be human disinterest, agenda, apathy to deal and thought why bother. if I know that its going to rain it doesn't make sense that I should also skip breakfast because if i'm going to be wet so I may as well also be hungry too.
I was asleep so :shrug: It happened at some point between falling asleep and waking up, although I woke up straight after. I didn't bolt up, no. I'm not sure I could describe the emotion afterwards though, either. I couldn't tell you what Jesus looked like, he was too bright. Actually it was incredibly bright at that point in the... dream? vision? It was a strange kind of bright that didn't hurt my eyes, but it would have made our sunniest day look dark in comparison.
Aww, dang it...Jesus' visage escapes me again lol. I mean it was a dream so no chance of hurting your eyes, but it sounds very affecting. So once you woke up how did you feel, what did you do , how long did it last?
-
I guess you've never heard Christians staunchly claim that the Bible is in fact the best book ever created, contains the greatest most useful and insightful information ever compiled, was transmitted with supernaturally high fidelity, is completely error free, and can be decoded/received/interpreted perfectly if you use the supernatural decode mechanism which everyone can access if they want to...but I have.
Of course, but specifically, I was commenting on the idea of 'highly efficient'. Besides, "some Christians say" isn't an argument in favour of what those Christians say. If some portion of Scripture is written to/from Babylonian exile, and casually read by a 21st century Westerner, then of course there are going to be considerations when reading the text. This isn't down to the Bible being poorly written, and is true of any ancient text being read today.
I would also say that many Christians claim that the encode and decode stages are rely on supernatural phenomena that are accessible to humans. This supernatural decode seems to me to be either wildly unreliable or extremely difficult to employ and or extremely difficult to detect whether or not the decoder is employing it correctly or at all.
Why 'extremely' difficult? If we have the text before us, and someone claims "God told me this says that", but clearly it doesn't, then that fault lies with the person who persists in whatever pet belief they insist on holding onto. I was just adored by the "Holy Spirit told me" crowd when I was younger, because "the Holy Spirit told me" isn't a substitute for critically looking at the text with one's own eyes.
Could you imagine if I sent you an encoded message with an invisible decoder ring in a box full of hundreds of other incorrect decoder rings many of which also produce an incorrect output message that is not easily distinguishable from the correct output. That's kind of what the bible looks like to me when I try consider it as the supernaturally inspired word of God created to teach and guide humanity and help us form and sustain a relationship with the almighty creator of the universe.
What are the hundreds of other incorrect decoder rings analogous to?
When I consider it as a collection of writings that people across time and cultures wrote as they struggled to describe and explain reality and sought to find the best ways to live that has undergone copies and edits and translations then it makes perfect sense that it is the way it is. I think your response to my criticisms work extremely well for a book written by and for people over a long period, but that isn't all the bible purports to be is it?
It's not an either/or. It can be all of this, and "God-breathed" because even if God superintended the books' creations, those works will still be struggled with, edited, translated, transmitted, etc. Again, you seem to have expected God to create an alien artefact that perfectly conveys information across thousands of years and disparate cultures and languages. A Prothean beacon, perhaps? But then we'd be complaining about visions and people claiming to have seen different things. The medium probably isn't the problem, it's the people who receive the message.
I mean when considering what the bible is claimed to be your response inherently asserts (at least to me) that given the conditions, the God of the universe could not have possibly done any better or different, the bible is as good as it possibly could be at everything that it does...and when put that way I wonder why the greatest possible example of a Bible isn't appreciably distinct or measurably superior to other surviving contemporary literature of similar genre and purpose. My criticisms aren't utopic, they are beatific because if God made a burger I would expect it to fall within the constraints of what a burger is, I would expect to recognize it as a burger, but I would not expect to be unable to distinguish it from a 99 cent cheeseburger from McDonalds.
What would be a concrete example of better?
Of course that's my bias showing through, I'm wearing it like a convention nametag lol. But to your point I actually do think it would be a problem if the bible required 10,000 years of scientific development to read, but if it imparted 10,000 years of scientific development to the reader i'd be impressed.
Yes, and we would instead be talking about what happened to humanity's technologically advanced ancestors. Different context, different 'problems'.
Anyway my point wasn't that the bible should have been IEEE encoded, I meant that we know that it doesn't match the greatest human methods ever developed and arguably isn't even an example of the apex of what was possible at the time. Most of the world was illiterate in every way for most of the existence of the bible, and even as literacy grew most people were illiterate in the languages that the bible was recorded in, so why is it a book at all and not a series of plays or better yet beamed into our minds at birth...
Ah, Prothean artefacts.
Why do you think plays would be a better method of communication and transmission? I mean, it is also plays (and songs), and likely it was orally transmitted before it was written down, and even then, orally taught, acted out, and so on. Are you fully appreciating the breadth of the subject?
Again i'll have to beg to differ and insist that plenty of Christians do too... but outside of that maybe, I'd be interested in you defending why the bible is the absolute best it could have possibly been.
Well, if accept their arguments then we must declare them to be wrong.
I'm not necessarily defending the Bible as the "absolute best it could have possibly been". I'm not sure that "better" or "worse" are the right categories to apply. I know what worse is, but what's better?
No, but you asked for widely used examples, and short of perfect as glossaries may be, the bible in fact does not have a glossary of terms to my knowledge. The way I see it, the bible didn't even make this imperfect attempt.
You're asking ancient books to contain glossaries? Modern bibles can have glossaries of terms, but to expect that of ancient works is confusing.
Is the length of the bible also perfect? Are annotated study bibles somehow diminishing the bible's perfect ability to transmit its messages to humanity like how the added chairs in the Contact craft led to excess vibrations? Every idiocy, sure that's too much, but I don't know why its a problem if the bible took into consideration that many of its readers would be ignorant of many of its terms and the cultural and historical contexts in which it was written and many idiosyncrasies of its original languages. It's not exactly idiocy to be born 1200 years later and half a world away is it? Did it come as a surprise to God that people would need the book many thousands of years after its original languages and cultures died and many of its readers would have no easy way to accumulate this context? I mean if these sorts of things were predicted and accounted for i'd at least find the idea that it was intentional to be a bit more compelling.
And thus, the human element? (Why explain the context to an audience that has the context?)
What's an example from the Bible that you had in mind?
...I do wonder why you believe that such considerations wouldn't have made the bible a communications device?
Because that's not consistent with an ancient mindset, and it was the ancients who wrote the books.
Yeah, but my argument is that its not even the most well written book. I propose that the best written book gives it the best possible chance. I mean the insinuation here is that perhaps god didn't bother to create the most well written book because he knew there would still be human disinterest, agenda, apathy to deal and thought why bother. if I know that its going to rain it doesn't make sense that I should also skip breakfast because if i'm going to be wet so I may as well also be hungry too.
I'm saying that you'd still have criticisms even if you thought the Bible were as well written as it could have been. What's an example of a better written book/books?
Aww, dang it...Jesus' visage escapes me again lol. I mean it was a dream so no chance of hurting your eyes, but it sounds very affecting. So once you woke up how did you feel, what did you do , how long did it last?
I ate breakfast, and 20 odd years later I'm still thinking about it.
-
Well, what was it?
That I was as healthy as a fish and should stop worrying.
I did found similar cases but not in medical science, I found lots of similar testimonies from other people. What they have in common is a changed life afterwards.
Okay, but what if you did find that medical science could induce these experiences? Would you give one of these medically induced experiences if it were possible? Do you think that what you felt is something that humans are incapable of feeling without supernatural augmentation or do you think that what you felt is something that humans are capable of feeling and that God just used your existing hardware to convey feelings and ideas?
I believe we all are equipped with a spiritual antenna, some people use it, others don't. On Saturday September 28 1974, around 18:00 at the Starterstraat 24, The Hague, the Netherlands I used it.
Well, I can't wait to hear it.
It's not a very popular subject on a Bible forum but here goes. After my 2 baptisms in God's love I wanted to know everything about God. After some initial confusion where to start I became attracted by the then popular youth movement "Youth for Christ" and how they experienced their faith, in joy. I started to study the very basics of Christ, was also told the Scriptures were 100% inspired by God and that every letter from Genesis till Revelation was true.
Fast forward to 2004, I was in the fortunate position I could retire early at the age of 54, sold my little company and suddenly had a sea of time for other things, exploring science, learned to play bridge, pondering about faith issues, etc. And I stumbled on a question about my faith I could not answer. In 2008 I subscribed to the first result Google gave and joined Bible Forum (the one you also were on, I remember we even had some post exchanges) in order to find out if they could answer my (burning) question.
The forum was amazing, so many things I did not know, there were weeks I learned more than 5-10 years in church. But there was a downside waiting for me, increasing knowledge comes with a price. After years of active participation I slowly, step-by-step started to doubt about the inerrancy of the Scriptures, a main pillar of my faith and it took me years to finally admit to myself and much to my dislike the inerrancy of the Scriptures is an invention of man which started in the 4-5 century when the canon was an established fact. And it caused a crisis in my faith, it's quite cynical a Bible Forum meant to increase your faith does the opposite. I cried some tears over it.
On the other hand I (in the meantime) was knowledgeable enough to recognize the indisputable parts of Scriptures that are divinely inspired and concluded that I have to look at the Scriptures in a different way, written by man, composed by man, each telling the story of God and how they experienced it, written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years. I am in agreement what Athanasius said about the issue, I refer to that.
So anno 2022 I am (again) happy with my faith, the main pillar is God's revelation to me in 1974, it's the only thing I know for sure and I when I read the Scriptures I read them how I experienced God, love, love, love - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. [John 3:16-17]
Fits exactly with 1974.
-
Okay, i'll try. It seems that you felt that you would have been able to rationalize a single expirience away with some natural explanation, but not 2. Why are 2 experiences naturally inexplicable whereas 1 would be... What makes the 2 experiences less susceptible to non-supernatural explanation. Why would a natural phenomena that could explain your first expirience not equally apply to the second expirience?
Because I am human? And my head is a scary place to be? That I know myself?!
On the old Bible Forum (you were too) I once created a poll with the question how members came to Christ, the fast majority selected the option an experience with God so my testimony is not uncommon.
-
...my dislike the inerrancy of the Scriptures is an invention of man which started in the 4-5 century when the canon was an established fact. And it caused a crisis in my faith, it's quite cynical a Bible Forum meant to increase your faith does the opposite. I cried some tears over it.
This speaks to one of Oscar's issues, which is theologically competency (no negative implication intended). Much of the doctrine of inerrancy that people repeat isn't inerrancy proper, just like the Trinitarianism people profess is usually probably heretical in formulation (people who refer to clovers and states of water, the roles of husbands, etc.). I'm not personally convinced against the doctrinal developments of the 4th - 5th centuries because, well, what else were theologians at the time going to do other than the theology they did?
Mind you, here too you'll run into differences in understanding. Modern disagreements between Geisler and Craig, for instance. But then this leads into what I was saying above, which is more Craig than Geisler.
-
...my dislike the inerrancy of the Scriptures is an invention of man which started in the 4-5 century when the canon was an established fact. And it caused a crisis in my faith, it's quite cynical a Bible Forum meant to increase your faith does the opposite. I cried some tears over it.
This speaks to one of Oscar's issues, which is theologically competency (no negative implication intended). Much of the doctrine of inerrancy that people repeat isn't inerrancy proper, just like the Trinitarianism people profess is usually probably heretical in formulation (people who refer to clovers and states of water, the roles of husbands, etc.). I'm not personally convinced against the doctrinal developments of the 4th - 5th centuries because, well, what else were theologians at the time going to do other than the theology they did?
Mind you, here too you'll run into differences in understanding. Modern disagreements between Geisler and Craig, for instance. But then this leads into what I was saying above, which is more Craig than Geisler.
I am not so much interested in the William Craig vs Norman Geiser debates, it was more that through the years on the old BF forum I noticed a pattern of ~10 ever returning topics that always ended in a stalemate. In a nutshell, On a specific subject I listened to the opinion of person X and thought, he has points, then I read the interpretation of person Y and was left with the same feeling. And the thing is, both can't be right. Oddly enough most of those ~10 stalemates were about the epistles and not so much what Jesus said in the Gospels.
I see the epistles as an explosion of new and trustworthy theology through the work of Christ by an developing first century church, not so much as inerrant.
-
Of course, but specifically, I was commenting on the idea of 'highly efficient'. Besides, "some Christians say" isn't an argument in favour of what those Christians say. If some portion of Scripture is written to/from Babylonian exile, and casually read by a 21st century Westerner, then of course there are going to be considerations when reading the text. This isn't down to the Bible being poorly written, and is true of any ancient text being read today.
Hey I don't buy their claims any more than you do, probably less even, but it appeared to me that you were claiming that no Christians are making those kinds of claims and I wanted to point out that lots of Christians are making such claims. It does in my mind support the idea that even people that believe they are using their "supernatural antennae" get it wildly wrong...so its either not clear when you are correctly using them or using the at all or they are difficult to properly employ and lots of people are doing it wrong. Without the opinion of what that says about God or the bible, do we agree that it's not exactly straightforward to employ the requisite supernatural component of bible decipherment?
Why 'extremely' difficult? If we have the text before us, and someone claims "God told me this says that", but clearly it doesn't, then that fault lies with the person who persists in whatever pet belief they insist on holding onto. I was just adored by the "Holy Spirit told me" crowd when I was younger, because "the Holy Spirit told me" isn't a substitute for critically looking at the text with one's own eyes.
Well, I think that if it were always a case of a disagreement being clearly resolvable by the text then there wouldn't be the cornucopia of interpretations that people spend lifetimes debating and defending all while insisting that they are using the text and/or the holy spirit to guide them. Clearly you believe that you have a generally functional method for resolving these conflicts, but sight unseen i'd bet that your confidence in a good old fashioned critical reading of the text has frequently failed to be compelling to those who were just as certain that their interpretation method and results were reliable or even God breathed. I'm not saying that you are wrong, because I think critically reading words is how books work but we must admit that there are lots of claims around the bible in particular and how one extracts the truth from it and some of them disagree with you and I. It seems you want to chalk this up to humans kinda sucking, and that may be true but I personally cannot jibe that with the idea that the almighty has no way to mitigate this ...well actually its not even that I cant jibe it, revelation and other supernatural intercession is supposed to be not only a real thing but a thing that happens to people even as recently as 1974 Holland so there actually is a supernatural mechanism in existence that could ameliorate these issues but it seems to be sparsely deployed. The idea that God is mysterious is good for describing the fact that it doesn't make any sense but it doesn't actually make it make any sense.
What are the hundreds of other incorrect decoder rings analogous to?
the instances where folks staunchly believe that they were "spirit guided" or have critically read the text or were revealed to in a vision, but are in mutually exclusive conflict with others that staunchly believe the same thing. Even if I accept that someone must be right, its obvious that many others must be wrong and yet they feel not just correct but supernaturally correct....that's troublesome imo.
It's not an either/or. It can be all of this, and "God-breathed" because even if God superintended the books' creations, those works will still be struggled with, edited, translated, transmitted, etc. Again, you seem to have expected God to create an alien artefact that perfectly conveys information across thousands of years and disparate cultures and languages. A Prothean beacon, perhaps? But then we'd be complaining about visions and people claiming to have seen different things. The medium probably isn't the problem, it's the people who receive the message.
Expectation is probably not how i'd describe it, More like within the internal logic of Christianity God clearly can and has supernaturally interceded to get his message across exactly as he meant it, heck one time he even directly wrote on some stone tablets (which I would consider an alien artifact, because how is it not?). So that it could be done and has been done doesn't exactly conflict with the internal logic as I feel you might be suggesting. Its very rare in my life that i'll accept someone having not done something because it wouldn't solve all of our problems, its like if the wife said she didn't pay the mortgage this month because there is still a water bill or better yet because there is just going to be another one next month is not good reasoning. I'm perfectly willing to conceded that if God did create a series of protean artifacts that it wouldn't address every single possible protestation or disagreement or case of apathy for every individual throughout all of history but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been an improvement, admittedly it doesn't mean that it would have been either but at best we're locked in a Judean standoff.
What would be a concrete example of better?
ah, there is the rub. However i'm brave and I'd suggest a Glossary.
Yes, and we would instead be talking about what happened to humanity's technologically advanced ancestors. Different context, different 'problems'.
Only if God allowed that thread to die out for some reason and why would he? I mean the Jews are still knocking about remembering recipes from eons ago, so why would we have to be having the conversation about the extinction of ancient techno-wizards? Why couldn't we all be talking about how cool it is that there is a perfectly preserved golden thread that traces all the way back to the dawn of humanity and how nice it is to teleport to work every morning because of the science God revealed to abn bin ezekial 2500 years ago. Now that is Utopian, but I don't know why it absolutely has to be post-apocalyptic instead.
Ah, Prothean artefacts.
oooor, or it could just be beamed directly into our minds, don't forget about that one, because in all actuality I think that would be superior to any musty old artifact.
Why do you think plays would be a better method of communication and transmission? I mean, it is also plays (and songs), and likely it was orally transmitted before it was written down, and even then, orally taught, acted out, and so on. Are you fully appreciating the breadth of the subject?
Actually you have me there, much of the bible probably was performed, heck even later like in the instance of Catholicism in europe it was sort of still performed. it was a poor and thoughtless point and i'm freely admitting it.
Well, if accept their arguments then we must declare them to be wrong.
I'm not necessarily defending the Bible as the "absolute best it could have possibly been". I'm not sure that "better" or "worse" are the right categories to apply. I know what worse is, but what's better?
I'm fine with saying they are wrong, The entire purpose was to point out that they exist because you suggested they didn't. I think that the idea that it is the best that could be hoped for is implicit in your consistent assertions that there would always be "issues" and that we must take into consideration how the bible was compiled over time and space , languages and cultures. I was giving you the benefit of what i took to be the most sensible implication because the alternative is that there is a whole landscape of better and worse and what we actually got is sort of arbitrary and God didn't intentionally give it the best or worst shot, just kinda got it out there without considering what it was for or who would use it or how it would be received. Now though, it seems I may have unfairly boxed you in and you may be on something else entirely, so if better or worse is the wrong way to consider it, what is a more correct way?
You're asking ancient books to contain glossaries? Modern bibles can have glossaries of terms, but to expect that of ancient works is confusing.
I'm sure it was super confusing to watch oceans part and pillars of fire whip around all crazy or to become pregnant as a virgin too, but If God could do that surely he could have explained the concept of a glossary. I always imagine how absolutely weird and scary some things in the world must have seemed to ancient people even before we start talking about the supernatural...but I don't think they were fundamentally different than us. I think if we teleported a baby ancient israelite to modern America and placed them with a modern family, 18 years later you would never find them because they would be indistinguishable from any other 18 year old american...they would probably have a tik-tok and everything. It doesn't strain credulity for me that God could have imparted the concept of glossaries and footnotes and appendices on mankind or even helped us to develop the printing press and beyond. You may argue that still problems would arise but I can guarantee you that the bible would have been an easier read for me with at least some of those things, and I can say that with confidence because my first study bible was a friggin revelation, pardon the terminology lol. Outside of being useful, a glossary would be an anachronism that would distinguish the bible from other ancient texts unlike how it is now, that is to say pretty much impossible to tell apart. just saying.
And thus, the human element? (Why explain the context to an audience that has the context?)
What's an example from the Bible that you had in mind?
because most people that would ever actually read it would not have the context. The proportion of people who have encountered the bible in a contextual setting and mindset is relatively tiny compared to the number of people who have encountered it period.
Because that's not consistent with an ancient mindset, and it was the ancients who wrote the books.
And that was nurture not nature, ancient people could have grasped modern concepts too if someone had raised them up in that way. I think God had the capacity, he just didn't...for mysterious reasons I guess. Being inconsistent with other ancient peoples imo would have been a boon to the idea that they were in fact burdened with glorious purpose by the actual creator of the universe...instead looking, smelling and feeling like everyone else...not so much.
I'm saying that you'd still have criticisms even if you thought the Bible were as well written as it could have been. What's an example of a better written book/books?
I might, but you know what criticism I wouldn't have?
The Cartoon History of The Universe, better written, better paced, far more entertaining , orders of magnitude shorter, and I learned a lot.
I ate breakfast, and 20 odd years later I'm still thinking about it.
hmm, I guess I just expected a more verbose description, but thank you I still appreciate you sharing this with me.
-
Hey guys after this round of responses i'm going to take a bit of a break...its not you its me. Bibleforums ate a significant portion of my time, effort and creativity without providing much but a better familiarity with apologies to show for it (not entirely useless, but c'mon). I like these discussions, probably too much and it exercises some muscles I otherwise wouldn't use, but I just don't want to get caught up doing this too much again when I could be doing other personal projects and things. So anyway I'll reply to everything that is here now and read any responses but then i'm gonna take a few weeks. thank you and I hope you don't feel slighted, I appreciate that you all put in effort to have discussions with me and i do love it.
-
Heya Oscar, it was good to have you although it was for a short time. Hope that you learned something especially on the subject of understanding the Scriptures in a different (non black and white) way. And we haven't even talked about the main message of the Scriptures that everybody understands, the problem of sin which caused the physical separation between God and man (Genenis 3) and the work of Christ on the cross reconciling the fallen creation with God. Forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. That's not hard to understand. I never met a non believer who said he/she is without sin.
One more thought, in Genesis 3 mankind rebelled, they wanted to know about good and evil while God said: DON'T [!], but Adam and Eve did not listen and ate from the symbolic forbidden tree. And God said, alright I will give you what you wish, you go away from my presence on Earth, a place where you can learn by experience all about good and evil. You will live and die and then return to Me and then we talk and if you still want to rebel against Me.
If we go through human history it's a story of wars, injustice and if you are lucky less suffering mixed with good periods. In the end we all learn about good and evil, the fulfilled wish of Adam and Eve. And it isn't a nice story but effective it is.
Be well.
-
That I was as healthy as a fish and should stop worrying.
haha, i hope that is a common idiom in Holland because its magnificent!
I believe we all are equipped with a spiritual antenna, some people use it, others don't. On Saturday September 28 1974, around 18:00 at the Starterstraat 24, The Hague, the Netherlands I used it.
well alright!
It's not a very popular subject on a Bible forum but here goes. After my 2 baptisms in God's love I wanted to know everything about God. After some initial confusion where to start I became attracted by the then popular youth movement "Youth for Christ" and how they experienced their faith, in joy. I started to study the very basics of Christ, was also told the Scriptures were 100% inspired by God and that every letter from Genesis till Revelation was true.
Fast forward to 2004, I was in the fortunate position I could retire early at the age of 54, sold my little company and suddenly had a sea of time for other things, exploring science, learned to play bridge, pondering about faith issues, etc. And I stumbled on a question about my faith I could not answer. In 2008 I subscribed to the first result Google gave and joined Bible Forum (the one you also were on, I remember we even had some post exchanges) in order to find out if they could answer my (burning) question.
The forum was amazing, so many things I did not know, there were weeks I learned more than 5-10 years in church. But there was a downside waiting for me, increasing knowledge comes with a price. After years of active participation I slowly, step-by-step started to doubt about the inerrancy of the Scriptures, a main pillar of my faith and it took me years to finally admit to myself and much to my dislike the inerrancy of the Scriptures is an invention of man which started in the 4-5 century when the canon was an established fact. And it caused a crisis in my faith, it's quite cynical a Bible Forum meant to increase your faith does the opposite. I cried some tears over it.
On the other hand I (in the meantime) was knowledgeable enough to recognize the indisputable parts of Scriptures that are divinely inspired and concluded that I have to look at the Scriptures in a different way, written by man, composed by man, each telling the story of God and how they experienced it, written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years. I am in agreement what Athanasius said about the issue, I refer to that.
So anno 2022 I am (again) happy with my faith, the main pillar is God's revelation to me in 1974, it's the only thing I know for sure and I when I read the Scriptures I read them how I experienced God, love, love, love - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. [John 3:16-17]
Fits exactly with 1974.
ah inerrancy, i've never understood why such a plainly nonsense idea managed to be so sticky...good on you.
-
well, thanks.
You're welcome. Jas.1:5-7 is also very good.
-
ah inerrancy, i've never understood why such a plainly nonsense idea managed to be so sticky...good on you.
Your tensions are showing. :)
-
ah inerrancy, i've never understood why such a plainly nonsense idea managed to be so sticky...good on you.
Your tensions are showing. :)
Ah, non-Christian overconfidence. I've never had any significant issue with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy; alas, it, like much of the Bible is supports, is often caricatured into oblivion.
-
ah inerrancy, i've never understood why such a plainly nonsense idea managed to be so sticky...good on you.
Your tensions are showing. :)
I would hope that my views on Christianity, Christians and the Bible have been clear this entire time, that is that I'm not a believer and I even consider some of it as far from credible as a thing could be. It bums me out a little that anyone may have gotten the impression that I'm crediting Christianity with making sense in reality or within many versions of its internal logic...anything short of understanding that that is where i'm coming from makes me wonder what people think i've been talking about this entire time.
-
ah inerrancy, i've never understood why such a plainly nonsense idea managed to be so sticky...good on you.
Your tensions are showing. :)
Ah, non-Christian overconfidence. I've never had any significant issue with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy; alas, it, like much of the Bible is supports, is often caricatured into oblivion.
