06 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseDo you consider the Ten Commandments to also be something that is now obsolete? It's part of the same long passages that set forth the particular Mosaic Laws.
[b]Sorta like Animal Farm.
Ah. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others? I didn't know George Orwell was in your repertoire of read authors. 😀
So the Bible is inerrant,
Sorta, if you concede that its application should be taken in historical and cultural context and allow for figures of speech, hyperbole and the like.[/b]
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles= "Whatchu talkin' bout, Willis?"
But RWillis is equivocating, trying to get the best of both meanings. He's rejecting "belief [second sense]" in God because there is not enough evidence, and then turning around and saying that he rejects "belief [first sense]" in God's non-existence because he can't be sure of it. I just want him to use the term consistently rather than mixing and matching.
Hahahahaha.
God, I make myself laugh.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI see no reason to believe in a god. The claim has not been shown to be believable. By default, therefore, the claim will be assumed to be false. I assume that there is no god. I will never allow that to be construed as meaning that I believe in the non-existence of god. Never.
But RWillis is equivocating, trying to get the best of both meanings. He's rejecting "belief [second sense]" in God because there is not enough evidence, and then turning around and saying that he rejects "belief [first sense]" in God's non-existence because he can't be sure of it. I just want him to use the term consistently rather than mixing and matching.
The Tigers are on TV in 12 minutes, so that is the end of my participation in this debate. Since I am a firm believer that they will win the World Series this year, I must go an pay them homage. That way when the day of reckoning comes I will sit at the right hand of Mike Ilitch.
06 Apr 06
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThe logical consequence of assuming a claim to be false is that you can immediately derive its negation to be true. That's simply the result of the analytical connection between truth values and negation.
By default, therefore, the claim will be assumed to be false.
If you accept the logical meaning of negation, when you assume "God exists" to be false, you necessarily assume "God does not exist" to be true.
If you assume "God exists" is false and also deny the truth of "God does not exist", you have a contradiction, from which anything can be derived, such as "Jesus rules!" You don't believe "Jesus rules!," do you? If not, you better get your story straight.
For your reference, the truth table for the NOT operator can be found near the end of this document: http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/comath/21.html
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat does the putative genius of Jesus and Paul (?!) have to do with the rational validation of religious belief? There are genius atheists and idiot Christians, after all.
The confusion is yours in this situation. Two of the greatest geniuses to ever walk the planet (Jesus and Paul) both elevated the word of God over their own thoughts. When a person comes to that conclusion, they are truly contented. Until a person comes to that conclusion, they are faced with a constant need for justification.
Of course, a person can ...[text shortened]... out to their logical conclusions prior to making assessments relative to the initial issue.
Of course when a person comes to sincerely endorse some body of religious dogma, they will no longer feel the pressing need to try and justify their worldview. This isn’t surprising, given that if somebody sincerely endorses some body of doctrine they will thereupon be less inclined to feel a need to justify that doctrine (since it is a rational requirement on the sincere endorsement of P that one take P to be justified). I don’t feel any pressing need to justify the vast majority of my empirical beliefs, nor the vast majority of my normative beliefs. I engage in the constant search for better justification for my normative beliefs because I enjoy the search, it makes me a better philosopher and teacher, and I get paid to do it.
You’re right that people can’t come to the conclusion that they ought to subordinate their will to what they take to be God’s will until they are satisfied that the relevant body of religious doctrine is accurate. But this is a trivial point. People in general don’t conclude that P unless they are satisfied that P is true.
Your interesting (though false) claim is that I have a type of mind that can’t be satisfied as to the truth of (one, some, any?) religious doctrine. I don’t take there to be a difference in kind between religious beliefs and other sorts of beliefs. I come to have new beliefs every day, so I don’t see why I couldn’t come to have religious beliefs. Of course, I’d need a degree of evidence commensurate with that on the basis of which I come to have new empirical and philosophical beliefs. Further, this evidence couldn’t presuppose the very point at issue (which is what your so-called “systematic theology” is guilty of). Also, this evidence would have to be sufficient to meet the objections I’ve raised here and elsewhere regarding religious beliefs of particular sorts (e.g., The problem of evil, Euthyphro’s dilemma, etc).
Of course my identity is partially constituted by my intellect. So, what? It the same with everybody else. There are any number of psychological changes I could go through sufficient to be equivalent to death. Personal identity is a fragile thing. My point is simply that I’m not so wedded to this identity of mine that I can’t bear the thought of its cessation. I certainly don’t feel the need to combat my existential predicament by adverting to fable and wish-fulfillment. I spend little time considering those claims that I have previously considered and satisfied myself are irrational. This has nothing to do with fear, but with epistemology. If I can provide good reasons for thinking that P is false, of that believing that P is irrational, then why on Earth should I reassess P without some previously unconsidered reason? I don’t compulsively check to see if I locked the door to my house either.
