01 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadChristians tend to be angry when too many Why questions are asked.
A 'why' question can never be fully answered. My son plays that game sometimes.
Q. Why do things fall down?
A. Because of Gravity.
Q. Why does gravity pull things down.
A. Because thats the way it is.
Q. Why is it that way?
A. It just is.
What Christians do is pretend to have answered 'why' questions but they never really do. All their answers ar how answer.
Q. Why is there evil.
A. Story of Adam and Eve. - how answer.
etc
I don't know why. Because they don't know? Because they don't care?
On the other hand they have very few answer to these why-questions...
"Go read the bible, the answer is in there."
"Because God wanted it to be that way."
"Pray and you will receive the answer directly from Him."
"We cannot understand why, God's ways are mysterious."
"When you've become christian, then you will understand the answer."
"What's the matter with you? Is Satan whispering in your ears?"
"You silly idiot, you know why, and if you don't then you cannot understand the answer anyway."
... or just silence.
01 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI've seen some who get angry and some who don't. Why do you suppose some do and some don't? Please mention an example question of the type you say gets Christians angry.
Christians tend to be angry when too many Why questions are asked.
I don't know why. Because they don't know? Because they don't care?
Does Sweden have many Christians left? I thought they'd gone the way of the small farmer.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOne of the questions I posed, when I was young and active in a cristian church, was "What if god is a woman?". They barked quite heavily. Presumebly to teach me not to ask such a silly question again.
I've seen some who get angry and some who don't. Why do you suppose some do and some don't? Please mention an example question of the type you say gets Christians angry.
Does Sweden have many Christians left? I thought they'd gone the way of the small farmer.
Of course some, most often those with a weak faith, becaome angry, or, instead of giving me an honest answer, giving me a null-answer of the kind I pointed out above.
Thos with a healthy christian faith, just answer my (silly) question and leave it with that.
Yes, I'm happy to say that there are less and less christian people in Sweden, compared with before. But of course, there are active christians here, as anywhere else.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasLets just deal with one question at a time: "What if god is a woman?"
One of the questions I posed, when I was young and active in a cristian church, was "What if god is a woman?". They barked quite heavily. Presumebly to teach me not to ask such a silly question again.
Of course some, most often those with a weak faith, becaome angry, or, instead of giving me an honest answer, giving me a null-answer of the kind I point ...[text shortened]... den, compared with before. But of course, there are active christians here, as anywhere else.
Well clearly christians who cant handle this question aren't even in the right ball park.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhen some christians get new question for the first time, I think they feel threattened. If they cannot handle the situation they burst out. They have a weak faith.
Lets just deal with one question at a time: "What if god is a woman?"
Well clearly christians who cant handle this question aren't even in the right ball park.
If a physicist gets a new question, like "Why are electrons red?", does he burst out? No, I don't think so. He will not be shaken into his bare soul. He just answers the question and moves on.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasYeah, thats if he answers the question.
When some christians get new question for the first time, I think they feel threattened. If they cannot handle the situation they burst out. They have a weak faith.
If a physicist gets a new question, like "Why are electrons red?", does he burst out? No, I don't think so. He will not be shaken into his bare soul. He just answers the question and moves on.
SOME scientific types have a good way of hiding their emotions.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage1. Because we have the capacity to.(The difference between a human and other mammals)
Why do we ask questions?
How do we ask questions?
2. We ask questions through the use of our tendencies towards formation which includes using linguistics to formulate our dialogues.
01 Jul 10
Recently I asked a fundamentalist a question concerning from where he got his information, I got the reply: "You are sick and need a doctor, make an appointment with a mental health practitioner as soon as you can."
This is what I call weak in his faith. To even look for the source was something that triggered his own low spiritual esteem.
01 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have noticed that some Christians feel that it is necessary to appear to know the answer, and so will always give some sort of answer, however nonsensical rather than admit ignorance.
When some christians get new question for the first time, I think they feel threattened. If they cannot handle the situation they burst out. They have a weak faith.
But this behavior is hardly unique to Christians. It is quite popular with parents too. Many parents will not admit to their children that they do not know something and will always respond to a why question that they do not know the answer to with something made up.
I am sure the phenomena occurs in other circumstances too.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I'm sure you are right in this. Everyone afraid of letting others believe they don't know everything triggers this instinct.
I have noticed that some Christians feel that it is necessary to appear to know the answer, and so will always give some sort of answer, however nonsensical rather than admit ignorance.
But this behavior is hardly unique to Christians. It is quite popular with parents too. Many parents will not admit to their children that they do not know something and ...[text shortened]... he answer to with something made up.
I am sure the phenomena occurs in other circumstances too.