Haha, yeah maybe as I am pretty confident that at least most of the versions i've run across are inchoate to say the least. I won't pretend that the idea hasn't been caricatured by non believers, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that actual people who claim to be actual Christians are also proponents of many versions that even some other Christians would dismiss as infeasible. Idk, i've been getting the impression that maybe you guys aren't always acknowledging the full gamut of ideas that a great many Christians legitimately believe just because you don't think they represent your conception of Christianity very well. I'm happy to back off a bit and give credit where credit is due in that there are better and worse versions of inerrancy but there are still some very very bad imo indefensible versions...and I don't even think we'd disagree on some of them if you acknowledged that many Christians actually believe them.
-
I would hope that my views on Christianity, Christians and the Bible have been clear this entire time, that is that I'm not a believer and I even consider some of it as far from credible as a thing could be. It bums me out a little that anyone may have gotten the impression that I'm crediting Christianity with making sense in reality or within many versions of its internal logic...anything short of understanding that that is where i'm coming from makes me wonder what people think i've been talking about this entire time.
For what it's worth, I don't think you've ever credited Christianity with being sensical or credible.
By tensions, I mean (a) the challenge that the Bible ought to have been better written if inspired by God while (b) maintaining that the idea of inerrancy is plainly nonsensical. This makes the challenge impossible to answer because any mistake, error, etc., in the bible, real or perceived, is evidence against divine authorship. But since inerrancy is plain nonsense, we'd expect the bible to contain exactly these things.
Hence, tension.
-
Haha, yeah maybe as I am pretty confident that at least most of the versions i've run across are inchoate to say the least. I won't pretend that the idea hasn't been caricatured by non believers, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that actual people who claim to be actual Christians are also proponents of many versions that even some other Christians would dismiss as infeasible. Idk, i've been getting the impression that maybe you guys aren't always acknowledging the full gamut of ideas that a great many Christians legitimately believe just because you don't think they represent your conception of Christianity very well. I'm happy to back off a bit and give credit where credit is due in that there are better and worse versions of inerrancy but there are still some very very bad imo indefensible versions...and I don't even think we'd disagree on some of them if you acknowledged that many Christians actually believe them.
Here's the thing: science is best left to scientists, and theology is best left to theologians. The core message of Christianity does not require theological sophistication, but Christian doctrine does. And just as not everyone is a scientist, so too not everyone is a theologian. The popular misunderstandings of Christian doctrine that the laity hold are teaching failures. The target to attack is Christian doctrine proper, and not everyone is a theologian, which means that a there are indeed a great many Christians who don't believe doctrine like they think they do, because they don't understand it like they think they do.
-
I would hope that my views on Christianity, Christians and the Bible have been clear this entire time, that is that I'm not a believer and I even consider some of it as far from credible as a thing could be. It bums me out a little that anyone may have gotten the impression that I'm crediting Christianity with making sense in reality or within many versions of its internal logic...anything short of understanding that that is where i'm coming from makes me wonder what people think i've been talking about this entire time.
For what it's worth, I don't think you've ever credited Christianity with being sensical or credible.
By tensions, I mean (a) the challenge that the Bible ought to have been better written if inspired by God while (b) maintaining that the idea of inerrancy is plainly nonsensical. This makes the challenge impossible to answer because any mistake, error, etc., in the bible, real or perceived, is evidence against divine authorship. But since inerrancy is plain nonsense, we'd expect the bible to contain exactly these things.
Hence, tension.
oh I misunderstood you, my mistake. I don't think there is any tension there because I think most versions of inerrancy that i've run across are proven ridiculous by the text itself, It could have been the case that these versions were in fact validated by the text but by my estimation they were not. Its not as if i initially heard the idea and dismissed it as nonsensical because concept itself is plainly ridiculous , in fact I probably took some version of it for granted as a child its just that upon critically reading the book it is plain to see that inerrancy as conceived by many cannot be the case. So inerrancy could have been evidence of that the Bible is as good as a book could be, it just so happens that it isn't inerrant and it's not as good as a book could be. Maybe you can show me that it is both inerrant and the best it possibly could have been, I doubt it, but again I have no special tension around being proven wrong on either or both points.
-
Haha, yeah maybe as I am pretty confident that at least most of the versions i've run across are inchoate to say the least. I won't pretend that the idea hasn't been caricatured by non believers, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that actual people who claim to be actual Christians are also proponents of many versions that even some other Christians would dismiss as infeasible. Idk, i've been getting the impression that maybe you guys aren't always acknowledging the full gamut of ideas that a great many Christians legitimately believe just because you don't think they represent your conception of Christianity very well. I'm happy to back off a bit and give credit where credit is due in that there are better and worse versions of inerrancy but there are still some very very bad imo indefensible versions...and I don't even think we'd disagree on some of them if you acknowledged that many Christians actually believe them.
Here's the thing: science is best left to scientists, and theology is best left to theologians. The core message of Christianity does not require theological sophistication, but Christian doctrine does. And just as not everyone is a scientist, so too not everyone is a theologian. The popular misunderstandings of Christian doctrine that the laity hold are teaching failures. The target to attack is Christian doctrine proper, and not everyone is a theologian, which means that a there are indeed a great many Christians who don't believe doctrine like they think they do, because they don't understand it like they think they do.
hmm, I guess i've never really bought that the core message is both easy to extract and/or is all that matters and everything else is just frosting on the cake. It just seems that there are so many that claim to be adhering to the "core" and again they have mutually exclusive beliefs in conflict with others that are just as certain that they have gotten at the core. I do not see a way around the problem of fundamental conflicts because no matter how "core" you get I can find examples of Christians with a different core. I feel you just keep trying to pawn off the problem by suggest that no one believes this or that thing, or that there are no conflicting ideas but there are for just about any aspect of christianity that you might bring up. Additionally if the core is all we need then why bother with the rest, why isn't the bible 6 pages long...i'd argue it's because whatever the "core" is its much more complex and in depth and mired in disagreement than you would like to present it here. If you edited the bible down to the core, what's left? Would every Christian in the world agree with you that you've cut to the very quick and left nothing crucial to the core out? I doubt it. Are those people that disagree just not true Christians? are they too sophisticated or not sophisticated enough? are they bad theologians or too good theologians? Is it because they are deceived, deluded too in love with sin? are they idiots? lazy? or is this just a bad experiment for some reason? or maybe you do believe you'd get universal agreement, you've surprised me before.
and to be clear i'm taking about the game, not practice, not sophisticated theology, not theory but the game, How Christianity actually looks in the world, what people actually believe, the conflicts that actually exist, the actual lack of a unified concept of what the core of Christianity is, not practice, the game XD
-
So, we are talking about Space Monkeys? isn't that a bit of a straw man argument?
"Here, let me attack your sacred text, not on the basis of the text itself, but on the basis of the ways in which some unidentified people may approach or understand it?
That's sound a lot like "living document Constutionalists."
Who cares about the game? The game, as you call it, has no more meaning that theories that the earth is flat, that all dogs go to heaven, or that the CIA faked the moon landing. Well, I'll give you the last one...
Game or practice, flawed as it may be, does not change the nature and character of the real deal as communicated to man by God.
-
Ah, non-Christian overconfidence.
To be honest, I've never understood why Christians feel they have any more confidence in their faith than any other religion. Every religion has created martyrs.
-
I never argue with a man with a Space Laser.
-
I never argue with a man with a Space Laser.
AAIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/04/17/israel-successfully-tests-new-laser-missile-defense-system/
-
To be honest, I've never understood why Christians feel they have any more confidence in their faith than any other religion. Every religion has created martyrs.
Three things, I think: (1) a lack of awareness, (2) the Christian doctrine of assurance, and (3) the epistemological difficulty of discerning whether or not Christians do feel more confident in their faith than believers in other faiths or philosophy. I think (3) will follow as a necessity of (2). Otherwise, the assurance of all believers in any religion of philosophy is purely human-driven (i.e. internally generated).
But then that brings us back to (1), and something akin to the criticisms Oscar had earlier: the idea "I'm a Christian; therefore I'm more confident". I would expect this to be a driver-away from the Christian faith, actually, as those who are brought up in a Christian environment, under their parents faith, encounter believers in other religious who are just as dedicated as the most dedicated Christian they've met, or possibly more.
-
Haha, yeah maybe as I am pretty confident that at least most of the versions i've run across are inchoate to say the least. I won't pretend that the idea hasn't been caricatured by non believers, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that actual people who claim to be actual Christians are also proponents of many versions that even some other Christians would dismiss as infeasible. Idk, i've been getting the impression that maybe you guys aren't always acknowledging the full gamut of ideas that a great many Christians legitimately believe just because you don't think they represent your conception of Christianity very well. I'm happy to back off a bit and give credit where credit is due in that there are better and worse versions of inerrancy but there are still some very very bad imo indefensible versions...and I don't even think we'd disagree on some of them if you acknowledged that many Christians actually believe them.
Here's the thing: science is best left to scientists, and theology is best left to theologians. The core message of Christianity does not require theological sophistication, but Christian doctrine does. And just as not everyone is a scientist, so too not everyone is a theologian. The popular misunderstandings of Christian doctrine that the laity hold are teaching failures. The target to attack is Christian doctrine proper, and not everyone is a theologian, which means that a there are indeed a great many Christians who don't believe doctrine like they think they do, because they don't understand it like they think they do.
hmm, I guess i've never really bought that the core message is both easy to extract and/or is all that matters and everything else is just frosting on the cake. It just seems that there are so many that claim to be adhering to the "core" and again they have mutually exclusive beliefs in conflict with others that are just as certain that they have gotten at the core. I do not see a way around the problem of fundamental conflicts because no matter how "core" you get I can find examples of Christians with a different core. I feel you just keep trying to pawn off the problem by suggest that no one believes this or that thing, or that there are no conflicting ideas but there are for just about any aspect of christianity that you might bring up. Additionally if the core is all we need then why bother with the rest, why isn't the bible 6 pages long...i'd argue it's because whatever the "core" is its much more complex and in depth and mired in disagreement than you would like to present it here. If you edited the bible down to the core, what's left? Would every Christian in the world agree with you that you've cut to the very quick and left nothing crucial to the core out? I doubt it. Are those people that disagree just not true Christians? are they too sophisticated or not sophisticated enough? are they bad theologians or too good theologians? Is it because they are deceived, deluded too in love with sin? are they idiots? lazy? or is this just a bad experiment for some reason? or maybe you do believe you'd get universal agreement, you've surprised me before.
and to be clear i'm taking about the game, not practice, not sophisticated theology, not theory but the game, How Christianity actually looks in the world, what people actually believe, the conflicts that actually exist, the actual lack of a unified concept of what the core of Christianity is, not practice, the game XD
Are you going to stick around Oscar? I don't want to spend time replying if you're going to nope on outta here.
-
I never argue with a man with a Space Laser.
Good, I can cancel the aiming now.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/04/17/israel-successfully-tests-new-laser-missile-defense-system/
It's like living in the future!
-
But then that brings us back to (1), and something akin to the criticisms Oscar had earlier: the idea "I'm a Christian; therefore I'm more confident". I would expect this to be a driver-away from the Christian faith, actually, as those who are brought up in a Christian environment, under their parents faith, encounter believers in other religious who are just as dedicated as the most dedicated Christian they've met, or possibly more.
This leads to another observation I've had. There exists a small subset of Christians (not generally here, although the old BF had numerous such) who are viscerally hostile towards Jews. They take quite literally such verses as "You belong to your father, the devil..." (John 8:44) and others. I feel that this is brought on by the fact that Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish messiah and yet the Jews alone of all people generally rejected him. And it perhaps creates a nagging doubt deep down in those Christians of weak faith; that if the Jews rejected Jesus, maybe he isn't the messiah after all. And the only way for them to deal with this is to lash out at Jews for that rejection. "The Jews had to reject him, not because the evidence was weak (as this person themself perhaps feels) , but because they are evil".
-
This leads to another observation I've had. There exists a small subset of Christians (not generally here, although the old BF had numerous such) who are viscerally hostile towards Jews. They take quite literally such verses as "You belong to your father, the devil..." (John 8:44) and others. I feel that this is brought on by the fact that Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish messiah and yet the Jews alone of all people generally rejected him. And it perhaps creates a nagging doubt deep down in those Christians of weak faith; that if the Jews rejected Jesus, maybe he isn't the messiah after all. And the only way for them to deal with this is to lash out at Jews for that rejection. "The Jews had to reject him, not because the evidence was weak (as this person themself perhaps feels) , but because they are evil".
It shows a lack of empathy, and it's like they never developed a proper idea of the theory of mind. It's like, okay, here are the Gospels, and in hindsight, everything is obvious; sure let's grant that, but at the time? It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the timeline is actually 30+ years, and TV didn't exist, or phones, or newspapers. It's this idea that if I'm convinced of the truth then the only possible reason someone else isn't is that (1) they're an idiot or (2) Satanically deceived. It's a complete failure to understand the other perspective. But what if those people simply don't find the teaching compelling? Then you have the even worse misapplication of the doctrine of predestination which says, "they're Satanically deceived, but that was God's plan, so might as well kill them all". And yeah, maybe it's projection too. It's easier to attack another than look within.
Just take a look at how distracted American Christianity has become. Is that even Christianity anymore, as in, following the teaching of Christ? But then if it's not, what exactly is being pushed? And I will suggest that this is exactly the kind of 'worldly' thinking, thinking that takes God's name in vain, that Moses and Paul and others warned against.
-
And now post liking is enabled.
-
It's this idea that if I'm convinced of the truth then the only possible reason someone else isn't is that (1) they're an idiot or (2) Satanically deceived. It's a complete failure to understand the other perspective.
This right here. You completely understand the phenomena.
Just take a look at how distracted American Christianity has become.
Yeah, that may well be. Ob the other hand, American Christianity is still the best version out there. In my opinion anyway.
-
Yeah, that may well be. Ob the other hand, American Christianity is still the best version out there. In my opinion anyway.
I grew up with it so I prefer Europe, and I think for all its severe doctrinal problems (like, early church doctrinal issues), African Christianity attests to a reality American Christianity has for a while now only grasped at. Still, I'll fully accept that this view is partly because I grew up with it, and not that it's quite as bleak as I might make out.
-
I grew up with it so I prefer Europe
European Christianity has way too much organized religious violence in it's history for my taste.
And then there's Naziism. The Nazis in general were Protestant (or at least professed as such), and the Catholic church did nothing as an organization to save Jews from the Nazis (which doesn't mean that individual priests or nuns didn't do anything). Meanwhile after the war, the Catholic church did organizationally help Nazis escape justice (false documents, Vatican passports, exit documents, whatever they needed really to escape to freedom).
Some might say that maybe they were antisemitic but otherwise good. But really, if you've got no problem with someone shoving Jews into ovens and even help that person escape any version of earthly justice, how "good" can you really be? Back to Leo Baeck -
This finished perfected justice, this self-assurance of the possessing, has also often found expression in a tranquil, comfortable, almost smug indifference. Being satisfied with itself, the Church was capable of beholding a great deal without being at all upset. Since it considered itself a world apart, it could leave many matters in this world to take care of themselves. Having issued from divine grace, the pious faith was superior to everything impermanent and human; hence it could regard earthly deeds, of whatever character, as something inferior and indifferent, as beneath it. So one was prepared to overlook and discount and indulge anything: the correct faith was easily satisfied with itself for "whoever believes in him is just." A good deal of Church history is the history of all the things which neither hurt nor encroached upon this piety, all the outrages and all the baseness which this piety was able to tolerate with an assured and undisturbed soul and an untroubled faith. And a spirit is characterized not only by what it does but, no less, by what it permits, what it forgives, and what it beholds in silence. The Christian religion, very much including Protestantism, has been able to maintain silence about so much that it is difficult to say what has been more pernicious in the course of time: the intolerance which committed the wrongs or the indifference which beheld them unperturbed.
and I think for all its severe doctrinal problems (like, early church doctrinal issues), African Christianity attests to a reality American Christianity has for a while now only grasped at.
I don't know anything about this and so I cannot comment.
Still, I'll fully accept that this view is partly because I grew up with it, and not that it's quite as bleak as I might make out.
The American version of Christianity is and has always been able to make distinctions between right and wrong. Always able call out oppression instead of enabling it. I give credit for this.
-
So, we are talking about Space Monkeys? isn't that a bit of a straw man argument?
"Here, let me attack your sacred text, not on the basis of the text itself, but on the basis of the ways in which some unidentified people may approach or understand it?
That's sound a lot like "living document Constutionalists."
Who cares about the game? The game, as you call it, has no more meaning that theories that the earth is flat, that all dogs go to heaven, or that the CIA faked the moon landing. Well, I'll give you the last one...
Game or practice, flawed as it may be, does not change the nature and character of the real deal as communicated to man by God.
no, I'm strictly speaking about terrestrial primates an the things they believe. I think that the text makes some claims about Christians and Christians make some claims about the text, its a system of strings like when a detective gets too wrapped up in a case and sees everything is connected, that's me and i'd argue that's Athanasius too and probably you but I doubt you'd see it that way.
I've heard it said that you can tell alot about a Christian by the fruit they eat or something like that, i'm paraphrasing, But the point is that i'm supposed to look at Christians and their favorite fruits for some reason and by doing this i'm supposed to be able to draw some conclusions about Christians or Christ or horticulture...Now I know what my favorite fruit is (obviously mango, the best fruit), but when i'm creeping about behind trellises and under picnic tables I am unable to tell which Christians are the best at fruit. It would be wrong to judge them all by the standard of mango as just because that's my favorite fruit doesnt mean its the best fruit right? So I lurk about in bushes and slink behind the lilacs and watch Christians eat apples, and pineapples, and crabapples and ice apples and rose apples and sugar apples and custard apples and guapples and wood apples and cashew apples and water apples and ice apples and you get the picture. Now when I pop out of the cardboard box camouflage I was inconspicuously hiding in like solid snake and after the lovely Christian family stops screaming, I ask them why Christians are eating all different kinds of fruits when Christian fruit (singular) is supposed to be the (singular) best fruit. Without fail the christians laugh at me, a laugh as if to say "oh you poor deluded atheist" and they kindly point out that all Christians are eating apples. Being a bygone that just wants other bygones to be bygones as well, I thank them and walk away just before they call the cops about a man sneaking around the park in a cardboard box
...but i'm not satisfied because they aren't all eating apples are they? I mean lets see anyone bite into a pineapple like a granny smith and I actually don't even know what an ice apple even is! The fruits are even quite regional, the people in idaho are almost never seen enjoying the exotic flesh of a cashew apple, and I once lowered myself down a rope from a tree onto a picnicking couple in Toronto and offered them a star apple, and after they finished screaming they refused to even acknowledge that it even was an apple...they wouldn't even taste it...rude. I learned then that what Christians call apples are often regional, and Christians in other regions do not acknowledge the Apple-ness of alien apples and that Christians for some reason freak out when you pull a spiderman onto their picnic.
I once disguised myself as a Christian and infiltrated a church in North Carolina. I was wearing my traditional Christian sash made of the finest most colorful bird feather I could find and carried the customary Christian Staff that dispenses candy and sliced fruits for the younglings...Anyway the one thing I failed to do in all of my excellent research on North Carolina Christian traditions, garb and manner was to bring the right apple, turns out I brought a Love apple, and you would not believe the response! You would have thought I brought an orange to this sacred place as they practically gave me a whole fire and brimstone sermon about how a love apple isn't actually an apple at all but the tool of the enemy disguising itself as an apple and the so called Christians that eat this false apple are only doing it because love apples are easier to grow and they taste better when deviously sliced thin and laid atop the foul slow roasted turkey of corruption with 3 or four slices of the crispy bacon of wickedness all on a bed of the reprobate lettuce of deceit and covered in the in the vile mayonaise of inequity all between 2 slices of the white bread of darkness lightly toasted in the fires of Gehenna creating nothing less than the putrescent turkey club of sin. Needless to say I gathered up my sash and bolted out in a cartoonish plume of colorful feathers...I ran all the way to the nearest deli to have an open faced Rueben because, like why take the chance on the turkey club in this town right?
Anyway, all that to say this, either I'm supposed to gain some knowledge about Christians based on their produce choices or i'm not. Either I'm supposed to believe that a crabapple and elephant apple at their "core" are the same thing or I am to use my singular God given gift of being the only man alive able to distinguish a tomato from a macintosh merely by biting into several of them, recording the sounds that they make and analyzing those sounds with a series of self designed computer algorithms over the course of several months. The naive Atheist would see this state of affairs from a distance and conclude that on the very face of it these are different fruits and only a few of them are even apples in any sense that that word means a particular family of fruits and be done with it. Not me though, I'm sophisticated so instead of merely observing "some unidentified people" from the comfort of my commie-socialist-lgbtq-welfare-evolution tower of sin where we spend all day writing angry emails at the God we dont believe in, I embedded myself with Christians, I read their books, I ate their little tiny crackers and drank their sip of rather bottom shelf wine. I listened to their music, even the songs that are just secular songs where they just replace some of the words with Grace, or God or Christ or something equally Christian-y. I've even talked to the people (the "some people"), the rude ones, the intellectual ones, the bakers the candlestick makers, heck one was even a lawyer (if you can believe that a Christian could do a job that is clearly meant for demons). Mostly though I observed their fruit, and almost to a man-woman and child they have tried to convince me that they were all eating apples. The intellectual ones gave me mind bending gymnastic rationales for why when i'm looking at a pineapple i'm actually not. Other ones insisted that only Granny Smith eaters are tasting the true fruit of our lord and savior. Some of the more theological ones insisted that they only look like different apples because I have not truly sought out what an apple truly is. Others still have just tried to give me apples and told me that once I take a bite then the question of apples will seem moot and i'd never eat mangoes again. Still others have told me that I need to believe that a crabapple is actually custard apple and then suddenly all apples will be custard apples.
That being said, you can accuse me of not taking you too seriously or finding the sport in this (both true sometimes), or being kind of obnoxious because i'm the only one that finds my jokes endlessly funny (i'm friggin Chapelle-bamford-carlin-pryor-hicks-hedberg in my mind), You can accuse me of not being anywhere near as smart as I clearly think I am (I think i'm as sharp as a ...like a sharp, umm like like real sharp, like a very pointy stick that you spent like a long time on getting like very pointy)...lots of things are true of me and a lot of them don't have me come out smelling like a rose on a spring day...however to even form your cold spindly Christian fingers to type something as disgusting as the unbearable accusation that i'm here attacking your fine religion based on anything but the stuff actually in your fine religion and the people who claim to also be members of your fine religion whose fruits are supposed to mean something (dang i wish i knew what page of the bible all that fruit stuff was on)...anyway it is an affront to the sacred code that I have bled, perspired, micturated and cried for in order to stay true to the highest standards of Intellectual honesty, academic precision, Scholarly depth and philosophical rigor....The bewildering fact that you aren't apologetically washing my feet with your hair and tearfully offering me a cool sip from your well after the years of thirsty toil I have put into ensuring that when with broken feet and ashen lips I finally summon the dregs of my strength to at last feel I have earned through suffering and struggle, strife and repudiation, tribulation and abuse the vaguest most tenuous and fragile grasp upon the slightest diaphanous wispy tendril of license to bravely yet humbly murmur the merest whisper of the sentiment that "You say it look like that, but it don't look like that to me at all" is a wrenched blasphemy...Some would say that I should retaliate with the fury of a thousand furious suns whose fury is that of 10,000 smaller but proportionally more furious suns...but no, that is not who I am nor who I want to be, I wont because I know that the highest justice transcends the furious heat of all those suns I was talking about earlier, it is in the fact that you must now slither in lowly disgrace through life with this ever enduring inky black stain on your soul for as long as you shall persist on this precious green earth ....and as I read once in an oddly ominous fortune cookie "may you be cursed with a long life indeed" sir..or madam I actually don't remember if you were a guy or not.
-
Haha, yeah maybe as I am pretty confident that at least most of the versions i've run across are inchoate to say the least. I won't pretend that the idea hasn't been caricatured by non believers, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that actual people who claim to be actual Christians are also proponents of many versions that even some other Christians would dismiss as infeasible. Idk, i've been getting the impression that maybe you guys aren't always acknowledging the full gamut of ideas that a great many Christians legitimately believe just because you don't think they represent your conception of Christianity very well. I'm happy to back off a bit and give credit where credit is due in that there are better and worse versions of inerrancy but there are still some very very bad imo indefensible versions...and I don't even think we'd disagree on some of them if you acknowledged that many Christians actually believe them.
Here's the thing: science is best left to scientists, and theology is best left to theologians. The core message of Christianity does not require theological sophistication, but Christian doctrine does. And just as not everyone is a scientist, so too not everyone is a theologian. The popular misunderstandings of Christian doctrine that the laity hold are teaching failures. The target to attack is Christian doctrine proper, and not everyone is a theologian, which means that a there are indeed a great many Christians who don't believe doctrine like they think they do, because they don't understand it like they think they do.
hmm, I guess i've never really bought that the core message is both easy to extract and/or is all that matters and everything else is just frosting on the cake. It just seems that there are so many that claim to be adhering to the "core" and again they have mutually exclusive beliefs in conflict with others that are just as certain that they have gotten at the core. I do not see a way around the problem of fundamental conflicts because no matter how "core" you get I can find examples of Christians with a different core. I feel you just keep trying to pawn off the problem by suggest that no one believes this or that thing, or that there are no conflicting ideas but there are for just about any aspect of christianity that you might bring up. Additionally if the core is all we need then why bother with the rest, why isn't the bible 6 pages long...i'd argue it's because whatever the "core" is its much more complex and in depth and mired in disagreement than you would like to present it here. If you edited the bible down to the core, what's left? Would every Christian in the world agree with you that you've cut to the very quick and left nothing crucial to the core out? I doubt it. Are those people that disagree just not true Christians? are they too sophisticated or not sophisticated enough? are they bad theologians or too good theologians? Is it because they are deceived, deluded too in love with sin? are they idiots? lazy? or is this just a bad experiment for some reason? or maybe you do believe you'd get universal agreement, you've surprised me before.
and to be clear i'm taking about the game, not practice, not sophisticated theology, not theory but the game, How Christianity actually looks in the world, what people actually believe, the conflicts that actually exist, the actual lack of a unified concept of what the core of Christianity is, not practice, the game XD
Are you going to stick around Oscar? I don't want to spend time replying if you're going to nope on outta here.
I wont just drop off i'll give you fair warning, because I know there is nothing worse in internet discussion than bother to thoughtfully respond just to have some joker dip out ...the only thing worse is to spend a bunch of time thinking and writing just for someone to dismiss it as word salad because they maybe had to look something up and god forbid learn a new term they didn't know. I won't do you like that.
-
So, we are talking about Space Monkeys? isn't that a bit of a straw man argument?
"Here, let me attack your sacred text, not on the basis of the text itself, but on the basis of the ways in which some unidentified people may approach or understand it?
That's sound a lot like "living document Constutionalists."
Who cares about the game? The game, as you call it, has no more meaning that theories that the earth is flat, that all dogs go to heaven, or that the CIA faked the moon landing. Well, I'll give you the last one...
Game or practice, flawed as it may be, does not change the nature and character of the real deal as communicated to man by God.
no, I'm strictly speaking about terrestrial primates an the things they believe. I think that the text makes some claims about Christians and Christians make some claims about the text, its a system of strings like when a detective gets too wrapped up in a case and sees everything is connected, that's me and i'd argue that's Athanasius too and probably you but I doubt you'd see it that way.
I've heard it said that you can tell alot about a Christian by the fruit they eat or something like that, i'm paraphrasing, But the point is that i'm supposed to look at Christians and their favorite fruits for some reason and by doing this i'm supposed to be able to draw some conclusions about Christians or Christ or horticulture...Now I know what my favorite fruit is (obviously mango, the best fruit), but when i'm creeping about behind trellises and under picnic tables I am unable to tell which Christians are the best at fruit. It would be wrong to judge them all by the standard of mango as just because that's my favorite fruit doesnt mean its the best fruit right? So I lurk about in bushes and slink behind the lilacs and watch Christians eat apples, and pineapples, and crabapples and ice apples and rose apples and sugar apples and custard apples and guapples and wood apples and cashew apples and water apples and ice apples and you get the picture. Now when I pop out of the cardboard box camouflage I was inconspicuously hiding in like solid snake and after the lovely Christian family stops screaming, I ask them why Christians are eating all different kinds of fruits when Christian fruit (singular) is supposed to be the (singular) best fruit. Without fail the christians laugh at me, a laugh as if to say "oh you poor deluded atheist" and they kindly point out that all Christians are eating apples. Being a bygone that just wants other bygones to be bygones as well, I thank them and walk away just before they call the cops about a man sneaking around the park in a cardboard box
...but i'm not satisfied because they aren't all eating apples are they? I mean lets see anyone bite into a pineapple like a granny smith and I actually don't even know what an ice apple even is! The fruits are even quite regional, the people in idaho are almost never seen enjoying the exotic flesh of a cashew apple, and I once lowered myself down a rope from a tree onto a picnicking couple in Toronto and offered them a star apple, and after they finished screaming they refused to even acknowledge that it even was an apple...they wouldn't even taste it...rude. I learned then that what Christians call apples are often regional, and Christians in other regions do not acknowledge the Apple-ness of alien apples and that Christians for some reason freak out when you pull a spiderman onto their picnic.
I once disguised myself as a Christian and infiltrated a church in North Carolina. I was wearing my traditional Christian sash made of the finest most colorful bird feather I could find and carried the customary Christian Staff that dispenses candy and sliced fruits for the younglings...Anyway the one thing I failed to do in all of my excellent research on North Carolina Christian traditions, garb and manner was to bring the right apple, turns out I brought a Love apple, and you would not believe the response! You would have thought I brought an orange to this sacred place as they practically gave me a whole fire and brimstone sermon about how a love apple isn't actually an apple at all but the tool of the enemy disguising itself as an apple and the so called Christians that eat this false apple are only doing it because love apples are easier to grow and they taste better when deviously sliced thin and laid atop the foul slow roasted turkey of corruption with 3 or four slices of the crispy bacon of wickedness all on a bed of the reprobate lettuce of deceit and covered in the in the vile mayonaise of inequity all between 2 slices of the white bread of darkness lightly toasted in the fires of Gehenna creating nothing less than the putrescent turkey club of sin. Needless to say I gathered up my sash and bolted out in a cartoonish plume of colorful feathers...I ran all the way to the nearest deli to have an open faced Rueben because, like why take the chance on the turkey club in this town right?
Anyway, all that to say this, either I'm supposed to gain some knowledge about Christians based on their produce choices or i'm not. Either I'm supposed to believe that a crabapple and elephant apple at their "core" are the same thing or I am to use my singular God given gift of being the only man alive able to distinguish a tomato from a macintosh merely by biting into several of them, recording the sounds that they make and analyzing those sounds with a series of self designed computer algorithms over the course of several months. The naive Atheist would see this state of affairs from a distance and conclude that on the very face of it these are different fruits and only a few of them are even apples in any sense that that word means a particular family of fruits and be done with it. Not me though, I'm sophisticated so instead of merely observing "some unidentified people" from the comfort of my commie-socialist-lgbtq-welfare-evolution tower of sin where we spend all day writing angry emails at the God we dont believe in, I embedded myself with Christians, I read their books, I ate their little tiny crackers and drank their sip of rather bottom shelf wine. I listened to their music, even the songs that are just secular songs where they just replace some of the words with Grace, or God or Christ or something equally Christian-y. I've even talked to the people (the "some people"), the rude ones, the intellectual ones, the bakers the candlestick makers, heck one was even a lawyer (if you can believe that a Christian could do a job that is clearly meant for demons). Mostly though I observed their fruit, and almost to a man-woman and child they have tried to convince me that they were all eating apples. The intellectual ones gave me mind bending gymnastic rationales for why when i'm looking at a pineapple i'm actually not. Other ones insisted that only Granny Smith eaters are tasting the true fruit of our lord and savior. Some of the more theological ones insisted that they only look like different apples because I have not truly sought out what an apple truly is. Others still have just tried to give me apples and told me that once I take a bite then the question of apples will seem moot and i'd never eat mangoes again. Still others have told me that I need to believe that a crabapple is actually custard apple and then suddenly all apples will be custard apples.
That being said, you can accuse me of not taking you too seriously or finding the sport in this (both true sometimes), or being kind of obnoxious because i'm the only one that finds my jokes endlessly funny (i'm friggin Chapelle-bamford-carlin-pryor-hicks-hedberg in my mind), You can accuse me of not being anywhere near as smart as I clearly think I am (I think i'm as sharp as a ...like a sharp, umm like like real sharp, like a very pointy stick that you spent like a long time on getting like very pointy)...lots of things are true of me and a lot of them don't have me come out smelling like a rose on a spring day...however to even form your cold spindly Christian fingers to type something as disgusting as the unbearable accusation that i'm here attacking your fine religion based on anything but the stuff actually in your fine religion and the people who claim to also be members of your fine religion whose fruits are supposed to mean something (dang i wish i knew what page of the bible all that fruit stuff was on)...anyway it is an affront to the sacred code that I have bled, perspired, micturated and cried for in order to stay true to the highest standards of Intellectual honesty, academic precision, Scholarly depth and philosophical rigor....The bewildering fact that you aren't apologetically washing my feet with your hair and tearfully offering me a cool sip from your well after the years of thirsty toil I have put into ensuring that when with broken feet and ashen lips I finally summon the dregs of my strength to at last feel I have earned through suffering and struggle, strife and repudiation, tribulation and abuse the vaguest most tenuous and fragile grasp upon the slightest diaphanous tendril of license to bravely yet humbly murmur the merest whisper of the sentiment that "You say it look like that but it dont look like that to me" is a wrenched blasphemy...Some would say that I should retaliate with the fury of a thousand furious suns whose fury is that of 10,000 smaller but proportionally more furious suns...but no, that is not who I am nor who I want to be, I wont because I know that the highest justice transcends the furious heat of all those suns I was talking about earlier, it is in the fact that you must now slither in lowly disgrace through life with this ever enduring inky black stain on your soul for as long as you shall persist on this green earth ....and as I read once in an oddly ominous fortune cookie "may you be cursed with a long life indeed" sir..or madam I actually don't remember if you were a guy or not.
Was there a point or question in there?
-
Was there a point or question in there?
How could you have read that entire thing and not seen that my point was twofold, both "nah uh" and "how dare you". I just couched it in a parable, I know how you people go gaga over parables, parables this parables that, check out my new parables, have you heard the parable about the fig tree that walks into a bar.
The bible says to look at Christians, Chistians say look at us because the bible says my fruit is delicious and different from earthly fruit and that way you'll become a fruit weirdo too.....but don't forget also look at the bible too because while it looks like a book its actually a fruit tree and a book too, it totes is also a book, which then leads me back to looking at you because the bible told me so.
You accused me of doing something ridiculous by merely listening to what Christians say about themselves and what the book says about them, and you know paying attention to Christians because they say they are special and the bible says they are special and that that specialness should practically ooze from their pores like supernatural pulp free orange juice.... then when I point out that they...meaning you and your ilk (joke, portending disgust) really deeply truly and without a tinge of humor or silliness look exactly and I mean exactly like everyone else. look i've danced with alot of Christians and some of you describe the same old thing so deftly and with such grace, skill and aplomb that I legitimately find it addictive, not like special devine fruit addictive, but its the same reason I keep going back to my favorite books year after year, or get new books by my favorite authors or try to find new books and authors to fall in love with. To spell it out it's because you are doing interesting human stuff, but definitely human stuff.
now I dare you to perch those lying fingers over that keyboard and tell me i'm lying on the bible when I say it says i'm suppose to notice something special about you because you have chosen to follow the greatest most special thing that exist and some of that specialness is supposed to find its way out of you like some kind of imperfect, perhaps rusted shut but still ever so slightly leaky tap for the one true and only specialness that actually exists. If you don't think I should see something with honest and seeking eyes, then well it honestly beats the tarnation out of me what the heck that wacky old book is on about.
tell me you've never heard as christian claim that if i was running at top speed I should be practically clotheslined by the christlove emanating from a true and righteous christian if I have clear eyes and a full heart...it's a can't lose proposition, touchdown every down. What am I to make of that? Peer right through it like the filthy lie that it is? What of the stuff that i'm sure you're fine with but is a practically indistinguishable claim to my stupid pitiful human eyes unwashed in the blood of the lamb?
to put it more clearly, if I spent a bunch of time listening to you then I have no doubt that you would eventually say something equally ridiculous and yet it would be a profound and unassailable truth to you. Should I then toss you out with the bathwaters as another tiresome "some people"? Or are you one of the elusive actual Christians that actually walk in christ along the narrow path and has an actual relationship with the God of the universe? If so, I hate to break it to you but that's a wacky claim too...but like I should be able to tell the difference between things that could be legitimately said to be in the bible is frequently said by Christians but is wholly unsupported by reality.
it hurts to be told that i'm some kind of tourist when I've lived among you, I don't like to say I actually was one of you because the criticism and vitriol I've received for making that claim has made me legit question if I in fact ever actually was a true scotsman. Man, tell me I've wasted years just to misunderstand the things i've genuinely and without exaggeration spent years of days and nights struggling to understand, but for the sake of crackers don't tell me i'm just button mashing at Christianity.
so yeah, Nah Uh, and gasp how dare you.
-
just realized that last post got super long too and I know that makes my point confusing here is a slightly TLDR version.
You look like other humans that believe other religious stuff very sincerely or no religious stuff at all, your book looks like a not especially inspired Book that people wrote back when people told stories like that to impart knowledge that didn't actually involve sea monsters but it got the point across with moxy. Your God, haven't seen him even when I asked real real nice. He's just as indistinguishable from not real things like Vishnu, Thor, the Kabballah monster and Free lunch at a church.
I want to be swept off my feet and dance like a dervish, I want to be deliriously happy for some indeterminately brief amount of time, I want Jesus to give me the kind of hug that leaves no doubt even in my questioning mind that it was a bona-fide Jesus Hug, and then 28 or so minutes later I want another one just for good measure. I want to pick up the bible and feel the scales drop from my eyes and instead of seeing a bunch of made up stuff punctuated by reasonably good advice sometimes and very very bad advice at others, I see the most true thing ever written with nothing but really cool useful advice that is super relevant to my struggles and the struggles of literally anyone else that might cross my path or will ever exist. I want to one day notice that there is only one set of footprints because Jesus is carrying me like yoda on luke's back across the trials and tribulations of Dagobah, i mean life......Unless this thread is lousy with lying liars then all those stupendous things like actually happened to some if not all of you...well not Fenris cuz like Jesus, but still I'm supposed to take your wild claims and be like oh those other guys over there are nuts but you guys here in this one thread saying exactly the same kind of stuff are talking sense?
-
I see a lot of pain. Maybe you are closer to the Kingdom then you think.
-
I want to be swept off my feet and dance like a dervish, I want to be deliriously happy for some indeterminately brief amount of time, I want Jesus to give me the kind of hug that leaves no doubt even in my questioning mind that it was a bona-fide Jesus Hug, and then 28 or so minutes later I want another one just for good measure. I want to pick up the bible and feel the scales drop from my eyes and instead of seeing a bunch of made up stuff punctuated by reasonably good advice sometimes and very very bad advice at others, I see the most true thing ever written with nothing but really cool useful advice that is super relevant to my struggles and the struggles of literally anyone else that might cross my path or will ever exist. I want to one day notice that there is only one set of footprints because Jesus is carrying me like yoda on luke's back across the trials and tribulations of Dagobah, i mean life......Unless this thread is lousy with lying liars then all those stupendous things like actually happened to some if not all of you...well not Fenris cuz like Jesus, but still I'm supposed to take your wild claims and be like oh those other guys over there are nuts but you guys here in this one thread saying exactly the same kind of stuff are talking sense?
You want an experience to assent to a proposition, but even Paul had faith before his Damascus road experience. So say God reveals Himself to you, then what? Are you prepared to live a radically different life that's consonant with the revelation of God? Even the most devout Christians struggle with this, and it's one of your criticisms. Are you prepared to upend the very foundation of your existence to pursue a reality that involves things that you presently think are dubious, suspicious plain nonsense?
I've never been swept off my feet.
I've never danced a dervish.
I've never been deliriously happy (in fact, for most of my life, I've been miserable and anxious).
I have been hugged, but I've never had another -------------- and I've asked.
The Bible isn't so obviously truly concretely factual to me that I look at it as if the scales had fallen from my eyes.
I've yet to be carried by Jesus, although He's damned well helped out.
"Prove to me you're real and I'll believe" won't lead to belief, or maybe it will lead to the assent of a proposition, but the existential reality is an entirely different question. Faith is demanding, and revelation even more so. The anxiety of freedom, as Kierkegaard put it, is well and truly experienced by anyone who considers themselves to be responsible before God. What are you doing with any other potential proof of God's existence? What's to say you wouldn't write off a vision as a fever dream? After all, if God really did inspire the Bible and you say, "not good enough, give me more?" then what?
Have you ever heard Jordan Peterson talk about his dreams? That dude had a vision from God and understood it purely psychologically. I could psychologise my own experience easily. You have available to you what was available to us, and for us, faith came before the experience. Of course, this results in the complaint that God just never seems to evidence Himself to anyone but those who already believe. But no, God is evidenced in such a way that the possibility of freedom is maintained. You think the creation narratives are useful myths not concrete realities? That Noah's flood was local not global, or didn't happen at all? That Jonah didn't get swallowed by a whale? That's nothing new to Christianity. To deny God's involvement entirely - a metaphysical/philosophical question, not a scientific one - is a different matter, though. Did God kick-start abiogenesis or did it happen on its own? What's on the other side of the singularity that exploded our universe into existence? Etc. Etc.
Maybe there's something in common between rich men and scientists? physicalists? Hmm.
-
I find it extraordinarily difficult to discuss the colors of the spectrum when one does not fundamentally accept the evidence of various frequencies of light and the concomitant interpretation of the same in terms of various colors by the human brain based on the stimuli response of the cones and rods in the retina. You doubt the existence of God, the veracity of Scripture, the universality of both sin and evil and of the imago Dei and good. I understand that. You are speaking high Mandarin or Arabic and I'm speaking the regional "English" dialect of Appalachian coal country. It is nature that we should have difficulty communication.
The beast at Tanagra.
Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.
Our presuppositions prevent us from meaningful conversation, so we end up talking around each other. Yes, using words in someone of a similar language, but either lacking communication or predetermining that the language of the other is not ever going to satisfy us.
I start with very basic presuppositions.
1. There is a supreme creator that is ontologically different that me. Call that being/force/entity "Other." The idea that all (even the limited "all") that man can observe exists without a first cause is foolishness to me.
2. If there is anything that Other wants to communicate to me, it is dependent on Other to do the talking and to equip me to be the receiver, as I am apparently ontologically unable to communicate with Other on my own.
3. From my observation of nature, humans, and human society, I must either acknowledge the existence of some code of morality that is based outside of man; otherwise, he with the biggest femur bone in his hand wins.
4. I must recognize that in my inner most being -- call it id, ego, superego, conscience, mind, whatever -- in the part of me that makes decisions I have the capacity for the uttermost evil, abuse, horror, and societal wrong ever imagined by man. If I don't recognize that, I haven't looked very deep.
I could really care less about what other Christians say or do vis a vis their faith. That is between them and God. There are many things that Scripture says that Christians should do, but I, like all other Christians, never seem to hit that mark. That doesn't change the nature of God, or of His communication with humans, of the sufficiency of God's communication. You reject Scripture because you want to reject Scripture; that's not necessarily a criticism (ok, maybe a small one), but it is true of all of human presuppositions. None of us approach any issue without preconceived bias, as we are in the experiment.
There is more to life that scientific fact or test-tube/laboratory scientific evidence. Discussions of deity, which are -- by any rational definition -- outside of mankind, are by nature metaphysical; trying to test or prove metaphysical constructs within the construct of scientific method or legal forensic evidence is like trying to see air or taste a color.
I wish I could snap my fingers and see you swept off your feet and dance like a dervish. Never happened to me. I wish that you could have a supernatural vision, or have Jesus give you a physical hug. I pray that someday you will see only one set of footprints in the sand.
Maybe that works for others, but it hasn't been that way for me. Even though I've been a Christian for more than 50 years, even though I am both undergrad and seminary trained in theology, even though I have served on church staff vocationally and at times been out of church attendance for years at a time, I have no silver bullet. I've meet Christians who have no doubts and everything is unicorns farting rainbow sprinkles on cotton candy clouds, but that's not my existence.
Like I said, I've been a believer for 50 years, and to this day, the only prayer I ever really have that is from my heart is "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief."
Simple? Yes.
Naive? Probably.
Satisfying to you? Probably not.
I keep going back to Paschal's wager. I may be completely, sincerely wrong. I hope not. I really hope not. I am convinced in my faith, that I am forgiven even when I sin, that I am loved even though I am unlovable, that I am accepted even though I am unacceptable. I do believe the Scripture, even when I don't understand it.
Yes, true Christianity is flawed, and frightening, and filled with imperfect blind men staggering toward what someone told them is the light.
But raging against the light never makes it any brighter.
-
I see a lot of pain. Maybe you are closer to the Kingdom then you think.
I mean, from your perspective it is and always has been all around me like the matrix, or at least the keys have. Of course I have pain, i'm suspicious of anyone claiming not to and as an American Christians causing pain is practically a national sport. I am curious as to why you think pain may indicate closeness to the kingdom? Or is it that I have pain around Christians and Christianity that you think is the real indicator? I hope not, people calling themselves Christians and in the name of God have been scarring people for centuries, Many of those folk were born, lived and died in that pain, pain incomparably worse than mine and they died as something other than Christian...nah pain is an unfortunate part of life, and Christian caused pain is an unfortunate fact of history and the present...I'm vaguely repulsed by the notion you've expressed every time I hear it...its almost like saying , well, people suck and the abuses you suffered at the hands of people that claim to follow him were just God inexplicably making things painful and really friggin confusing just to bring you closer to him because this is a really good tactic. I mean I know a lot of people that claim to be Christians claim to believe some form of this...And again I suppose i'm supposed to read it and feel the deep transcendent wisdom in it but it sort of sounds like what an abusive parent or spouse says "I'm only doing this because I love you, but you just wont listen!"...Don't get me wrong its not an idea unique to Christianity, but when in rome, criticise the deeply held beliefs of the romans.
-
[/quote]
, but when in rome, criticise the deeply held beliefs of the romans.
[/quote]
Or get a really good pizza.
-
I want to be swept off my feet and dance like a dervish, I want to be deliriously happy for some indeterminately brief amount of time, I want Jesus to give me the kind of hug that leaves no doubt even in my questioning mind that it was a bona-fide Jesus Hug, and then 28 or so minutes later I want another one just for good measure. I want to pick up the bible and feel the scales drop from my eyes and instead of seeing a bunch of made up stuff punctuated by reasonably good advice sometimes and very very bad advice at others, I see the most true thing ever written with nothing but really cool useful advice that is super relevant to my struggles and the struggles of literally anyone else that might cross my path or will ever exist. I want to one day notice that there is only one set of footprints because Jesus is carrying me like yoda on luke's back across the trials and tribulations of Dagobah, i mean life......Unless this thread is lousy with lying liars then all those stupendous things like actually happened to some if not all of you...well not Fenris cuz like Jesus, but still I'm supposed to take your wild claims and be like oh those other guys over there are nuts but you guys here in this one thread saying exactly the same kind of stuff are talking sense?
You want an experience to assent to a proposition, but even Paul had faith before his Damascus road experience. So say God reveals Himself to you, then what? Are you prepared to live a radically different life that's consonant with the revelation of God? Even the most devout Christians struggle with this, and it's one of your criticisms. Are you prepared to upend the very foundation of your existence to pursue a reality that involves things that you presently think are dubious, suspicious plain nonsense?
I've never been swept off my feet.
I've never danced a dervish.
I've never been deliriously happy (in fact, for most of my life, I've been miserable and anxious).
I have been hugged, but I've never had another -------------- and I've asked.
The Bible isn't so obviously truly concretely factual to me that I look at it as if the scales had fallen from my eyes.
I've yet to be carried by Jesus, although He's damned well helped out.
"Prove to me you're real and I'll believe" won't lead to belief, or maybe it will lead to the assent of a proposition, but the existential reality is an entirely different question. Faith is demanding, and revelation even more so. The anxiety of freedom, as Kierkegaard put it, is well and truly experienced by anyone who considers themselves to be responsible before God. What are you doing with any other potential proof of God's existence? What's to say you wouldn't write off a vision as a fever dream? After all, if God really did inspire the Bible and you say, "not good enough, give me more?" then what?
Have you ever heard Jordan Peterson talk about his dreams? That dude had a vision from God and understood it purely psychologically. I could psychologise my own experience easily. You have available to you what was available to us, and for us, faith came before the experience. Of course, this results in the complaint that God just never seems to evidence Himself to anyone but those who already believe. But no, God is evidenced in such a way that the possibility of freedom is maintained. You think the creation narratives are useful myths not concrete realities? That Noah's flood was local not global, or didn't happen at all? That Jonah didn't get swallowed by a whale? That's nothing new to Christianity. To deny God's involvement entirely - a metaphysical/philosophical question, not a scientific one - is a different matter, though. Did God kick-start abiogenesis or did it happen on its own? What's on the other side of the singularity that exploded our universe into existence? Etc. Etc.
Maybe there's something in common between rich men and scientists? physicalists? Hmm.
It was a composite of stuff people said in this thread (you were the Jesus Hug), some stuff other Christians have said (I know, their views do not necessarily represent your own...well except at the core right?)... also a couple of lines from the movie "meet joe black" because I love them and I thought they applied to my point.
At the risk of again being a weirdo by talking about other Christians, Some people that claim to be Christians claim to believe that Knowledge of the existence of God is written in everyone's hearts, and they claim that this is in the Bible. If that's true I don't simply have a mustard seed of faith, I have the Whole doggone jar of Mustard...no cap, Just facts! so in that reality a Hug could come unprompted at any moment.
I always find it strange that people give "Testimonies" of how they came to the faith, but then when i'm like "sweet I'd like one of those too please" everybody gets all ....oh when I say that's how I came to the faith what I mean is that I already had faith but this story is about the time that a really cool weird thing happened because I already believed in it...I won't besmirch the good name of Christians by calling this practice legerdemain, but it sure ain't what it purports itself to be on the face of it.