During my years as a teacher, I always answered with "I don't really know." if I didn't. That gave me some respect. But also the feeling that adults don't need to know everything. There are things that cannot be known, and there are things that can be known, albeit some adults don't know it.
I want to say 'some christians', showing that this is not a trait among christians in gnereal. But this trait can be found everywhere, in every groups. But specifically christians want to glare over mere atheists, that they know more than others.
"I don't have to read books about evolution" a fundamentalist recently answered. "It's all googely gook anyway, and I knwo it's wrong."
01 Jul 10
7 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasno this is dishonest and a complete distortion of the truth , the comment was made with respect to your fascination for introducing paedophilia into a completely unrelated context, for assigning those who refuse to give you information as associates of paedophiles and promulgating writing authored by paedophiles, which, i think anyone with a degree of understanding can tell is quite a serious problem. The scenario can be summed up like this.
Recently I asked a fundamentalist a question concerning from where he got his information, I got the reply: "You are sick and need a doctor, make an appointment with a mental health practitioner as soon as you can."
This is what I call weak in his faith. To even look for the source was something that triggered his own low spiritual esteem.
Fabian - Do you mind telling me the source of the writing,
Galvo - no i do not wish to tell you, you are not entitled to know
Fabian - then it was written by a paedophile.
That appears to me to tend towards delusion and i stand by my statement.
I apologise to the forum for this small diversion, our delusional friend here thinks can get away with just about anything from behind the relative comfort and safety of a pc. He needs to learn discipline and take correction and see a psychiatrist.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBoth questions can be raised in most matters. I can't think of any instances offhand to which only one is applicable.
Both questions can be raised in most matters. I can't think of any instances offhand to which only one is applicable. Perhaps it is possible to narrow enquiry so as to exclusively focus on one aspect of some topic, bracketing off other aspects for convenience.
Why do you suppose this false dichotomy is so prevalent? How did it come to be so? What's the difference between these two questions?
I agree, both question forms can be usefully deployed in most matters. Sometimes it doesn't make any difference which is used. If I ask 'How does light scattering make the sky appear blue?' this doesn't seem to differ in meaning from 'Why does light scattering make the sky appear blue?'
Sometimes it does make a difference. For example, suppose Colonel Mustard is lying dead in a pool of blood in the study. If you ask 'how was he killed?' an appropriate answer might be 'a blow to the head with a candlestick' but if you ask 'why was he killed?' it is clear that a different kind of answer is required, perhaps 'for the insurance.'
Why do you suppose this false dichotomy is so prevalent? How did it come to be so? What's the difference between these two questions?
I'll give my answers in reverse order: I think the difference between these two question forms is captured by the distinction between Aristotle's third and fourth types of cause.
When we ask 'how' we can be asking about the efficient cause, whereas when we ask 'why' we are enquiring about the final cause.
How did it come to be so? Well a final cause implies telos. So when you ask why Colonel Mustard was killed, you are asking about the reasons of a purposive agent. Now if you think about it, an atheist generally thinks that in general, natural phenomena are amenable to explanations that do not require an agent in a causal role, but a theist thinks that all phenomena ultimately spring from the purposes of an agent, namely god. This is why the dichotomy is so prevalent: because debates between atheists and theists are, and the theist makes a claim that the atheist denies, namely that every set of natural phenomena is susceptible to a 'why' question, even after the chain of 'how' questions is exhaustively answered.
That is my current speculation anyway.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkThe important thing to note, is that the final cause is always a brute fact.
When we ask 'how' we can be asking about the [b]efficient cause, whereas when we ask 'why' we are enquiring about the final cause.[/b]
What the theist typically does, is hide this by passing on the 'why' an extra level, or even several levels, until the questioner is convinced that it is explained, when in reality the final cause has not been reached.
For some reason 'goddunit' - brute fact - seems more eloquent to some people than 'it just is' - brute fact.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you are addressing a slightly different notion here, more akin to the argument from first cause.
The important thing to note, is that the [b]final cause is always a brute fact.
What the theist typically does, is hide this by passing on the 'why' an extra level, or even several levels, until the questioner is convinced that it is explained, when in reality the final cause has not been reached.
For some reason 'goddunit' - brute fact - seems more eloquent to some people than 'it just is' - brute fact.[/b]
This theist argument has several forms and is designed to show the existence of an uncaused first cause as the only alternative to an infinite regress. I think what is gained from the theist perspective by labelling this 'god', is precisely the aspect of Aristotle's concept of final cause, teleology, that gives a sense that everything is the way it is for a purpose.
This is why 'goddunnit' has a narrative force for believers that 'brute fact' does not, since the brute fact becomes an attribute of a benevolent agent. This taps into a rich network of common sense intuitions that we are predisposed to have regarding agents.