I'm already a pretty radical dude, but EMPHATICALLY YES! Like I cannot imagine a circumstance where I believe that the God of the bible is real and wants me to do stuff and i'm like "nah,i'm good". I mean what could be more rewarding that eternal life with the best thing to ever exist....and to top it all off I don't even have to be perfect at it(or arguably good at it at all) as long as I feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness...you aren't going to find a deal like that anywhere in a Godless world. DO you know how many minor faux pas I feel guilty about for months without any recourse to forgiveness and that's before we even get to the legitimately garbage things I've done. I already feel guilt and the fact that I can be forgiven by a thing with the authority to do so, boy oh boy. Also satan worshippers, like they make so much less sense to me than Christians....Anyway life is hard already and from my perspective no one is going to give me a single red cent at the end of it much less endlessly more of it...so yeah If there was a God I'd do my level best and legitimately feel guilty when I didn't probably, or maybe i'd be a bad Christians but a christian none the less (or is it the less, pretty hard to get a straight answer on that).
On the notion that maybe i'd rationalize a way out of it...well maybe I would but does that make it not worth a shot...am I not worth it? I try to help people that every fiber of my being says they are not ready to accept it, but it's worth a try because maybe just maybe. I guess it could be that God knows that of all his powers he still falls short of pulling off something convincing to little ole meat brained me...and in that case I guess i'm doomed and I should change my name to Calvin.
How do you know that Peterson's expirience wasn't strictly psychological? Plenty of folks that believe in something else or nothing have them, unless we are going to claim that every single case is either actually God or supernatural deception then some of them are straight up psychological or neurological and maybe Peterson's was one of them. I mean I don't know but seems like a waste of time pondering it either way when you and others in this thread had experiences we can actually talk about. I'm so surprised when people with supernatural experiences of God seem to unwilling to talk about all of the rationalizations they tried in detail...i feel like i'd barely be able to contain the squeal of joy if i had the chance to talk about it exhaustively.
Well some of the claims in the bible are definitely not opaque to scientific investigation and many have fallen, but yeah there are plenty of questions that there is no reasonable expectation that science will be able to answer conclusively, this is my cross to bear unless and until I get some supernatural answers....which is cool with me It would be a dream come true to actually have some answers to that stuff. Though to be fair God created it isn't anymore satisfying an answer than that the math indicates a singularity which is just a thing we call certain limits of the math and all we can do is speculate as to what that means about reality...not much meat on either of them bones for me.
-
, but when in rome, criticise the deeply held beliefs of the romans.
[/quote]
Or get a really good pizza.
[/quote]
wait...this site has some sort of electronic pizza dispensing technology? I don't see a pizza shaped button...where is the button!
-
Next to the transporter button..
Although my brother tells me that Rome’s pizza sucks compared to Naples…
-
It was a composite of stuff people said in this thread (you were the Jesus Hug), some stuff other Christians have said (I know, their views do not necessarily represent your own...well except at the core right?)... also a couple of lines from the movie "meet joe black" because I love them and I thought they applied to my point.
I know, but what I'm saying is that that was my experience, not other people's. Their experiences weren't mine, and my experience only happened once.
The yearning you're expressing is the evidence of the 'something more', but it's unrealised partly because you think its satisfaction will come through revelation. It won't, and even if it did, it doesn't last forever. You might even decide the experience was a figment of your imagination, perhaps the creation of an overactive imagination. If you determine that it was real, then you'll join the ranks of those who can't help but see their lives through the lens of accountability before God, and all sin, misbehaviour, or failure to do what's good and right as an offence against God. Maybe you'll decide that God couldn't possibly have revealed Himself to you because babies die of cancer and aneurysms are cruel.
There is more to belief in God than an experience that conveys assurance. I've had to make choices that have caused me to question whether I'm acting rightly, properly, justly, etc. To ask how God views how I'm acting, and how my acting impacts my position and relationship before Him. The assurance is terrifying because it means that you can never look at life as anything other than consequential. I had already begun viewing life that way before I had my experience, but since then I've never had the option to change my mind.
Also, we accepted what seemed to us to be evidence for God's existence. We approached the Bible with faith, and in my case, not blindly, but critically. The weight of existence in an inherently meaningful creation that is inherently teleological can be suffocating. If you really want that, then I suspect it has to come from someplace other than the desire for proof. The worst thing you could do is demand proof that leads you into a life of resignation.
At the risk of again being a weirdo by talking about other Christians, Some people that claim to be Christians claim to believe that Knowledge of the existence of God is written in everyone's hearts, and they claim that this is in the Bible. If that's true I don't simply have a mustard seed of faith, I have the Whole doggone jar of Mustard...no cap, Just facts! so in that reality a Hug could come unprompted at any moment.
You don't seem to.
I always find it strange that people give "Testimonies" of how they came to the faith, but then when i'm like "sweet I'd like one of those too please" everybody gets all ....oh when I say that's how I came to the faith what I mean is that I already had faith but this story is about the time that a really cool weird thing happened because I already believed in it...I won't besmirch the good name of Christians by calling this practice legerdemain, but it sure ain't what it purports itself to be on the face of it.
There's a simple answer for that in my case, which is that the story I conveyed isn't my testimony, but an answer to your question about revelation and what it might look like.
I'm already a pretty radical dude, but EMPHATICALLY YES! Like I cannot imagine a circumstance where I believe that the God of the bible is real and wants me to do stuff and i'm like "nah,i'm good". I mean what could be more rewarding that eternal life with the best thing to ever exist....and to top it all off I don't even have to be perfect at it(or arguably good at it at all) as long as I feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness...you aren't going to find a deal like that anywhere in a Godless world.
Oh, and what if you don't feel bad about 'it'? Repentance isn't some fleeting emotion, and it doesn't just entail doing things, but may also cover who we are as individuals. But if you're saying these (somewhat misguided) things, why not simply make the move and live the life, proclaiming, "I believe, help me in my unbelief"? Keep in mind that I've had one 'revelatory' experience in three and a half decades. One. There's plenty of proof out there. If you want a personal experience then you're going to need to pursue a relationship, and relationships don't happen when one party is demanding the other provide proof that they exist at all.
DO you know how many minor faux pas I feel guilty about for months without any recourse to forgiveness and that's before we even get to the legitimately garbage things I've done. I already feel guilt and the fact that I can be forgiven by a thing with the authority to do so, boy oh boy.
Then why not confess your sin and acknowledge Jesus as Lord and get on with it? Or if not, then ignore your conscious because none of those things is meaningful at the end of the day.
Anyway life is hard already and from my perspective no one is going to give me a single red cent at the end of it much less endlessly more of it...so yeah If there was a God I'd do my level best and legitimately feel guilty when I didn't probably, or maybe i'd be a bad Christians but a christian none the less (or is it the less, pretty hard to get a straight answer on that).
Where did you get the idea that God wants you to convince yourself to feel bad about things you don't feel bad about?
On the notion that maybe i'd rationalize a way out of it...well maybe I would but does that make it not worth a shot...am I not worth it? I try to help people that every fiber of my being says they are not ready to accept it, but it's worth a try because maybe just maybe. I guess it could be that God knows that of all his powers he still falls short of pulling off something convincing to little ole meat brained me...and in that case I guess i'm doomed and I should change my name to Calvin.
How do you know that such an experience wouldn't do poor meat brained you more harm than good? What's the likelihood you'd see a sign and dissmively say, "Oh what, that's it?!" You're positioning yourself as if God has something to prove to you, or else He's not worthy of your belief. Maybe that's not the right dynamic?
How do you know that Peterson's expirience wasn't strictly psychological? Plenty of folks that believe in something else or nothing have them, unless we are going to claim that every single case is either actually God or supernatural deception then some of them are straight up psychological or neurological and maybe Peterson's was one of them. I mean I don't know but seems like a waste of time pondering it either way when you and others in this thread had experiences we can actually talk about. I'm so surprised when people with supernatural experiences of God seem to unwilling to talk about all of the rationalizations they tried in detail...i feel like i'd barely be able to contain the squeal of joy if i had the chance to talk about it exhaustively.
Have you ever considered that the context of the discussion is a mood killer? Go listen to Peterson talk about the dreams he has and then once you have we can talk about their psychological character.
-
I find it extraordinarily difficult to discuss the colors of the spectrum when one does not fundamentally accept the evidence of various frequencies of light and the concomitant interpretation of the same in terms of various colors by the human brain based on the stimuli response of the cones and rods in the retina. You doubt the existence of God, the veracity of Scripture, the universality of both sin and evil and of the imago Dei and good. I understand that. You are speaking high Mandarin or Arabic and I'm speaking the regional "English" dialect of Appalachian coal country. It is nature that we should have difficulty communication.
The beast at Tanagra.
Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.
Our presuppositions prevent us from meaningful conversation, so we end up talking around each other. Yes, using words in someone of a similar language, but either lacking communication or predetermining that the language of the other is not ever going to satisfy us.
I start with very basic presuppositions.
1. There is a supreme creator that is ontologically different that me. Call that being/force/entity "Other." The idea that all (even the limited "all") that man can observe exists without a first cause is foolishness to me.
2. If there is anything that Other wants to communicate to me, it is dependent on Other to do the talking and to equip me to be the receiver, as I am apparently ontologically unable to communicate with Other on my own.
3. From my observation of nature, humans, and human society, I must either acknowledge the existence of some code of morality that is based outside of man; otherwise, he with the biggest femur bone in his hand wins.
4. I must recognize that in my inner most being -- call it id, ego, superego, conscience, mind, whatever -- in the part of me that makes decisions I have the capacity for the uttermost evil, abuse, horror, and societal wrong ever imagined by man. If I don't recognize that, I haven't looked very deep.
I could really care less about what other Christians say or do vis a vis their faith. That is between them and God. There are many things that Scripture says that Christians should do, but I, like all other Christians, never seem to hit that mark. That doesn't change the nature of God, or of His communication with humans, of the sufficiency of God's communication. You reject Scripture because you want to reject Scripture; that's not necessarily a criticism (ok, maybe a small one), but it is true of all of human presuppositions. None of us approach any issue without preconceived bias, as we are in the experiment.
There is more to life that scientific fact or test-tube/laboratory scientific evidence. Discussions of deity, which are -- by any rational definition -- outside of mankind, are by nature metaphysical; trying to test or prove metaphysical constructs within the construct of scientific method or legal forensic evidence is like trying to see air or taste a color.
I wish I could snap my fingers and see you swept off your feet and dance like a dervish. Never happened to me. I wish that you could have a supernatural vision, or have Jesus give you a physical hug. I pray that someday you will see only one set of footprints in the sand.
Maybe that works for others, but it hasn't been that way for me. Even though I've been a Christian for more than 50 years, even though I am both undergrad and seminary trained in theology, even though I have served on church staff vocationally and at times been out of church attendance for years at a time, I have no silver bullet. I've meet Christians who have no doubts and everything is unicorns farting rainbow sprinkles on cotton candy clouds, but that's not my existence.
Like I said, I've been a believer for 50 years, and to this day, the only prayer I ever really have that is from my heart is "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief."
Simple? Yes.
Naive? Probably.
Satisfying to you? Probably not.
I keep going back to Paschal's wager. I may be completely, sincerely wrong. I hope not. I really hope not. I am convinced in my faith, that I am forgiven even when I sin, that I am loved even though I am unlovable, that I am accepted even though I am unacceptable. I do believe the Scripture, even when I don't understand it.
Yes, true Christianity is flawed, and frightening, and filled with imperfect blind men staggering toward what someone told them is the light.
But raging against the light never makes it any brighter.
But we aren't talking about light, were talking about God, not photons, not wave particle duality, but God. Not the electromagnetic spectrum, not the photoelectric effect, but God.
like you laid out a bunch of good reasons why God is not like light. they different is all I can say to that without being overly pedantic about a thing you already know.
presumptive, I speak appalachian, Look like a blackberry winter don't it? Anyway so you seem to be describing some hidden variable, Like the words in the Bible are at least translated to the same english as we both use, But something about you or working through you makes those words mean something significantly different in a way that you cannot articulate only make analogies to. I mean fine, but then without this hidden variable you all look like everyone else and the bible looks like other contemporary books of similar genre and literally everything you could possibly say in defense of these obvious inconsistencies is moot because I do not have the hidden variable that allows your non compelling defenses to be rendered supernaturally convincing. Its like why even try, you can't impart the hidden variable to me all you can do is keep repeating a bunch of stuff that there is no possibility of me finding convincing much less sensical. I'm mean you could tell me to look at your walk and how God has worked in your life but I feel like that is wildly inconsistent ...idk man
presuppositions
1. Okay but like, why would i? it's either a thing that you can defend or its literally a bad argument because its missing crucial components that can only be seen supernaturally.
2. If I conceded the first one this is less difficult to swallow, but still why these exact parameters around it?
3.Yeah, I believe this is probably true too...but if you go into some WLC law giver rigamarole because I gave you the tiniest sliver then oooo dolly. lol nah we can explore that if that strikes your fancy.
4. I mean I kinda believe this is fairly true, Like the circumstances would have to be pretty outlandish for me to genocide the world like I got bored in Skyrim, but sure.
5.Oh wait that was it? well 2 out of 4, turns out I do speak a little mandarin, but man, the first step is a doozy tho.
I mean I could say you reject the Koran because you want to reject the Koran and not because you are ignorant of its contents or very familiar with its contents and do not find it to be a compelling description of reality. You say that but everybody says that about their book, okay only some but still. Anyway as far as Christian criticisms go that's pretty tame and it only hurt one of my feelings. To the best of your knowledge does the bible say anything to the effect that your Christian walk will or may have any observable features that distinguish you from the rest of us dirtbags?
See air & taste color, a synesthete on a desert road or with a schlieren setup could do that..psfft you gotta get up pretty early to get one like that past me freindo. kidding but your point is taken...out back and shot because that was awful. nah kidding I see what you mean. Science isn't all that I wish there was, but it is literally the only fairly reliable, repeatable set of tools that make sense of reality in a falsifiable way that i've found. For me there are things I have accepted that I probably will never know, and things that are opaque to science. If there is a God then some people, and I know they dont matter and they suck, but some idiots think that God actually has and continues to do stuff in the world, and that is detectable at least in some ways in which some people that don't matter frame it. Intercessory prayer, I like that one, you can do science on entire populations ...but w/e Your God is opaque and that's fine, I'll just twiddle my thumbs and wait for him to do something supernatural to me...unless I have to believe he will first In which case I guess when I get to hell i'd have egg on my face wont I.
In this dim science world I can still enjoy the laughter of a child and cry at sunsets...I mean I haven't actually cried at a sunset but totally I could if I wanted to.
You seem to be arguing that instead of being swept up in supernatural rapture you got here through just presupposing your way there...not really my style. like do you believe one can just presuppose anything they want to get to a destination? or..i guess that's kinda a silver bullet.
Why aren't you wagering all the other living and extinct religions equally and spending all of your waking hours worshiping literally everything....I know some of them are mutually exclusive but still statistically you'd be better off practicing multiple non exclusive religions than just one if we're just gambling here. At this rate you are probably going to some religion's hell.
I mean in that way Christianity is indistinguishable from any other purely human endeavor, It just claims not to be a purely human endeavor.
Keep underestimating science at your own peril, I predict that lights powered by rage are just beyond the horizon.
-
I know, but what I'm saying is that that was my experience, not other people's. Their experiences weren't mine, and my experience only happened once.
The yearning you're expressing is the evidence of the 'something more', but it's unrealised partly because you think its satisfaction will come through revelation. It won't, and even if it did, it doesn't last forever. You might even decide the experience was a figment of your imagination, perhaps the creation of an overactive imagination. If you determine that it was real, then you'll join the ranks of those who can't help but see their lives through the lens of accountability before God, and all sin, misbehaviour, or failure to do what's good and right as an offence against God. Maybe you'll decide that God couldn't possibly have revealed Himself to you because babies die of cancer and aneurysms are cruel.
There is more to belief in God than an experience that conveys assurance. I've had to make choices that have caused me to question whether I'm acting rightly, properly, justly, etc. To ask how God views how I'm acting, and how my acting impacts my position and relationship before Him. The assurance is terrifying because it means that you can never look at life as anything other than consequential. I had already begun viewing life that way before I had my experience, but since then I've never had the option to change my mind.
Also, we accepted what seemed to us to be evidence for God's existence. We approached the Bible with faith, and in my case, not blindly, but critically. The weight of existence in an inherently meaningful creation that is inherently teleological can be suffocating. If you really want that, then I suspect it has to come from someplace other than the desire for proof. The worst thing you could do is demand proof that leads you into a life of resignation.
Are all of my yearnings proof that the thing I yearn for actually exists? Cuz I have a slew of wildly imaginative yearnings that I'd definitely like to be real.
Oh boy so i'm not even wanting revelation correctly, there is always fine print lol. Anyway cancer babies don't seem to be a problem for you and I'd be at least as good a Christian as you, maybe better, maybe even the greatest christian of all and I'd lord it over all the other lesser Christians...wait i'm doing it wrong again aren't I?
I already view life as consequential, in fact I think it is highly likely that the only consequences I will ever expirience will be while i'm alive. I get that you feel burdened by glorious purpose, but you know what is what. The heart of it isn't proof for me, that's merely a symptom, the thing that usually gets me to the thing, what I'd like is the truth. I'm not afraid that if God is true that it will be something that I don't like because the reality that I believe to be true is already significantly worse by my nieve estimation than one with an all loving God. It could turn out that i'm not a big fan of God If I found that he exists, but knowing he exists doesn't mean that I couldn't choose to disobey him later (frankly that seems like a very torturous existence of actively participating in your inevitable doom when you know there is a better way, but w/e maybe I lose all perspective). Point is I don't have to obey, I'm still free to tell God to kick rocks. The maybe of it all could only cause trepidation in a person who is especially concerned about blowing an imaginary opportunity...i'm not, I'll do what seems true to me whatever that is or I won't I can't imagine anything less useful than worrying about what I might do if this hypothetically happened.
You don't seem to.
IKR Thank you!
There's a simple answer for that in my case, which is that the story I conveyed isn't my testimony, but an answer to your question about revelation and what it might look like.
Fair enough.
Oh, and what if you don't feel bad about 'it'? Repentance isn't some fleeting emotion, and it doesn't just entail doing things, but may also cover who we are as individuals. But if you're saying these (somewhat misguided) things, why not simply make the move and live the life, proclaiming, "I believe, help me in my unbelief"? Keep in mind that I've had one 'revelatory' experience in three and a half decades. One. There's plenty of proof out there. If you want a personal experience then you're going to need to pursue a relationship, and relationships don't happen when one party is demanding the other provide proof that they exist at all.
What if I do, and I find that Christianity suites me right down to the ground and I lead an uneventful life where I'm a dedicated Christian, A loving father and husband and a pillar of my community known for being quick to lend a helping hand, then I die in this world and go to see my father? That could happen too, I just don't understand why its a valuable exercise. Anyway I'm willing to be convinced with reason, that hasn't happened yet and to be honest spending years of my prime on it I doubt that I missed the one compelling argument...but i'm here so have at it by all means.
Then why not confess your sin and acknowledge Jesus as Lord and get on with it? Or if not, then ignore your conscious because none of those things is meaningful at the end of the day.
Because if I lie and sign myself to lies I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! If there is one thing I know, a relationship founded on a lie cannot last and if the first thing I say to God is I believe in you then i'm a lying liar because I don't. If I believed in God then I wouldn't even need to say that part and get to prostrating myself bang straight away. I don't believe that a person can just believe whatever they want at will no matter how much it conflicts with nigh on every other belief they hold....or heck maybe "they" can, I cannot.
Where did you get the idea that God wants you to convince yourself to feel bad about things you don't feel bad about?
oh no, I was just saying I already feel guilty about things for which i have no recourse for forgiveness, I would very much like to ask for and receive forgiveness. If there is a God he can do that (it is not entirely clear that that is even a coherent sentiment, but i'm told that's the gist of it)..anyway the prospect of forgiveness is attractive, even if it doesnt make alot of sense.
How do you know that such an experience wouldn't do poor meat brained you more harm than good? What's the likelihood you'd see a sign and dissmively say, "Oh what, that's it?!" You're positioning yourself as if God has something to prove to you, or else He's not worthy of your belief. Maybe that's not the right dynamic?
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Have you ever considered that the context of the discussion is a mood killer? Go listen to Peterson talk about the dreams he has and then once you have we can talk about their psychological character.
I have an extremely low tolerance for Peterson, but i'll subject myself to it ...just not right now, I have to mentally prepare lol. To be clear i'm not a psychologist nor am I especially comfortable that I could draw any true or useful conclusions by analysing a person from a video...but as a thing to do, i'm game.
-
So why would you feel guilt?
Do you believe in moral absolutes in the mode of Kant or other deontologists?
-
So why would you feel guilt?
Do you believe in moral absolutes in the mode of Kant or other deontologists?
well part of it is an anxiety disorder or so the secular world tells me, maybe its God telling me to think about how I bumped into a waitress last week because I wasn't paying attention 3 times a day for the next month. The other part is in the fact that I've legitimately hurt people and I feel guilt because I've grown and matured and I fell it was wrong and I'm not a sociopathy so I feel guilty.
I don't think so, but honestly I don't remember. I could say its evolution based but who wants to have that conversation (not me, please don't make me)....Anyway lets just say that Humans are more or less a certain way, They live under certain conditions on a certain planet in a certain solar system. Some of the things we value are fairly basic to nearly all of us, like not wanting to die (of course there are exceptions and times when other values supercede or augment this like jumping in front of a train to save your child). That puts a lot of parameters around what will and wont fly amongst humans, so while its not a strict set of edicts (life doesn't look like that anyway) its more of a framework of what to expect when you are humaning and what to expect from others and how others are expected to act and how you expect others to act. Is that clear?
-
I have an extremely low tolerance for Peterson, but i'll subject myself to it ...just not right now, I have to mentally prepare lol. To be clear i'm not a psychologist nor am I especially comfortable that I could draw any true or useful conclusions by analysing a person from a video...but as a thing to do, i'm game.
I'll reply in full later, but just to mention for right now, if you don't care for Peterson you might enjoy Mia Mulder, who has nothing to do whatsoever with the discussion at hand other that she's a historical / philosopher YouTuber who doesn't particularly care for Peterson.
-
So why would you feel guilt?
Do you believe in moral absolutes in the mode of Kant or other deontologists?
well part of it is an anxiety disorder or so the secular world tells me, maybe its God telling me to think about how I bumped into a waitress last week because I wasn't paying attention 3 times a day for the next month. The other part is in the fact that I've legitimately hurt people and I feel guilt because I've grown and matured and I fell it was wrong and I'm not a sociopathy so I feel guilty.
I don't think so, but honestly I don't remember. I could say its evolution based but who wants to have that conversation (not me, please don't make me)....Anyway lets just say that Humans are more or less a certain way, They live under certain conditions on a certain planet in a certain solar system. Some of the things we value are fairly basic to nearly all of us, like not wanting to die (of course there are exceptions and times when other values supercede or augment this like jumping in front of a train to save your child). That puts a lot of parameters around what will and wont fly amongst humans, so while its not a strict set of edicts (life doesn't look like that anyway) its more of a framework of what to expect when you are humaning and what to expect from others and how others are expected to act and how you expect others to act. Is that clear?
Clear but somewhat unresponsive.
Unless you believe that the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are merely sociological and not deontological. In which case I hope I always stay on the good side or the majority..
-
So why would you feel guilt?
Do you believe in moral absolutes in the mode of Kant or other deontologists?
well part of it is an anxiety disorder or so the secular world tells me, maybe its God telling me to think about how I bumped into a waitress last week because I wasn't paying attention 3 times a day for the next month. The other part is in the fact that I've legitimately hurt people and I feel guilt because I've grown and matured and I fell it was wrong and I'm not a sociopathy so I feel guilty.
I don't think so, but honestly I don't remember. I could say its evolution based but who wants to have that conversation (not me, please don't make me)....Anyway lets just say that Humans are more or less a certain way, They live under certain conditions on a certain planet in a certain solar system. Some of the things we value are fairly basic to nearly all of us, like not wanting to die (of course there are exceptions and times when other values supercede or augment this like jumping in front of a train to save your child). That puts a lot of parameters around what will and wont fly amongst humans, so while its not a strict set of edicts (life doesn't look like that anyway) its more of a framework of what to expect when you are humaning and what to expect from others and how others are expected to act and how you expect others to act. Is that clear?
Clear but somewhat unresponsive.
Unless you believe that the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are merely sociological and not deontological. In which case I hope I always stay on the good side or the majority..
Well, we can look at the world and see that right and wrong can vary rather wildly, so again I don't believe in some strict ruleset ...and yes we should all stay vigilant regarding majorities and minorities, just other people in general, I think history loves to play out the truth in that over and over. Okay, I guess my beliefs are more in the style of sam harris' moral landscape. I don't believe in anything so specific that the best day of rest is sunday, but that humans do require rest beyond just sleep, they need R&R if you will is about as specific as i'd get there. There is a lot of flexibility in that, but if you do not acknowledge and abide this fact of human nature then you are likely to burn people out which for a lot of human endeavours is a worse outcome...I mean unless the plan is to burn people out even then abused populations revolt or write strongly worded emails or quit or strap on a rifle and do a bunch of murder..i think you see what i'm getting at, there are better and worse things to do people can do and it is not strictly individual values formed however personal expirience and such, its more about the facts of humans and the world....or like how you probably wont sell many cars that completely ignore human anatomy, there is plenty of room in car design but also some parameters.
-
But who cares about majorities and minorities unless you are on the minority side.
Why shouldn't the majority rule over the minority and abuse them. Power. Right is might.
Why is that not acceptable?
-
But who cares about majorities and minorities unless you are on the minority side.
Why shouldn't the majority rule over the minority and abuse them. Power. Right is might.
Why is that not acceptable?
I just explained, you definitely can do that and it happens all of the time. In fact America is in the middle of more aftershocks of the domination and mistreatment of minorities and it is frequently very messy and disruptive. Dominating people forever has never happened, and I cannot think of examples that didn't end in blood and chaos (that i wont pretend my recall means its never happened).
I think this question pretends that there are not any major and obvious as well as nuanced reasons why abject abuse is not a sustainable practice moreover Its pretty clearly not the most productive method. Its not the best way to produce food or other necessities or amenities..though maybe some degree of oppression is. Its a kinda gross thought that maybe some fraction of the populous being abused just the right amount produces a culture with the best healthcare for the most people or something. I do not think that that either of us believe that the parameters of the world (or in your case God's will and moral objectives) always feel fair or are always obvious or scrutable. Like from my position I have to admit that maybe the world that provides the greatest human biological and psychological needs is one where every child born has a limb painlessly removed....facts of human anatomy and other facts of the world makes that seem unlikely to me but the truth is I don't actually know and I have to struggle In my brief time here to decipher and support what I think is best. It doesn't provide certainty but that is the closest thing to objective morality that I believe.
-
I'm not sure I'm tracking that.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is where that perfect balance you described is? And, for the individual, if you are the kid having his arm removed for the benefit of "the greater good," is the collective benefit satisfactory enough for you to enjoy the name "Lefty" for the rest of your life?
That seems to be outcome derivative, not input derivative. Something cries out for justice for the One armed man.
Is this ethics on a purely subjective scale, or are there some actions that are simply not permitted regardless of the sociological implications? Said another way, if society permits otherwise, is there anything taboo?
-
It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.
In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?
-
I'm not sure I'm tracking that.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is where that perfect balance you described is? And, for the individual, if you are the kid having his arm removed for the benefit of "the greater good," is the collective benefit satisfactory enough for you to enjoy the name "Lefty" for the rest of your life?
That seems to be outcome derivative, not input derivative. Something cries out for justice for the One armed man.
Is this ethics on a purely subjective scale, or are there some actions that are simply not permitted regardless of the sociological implications? Said another way, if society permits otherwise, is there anything taboo?
I don't think I did describe a perfect balance, Like a world with the most food and psychological health isn't necessarily a perfectly sustainable balance or anything but I also don't know if that is the best possible. Again in that arm situation I don't know, maybe that world has the best healthcare for the most people or whatever I said but it doesn't maximize individual happiness. I think you are maybe asking if I think this is the road to Utopia or something which I don't know, but I'm not confident that Utopia is a possible state of the world.
Yes It is very Outcome based, we still have to choose the kind of world we want to live in and work toward it and what we want to prioritize just because its this world. I think harris puts it like it seems unlikely that humans would coordinate within the possibility space prioritize the most possible suffering for everyone which is not to say everyone will be sufferings because maybe some people are wildly happy in that world and a perfect hell is also not possible. I'm not talking about how great it could or couldn't be, The examples were to illustrate that this possibility space exists and has parameters around it because of objective facts on the ground about humans and earth and nature.
Its not ethics in the sense that we have a list or the precisely best and worst or right and wrong for every possible situation at every scale. I think as close as we could get to absolutely not permitted is extinction, impossibility within the objective facts of the totality of the system or some sort of chaotic oscillating imbalance that takes any meaningful choices out of our hands. Even if we can get as fine grained as is possible, we might choose destruction because we really rather prioritize cheap phones or chocolate or the throaty roar or a v8 more than we prioritize continuing to have a planet suitable for human life. Either way I think we can reason about this space, discuss it and make informed decisions without there ever being a golden spike where everything is in perfect balance in perpetuity...that don't sound like this universe, moreover that doesn't sound like people.
-
Then talk about people
Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?
-
It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.
In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?
I was just trying to illustrate that we work within confines, objective ones. We do live in a world where we prioritize cheap chocolate over human life, but it's not the only possible setup we could have, and honestly I don't even think it produces the cheapest possible chocolate. If the world really prioritized the cheapest production of chocolate I highly doubt slave labor would be in the space of cheapest possible chocolate humanity can muster but It would probably be a whole other kind of nightmare world.
I don't think the problems of chopped off limb world would be any more minor than our current world, and I think we could apply reason to it. I think that no matter how we slice it we have to suss out what is possible and then make the choices about what kind of world we want, why we want it and how best to get there...there is no magic bullet, no instructions and the ever looming possibility of totally and irrevocably screwing it up.
-
Then talk about people
Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?
permissible? I mean ideas around rape in my little neck of the world have changed drastically just in my lifetime. When my mother was young rape was practically poo poo frequently except under certain privileged circumstances....Turns out though people don't care much for being raped and rapist don't much like being called out on rape when they cannot control the spread of information. I can say that people seem to not like being raped and that's a pretty common view, and at least in societies where the part of the population that bears the brunt of rapes has the ability to voice this opinion it changes minds i'd argue because it works within the empathy system that most people have (just a fact of human design) and our sense of bodily autonomy. There is also a tipping point where It just becomes socially unacceptable to support it or the culture of basically ignoring it because it's no longer in fashion which has a reinforcing feedback effect. Does any of this mean that the laws of nature preclude rape, very obviously not...we gotta choose if we want to say screw rape victims and just live in a world where you might get raped and no one will do anything about it but the technology is there to constantly hear about them, or does that world seem icky and like its probably going to lead to some very obvious issues that you'd just really rather not? we can pick the world we live in (within parameters), we already did, and we can pick something else.
I think rape is wrong, clearly nobody wants it foisted on them otherwise its not rape its consensual. None of that changes that anyone can attempt a rape at any time, maybe with no consequence maybe not it certainly seems as if the universe permits it, heck God allows it so, who is going to make a change where its minimized as best we can but us?
-
It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.
In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?
I was just trying to illustrate that we work within confines, objective ones. We do live in a world where we prioritize cheap chocolate over human life, but it's not the only possible setup we could have, and honestly I don't even think it produces the cheapest possible chocolate. If the world really prioritized the cheapest production of chocolate I highly doubt slave labor would be in the space of cheapest possible chocolate humanity can muster but It would probably be a whole other kind of nightmare world.
I don't think the problems of chopped off limb world would be any more minor than our current world, and I think we could apply reason to it. I think that no matter how we slice it we have to suss out what is possible and then make the choices about what kind of world we want, why we want it and how best to get there...there is no magic bullet, no instructions and the ever looming possibility of totally and irrevocably screwing it up.
My point is that we are the nightmare world already, we just like to brush off the reality because it's not as bad as it conceivably could be. But then, why should any of that be a problem? Should there be no greater power what reason is there to side with Socrates over Thrasymachus? A psychopath would simply understand what others merely wish to deny, and is advantaged thusly. It's a miracle the world isn't in a worse state than it is.
China seems to be doing well for itself despite all those great evils. Why not do the same?
-
Then talk about people
Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?
I think rape is wrong,
On what basis do you make this moral and ethical judgment?
If I want to rape, by what authority do you tell me that I cannot do as I please?
Natural law or sociological agreement?
That's a binary question.
-
It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.
In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?
I was just trying to illustrate that we work within confines, objective ones. We do live in a world where we prioritize cheap chocolate over human life, but it's not the only possible setup we could have, and honestly I don't even think it produces the cheapest possible chocolate. If the world really prioritized the cheapest production of chocolate I highly doubt slave labor would be in the space of cheapest possible chocolate humanity can muster but It would probably be a whole other kind of nightmare world.
I don't think the problems of chopped off limb world would be any more minor than our current world, and I think we could apply reason to it. I think that no matter how we slice it we have to suss out what is possible and then make the choices about what kind of world we want, why we want it and how best to get there...there is no magic bullet, no instructions and the ever looming possibility of totally and irrevocably screwing it up.
My point is that we are the nightmare world already, we just like to brush off the reality because it's not as bad as it conceivably could be. But then, why should any of that be a problem? Should there be no greater power what reason is there to side with Socrates over Thrasymachus? A psychopath would simply understand what others merely wish to deny, and is advantaged thusly. It's a miracle the world isn't in a worse state than it is. I think you also read and write other stuff.
China seems to be doing well for itself despite all those great evils. Why not do the same?
I mean it seems we both acknowledge that It could be worse, but maybe I'm alone in thinking that better choices are available to us? How do you decide, you read them, you discuss them, you reason together about them and about the world you want to live in and if it applies. Again I'm not remotely pretending that its easy or fast or that mistakes and unforeseen outcomes can't or won't pop up, There is no magic here Its people using what is available to them to affect change in what is available to them just like it probably has been since we showed up. What should be is something we strive toward while working within what is, but should isnt coming to us from on high because it can only come from us Unless there is a GOD, but looks the same to me so why add it as an explanation for a situation that is already explicable.
A certain population of psychopaths can do pretty well within a world of mostly non psychopaths and might on average be beneficial at a certain level, Empathy is probably beneficial for working together in large complex societies, so I don't think a lack of it would be a purer world somehow or a truer vision of the world any more than ants disabled from working together are a more realistic ant colony. Its beside the point because we are what we are and unless we change what we are the facts of earth are that humans live here (for now) and humans (mostly) have empathy and that is a fact just like bees sting and everybody poops acting as if ignoring it is anything but ignoring an actual existing fact of the world is not more realistic its ignoring reality.
-
Then talk about people
Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?
I think rape is wrong,
On what basis do you make this moral and ethical judgment?
If I want to rape, by what authority do you tell me that I cannot do as I please?
Natural law or sociological agreement?
That's a binary question.
I mean I already said nature doesn't prevent it, that is obvious, the only things that even care about it in any way is us, so we are the only ones who have both a vested interest and ability to do anything about it. Like I wish if a rapist was about to rape the universe would prevent it but that has never ever happened to my knowledge, only people have ever stopped it or allowed it.
I feel like I did my best to explain my reasoning, no one wants to be raped I think that is as good a basis as anything to create a world where rape is minimized. I'd bet that even most rapist don't want to live in a world where the most rapes humanly possible occur...but i do not think rapetopia is any more realistic than Utopia considering that we are talking about people who don't want to be raped even if they want to do rape. who cares if the universe is apathetic about it because its not happening to the universe its happening to us.
Okay lets actually play this out, you be pro rape and i'll be anti-rape and you use what is available to you to make your case and i'll do the same.
-
China seems to be doing well for itself despite all those great evils. Why not do the same?
We might give it a go if we decide that we want to both live in another china, understand how to replicate it and have the will and resources to do it. I think that there might be some arguments as to why 2 Chinas would be less successful than one China and one USA, but hey again no rulebook
-
If someone wants to rape you on what basis do you object?
-
If someone wants to rape you on what basis do you object?
I don't want to be raped.
-
So who cares?
If I can do it then there is nothing to condemn me for doing so,right?
-
So who cares?
If I can do it then there is nothing to condemn me for doing so,right?
Well if you do this you will burn in Hell forever, unless you sincerely repent and ask God for forgiveness in which case you will be forgiven by him and join the father in heaven when you die.
Well there is me, Id frown upon it. Probably my friends and family, Perhaps my greater community, and maybe the justice system, but you also might get away scott free. Whether I forgive you or not eventually you will die and nothing will happen.
-
Would the rape be a wrong action?
-
Would the rape be a wrong action?
You'd definitely be wronging me because again I very much do not want it! Would you be cool with it if I raped you? and again probably friends family community blah maybe the justice system.
-
By what standard do you judge me? If I do what I want to do who are you to deny me what I want.
-
I think the point here is that lacking religion, one can't command good behavior or even suggest it in most circumstances.
-
By what standard do you judge me? If I do what I want to do who are you to deny me what I want.
I'm the person with the greatest vested interest, I have skin in the game, i'm the primary and perhaps only who.
-
I think the point here is that lacking religion, one can't command good behavior or even suggest it in most circumstances.
my point is of course they can, people do it all of the time, what exactly is stopping them? Like if I invoke God they aren't struck by lightening or anything if the offender wants to do it my philosophical stance on metaphysical objective morality is as unlikely to stop them as insisting that I'd rather they didn't.
-
my point is of course they can, people do it all of the time, what exactly is stopping them? Like if I invoke God they aren't struck by lightening or anything if the offender wants to do it my philosophical stance on metaphysical objective morality is as unlikely to stop them as insisting that I'd rather they didn't.
Belief in God can compel good behavior. Nothing else can do that. Let's take the example from Exodus 1:
The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.
What else could compel the midwives to let the boys live, aside from a belief in God?
-
my point is of course they can, people do it all of the time, what exactly is stopping them? Like if I invoke God they aren't struck by lightening or anything if the offender wants to do it my philosophical stance on metaphysical objective morality is as unlikely to stop them as insisting that I'd rather they didn't.
Belief in God can compel good behavior. Nothing else can do that. Let's take the example from Exodus 1:
The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.
What else could compel the midwives to let the boys live, aside from a belief in God?
Wait, are you being serious or are you making some point that I'm just not seeing? I don't disagree that belief in God can compel good behavior but so can belief in some forms of reincarnation or Karma or the law of attraction or that your ancestors are watching and judging you all the time or any number of beliefs. I think most people don't even consider killing babies, maybe i'm wrong. Lets say i'm ordered to kill a baby by some authority, I might be compelled to disobey such an order because though I have never tried to kill a baby the mere thought of doing it even if I could get away without any consequences whatsoever is emotionally repellant to me without any reasons at all, I tend to think this is a fairly common and strong instinct but it might not be. If for some reason I needed a reason not to I might think about how the parents or family might feel, or how I would feel if someone murdered my baby, or how society would view me if I murdered a baby or how the law might react to it. I might think about myself being cut down as a babe and never getting to have a life and how I'd be doing that to someone else. Perhaps I could think about the retaliation I might face or the prospect of just living with the guilt of it. The verse doesn't say it but I bet those midwives probably didn't want to kill babies, but the fear of a power greater than the king might crystalized their choices...idk
-
I think the point here is that lacking religion, one can't command good behavior or even suggest it in most circumstances.
my point is of course they can, people do it all of the time, what exactly is stopping them? Like if I invoke God they aren't struck by lightening or anything if the offender wants to do it my philosophical stance on metaphysical objective morality is as unlikely to stop them as insisting that I'd rather they didn't.
Ah
Fatalism
-
I think the point here is that lacking religion, one can't command good behavior or even suggest it in most circumstances.
my point is of course they can, people do it all of the time, what exactly is stopping them? Like if I invoke God they aren't struck by lightening or anything if the offender wants to do it my philosophical stance on metaphysical objective morality is as unlikely to stop them as insisting that I'd rather they didn't.
Ah
Fatalism
sure I know what you mean...I dont think rape is predetermined just that neither of those things are particularly good deterrents, yelling "rape!" is probably orders of magnitude more effective or running or fighting.
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me. I'm not especially compelled to rape any more than I am to kill babies or do much more than plan the murders of my enemies in my mind, Not because I might get caught by the authorities, or I fear retaliation or being judged or ostracised by society even though those do deter some people just like The threat of God deters some people. I don't even avoid those things because I don't want anyone to do the same to me, Its mostly the I don't even have the urge. If you asked me about reasons that I avoid lying that is a real test for me because I struggle with it because It has been easy for me to lie as far back as I can remember. That is a thing that i've had to summon all of the tools I have to combat.
-
Wait, are you being serious or are you making some point that I'm just not seeing? I don't disagree that belief in God can compel good behavior but so can belief in some forms of reincarnation or Karma or the law of attraction or that your ancestors are watching and judging you all the time or any number of beliefs.
So we can start by agreeing that belief in some higher being leads to good behavior. I think this is a good start.
The verse doesn't say it but I bet those midwives probably didn't want to kill babies, but the fear of a power greater than the king might crystalized their choices...idk
I think what the verse is saying is more subtle than that. It says that fear of God is capable of lifting from a person the fear of man. And this enables us to do what needs to be done.
-
So we can start by agreeing that belief in some higher being leads to good behavior. I think this is a good start.
I'll wholeheartedly agree that It can,but not that it always does and not that it is the only thing that can and I've never seen anything that always does. So if that's still a good enough start then i'm happy too.
I think what the verse is saying is more subtle than that. It says that fear of God is capable of lifting from a person the fear of man. And this enables us to do what needs to be done.
I'll agree that it very well could be making that point and I don't have a problem moving forward under that assumption.
-
I'll wholeheartedly agree that It can,but not that it always does and not that it is the only thing that can and I've never seen anything that always does. So if that's still a good enough start then i'm happy too.
I'll agree that it very well could be making that point and I don't have a problem moving forward under that assumption.
Excellent!
Can we agree that the bible is for the most part a good moral code to follow?
-
Can we agree that the bible is for the most part a good moral code to follow?
Unfortunately I cannot, It is very long and full of a great many things and at least to me it is not always clear which are to be taken as moral code and which are something else. Even outside of that there are only 3 commandments that I'd describe as good moral code and 2 more that I'd need to delve deeper into what they mean before i'd say yay or nay, 2 more that are probably helpful at best but at least one of those is problematic and the rest of them don't mean anything to me morally. Also those covets are totally split up like that because the 9 commandments dont have the same zing lol
-
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me.
The difference is that the moral imperative is situated externally to the human mind. The warning is of some greater wrongdoing against a higher being and not just the violation of a person according to shared moral values, which may or may not change over time. To claim that the threat is 'meaningless to [you]' is not to claim that the threat itself is meaningless or is of an invented moral character vis-a-vis social contract, i.e. social construction.
Much like Pascal's wager that RK mentioned earlier, the rape may be engaged in and lead to no consequences beyond this life, or it may be engaged in and lead to eternal consequences. On the other hand, to acknowledge that moral imperatives are purely human inventions is to affirm that they may be violated so long as one is willing to violate a given social order, which constitutes a rejection of the social contract. But then why should that contract be morally binding - and not just socially binding - as if the individual has violated some greater order?
And so that age-old complaint isn't "atheists can't be moral without God" (as an example). It's that the moral framework developed thereupon can't be binding in the same way. I know all about rejecting social conventions, and while people generally don't like it, it's just a convention at the end of the day. It's nonsense to say something like, "you're immoral if you don't live this kind of life" because that affirmation is nothing more than majority agreement in disguise. Immoral by X standard, maybe, but not by Y standard, and I like Y. Should I accept X over Y because many people are telling me I should? I think they should leave me alone and let me live my life.
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
-
I see a lot of pain. Maybe you are closer to the Kingdom then you think.
I mean, from your perspective it is and always has been all around me like the matrix, or at least the keys have. Of course I have pain, i'm suspicious of anyone claiming not to and as an American Christians causing pain is practically a national sport. I am curious as to why you think pain may indicate closeness to the kingdom? Or is it that I have pain around Christians and Christianity that you think is the real indicator? I hope not, people calling themselves Christians and in the name of God have been scarring people for centuries, Many of those folk were born, lived and died in that pain, pain incomparably worse than mine and they died as something other than Christian...nah pain is an unfortunate part of life, and Christian caused pain is an unfortunate fact of history and the present...I'm vaguely repulsed by the notion you've expressed every time I hear it...its almost like saying , well, people suck and the abuses you suffered at the hands of people that claim to follow him were just God inexplicably making things painful and really friggin confusing just to bring you closer to him because this is a really good tactic. I mean I know a lot of people that claim to be Christians claim to believe some form of this...And again I suppose i'm supposed to read it and feel the deep transcendent wisdom in it but it sort of sounds like what an abusive parent or spouse says "I'm only doing this because I love you, but you just wont listen!"...Don't get me wrong its not an idea unique to Christianity, but when in rome, criticise the deeply held beliefs of the romans.
That's exactly what I meant, the part I colored red.
When I started reading this thread I thought, Oscar is showing his intellectual muscles making fun with Christians which is of course fine. Followed later with a couple of postings which I could not decide if you were trolling or just seriously meant what you said, maybe even a mix. Reading further I saw also pain. The pain (the red) I have seen so many times even among Christians, judging, damaging and destroying each other while Christ said: Don't judge. Love each other. And often the end result is that some people are so damaged they say farewell to their faith.
So I am wondering how much influence bad Christianity had in your life to become a staunch unbeliever.
-
I think the point here is that lacking religion, one can't command good behavior or even suggest it in most circumstances.
my point is of course they can, people do it all of the time, what exactly is stopping them? Like if I invoke God they aren't struck by lightening or anything if the offender wants to do it my philosophical stance on metaphysical objective morality is as unlikely to stop them as insisting that I'd rather they didn't.
Ah
Fatalism
sure I know what you mean...I dont think rape is predetermined just that neither of those things are particularly good deterrents, yelling "rape!" is probably orders of magnitude more effective or running or fighting.
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me. I'm not especially compelled to rape any more than I am to kill babies or do much more than plan the murders of my enemies in my mind, Not because I might get caught by the authorities, or I fear retaliation or being judged or ostracised by society even though those do deter some people just like The threat of God deters some people. I don't even avoid those things because I don't want anyone to do the same to me, Its mostly the I don't even have the urge. If you asked me about reasons that I avoid lying that is a real test for me because I struggle with it because It has been easy for me to lie as far back as I can remember. That is a thing that i've had to summon all of the tools I have to combat.
No, not fatalism in the sense of predestined or predetermined. I mean fatalism in the sense of "nothing matters."
For some reason, you just won't answer a straight question. So let me summarize what I think you mean and you can correct me if I am wrong. It will help clarify some things
1. You do not believe that any action is either inherently evil or good.
2. You do believe that a majority of humans, either intentionally or accidentally, create cultural standards of right or wrong that should be binding on everyone.
3. You believe that if one is in the minority and the majority decides that an action taken by Person X that impacts a member of the minority in a manner with which the minority member disagrees is acceptable for the majority and for Person X but is offensive to the member of the minority but that the member of the minority has no remedy for that action.
4. You feel guilt over actions you done in the past, but have no standard other than your own internal understanding of what society does or should permit upon which to assign guilt or wrong to yourself.
Are all of those statements true?
And, while we are at it, why should anyone care less if you lie or not? Isn't the act of telling a falsehood amoral like everything else in your analysis? Or does lying fall under the rubric I outlined above?
-
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me.
The difference is that the moral imperative is situated externally to the human mind. The warning is of some greater wrongdoing against a higher being and not just the violation of a person according to shared moral values, which may or may not change over time. To claim that the threat is 'meaningless to [you]' is not to claim that the threat itself is meaningless or is of an invented moral character vis-a-vis social contract, i.e. social construction.
Much like Pascal's wager that RK mentioned earlier, the rape may be engaged in and lead to no consequences beyond this life, or it may be engaged in and lead to eternal consequences. On the other hand, to acknowledge that moral imperatives are purely human inventions is to affirm that they may be violated so long as one is willing to violate a given social order, which constitutes a rejection of the social contract. But then why should that contract be morally binding - and not just socially binding - as if the individual has violated some greater order?
And so that age-old complaint isn't "atheists can't be moral without God" (as an example). It's that the moral framework developed thereupon can't be binding in the same way. I know all about rejecting social conventions, and while people generally don't like it, it's just a convention at the end of the day. It's nonsense to say something like, "you're immoral if you don't live this kind of life" because that affirmation is nothing more than majority agreement in disguise. Immoral by X standard, maybe, but not by Y standard, and I like Y. Should I accept X over Y because many people are telling me I should? I think they should leave me alone and let me live my life.
I agree that what I believe we have as far as a moral framework is not binding in the sense that God's would be...I feel like i've been very open about that, its a conversation and a struggle, unspecific and what is generally accepted today as moral can change tomorrow.
I think the world changes and for better or worse our moral framework changes alot with it, and vice versa. If There are Objective morals from God then they do have the advantage of being static while accounting for all circumstances over all times with perfect clarity. Its a case of what I believe we actually have to work with as opposed to a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have.
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
Maybe, or maybe it wasn't as statistically unlikely as you think...but idk It just doesn't do much for me.
-
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me.
The difference is that the moral imperative is situated externally to the human mind. The warning is of some greater wrongdoing against a higher being and not just the violation of a person according to shared moral values, which may or may not change over time. To claim that the threat is 'meaningless to [you]' is not to claim that the threat itself is meaningless or is of an invented moral character vis-a-vis social contract, i.e. social construction.
Much like Pascal's wager that RK mentioned earlier, the rape may be engaged in and lead to no consequences beyond this life, or it may be engaged in and lead to eternal consequences. On the other hand, to acknowledge that moral imperatives are purely human inventions is to affirm that they may be violated so long as one is willing to violate a given social order, which constitutes a rejection of the social contract. But then why should that contract be morally binding - and not just socially binding - as if the individual has violated some greater order?
And so that age-old complaint isn't "atheists can't be moral without God" (as an example). It's that the moral framework developed thereupon can't be binding in the same way. I know all about rejecting social conventions, and while people generally don't like it, it's just a convention at the end of the day. It's nonsense to say something like, "you're immoral if you don't live this kind of life" because that affirmation is nothing more than majority agreement in disguise. Immoral by X standard, maybe, but not by Y standard, and I like Y. Should I accept X over Y because many people are telling me I should? I think they should leave me alone and let me live my life.
I agree that what I believe we have as far as a moral framework is not binding in the sense that God's would be...I feel like i've been very open about that, its a conversation and a struggle, unspecific and what is generally accepted today as moral can change tomorrow.
I think the world changes and for better or worse our moral framework changes alot with it, and vice versa. If There are Objective morals from God then they do have the advantage of being static while accounting for all circumstances over all times with perfect clarity. Its a case of what I believe we actually have to work with as opposed to a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have.
I'm assuming in the last sentence that "a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have" is a reference from the first sentence related to a binding moral framework from God. The following question is based on that premise, so if that premise is wrong, just ignore this question.
On what basis do you base your believe that "we don't have" a binding moral framework from God?
-
I see a lot of pain. Maybe you are closer to the Kingdom then you think.
I mean, from your perspective it is and always has been all around me like the matrix, or at least the keys have. Of course I have pain, i'm suspicious of anyone claiming not to and as an American Christians causing pain is practically a national sport. I am curious as to why you think pain may indicate closeness to the kingdom? Or is it that I have pain around Christians and Christianity that you think is the real indicator? I hope not, people calling themselves Christians and in the name of God have been scarring people for centuries, Many of those folk were born, lived and died in that pain, pain incomparably worse than mine and they died as something other than Christian...nah pain is an unfortunate part of life, and Christian caused pain is an unfortunate fact of history and the present...I'm vaguely repulsed by the notion you've expressed every time I hear it...its almost like saying , well, people suck and the abuses you suffered at the hands of people that claim to follow him were just God inexplicably making things painful and really friggin confusing just to bring you closer to him because this is a really good tactic. I mean I know a lot of people that claim to be Christians claim to believe some form of this...And again I suppose i'm supposed to read it and feel the deep transcendent wisdom in it but it sort of sounds like what an abusive parent or spouse says "I'm only doing this because I love you, but you just wont listen!"...Don't get me wrong its not an idea unique to Christianity, but when in rome, criticise the deeply held beliefs of the romans.
That's exactly what I meant, the part I colored red.
When I started reading this thread I thought, Oscar is showing his intellectual muscles making fun with Christians which is of course fine. Followed later with a couple of postings which I could not decide if you were trolling or just seriously meant what you said, maybe even a mix. Reading further I saw also pain. The pain (the red) I have seen so many times even among Christians, judging, damaging and destroying each other while Christ said: Don't judge. Love each other. And often the end result is that some people are so damaged they say farewell to their faith.
So I am wondering how much influence bad Christianity had in your life to become a staunch unbeliever.
Well I do find this to be an intellectually satisfying exercise, and I do think its fun, I do think some of the things you guys say is funny and worthy of a little light poking fun at, but to be fair I think alot of life is funny and worthy of a little poking fun at and myself especially. I would be very uncomfortable not using humor because that's just my personality and it breaks up the very serious and dramatic things I have to think about when I choose to honestly immerse myself in this. I've meant everything I said, I mean except when I was joking but even then It was rhetorically true...I think, as i've said sometimes what I think of as a joke comes off as a lie to others, because in my mind some jokes are lies...idk I hope i've represented my actual beliefs and thoughts clearly over the totality of my posts.
To the meat! I became an atheist because I stopped ( or some would say I never did) believing in God. Don't take offense, I'm not infantilizing believers when I say it was akin to finally putting together that Santa is actually your parents or even more traumatically that you're parents are just people that don't always know exactly what to do. Bit by bit it stopped making sense to me, It stopped seeming like a given then it stopped seeming true at all. For a long time I was Just like, Okay, I guess this is just how it is, lots of people believing this not true stuff because they want to or were raised in it or haven't bothered to really think about it....Most Christians I grew up with were not especially deep thinkers and even at a very young age I very much was by comparison to them if not the greater world. Anyway for the most part I didn't think about it much and just had other interests. Then I came across apologies, particularly some form of the transcendental argument (I think, it might have been a different one if i'm honest about my memory)....and I was liked DOPE! this is awesome people thinking about this stuff in depth. It wasn't even a Christian that introduced me it was another atheist kid, We talked about our thoughts on God and he had thought and read much more deeply than I ever did..he was sophisticated and i loved it. Sorry I went on a tangent, What I mean is I was pretty young when I stopped believing, People that called themselves Christians had done awful things to me when I was a child and a believer, but in my child brain they were just false Christians as I was familiar with that concept. When I stopped believing they were just people with no special knowledge doing the kinds of crappy things that people do. It wasn't until I studied more and interacted with more Christians in the greater world that I started becoming angry and hurt by the widespread and general hypocrisy and contradictions of if all....but to be fair that's being in your 20's for you lol. The pain, I think the most it does is make me not give Christians or anyone any special trust or respect just because they say they follow Christ or Buddah or they are humanist or whatever. I'm sure without the pain I'd have had a similar initial journey out or maybe not, maybe that early pain is why I though a little deeper and was a little less trusting of the things that my community believed...Sometimes , maybe most times we don't get to know exactly how our experiences have shaped us, Anxiety or ptsd is an easy one, but how and what and when you are likely to think something because of those experiences is much more nebulous. I think that's the best i've got right now.
-
Thanks, Oscar, for that response. Much appreciated and understood.
-
No, not fatalism in the sense of predestined or predetermined. I mean fatalism in the sense of "nothing matters."
For some reason, you just won't answer a straight question. So let me summarize what I think you mean and you can correct me if I am wrong. It will help clarify some things
Sorry, its funny because I often think the same of you all, but I will take it for granted that neither of us is doing it on purpose. To be clear I believe that people that aren't suffering from depression or some other condition are practically incapable of feeling that nothing matters in any practical way. I think that the idea that nothing you do will have an effect on anything is different than nothing that you do will matter to you because mattering is in our heads.
1. You do not believe that any action is either inherently evil or good.
2. You do believe that a majority of humans, either intentionally or accidentally, create cultural standards of right or wrong that should be binding on everyone.
3. You believe that if one is in the minority and the majority decides that an action taken by Person X that impacts a member of the minority in a manner with which the minority member disagrees is acceptable for the majority and for Person X but is offensive to the member of the minority but that the member of the minority has no remedy for that action.
4. You feel guilt over actions you done in the past, but have no standard other than your own internal understanding of what society does or should permit upon which to assign guilt or wrong to yourself.
Are all of those statements true?
1. Yeah, pretty much. I don't use good and evil in the way that you do...but of course I do think some things are Good or Bad For me , for you, for humanity, because I have notions of both. Those notions of course are unsupported by anything but the tools available to us that I discussed earlier, so maybe to you entirely unsupported in any meaningful way.
2. Yes I think that humans have come up with some Good guidelines that would work toward the embitterment of humanity. I speculate that the very best ones are just humans codifying in language facts about human biology & psychology...like do unto others, to my mind that is almost definitely the pro social purpose of empathy said in a succinct little witticism.
3. I mean that isn't even a belief so much as a state of affairs that has and continues to happen all throughout the history of humanity, heck its earlier behavior than humanity. There may be no recourse, there may be no options, you may not even get the chance to say no, stop , dont! Powerlessness is real.
4. Well I also have seen what consequences my actions have had, I've seen how i've hurt people and I've seen how I have ruined opportunities for others. I have been told as much by the hurt parties as well, I suppose they could have been lying about being in pain but it is reasonable to believe that they were being truthful in light of the circumstances and their being humans. Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes is one of our greatest talents, but even that isn't perfect because it does not scale well...Moreover even the wisest and most thoughtful of us are trapped at human scale intuitively. Like how you can find with astonishing frequency that humans that have peered furthest into the tiniest and largest scales of our universe are humbled by the fact that it is only the collaboration over history and through the tools created by the combined toil of all our antecedence can we describe scales that are impervious to our bald intuition. Just saying we get by with a little help from our friends.
And, while we are at it, why should anyone care less if you lie or not? Isn't the act of telling a falsehood amoral like everything else in your analysis? Or does lying fall under the rubric I outlined above?
I actually think the better question is why should I care less about lying if I enjoy it and can get away with it. The damage that my lies cause for other people is reason enough for them to care, but why should I? To be truthful I don't think that I care, not in the sense that my emotional reaction to other violations is automatic. For me it is almost entirely academic. There are the obvious reasons, getting caught in a lie can cause me personally lots of problems, boy who cried wolf, broken relationships, lost jobs and opportunities, heck even legal troubles. A Lot of lies are also a lot of lies to remember and that is on top of needing to also remember the truth, for me this is very practical. I think the one that makes me most tentative on a deep emotional level is that lies are unpredictable, or their effects are. When you are contradicting reality you do not have control over what that may do, what it may grow into...Once the reality of that set in it put the fear of God into me so to speak...it is chaotic and chaos doesn't allow for what I want to do or build or how I want to live, It takes away my choice , my autonomy and makes me more unsafe than I need to be in a world that is already all of those things to a degree. the fact is, as I see it, you cant actually know if you can "get away with it" or how it may come back to bite, its paranoia inducing, looking over your shoulder for something that you can have no reasonable expectation that you will see it coming.. So idk if everyone or anyone else will find that compelling but I believe all of those things are true, and as based in objective facts about the world and humans and societies as I have been able to muster to date. Still people lie, heck I still do it when I'm not vigilant or arrogant or just can't resist for some dumb reason or another, but now I pay for it, only inside, only while i'm alive, but because of my beliefs about the reality of lies my lies cannot rest well...and unfortunately as easy as it is to lie to others, I've never been even considered intentionally lying to myself about reality,
-
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me.
The difference is that the moral imperative is situated externally to the human mind. The warning is of some greater wrongdoing against a higher being and not just the violation of a person according to shared moral values, which may or may not change over time. To claim that the threat is 'meaningless to [you]' is not to claim that the threat itself is meaningless or is of an invented moral character vis-a-vis social contract, i.e. social construction.
Much like Pascal's wager that RK mentioned earlier, the rape may be engaged in and lead to no consequences beyond this life, or it may be engaged in and lead to eternal consequences. On the other hand, to acknowledge that moral imperatives are purely human inventions is to affirm that they may be violated so long as one is willing to violate a given social order, which constitutes a rejection of the social contract. But then why should that contract be morally binding - and not just socially binding - as if the individual has violated some greater order?
And so that age-old complaint isn't "atheists can't be moral without God" (as an example). It's that the moral framework developed thereupon can't be binding in the same way. I know all about rejecting social conventions, and while people generally don't like it, it's just a convention at the end of the day. It's nonsense to say something like, "you're immoral if you don't live this kind of life" because that affirmation is nothing more than majority agreement in disguise. Immoral by X standard, maybe, but not by Y standard, and I like Y. Should I accept X over Y because many people are telling me I should? I think they should leave me alone and let me live my life.
I agree that what I believe we have as far as a moral framework is not binding in the sense that God's would be...I feel like i've been very open about that, its a conversation and a struggle, unspecific and what is generally accepted today as moral can change tomorrow.
I think the world changes and for better or worse our moral framework changes alot with it, and vice versa. If There are Objective morals from God then they do have the advantage of being static while accounting for all circumstances over all times with perfect clarity. Its a case of what I believe we actually have to work with as opposed to a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have.
I'm assuming in the last sentence that "a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have" is a reference from the first sentence related to a binding moral framework from God. The following question is based on that premise, so if that premise is wrong, just ignore this question.
On what basis do you base your believe that "we don't have" a binding moral framework from God?
On the lack of belief in a God, There can be no God given moral framework if there is no God to give it.
-
Well, that's somewhat axiomatic!
If you have some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if I had some eggs...
:)
-
Well, that's somewhat axiomatic!
If you have some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if I had some eggs...
:)
I guess if I just presupposed no God it would be, but I don't it just logically follows from the first premise.
What would it look like if it looked like there was no objective moral framework from God? What can I observe about the world that would be incompatible with a reality where there is not an objective moral framework from God? How can I tell the difference?
-
Well, aren't you presupposing that in the absence of physical or observable evidence that you can prove the non-existence of the metaphysical?
-
Well, aren't you presupposing that in the absence of physical or observable evidence that you can prove the non-existence of the metaphysical?
I mean you could probably look at it like that because I don't believe there is a God or any gods or deities but I cannot prove probably most of them. For me though regarding GOD claims are made, arguments are made, expectations are set and none of them have had the clear bell like ring of truth when I have investigated them...So I could just as well say that I have not been convinced by anything I've encountered that was claimed about God or his existence which is less susceptible to the particular rhetorical trap you've pointed out, but I don't fret over it anymore than I fret not being able to Indisputably disprove Russell's teapot.
-
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me.
The difference is that the moral imperative is situated externally to the human mind. The warning is of some greater wrongdoing against a higher being and not just the violation of a person according to shared moral values, which may or may not change over time. To claim that the threat is 'meaningless to [you]' is not to claim that the threat itself is meaningless or is of an invented moral character vis-a-vis social contract, i.e. social construction.
Much like Pascal's wager that RK mentioned earlier, the rape may be engaged in and lead to no consequences beyond this life, or it may be engaged in and lead to eternal consequences. On the other hand, to acknowledge that moral imperatives are purely human inventions is to affirm that they may be violated so long as one is willing to violate a given social order, which constitutes a rejection of the social contract. But then why should that contract be morally binding - and not just socially binding - as if the individual has violated some greater order?
And so that age-old complaint isn't "atheists can't be moral without God" (as an example). It's that the moral framework developed thereupon can't be binding in the same way. I know all about rejecting social conventions, and while people generally don't like it, it's just a convention at the end of the day. It's nonsense to say something like, "you're immoral if you don't live this kind of life" because that affirmation is nothing more than majority agreement in disguise. Immoral by X standard, maybe, but not by Y standard, and I like Y. Should I accept X over Y because many people are telling me I should? I think they should leave me alone and let me live my life.
I agree that what I believe we have as far as a moral framework is not binding in the sense that God's would be...I feel like i've been very open about that, its a conversation and a struggle, unspecific and what is generally accepted today as moral can change tomorrow.
I think the world changes and for better or worse our moral framework changes alot with it, and vice versa. If There are Objective morals from God then they do have the advantage of being static while accounting for all circumstances over all times with perfect clarity. Its a case of what I believe we actually have to work with as opposed to a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have.
The thing is, people, live as if their moral values were sourced from outside of themselves. Someone can't think paedophilia is a reprehensible evil, but change their mind and think pederasty is laudable (all the Greeks are doing it, after all). Do you suppose that's wholly explicable by social contract, or is there some sense in which moral values are legitimately outside of ourselves? Why moral development at all, or is what we consider to be moral development something else in disguise?
-
Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me.
The difference is that the moral imperative is situated externally to the human mind. The warning is of some greater wrongdoing against a higher being and not just the violation of a person according to shared moral values, which may or may not change over time. To claim that the threat is 'meaningless to [you]' is not to claim that the threat itself is meaningless or is of an invented moral character vis-a-vis social contract, i.e. social construction.
Much like Pascal's wager that RK mentioned earlier, the rape may be engaged in and lead to no consequences beyond this life, or it may be engaged in and lead to eternal consequences. On the other hand, to acknowledge that moral imperatives are purely human inventions is to affirm that they may be violated so long as one is willing to violate a given social order, which constitutes a rejection of the social contract. But then why should that contract be morally binding - and not just socially binding - as if the individual has violated some greater order?
And so that age-old complaint isn't "atheists can't be moral without God" (as an example). It's that the moral framework developed thereupon can't be binding in the same way. I know all about rejecting social conventions, and while people generally don't like it, it's just a convention at the end of the day. It's nonsense to say something like, "you're immoral if you don't live this kind of life" because that affirmation is nothing more than majority agreement in disguise. Immoral by X standard, maybe, but not by Y standard, and I like Y. Should I accept X over Y because many people are telling me I should? I think they should leave me alone and let me live my life.
I agree that what I believe we have as far as a moral framework is not binding in the sense that God's would be...I feel like i've been very open about that, its a conversation and a struggle, unspecific and what is generally accepted today as moral can change tomorrow.
I think the world changes and for better or worse our moral framework changes alot with it, and vice versa. If There are Objective morals from God then they do have the advantage of being static while accounting for all circumstances over all times with perfect clarity. Its a case of what I believe we actually have to work with as opposed to a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have.
The thing is, people, live as if their moral values were sourced from outside of themselves. Someone can't think paedophilia is a reprehensible evil, but change their mind and think pederasty is laudable (all the Greeks are doing it, after all). Do you suppose that's wholly explicable by social contract, or is there some sense in which moral values are legitimately outside of ourselves? Why moral development at all, or is what we consider to be moral development something else in disguise?
Our morals do in an equally real sense come from outside of ourselves as much as from inside. That is to say we didn't pick the properties of human beings that influence our moral development and the history of humanity's moral writings and structures and struggles and ideas, these are outside of any one person... an individual digests these things but they come from outside of themselves strictly speaking. I don't think that we should completely ignore the externalities any more than we should the interior aspects. So I cannot agree that everyone acts like that or that taking it into consideration is anything less than taking in the full picture.
Why can't a person change their views on pedophilia ( though i'm not entirely sure that pedophilia isn't strongly influenced by biology in some individuals). Is the directionality of this important to your point because I think the reverse can happen too? If so why?
Why at all? Well, I think some of it evolved biologically because it provided survival benefit, again i'm looking at my favorite human morality tool of empathy. But at the scale of human society in the cerebral sense I think moral codes develop similarly to provide some benefit, to maximize something seen as beneficial or minimize something seen as deleterious. I think that it is in disguise when we credit a supernatural being or force with it, I think that It is disguised when we ignore that it may be a process more than a destination, I think it is disguised when we don't see it as an interaction of biological sociological and technological history, Its disguised when we are actually doing what i've been trying to describe but calling it anything else. When we are doing morality I believe this is what we are doing and all we've ever been doing.
Let me axe you, do you believe that morality for a Christian is a struggle too, that its developmental and not instantaneous? That there can be ephanies and influences and growth that leads one to greater moral clarity? or do you instantly receive every correct moral judgement but you just struggle to actually follow the correct path that is clearly laid out? Or a mix?
-
Can we agree that the bible is for the most part a good moral code to follow?
Unfortunately I cannot,
Ok, let me ask another question then. Those good values that exist in western civ, where did they come from? Don't kill, don't steal, love your neighbor, love the stranger, do unto others, and so on.
-
Can we agree that the bible is for the most part a good moral code to follow?
Unfortunately I cannot,
Ok, let me ask another question then. Those good values that exist in western civ, where did they come from? Don't kill, don't steal, love your neighbor, love the stranger, do unto others, and so on.
The ones you listed I think are all in the bible, which makes sense because the bible Is hugely influential in the West. It's also true that every one of those also predate the Bible as well. Additionally none of them are unique to Western civ (at least in the same sense that they are morals of western civ at all).To me that indicates that they don't come from the bible at all but predate it, you'd probably agree. It also means that the bible doesn't have to be a substantial influence on a society for the ones you listed to be adopted by a society. The bible is influential, no doubt about it, but as i've said before western civ just as any other civ draws its morality from a panoply of things over great timescales. It was not birthed fully formed and gifted to anyone, it grew, it developed, it was fought for and over...it was hard earned.
-
In reply to Oscar, because I'm not smart enough to do the "reply" thing always when i want only part of the quote!
"Let me axe you, do you believe that morality for a Christian is a struggle too, that its developmental and not instantaneous? That there can be ephanies and influences and growth that leads one to greater moral clarity? or do you instantly receive every correct moral judgement but you just struggle to actually follow the correct path that is clearly laid out? Or a mix?"
For myself, I think morality for a Christian is always a struggle, that it is both instantaneous and developmental. In Christian parlance that would be both "instant sanctification" and "progressive sanctification." Declared righteous in fact, but developing in practical outworking of righteous acts.
I believe that Scripture would teach that we all have an innate or inherent knowledge of morality, else the conscience would be meaningless. At the same time, as Christians spend time in prayer, in relationship with other believers, in studying the text of Scripture, in communing with God (all those metaphysical, "feely", non-scientifically testable aspects of faith), we all make moral and ethical determinations of what we believe God wants each of us to do. A perfect example is Paul's talk of holy days or food restrictions in Romans. Paul essentially says that food restrictions are amoral, but if a person believes a certain food should not be eaten in order to honor their understanding of God, then if they violate their conscience, then for them it is a sin.
I have many friends that believe that consuming alcohol is a sin. They truly, truly are convinced in their hearts that drinking alcohol is a violation and affront to God. If they have a beer, they have sinned. Period. I, on the other hand, do not share that belief. If I drink a beer, I have not sinned, but I have committed a gross epicurean faux pas, because I despise the taste and smell of beer. IN my teens and early 20's, however, I shared the first stance, but changed my opinion on the issue over time with a clear conscience.
The struggle for morality is difficult for the Christian. It isn't about rule keeping, but about honoring a being/person that you love with all your heart.
There is no rule that says I have to keep my socks and shoes picked up off the floor, but I know that having a sparkling clean house gives great meaning and comfort to my wife. I pick up by shoes and socks and put them where they are supposed to be our of honor and respect, which gives the act that is otherwise amoral a characteristic that is moral.
But my morality code is not based on society or what a majority or what even a minority of a culture might say; my morality code is based on my understanding of the high standard that God calls me to, sacrificial, self-denying, sometimes less than satisfying.
-
The ones you listed I think are all in the bible, which makes sense because the bible Is hugely influential in the West. It's also true that every one of those also predate the Bible as well.
But that isn't what I asked. What I asked is, do those values enter western civ via the bible?
-
Our morals do in an equally real sense come from outside of ourselves as much as from inside. That is to say we didn't pick the properties of human beings that influence our moral development and the history of humanity's moral writings and structures and struggles and ideas, these are outside of any one person... an individual digests these things but they come from outside of themselves strictly speaking. I don't think that we should completely ignore the externalities any more than we should the interior aspects. So I cannot agree that everyone acts like that or that taking it into consideration is anything less than taking in the full picture.
Outside of humanity as a whole, not merely the single individual looking down and seeing Plato. We're looking at a metanarrative, but with the suggestion that it's still fully human-centric in origin.
Why can't a person change their views on pedophilia ( though i'm not entirely sure that pedophilia isn't strongly influenced by biology in some individuals). Is the directionality of this important to your point because I think the reverse can happen too? If so why?
That's what I'm asking. Do you think a person who thinks paedophilia is ghastly change their mind and come to praise it? But clearly, there were/are cultures where such behaviour is/was tolerated, so what's going on there? Why moral outrage on one hand, and toleration - if not acceptance - on the other?
Why at all? Well, I think some of it evolved biologically because it provided survival benefit, again i'm looking at my favorite human morality tool of empathy. But at the scale of human society in the cerebral sense I think moral codes develop similarly to provide some benefit, to maximize something seen as beneficial or minimize something seen as deleterious. I think that it is in disguise when we credit a supernatural being or force with it, I think that It is disguised when we ignore that it may be a process more than a destination, I think it is disguised when we don't see it as an interaction of biological sociological and technological history, Its disguised when we are actually doing what i've been trying to describe but calling it anything else. When we are doing morality I believe this is what we are doing and all we've ever been doing.
"Survival benefit" is "God of the gaps" in evolutionary speak, but how does the former interact with what we know of ancient humanity and its moral values? As you know, the typical theistic argument is that morality points to the existence of the divine. Obviously moral codes can be beneficial (ahem, but not always). But why a code at all? Are we calling morality what is actually the majority pushing back against the powerful minority that would oppress them?
But even as I make reference to moral development lets not forget that our society has merely shipped its moral quandaries overseas. We're in love with the idea that we didn't do a thing, we only paid money, so we've been absolved.
Let me axe you, do you believe that morality for a Christian is a struggle too, that its developmental and not instantaneous? That there can be ephanies and influences and growth that leads one to greater moral clarity? or do you instantly receive every correct moral judgement but you just struggle to actually follow the correct path that is clearly laid out? Or a mix?
I think the answer is pretty obvious through a cursory reading of the bible: there's a clear development of moral values across time. But a Christian's discovery of moral values is a subtly different thing from the invention of moral values. Or maybe those two things are the same, and the difference is between what one recognises as the source of investigation.
-
In reply to Oscar, because I'm not smart enough to do the "reply" thing always when i want only part of the quote!
Honestly I understand it but still don't do it sometimes either because its a pain in the butt, but you doing this actually made it easier for me. So I don't mind if you spend your intellect on the discussion at hand instead of the formatting, its win win.
For myself, I think morality for a Christian is always a struggle, that it is both instantaneous and developmental. In Christian parlance that would be both "instant sanctification" and "progressive sanctification." Declared righteous in fact, but developing in practical outworking of righteous acts.
instantaneous and developmental, paradoxical but you know what, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
I believe that Scripture would teach that we all have an innate or inherent knowledge of morality, else the conscience would be meaningless. At the same time, as Christians spend time in prayer, in relationship with other believers, in studying the text of Scripture, in communing with God (all those metaphysical, "feely", non-scientifically testable aspects of faith), we all make moral and ethical determinations of what we believe God wants each of us to do. A perfect example is Paul's talk of holy days or food restrictions in Romans. Paul essentially says that food restrictions are amoral, but if a person believes a certain food should not be eaten in order to honor their understanding of God, then if they violate their conscience, then for them it is a sin.
I think we all (and by all I mean that it is common to human design) have the capacity for moral reasoning and empathy. What you've described seems to be essentially what I believe we all do except that you think God is doing stuff in there too.
This whole sin for you, but not for me business makes some sense to me in the sense that doing a thing that you believe is wrong is to intentionally attempt to do something wrong..... buuuut It also feels like a bit of slight of hand. Like of course objective morality can be both static, eternal and apply to every situation ever if it can also be subjective, that is subject to the subject's beliefs about the objective evilness of the thing. Fact is, someone is right about the objective evilness of some arbitrary thing and someone is wrong about it, Exporting it out to what they do about said arbitrary thing does nothing to address the objective moral nature of the arbitrary thing. It Feels like you want to display this beautiful cake and you also want to eat the entire cake and you solve this conundrum by eating the back half of the cake and placing it up against a wall for display, its a clever solution, but it doesn't exactly do what you set out to do.
I have many friends that believe that consuming alcohol is a sin. They truly, truly are convinced in their hearts that drinking alcohol is a violation and affront to God. If they have a beer, they have sinned. Period. I, on the other hand, do not share that belief. If I drink a beer, I have not sinned, but I have committed a gross epicurean faux pas, because I despise the taste and smell of beer. IN my teens and early 20's, however, I shared the first stance, but changed my opinion on the issue over time with a clear conscience.
I have friends too and that's a fact like Agnus, Agatha, Germain and Jack lol. I there is nothing inherently evil about alcohol unless you think there is something inherently evil about alcohol then what about Slavery? Is it cool if I bring some orphan into bondage to work my fields for the rest of their lives if I treat them nice and believe that ownership of another human isn't inherently evil? Is slavery like beer? is murder like slavery? is murder like beer? Why or why not?
....but actually like if you believed that drinking a beer quickly was okay but "smashing" one is a sin it would become a sin even though the only fundamental difference between the two is the words you use to describe the same action...like doesn't that seem a bit off to you? You can just create sins out of thin air by just kinda having idiosyncratic superstitions or by being extremely uncritical of what people tell you are sins...like when does it end?
The struggle for morality is difficult for the Christian. It isn't about rule keeping, but about honoring a being/person that you love with all your heart.
I think the struggle for morality is probably difficult for everyone, that's why it's not called the fun summer day at the beach for morality lol. If what you have to do in your moral struggle, and what I have to do only differ in what we believe we are doing, but they effectively look the same, then adding God in there is a bit like claiming to have added fairy dust. It's even worse in that we are both bound to make mistakes and have misapprehensions in this struggle, except that if you are wrong about the evilness of a thing then it actually becomes evil for you in a very literal sense...like you can be severed from God for all eternity if you believed mismatched socks were evil, but one morning you are feeling very sick and just throw on the mismatched socks because you don't have the energy to search, then you drop dead because you were actually deathly ill. perfect justice.
There is no rule that says I have to keep my socks and shoes picked up off the floor, but I know that having a sparkling clean house gives great meaning and comfort to my wife. I pick up by shoes and socks and put them where they are supposed to be our of honor and respect, which gives the act that is otherwise amoral a characteristic that is moral.
totally get this, don't think God has to get anyone there, just like actually caring about your wife is justification enough.
But my morality code is not based on society or what a majority or what even a minority of a culture might say; my morality code is based on my understanding of the high standard that God calls me to, sacrificial, self-denying, sometimes less than satisfying.
I disagree, I think it is...I would bet there is something that you believe is sinful that has been influenced by society and or some majority/minority, and even if not you are absolutely susceptible to it. What even is struggling for morality through "being in relationship with other believers" if it's not influencing and being influenced by each other at least to some degree? See, the mere fact that it is permissible that you could believe something that the majority falsely insists is a sin, means that your moral code can be based on the majority opinion in a very real way because anything that you believe is a sin becomes an actual sin despite. You can believe any claim from any source and it becomes something that actually affects your salvation regardless of whether or not what you believe is objectively morally true. I like you and I think you believe what you say, but I don't believe for a second that this has never happened to you much less that it couldn't....I mean I wouldn't be surprised if your early views on alcohol weren't influenced by your community.
-
The ones you listed I think are all in the bible, which makes sense because the bible Is hugely influential in the West. It's also true that every one of those also predate the Bible as well.
But that isn't what I asked. What I asked is, do those values enter western civ via the bible?
and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...like the entirety of western values aren't summed up by the ones you listed, so even if I conceded that every one of your list has a direct genetic lineage to the Bible that cannot be said of all "good" western values much less the "good" values around the world.
-
and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...like the entirety of western values aren't summed up by the ones you listed, so even if I conceded that every one of your list has a direct genetic lineage to the Bible that cannot be said of all "good" western values much less the "good" values around the world.
Fenris isn't suggesting that Western values are wholly derived from the Bible. As he's argued elsewhere - although I'm not sure why it would need to be an argument - such values derive from Greco/Roman/Christian/etc. Biblically speaking, the idea that not all "good" (?) values are found in the Bible is consistent with the teaching of the Bible.
Morality is a funny subject. The values are always changing, but they're so foundational to our experience of the world that they're otherwise transparent.
-
and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...
Western Civ is the combination of two sets of ideas.
There's the way we think, and the way we feel.
The way we think: The ideals of democracy, free speech, abstract science and the harnessing of the laws of nature for mankind's benefit. These all come to us from the Greeks. They reach us primarily via the Romans.
But then there's the way we feel. Our values and ethics and morals. The infinite value of a human life. The idea of equality before the law. Do unto others. Those are all Jewish in origin. They reach us primarily via Christianity.
Those are the two sources of basically everything that underpins our society. And it's difficult to imagine such ideas as "progress" and "human rights" if our society was not based on these origins. One does not have to be religious or indeed even believe in God to acknowledge these facts.
-
Outside of humanity as a whole, not merely the single individual looking down and seeing Plato. We're looking at a metanarrative, but with the suggestion that it's still fully human-centric in origin.
yeah, I mean, yeah
That's what I'm asking. Do you think a person who thinks paedophilia is ghastly change their mind and come to praise it? But clearly, there were/are cultures where such behaviour is/was tolerated, so what's going on there? Why moral outrage on one hand, and toleration - if not acceptance - on the other?
I don't know of any cases but I don't see why not. I do not know that I can tell you why pedarcy specifically is wildly popular in some times and places and repudiated in others. I can say that it was possible and while i'm not especially familiar with why they said it was a good thing but I guess that was convincing, so some folks made it happen. In other places perhaps the anti-arguements were more convincing. In my view there are so many possible interactions that there were definitely reasons but they may not be available or scrutable to us...now i'm forced to look up the Greek rationale and pray that it isn't an indisputable argument for why I am morally obligated to do it too.
Edit:
that wiki on greek pedracy was pretty interesting actually. They seem to have felt it was a perfectly acceptable way for a rich influential old creep to fulfill his proclivities and A good way for a Young man just getting started to make powerful connections and learn how he too can become a rich powerful old creep lol. I was thinking 7 year olds but it's more like pubescents 14-16 which was marrying age for the Greeks, so. there was also a lot of etiquette around it too, which seemed to offer a lot of autonomy and choice to the boys and his parents or at least father. I'm not saying its great but the boys were not stuck for life or at all really, it was a waaaay better deal than greek girls, they had no choice which old creep they married, were obviously expected to have sex and pop out children and they were stuck with that old windbag for life probably. So the age range fits more with ancient and current sensibilities around the world as to what acceptable marrying age is than my American ones, but I do recognize that becoming fertile is biology signaling its readiness even if the person may benefit in many ways from doing some other stuff for a few years first. Overall its not difficult to understand why the people that benefited from it were down for it and why the people who weren't wealthy and powerful may not have cared for it but had no wealth, power or education to create and pass out a bunch of pamphlets about why it was gross lol. come to think of it, a 16 year old marrying a rich 50 year old is perfectly legal in many places here though maybe frowned upon, but the practice and motives practically still exists so they did it for the same reasons that we still do it.
"Survival benefit" is "God of the gaps" in evolutionary speak, but how does the former interact with what we know of ancient humanity and its moral values? As you know, the typical theistic argument is that morality points to the existence of the divine. Obviously moral codes can be beneficial (ahem, but not always). But why a code at all? Are we calling morality what is actually the majority pushing back against the powerful minority that would oppress them?
I think that's a bit unfair to me and the scientists who spend their studying evolution particularly evolution regarding social behaviors and ethics and morality. It's always a tradeoff when typing a post, but you would just ask more about what I believe is well evidenced and what is simply a strong feeling that its probably natural selection because we have evidence that it does things like this but if I'm honest IDK. But to the scientist in that field, I think many would be orders of magnitude more precise about what they claim to be well evidenced, what is hypothesized and what is bald speculation. There is stuff I don't Know, There is stuff science doesn't know and those Gaps aren't where evolution lives, it lives in the stuff we do feel is well evidenced enough to say we know. It makes no more sense to say than that gravity is astrophysics of the gaps.
Okay, as an example, I think that empathy probably evolved via natural selection before humans but also within humans and is key to our moral development but isn't the only factor. I think that empathy evolved in smaller groups than we deal with today and it's limits are showing badly. I think empathy in ancient humanity plays exactly the same role as it does in modern humans, It allows us to step into another's shoes and frequently it promotes pro social behaviors by having us feel how it might feel to have done to us what we are thinking of doing to someone else...sometimes whether we want to or not. I have read that psychopathy could be thought of not so much a lack of empathy as not experiencing automatic empathy, like they can flick it on if it seems like it might be useful to the situation or leave it off if it doesn't. Anyway So ancient humans lived and cooperated in relatively small groups and these groups were not unending indiscriminate murder fests because i'm here typing this. They probably weren't indiscriminate stealing fests either because why would you stay where you nor anyone else knows moment to moment if the people in your group are just going to take all the berries you picked and leave you berryless. Empathy can influence a degree of social stability, and ancient peoples certainly had that...most social animals do. Empathy just like the startle response empathy is trainable too, Humans are pretty good at it too, as far as I know we have the greatest ability to abstract or imagine things abstracted from our current circumstances. Using that to essentially crosstrain with empathy is very powerful and you can start thinking about not just how your little group might feel but also how others might, and what might motivate them or control them or bring them together to build a big mound of dirt or whatever it is you are trying to do. Ancient peoples certainly appear to have done that. obviously this wasn't the only factor, and this is getting too long, so you get what i'm saying right?
Why codes at all? Initially I said because benefit, but really I think first it is because we had the tools to be able to think and reason about ourselves and each other and the world and make long term plans and to abstract those ideas. We had the ability to think about how we could make our lives and the lives of our communities better.
We had the tools to see the value in groups, and think about how it could be better and imagine what more could be done. We could see the things that people did that had bad outcomes and remember those things and consider whether or not they were just unlucky or if what they did was the problem, we can even vividly imagine what might happen if we chose to do a thing. I could see beings with those abilities collecting what they have learned and sharing the do's and don'ts they have discovered amongst each other. I can imagine them arguing about why this is actually a do but you say its a don't, some would be more convincing than others. Some would be easier to test than others. some would be more repeatable than others. I imagine you could put together a pretty healthy list if you had an interest in things that might be beneficial. I bet if you had a list sharpened by time and testing, great successes and debate over generations you might be pretty confident in it...you might even say this is the greatest list of all time and everyone should follow its wisdom. I typed out all of that but really if morality isn't deeply interrelated with benefits in reality then I think it's superstition disguised as morality. When looking at it that way then "why a code" is as obvious as "why a spear"..we can discuss the fact that not every spear is better than throwing a rock or that populations have surely greatly damaged or destroyed themselves with a spear based arms race, but they clearly have their benefits so of course we did.
But even as I make reference to moral development lets not forget that our society has merely shipped its moral quandaries overseas. We're in love with the idea that we didn't do a thing, we only paid money, so we've been absolved.
I can't imagine how I've left you with the impression that i'm so enamored with our society. I need not go overseas, I can step out of my door and see the evidence of our moral imperfection and if we treat "ourselves" like this then there is never a place for the idea that we treat "them" any better to find purchase. I know what you mean and everything but there are plenty who are in revolt and yes plenty who just buy the revolt themed t-shirt and post it on insta.
I think the answer is pretty obvious through a cursory reading of the bible: there's a clear development of moral values across time. But a Christian's discovery of moral values is a subtly different thing from the invention of moral values. Or maybe those two things are the same, and the difference is between what one recognises as the source of investigation.
Subtly different, how?
-
Fenris isn't suggesting that Western values are wholly derived from the Bible. As he's argued elsewhere - although I'm not sure why it would need to be an argument - such values derive from Greco/Roman/Christian/etc. Biblically speaking, the idea that not all "good" (?) values are found in the Bible is consistent with the teaching of the Bible.
good, me neither but I thought he was about to.
Morality is a funny subject. The values are always changing, but they're so foundational to our experience of the world that they're otherwise transparent.
Yep
-
and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...
Western Civ is the combination of two sets of ideas.
There's the way we think, and the way we feel.
The way we think: The ideals of democracy, free speech, abstract science and the harnessing of the laws of nature for mankind's benefit. These all come to us from the Greeks. They reach us primarily via the Romans.
But then there's the way we feel. Our values and ethics and morals. The infinite value of a human life. The idea of equality before the law. Do unto others. Those are all Jewish in origin. They reach us primarily via Christianity.
Those are the two sources of basically everything that underpins our society. And it's difficult to imagine such ideas as "progress" and "human rights" if our society was not based on these origins. One does not have to be religious or indeed even believe in God to acknowledge these facts.
Like, i don't agree exactly, but I also want to see where this is going so for the sake of argument, agreed.
-
I think that's a bit unfair to me and the scientists who spend their studying evolution particularly evolution regarding social behaviors and ethics and morality.
Maybe, maybe not. Deferring to survivability is fine I suppose, but it's presupposition brought forward. There is at some point the problem of the development of morality as a survival mechanism (let's say), and iterations on moral values. So we might say that it's advantageous not to kill those immediately around you, and let's call that 'murder'. But hey, those competing genes one-click east? Kill the men, impregnate the women, indoctrinate and enslave the children. But wait, that's not wrong either? Ah, because genes are driving the survival of the species. Well, how do we know this? Because evolutionary adaptations favour survivability. But now we've run ourselves in a circle. What evolution doesn't account for is mind, and what the survivability argument doesn't account for are all those species with no morality per se but which are around all the same.
The same for something like consciousness. The presupposition is the answer, and so, when "God did it" gets brought up and tossed out, so too should "survivability". I think we'd also have to acknowledge that morality might turn out to be failed evolutionary experiment in a million years' time, but then that undermines the whole process does it not?
It's always a tradeoff when typing a post, but you would just ask more about what I believe is well evidenced and what is simply a strong feeling that its probably natural selection because we have evidence that it does things like this but if I'm honest IDK. But to the scientist in that field, I think many would be orders of magnitude more precise about what they claim to be well evidenced, what is hypothesized and what is bald speculation. There is stuff I don't Know, There is stuff science doesn't know and those Gaps aren't where evolution lives, it lives in the stuff we do feel is well evidenced enough to say we know. It makes no more sense to say than that gravity is astrophysics of the gaps.
That's not what I've said.
Okay, as an example, I think that empathy probably evolved via natural selection before humans but also within humans and is key to our moral development but isn't the only factor. I think that empathy evolved in smaller groups than we deal with today and it's limits are showing badly. I think empathy in ancient humanity plays exactly the same role as it does in modern humans, It allows us to step into another's shoes and frequently it promotes pro social behaviors by having us feel how it might feel to have done to us what we are thinking of doing to someone else...sometimes whether we want to or not. I have read that psychopathy could be thought of not so much a lack of empathy as not experiencing automatic empathy, like they can flick it on if it seems like it might be useful to the situation or leave it off if it doesn't.
Anyway So ancient humans lived and cooperated in relatively small groups and these groups were not unending indiscriminate murder fests because i'm here typing this. They probably weren't indiscriminate stealing fests either because why would you stay where you nor anyone else knows moment to moment if the people in your group are just going to take all the berries you picked and leave you berryless. Empathy can influence a degree of social stability, and ancient peoples certainly had that...most social animals do. Empathy just like the startle response empathy is trainable too, Humans are pretty good at it too, as far as I know we have the greatest ability to abstract or imagine things abstracted from our current circumstances. Using that to essentially crosstrain with empathy is very powerful and you can start thinking about not just how your little group might feel but also how others might, and what might motivate them or control them or bring them together to build a big mound of dirt or whatever it is you are trying to do. Ancient peoples certainly appear to have done that. obviously this wasn't the only factor, and this is getting too long, so you get what i'm saying right?
I get what you're saying, yes, and to that, I would say (1) what's empathy? I'm bad at it myself, and (2) empathy isn't a requirement for cooperation or compulsion in tribal settings where the strong man at the top tells everyone else what to do. This also doesn't extend beyond particular groups until the mind is brought in, which usurps the evolutionary process. By that, you mean 'empathy', but I suppose here it's worth asking where evolution stops and Oscar begins? Are you empathetic because it's purely advantageous? But then what do we mean by empathy? If it's purely advantageous, then how programmatically driven are we, biologically? Speaking of bias, how much of these evolutionary processes are so foundational to the human condition that they're unquestionably adopted as true? But even then, what about the wildly varying moral values across space and time?
I guess this is where natural selection gets to be the unintelligent designer.
Why codes at all? Initially I said because benefit, but really I think first it is because we had the tools to be able to think and reason about ourselves and each other and the world and make long term plans and to abstract those ideas. We had the ability to think about how we could make our lives and the lives of our communities better.
Have you ever read Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?
... I typed out all of that but really if morality isn't deeply interrelated with benefits in reality then I think it's superstition disguised as morality. When looking at it that way then "why a code" is as obvious as "why a spear"..we can discuss the fact that not every spear is better than throwing a rock or that populations have surely greatly damaged or destroyed themselves with a spear based arms race, but they clearly have their benefits so of course we did.
It can't be superstition if it's an evolutionary strategy. I'd find merit in your suggestion, which I think is partially true, but not wholly true, because people don't like wearing masks, getting vaccines, and seem obsessed with trying Communism just one more time. But then, we've quickly moved from evolutionary strategy to thought.
I can't imagine how I've left you with the impression that i'm so enamored with our society. I need not go overseas, I can step out of my door and see the evidence of our moral imperfection and if we treat "ourselves" like this then there is never a place for the idea that we treat "them" any better to find purchase. I know what you mean and everything but there are plenty who are in revolt and yes plenty who just buy the revolt themed t-shirt and post it on insta.
Oscar, my existence is resistance, please support me.
I don't think you're enamoured with our society. I think our society is highly hypocritical. Everyone. I think all societies are, but since I live in this one I'll call it out.
Subtly different, how?
One's a discovery and one's an invention. Someone invents the idea that the sky is a sphere with pretty little lights on it. Someone discovers that those lights are stars like our own. Of course, morality is trickier than astronomy.
-
Maybe, maybe not. Deferring to survivability is fine I suppose, but it's presupposition brought forward. There is at some point the problem of the development of morality as a survival mechanism (let's say), and iterations on moral values. So we might say that it's advantageous not to kill those immediately around you, and let's call that 'murder'. But hey, those competing genes one-click east? Kill the men, impregnate the women, indoctrinate and enslave the children. But wait, that's not wrong either? Ah, because genes are driving the survival of the species. Well, how do we know this? Because evolutionary adaptations favour survivability. But now we've run ourselves in a circle. What evolution doesn't account for is mind, and what the survivability argument doesn't account for are all those species with no morality per se but which are around all the same.
The same for something like consciousness. The presupposition is the answer, and so, when "God did it" gets brought up and tossed out, so too should "survivability". I think we'd also have to acknowledge that morality might turn out to be failed evolutionary experiment in a million years' time, but then that undermines the whole process does it not?
Myself nor Evolution as a scientific theory claims that survivability explains all of morality and its development because for example we created writing which strictly speaking the biological tools that we used to create writing were not evolved for writing, moreover the things that we invented on the way to writing were not biological at all, like tally scratches on sticks or bones or whatever. Evolution may be pretty good at explaining what we have biologically and how it got there and can be informative to human behavior, but what it is possible for us to do is beyond what evolution purports to describe, that is why the study of Humans isn't just evolution or just biology or just sociology or just history no single one even pretends that any of them alone explains even morality let alone Humanity. I don't know what evolutionary biologists you've been talking to that would make the kind of argument you've described as any more than a fun thing to think about, but yeah I agree that argument sucks but neither me or Evolution are making it.
That's not what I've said.
.
My mistake, sorry.
I get what you're saying, yes, and to that, I would say (1) what's empathy? I'm bad at it myself, and (2) empathy isn't a requirement for cooperation or compulsion in tribal settings where the strong man at the top tells everyone else what to do. This also doesn't extend beyond particular groups until the mind is brought in, which usurps the evolutionary process. By that, you mean 'empathy', but I suppose here it's worth asking where evolution stops and Oscar begins? Are you empathetic because it's purely advantageous? But then what do we mean by empathy? If it's purely advantageous, then how programmatically driven are we, biologically? Speaking of bias, how much of these evolutionary processes are so foundational to the human condition that they're unquestionably adopted as true? But even then, what about the wildly varying moral values across space and time?
I guess this is where natural selection gets to be the unintelligent designer.
Well, for anything that you can call a human trait there are going to be some people born without it. Your lack of empathy is no more an indictment than if I was talking about vision or fingers. Empathy isn't a requirement for cooperation it is useful in cooperation and can reinforce it, I never meant that it was a must for any instance of cooperation, individual ants and bees don't have it or most of what we have and they are cooperative as all get out. I'm not sure what particular groups you are referring to when you say "{Empathy} doesn't usually extend beyond particular groups until the mind is brought in"...but luckily we are equipped with both and I believe moral development certainly used both along with plenty else. Is there some reason that empathy couldn't have had the influences that I described within only these particular groups though? Evolution surely had done everything it was going to do to me by the time I was Born. Empathy was selected for in my ancestors because they were successful enough to get a descendant all the way to now. I inherited empathy, a kind of empathy, I mean you can and likely do use reason and imagination to put yourself in another's shoes, but perhaps you've never experienced an automatic empathetic response. You might also have had uncommon troubles determining the emotional state of others too? Anyway I have it because I inherited it, I've trained it because I wanted to make some changes in my life. Its mine now, I can do whatever I want with it despite how or why it got here. Humans are exactly 32.68% biologically driven lol nah, Obviously there is a spectrum of what biological drives have what and how much of an effect on who. I don't know what kind of margins you are looking for and I don't know that I can provide them but if you wanna specify further i'm game to try. "how much of these evolutionary processes are so foundational to the human condition that they're unquestionably adopted as true?" is a darn interesting question that I do not know the answer to, but i'll speculate cuz its a really cool question. I mean the idea that no human has or ever will question something is a pretty big ask, friggin Philosophers exist so lol. But perhaps its so transparent to us that it never could occur to us to question it, but what does a belief like that even look like, is it a belief at all in any meaningful sense or just a reflex. I mean maybe that feeling that i'm inside of my body somewhere, but nah its not unquestioned and not a belief. Yeah i'm leaning toward probably none.
Have you ever read Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?
Yes, you introduced me to it back on the old forum. Can't say that I read it again recently, so if you think its solid then hit me with the bullet points.
It can't be superstition if it's an evolutionary strategy. I'd find merit in your suggestion, which I think is partially true, but not wholly true, because people don't like wearing masks, getting vaccines, and seem obsessed with trying Communism just one more time. But then, we've quickly moved from evolutionary strategy to thought.
First of all why can't it be? Second I never even meant to imply that superstition can be simply described as an evolutionary strategy any more that morality can. Empathy I believe was evolved, what humans created with each other and over human history in part utilizing empathy is not an evolutionary strategy. it would be no more reasonable than if I talked about how some aspect of organic chemistry like 3-methylindole may have influenced moral development and you took that to mean that i'm saying morality is just chemical reactions... Its not even just evolution and thought, I believe that it is a system of things and interactions between them over time that describes moral development not any one or two of those things... think obsessed detective board with red strings connecting everything to everything else not wild west wanted poster.
Oscar, my existence is resistance, please support me.
I don't think you're enamoured with our society. I think our society is highly hypocritical. Everyone. I think all societies are, but since I live in this one I'll call it out.
and a hearty #metoo to you. Hey, when in rome, point out the hypocrisy of the romans.
One's a discovery and one's an invention. Someone invents the idea that the sky is a sphere with pretty little lights on it. Someone discovers that those lights are stars like our own. Of course, morality is trickier than astronomy.
Well, some inventions are also atomic clocks made possible only through a long lineage of both discoveries about reality and invention. Not only does it comport with reality unlike the sky sphere it also addresses problems that didn't even exist 5,000 years ago. I think morality is more like an atomic clock than either of those alone.
Fyi I see that I missed some of your questions in the pervious post and i went back and edited them in.
-
Athanasius
I just watched a lil 10 minute video to get refreshed on Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism.
1. That in evolution it shouldn't matter if the belief that the evolved biology generates is true so long as it causes an advantageous behavior.
2.Therefore if evolution were true we should expect it to produce unreliable cognitive faculties, memory, senses and so on.
3. therefore if evolution is true then you can't trust your cognitive faculties, memory, senses and so on and shouldn't have confidence in the truth of any beliefs including evolution.
Is there more to the argument than that or is that the gist of it? if so do you think this is a good argument?
-
Like, i don't agree exactly, but I also want to see where this is going so for the sake of argument, agreed.
Well, that's it. Religion and the bible gave the world its moral system.
-
Like, i don't agree exactly, but I also want to see where this is going so for the sake of argument, agreed.
Well, that's it. Religion and the bible gave the world its moral system.
well, I appreciate you taking the time out to discuss this with me, thank you.
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
Maybe, or maybe it wasn't as statistically unlikely as you think...but idk It just doesn't do much for me.
Well, I am a number guy, and the only 2 cars in the Netherlands (by accident) driving in my area of the country and I (by accident) seeing them in one week is too much randomness. The odds are 1 to 8.333.333.333.
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
Maybe, or maybe it wasn't as statistically unlikely as you think...but idk It just doesn't do much for me.
Well, I am a number guy, and the only 2 cars in the Netherlands (by accident) driving in my area of the country and I (by accident) seeing them in one week is too much randomness. The odds are 1 to 8.333.333.333.
Far be it from me to impune your aptitude with numbers, yet I have my doubts that however you arrived at that number you captured every relevant factor....but hey maybe you did and it's reasonably accurate.
-
Athanasius
I just watched a lil 10 minute video to get refreshed on Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism.
1. That in evolution it shouldn't matter if the belief that the evolved biology generates is true so long as it causes an advantageous behavior.
2.Therefore if evolution were true we should expect it to produce unreliable cognitive faculties, memory, senses and so on.
3. therefore if evolution is true then you can't trust your cognitive faculties, memory, senses and so on and shouldn't have confidence in the truth of any beliefs including evolution.
Is there more to the argument than that or is that the gist of it? if so do you think this is a good argument?
That's the general gist, although the argument is probabilistic. It purports to raise the spectre of epistemic doubt in relation to the first premise: how can one's faculties be trusted if advantageous behaviour rather than truth-seeking is the evolutionary 'target'. It's a good argument whether one finds it compelling, and it's generated quite a few responses. There are two main formulations of it, actually. The first from '93 and the second from '08.
I mention it as it's interesting to think about, and particularly - though this is an aside - when rejections of the EAAN come into conflict with postmodernist conceptions of truth propositions, i.e., that we have no access to the world as it is, but only our perceptions.
-
Like, i don't agree exactly, but I also want to see where this is going so for the sake of argument, agreed.
Well, that's it. Religion and the bible gave the world its moral system.
Hardly a controversial suggestion given the development of moral systems did indeed occur in a pre-scientific age.
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
Maybe, or maybe it wasn't as statistically unlikely as you think...but idk It just doesn't do much for me.
Well, I am a number guy, and the only 2 cars in the Netherlands (by accident) driving in my area of the country and I (by accident) seeing them in one week is too much randomness. The odds are 1 to 8.333.333.333.
Far be it from me to impune your aptitude with numbers, yet I have my doubts that however you arrived at that number you captured every relevant factor....but hey maybe you did and it's reasonably accurate.
I can give you a second example of an answered prayer, but the odds are only 1 to 10.077.696 ;D
-
Like, i don't agree exactly, but I also want to see where this is going so for the sake of argument, agreed.
Well, that's it. Religion and the bible gave the world its moral system.
Hardly a controversial suggestion given the development of moral systems did indeed occur in a pre-scientific age.
The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi is dated 1750 BC
-
Well, that's it. Religion and the bible gave the world its moral system.
well, I appreciate you taking the time out to discuss this with me, thank you.
The significance:
I am not a Christian. I do not believe in salvation via faith. In fact, I don't believe that God is significantly interested in what we think. What concerns Him is how we behave. The bible being the ethical foundation of western civ means that billions of people are following God's blueprint for how He expects us to act.
-
Hardly a controversial suggestion given the development of moral systems did indeed occur in a pre-scientific age.
The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi is dated 1750 BC
The code of Hammurabi is a set of rules, sure, but it is not a "moral system" in any way that we recognize the term.
For example, if A builds a house for B, and the house collapses and kills B's child, then the punishment under Hammurabi's code is that A's child is killed in response.
This is not "moral" according to the bible nor (by extension) according to western civ. It teaches us nothing about personal responsibility for one's behavior. It is in fact the furthering of the concept that was prevalent at the time of child sacrifice, because, much like that, a child is not seen as a distinct individual but only as property of the parents.
-
Hardly a controversial suggestion given the development of moral systems did indeed occur in a pre-scientific age.
The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi is dated 1750 BC
The code of Hammurabi is a set of rules, sure, but it is not a "moral system" in any way that we recognize the term.
For example, if A builds a house for B, and the house collapses and kills B's child, then the punishment under Hammurabi's code is that A's child is killed in response.
This is not "moral" according to the bible nor (by extension) according to western civ. It teaches us nothing about personal responsibility for one's behavior. It is in fact the furthering of the concept that was prevalent at the time of child sacrifice, because, much like that, a child is not seen as a distinct individual but only as property of the parents.
It's definitely about morals and when morals started to develop, or the earliest proof of its existence, the subject at hand. It of course has nothing to do with the Torah.
-
It's definitely about morals and when morals started to develop
It's a code of laws. There's nothing particularly "moral" about it. Nor (weirdly enough) is there any evidence that it was ever actually used. And in the context of this discussion all it does is muddy the waters. Hammurabi's code is not the source of our values and morals. The bible is.
-
I think the question is whether works of jurisprudence are in themselves a moral system, and I think we might only get there negatively, or, if it is there, that it is so foreign to our understanding of moral systems that we don't recognise it as such (going back to what Fenris wrote above). So I think the point Fenris is making is that today's world derives much of its morality from the Bible (the Western world for the moment, anyway), not that the bible catalogues the very first people to think about morals or ethics.
...because I do think a legal code implies something about morality. But it is not itself the moral code, and I don't know that we have such an ancient example of a moral system?
-
...because I do think a legal code implies something about morality.
Why should the mere existence of a legal code imply morality? A legal code can be moral or immoral, depending on what it contains. We don't even have to go back to ancient history for that. Nazi Germany had a legal code that legalized genocide. That's why the Nazi leadership had to be tried under the heading of "crimes against humanity". Because what they did was perfectly legal under their country's laws at the time that they did it.
-
...because I do think a legal code implies something about morality.
Why should the mere existence of a legal code imply morality? A legal code can be moral or immoral, depending on what it contains. We don't even have to go back to ancient history for that. Nazi Germany had a legal code that legalized genocide. That's why the Nazi leadership had to be tried under the heading of "crimes against humanity". Because what they did was perfectly legal under their country's laws at the time that they did it.
A legal code implies morality in that it attempts to set a standard of behaviour. In the case of Hammurabi's code, the (ahem, class-specific) lex talionis. This would either have to correct some behaviour deemed unacceptable, or it sets the standard that begins the moral discussion. I don't think all moral systems will be moral according to a biblical understanding, but I think I have to accept that the people submitting to those moral values think they are being moral, virtuous, etc. Hammurabi's code isn't a moral code itself, and only rises to the level of implication.
In the case of Nazi Germany, it's like that quote from 1984:
"Look, I hate purity. Hate goodness. I don't want virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone corrupt."
What was peddled as right and moral was actually evil and immoral. Or, you know, people had a gun to their head while their children were indoctrinated.
-
Athanasius
I just watched a lil 10 minute video to get refreshed on Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism.
1. That in evolution it shouldn't matter if the belief that the evolved biology generates is true so long as it causes an advantageous behavior.
2.Therefore if evolution were true we should expect it to produce unreliable cognitive faculties, memory, senses and so on.
3. therefore if evolution is true then you can't trust your cognitive faculties, memory, senses and so on and shouldn't have confidence in the truth of any beliefs including evolution.
Is there more to the argument than that or is that the gist of it? if so do you think this is a good argument?
That's the general gist, although the argument is probabilistic. It purports to raise the spectre of epistemic doubt in relation to the first premise: how can one's faculties be trusted if advantageous behaviour rather than truth-seeking is the evolutionary 'target'. It's a good argument whether one finds it compelling, and it's generated quite a few responses. There are two main formulations of it, actually. The first from '93 and the second from '08.
I mention it as it's interesting to think about, and particularly - though this is an aside - when rejections of the EAAN come into conflict with postmodernist conceptions of truth propositions, i.e., that we have no access to the world as it is, but only our perceptions.
Okay in that case here are some things I think about it.
Yeah, I agree with the first premise or I agree that there should be the expectation that just good enough, or as much as we could afford should be expected in anything developed via evolution. Even hyperspecialized traits have their tradeoffs, you can be the fastest land mammal but only in short bursts and you are comparatively fragile. Plantinga seems to entirely ignore these sorts of interactions. He also appears to ignore biology that was selected for the advantage that its correct relationship with the outside world provides, like vision or cognition, that is to say that fidelity with reality in cognition or vision is what provides the advantage. but I think most discouragingly I just dont think his idea about how belief generation works or that it is a single type of non mutually interacting process. Like belief generation as described by Plantinga, I think the closest we get in an actual human is something like a revulsion response being agnostic to any beliefs that may be generated in response to it so long as the response causes avoidance...and that's not even what he is imagining, nor is it the only thing going on in our brains.
I also agree that unreliable or faulty or error prone, or limited, or truncated faculties is exactly what we see in humans or any life. there is no super animal that is maximally great at everything that is technically biologically possible. What we see is constant tradeoff's and compromises and limitations doing just enough to get ahead.
Finally I also agree that we should be extremely skeptical of our beliefs and our ability to generate beliefs that comport with reality. I don't agree that this leaves us hopelessly lost. We are individually very bad at lets say being perfect calculating machines, but we are good enough to build one...but see the real truth is that we aren't actually just good enough to build one because it took essentially all of human history and accumulated knowledge to do it. We were not "built" for that kind of scale, individually we are too mistake prone and live to beefily, but over history the little truths that we fumble our way into feedback and reinforce each other and allow me to reach back across history and use tools created by all that humanity so that I totally can build a calculator or incrementally improve the branch prediction of a cpu or whatever. You don't get to Cpu's or solar panels without the things that you believe about silicon actually comporting with some real aspect or properties of silicon and this only has a slight reality bias that looks dendritic and not like a sprawling landscape. anyway we all stand on the shoulders of approximately human sized people, but man there have been enough of them that a few humans stood on that peak they formed and stepped onto the moon.
-
A legal code implies morality in that it attempts to set a standard of behaviour.
In that case, you mean "morality" and not morality.
-
A legal code implies morality in that it attempts to set a standard of behaviour.
In that case, you mean "morality" and not morality.
Yes, but therein I'm allowing that any moral - or "moral" - system is a moral system, whereas I think you're saying that moral systems were only purportedly moral systems until the various revelations of God?
-
Okay in that case here are some things I think about it.
Yeah, I agree with the first premise or I agree that there should be the expectation that just good enough, or as much as we could afford should be expected in anything developed via evolution. Even hyperspecialized traits have their tradeoffs, you can be the fastest land mammal but only in short bursts and you are comparatively fragile. Plantinga seems to entirely ignore these sorts of interactions. He also appears to ignore biology that was selected for the advantage that its correct relationship with the outside world provides, like vision or cognition, that is to say that fidelity with reality in cognition or vision is what provides the advantage. but I think most discouragingly I just dont think his idea about how belief generation works or that it is a single type of non mutually interacting process. Like belief generation as described by Plantinga, I think the closest we get in an actual human is something like a revulsion response being agnostic to any beliefs that may be generated in response to it so long as the response causes avoidance...and that's not even what he is imagining, nor is it the only thing going on in our brains.
Typical refutations take the form of contending with Plantinga's notions of probability, like, how has Plantinga come up with X probably for Y thing? It reads like you're saying something like that?
Finally I also agree that we should be extremely skeptical of our beliefs and our ability to generate beliefs that comport with reality. I don't agree that this leaves us hopelessly lost. We are individually very bad at lets say being perfect calculating machines, but we are good enough to build one...
If we're very bad at being perfect calculating machines then we aren't capable of building the perfect calculating machine. I think one of the points is that we should be sceptical, but where is that scepticism grounded if along a naturalistic view there's no guarantee that we do interact with reality as reality actually is.
but see the real truth is that we aren't actually just good enough to build one because it took essentially all of human history and accumulated knowledge to do it. We were not "built" for that kind of scale, individually we are too mistake prone and live to beefily, but over history the little truths that we fumble our way into feedback and reinforce each other and allow me to reach back across history and use tools created by all that humanity so that I totally can build a calculator or incrementally improve the branch prediction of a cpu or whatever. You don't get to Cpu's or solar panels without the things that you believe about silicon actually comporting with some real aspect or properties of silicon and this only has a slight reality bias that looks dendritic and not like a sprawling landscape. anyway we all stand on the shoulders of approximately human sized people, but man there have been enough of them that a few humans stood on that peak they formed and stepped onto the moon.
I think a simpler refutation is simply that consciousness interacts with the world necessarily, and there need not be a specific selection for 'truth' because that's the base state of affairs. Why would any process result instead in false beliefs about real things? But that's the problem. The EAAN isn't a refutation of naturalism, but an attempt to undermine the confidence of the naturalist in her beliefs. That's probably a bigger problem for externalists than for internalists.
Anyway, a mere curiosity.
-
Yes, but therein I'm allowing that any moral - or "moral" - system is a moral system, whereas I think you're saying that moral systems were only purportedly moral systems until the various revelations of God?
I'm understanding you to say that any system that has expectations of behavior is by definition moral.
-
Typical refutations take the form of contending with Plantinga's notions of probability, like, how has Plantinga come up with X probably for Y thing? It reads like you're saying something like that?
essentially, The probabilities work fine in the world he describes, but I don't think he's describing our world.
If we're very bad at being perfect calculating machines then we aren't capable of building the perfect calculating machine. I think one of the points is that we should be sceptical, but where is that scepticism grounded if along a naturalistic view there's no guarantee that we do interact with reality as reality actually is.
See I knew I should have been more precise but I didn't feel like going back and rewriting. Like "Perfect Calculating Machine" is what exactly, right? So a calculating machine that can perform the calculations that the best humans could perform unreliably 10 times more reliably. But even that lacks some margins too, Like reliably as in meantime between hardware failure or in the case of humans passing out from exhaustion or is it incorrect result rate or in accuracy or in degrees of precision? I'd argue we can build machines that can do at least all of those simultaneously to a degree and rate that our individual meat can never achieve or even reliably detect that it is in fact doing that. Also I would count a machine that we create that can improve and expand its calculating abilities beyond what humans may even be able to apprehend much less perform reliably or unreliably in the space of what is possible in "calculating" as a thing that we can take credit for making. If you still feel that very bad calculators cannot create calculators that exceed them in some arbitrary number of some arbitrary metrics of performance by some arbitrary order of magnitude as outlined in these clarifications then please explain. Like if you are saying that as much of that stuff as is possible in this universe is where it breaks down then sure I agree, I bet that that universe is probably all calculator an no one around to revel in its awful power anyway. Now if you count calculators that we could accurately conceive and design and would work if we could build it but we cannot manipulate the physical world to the degree that would be required to actually build it, but it is not in principle impossible that it could be manipulated into such a configuration, then the calculator universe is not off the table for me.
Not only is there no guarantee, it is guaranteed that we don't accurately or precisely interact with reality though our meat or in some cases only accurately up to some degree of precision or only under some limited conditions. Like I was trying to put across that being good enough to provide an evolutionary advantage doesn't mean that there is not a relationship between some aspect or scale of reality and the biology that was selected, and that we cannot then work within these limited ranges to perform investigation and build tools that do not have these limitations. There is a lecture that I Think is called something like "the history of precision" that I'll look for later. But it walks through how we got to tools that can accurately and precisely measure things at scales that we have no natural tools that are reliable in any sense at those scales by working within our meat's limitations and ranges of accuracy and precision (and other meat gifts too)...its really cool.
Anyway in this sense I should be skeptical of my beliefs because my meat was by and large built to provide advantages in a world where it didn't really matter that you can't reliably tell that a stick is 15.3657478576mm longer than this other one. It didn't matter that you could detect a narrow range of chemicals reliably but couldn't detect the chirality of some arbitrary chemical. Or that you could reliably form the true belief that the sun is a heat source, but not that it is fusion powered ... we have no meat for that fanciness because it would be expensive to build, take up a bunch of space, probably be shaped really weird, and provide no appreciable advantage while simultaneously making us much worse at everything else, if its even possible.So, yeah I think there is a ground and there are also very good reasons to be skeptical and careful and conscientious of the margins of what you conclude about what your meat seems to say about the world.
see that seems like both too much and not enough of a response to your post.
I think a simpler refutation is simply that consciousness interacts with the world necessarily, and there need not be a specific selection for 'truth' because that's the base state of affairs. Why would any process result instead in false beliefs about real things? But that's the at problem. The EAAN isn't a refutation of naturalism, but an attempt to undermine the confidence of the naturalist in her beliefs. That's probably a bigger problem for externalists than for internalists.
Anyway, a mere curiosity.
Yeah I thought of consciousness, but the depth of well evidenced things we can say about it and its relationship to evolution is far shallower than what I went with I feel. But yeah, whatever consciousness is, and however it arises from our biology...the advantage it provides is very much based in the fidelity of its relationship to reality...buuuut still its only as good as it needed to be within our budget. I mean as a thing to think about, yes i'm having a blast, as a thing that does what it says it is going to do, its tragically unmoored.
-
I'm understanding you to say that any system that has expectations of behavior is by definition moral.
I consider it a moral system, not that it's moral necessarily, so I could say things like, "The Nazi moral system of the 1930s was quite immoral indeed".
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
Maybe, or maybe it wasn't as statistically unlikely as you think...but idk It just doesn't do much for me.
Well, I am a number guy, and the only 2 cars in the Netherlands (by accident) driving in my area of the country and I (by accident) seeing them in one week is too much randomness. The odds are 1 to 8.333.333.333.
Far be it from me to impune your aptitude with numbers, yet I have my doubts that however you arrived at that number you captured every relevant factor....but hey maybe you did and it's reasonably accurate.
I can give you a second example of an answered prayer, but the odds are only 1 to 10.077.696 ;D
So here are some of the problems for me outside of my incredulity regarding your calculations. Followers of other religions have made similar claims, down to the similar statistical unlikelihood touted. What am I to make of this? If I accept all of these claims as accurately described and genuinely improbable, then Christianity is at a dead heat with several other religions and things like "the secret" as things that can supernaturally generate unlikely outcomes. If i'm supposed to accept only the Christian claims and dismiss the others, then why are the Christian claims more credible? What of all the unanswered prayers, those where there was no sign or a contradictory outcome? for every person that miraculously survives some usually fatal medical condition or injury after praying for that outcome how many people pray for intercession and die anyway? You're a numbers man, what do you think that ratio is? Do you think that Christianity has a different ratio than any other religion that practices intercessory prayer? What of seemingly miraculously unlikely things that happened when no one prayed for them at all...Is that the work of the Christian God? Why isn't it some other god or just the fact that the opportunities for improbable things to occur often greatly outnumbers the actual occurrences? Why is it reasonable to accept your claims as miraculously improbable in light of the laws of combination & truly large numbers and confirmation bias and so on? why doesn't the same hold for muslim claims and so on?
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
Maybe, or maybe it wasn't as statistically unlikely as you think...but idk It just doesn't do much for me.
Well, I am a number guy, and the only 2 cars in the Netherlands (by accident) driving in my area of the country and I (by accident) seeing them in one week is too much randomness. The odds are 1 to 8.333.333.333.
Far be it from me to impune your aptitude with numbers, yet I have my doubts that however you arrived at that number you captured every relevant factor....but hey maybe you did and it's reasonably accurate.
I can give you a second example of an answered prayer, but the odds are only 1 to 10.077.696 ;D
So here are some of the problems for me outside of my incredulity regarding your calculations. Followers of other religions have made similar claims, down to the similar statistical unlikelihood touted. What am I to make of this? If I accept all of these claims as accurately described and genuinely improbable, then Christianity is at a dead heat with several other religions and things like "the secret" as things that can supernaturally generate unlikely outcomes. If i'm supposed to accept only the Christian claims and dismiss the others, then why are the Christian claims more credible? What of all the unanswered prayers, those where there was no sign or a contradictory outcome? for every person that miraculously survives some usually fatal medical condition or injury after praying for that outcome how many people pray for intercession and die anyway? You're a numbers man, what do you think that ratio is? Do you think that Christianity has a different ratio than any other religion that practices intercessory prayer? What of seemingly miraculously unlikely things that happened when no one prayed for them at all...Is that the work of the Christian God? Why isn't it some other god or just the fact that the opportunities for improbable things to occur often greatly outnumbers the actual occurrences? Why is it reasonable to accept your claims as miraculously improbable in light of the laws of combination & truly large numbers and confirmation bias and so on? why doesn't the same hold for muslim claims and so on?
I don't know the answers your questions, I do of course have opinions, but opinions are not facts and opinions are not very useful in a thread with the name Christian Overconfidence. So what I have done so far is just sharing my experiences, my personal facts.
-
I mean I've always thought I was unique but i dont think I'd be the first guy whose head explodes if God sent me a vision...Like is there a single recorded case of traumatic vision injury? I get it it maybe I don't like it, I captured fried and ate cicadas last brood I didn't not do it because they might taste like tree sap and dirt ...which they did and a little like shrimp, 3 out of 5 would eat bugs again. Likelihood, Oh I have no idea we'd need to be specific. A guy once told me something about traffic lights changing after he prayed being a sign of Gods glory, that one I could definitely wriggle my way out of pretty easily though I might run some tests to see if its repeatable and if it is then I might end up getting arrested for tearing apart traffic lights. I mean why would God send a vision that is obviously misconfigured for me, fine if free will is important i'm cool with seeing how I deal with just enough wiggle room. Thine is, the faithful get visions so its all kinda moot. No, Its more like I frequently require proof or some compelling rational argument (or I at least have to find it so) to believe things. God doesn't owe me anything as I understand it, But he both loves and wants me...I know how I act under those conditions, take me out for dinner and dancing...but His ways I suppose. It doesn't make sense to me, actually not making sense is something I can deal with, It has internal logic, but it does not seem to comport with reality or reason.
Don't underestimate prayer. As a young Christian I once had to make a hard decision, what to do with the rest of my life, I had two choices and I did not know what to choose. I decided to leave it up to the Lord because He would know best. Now at that time I drove in a very old Opel Ascona (my first car) with as license plate 17-23-UX and I knew there were only 2 newer cars (and one old like mine) in the Netherlands that had the same 6 characters only in a different order. And I asked the Lord to show me one of those as a sign what to decide. At the time the Netherlands had 5 million cars. It's a bit like winning the lottery if that would happen.
The months passed nothing happened (to my shame I was already a bit forgotten about the prayer) and then on a sunny afternoon I saw one driving right in front of me. Shock! The same week I saw the second one. Shock! Two jackpots in one week.
It's seems I am a bit hard of hearing, God answering in plural to me, maybe He was making fun of my unbelief.
Maybe, or maybe it wasn't as statistically unlikely as you think...but idk It just doesn't do much for me.
Well, I am a number guy, and the only 2 cars in the Netherlands (by accident) driving in my area of the country and I (by accident) seeing them in one week is too much randomness. The odds are 1 to 8.333.333.333.
Far be it from me to impune your aptitude with numbers, yet I have my doubts that however you arrived at that number you captured every relevant factor....but hey maybe you did and it's reasonably accurate.
I can give you a second example of an answered prayer, but the odds are only 1 to 10.077.696 ;D
So here are some of the problems for me outside of my incredulity regarding your calculations. Followers of other religions have made similar claims, down to the similar statistical unlikelihood touted. What am I to make of this? If I accept all of these claims as accurately described and genuinely improbable, then Christianity is at a dead heat with several other religions and things like "the secret" as things that can supernaturally generate unlikely outcomes. If i'm supposed to accept only the Christian claims and dismiss the others, then why are the Christian claims more credible? What of all the unanswered prayers, those where there was no sign or a contradictory outcome? for every person that miraculously survives some usually fatal medical condition or injury after praying for that outcome how many people pray for intercession and die anyway? You're a numbers man, what do you think that ratio is? Do you think that Christianity has a different ratio than any other religion that practices intercessory prayer? What of seemingly miraculously unlikely things that happened when no one prayed for them at all...Is that the work of the Christian God? Why isn't it some other god or just the fact that the opportunities for improbable things to occur often greatly outnumbers the actual occurrences? Why is it reasonable to accept your claims as miraculously improbable in light of the laws of combination & truly large numbers and confirmation bias and so on? why doesn't the same hold for muslim claims and so on?
I don't know the answers your questions, I do of course have opinions, but opinions are not facts and opinions are not very useful in a thread with the name Christian Overconfidence. So what I have done so far is just sharing my experiences, my personal facts.
haha yeah I could see how that could be a bit funny with the thread title, But if you don't mind sharing your opinions then I'd love to hear them because i'm actually curious.