No, I don’t presume that my intellect is to be trusted implicitly. I know that because I am human my intellect is fallible. Fallible things should not be trusted implicitly. I do presume that my intellect is the best faculty (or, rather, conglomeration of faculties) for arriving at truths about the world. Minimally, I presume that the intellect ought to play an executive role in determining what we believe. If P is contrary to the considered deliverances of the intellect, then one ought not believe P. This is the predicament in which, when it comes to me, religious beliefs find themselves.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAlright, you big baby: I'll take a crack at your ridiculous scenario.
Good. Take this quiz:
I own a slave. He does something that displeases me like misses a spot while waxing my Mercedes. I decide to beat him with a rod. Now could you please tell me what possible punishments I should face and why under these scenarios:
1) The slave dies right there while I am beating him with the rod:
2) The slave crawls ...[text shortened]... Feel free to consult the Bible as "final authority" on this matter. Thank you for your time.
I own a slave.
Congratulations.
He does something that displeases me like misses a spot while waxing my Mercedes.
Dude. You gave your willy a girl name?
I decide to beat him with a rod.
You mean from the Yankees? Damn! You do have some money!
Now could you please tell me what possible punishments I should face and why under these scenarios:
1) The slave dies right there while I am beating him with the rod
Under the law, you're in trouble, unless Article 2 is still in effect.
2) The slave crawls away and dies a few days later.
Still in the same soup.
Feel free to consult the Bible as "final authority" on this matter. Thank you for your time.
Well, in that case, the Bible tells slave owners to treat them mercifully. In this case, I'd say your treatment was less than merciful. But, since you are not a believer, you're only bound to the laws of the land. If you need any help there, I have a Black's Revised Fourth Edition available from which I can dispense all manner of legal suggestions.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrPutative? Come now: you really aren't calling into question the genius of two of the most influential people on the face of the planet! These two are unquestionably two of the greatest genuises who ever walked the planet, not merely two genuises.
What does the putative genius of Jesus and Paul (?!) have to do with the rational validation of religious belief? There are genius atheists and idiot Christians, after all.
Of course when a person comes to sincerely endorse some body of religious dogma, they will no longer feel the pressing need to try and justify their worldview. This isn’t surprising, ...[text shortened]... ve P. This is the predicament in which, when it comes to me, religious beliefs find themselves.
Julius Caesar, Alexander, etc., don't come around but every so often. In the small crowd of the world's great leaders, Jesus and Paul stand head and shoulders above them all. What does their opinion bear on the validation of Christianity? Quite a bit, I'd say.
The postings of the systematic theology presupposes the only postulation available to the rational mind; namely, that there exists a personable god, and it is that god's responsibility to make himself known. Divorcement from reality will result in all manner of conjecture for how we came to be here, and how we came to be personal, none of which fits the evidence. In short, such a stance requires a huge suspension of rational thinking: put it out there far enough, and we don't have to deal with it.
When I spoke of your intellect, it was not with the intent of suggesting defect. Rather, people who are gifted in one manner or another are typically done in by the same giftedness. Too smart for your own good, to put it bluntly.
07 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA person's influence is no indication of their genius (see G.W Bush). Jesus' moral teachings were relatively simplistic, and many of his claims succumb to fairly obvious counterexamples. Even my introductory students have no problem coming up with counterexamples to the Golden Rule. Aristotle's ethical theory is incomparably better than Jesus'. If you throw a dart in Harvard's faculty lounge chances are you'll hit somebody smarter than Paul.
Putative? Come now: you really aren't calling into question the genius of two of the most influential people on the face of the planet! These two are unquestionably two of the greatest genuises who ever walked the planet, not merely two genuises.
Julius Caesar, Alexander, etc., don't come around but every so often. In the small crowd of the wo typically done in by the same giftedness. Too smart for your own good, to put it bluntly.
Again, even if we grant that J&P were geniuses nothing would follow about the truth or falsity of Christianity. Bertrand Russell was incomparably smarter than either J or P, and he thought Christianity was inane and perverse. It would be silly to take his word at face value, however. The truth or falsity of his claims ought to be assessed in light of the evidence.
This point deserves to be emphasized. Of course we know things on the basis of testimony. We would have good reason to believe Bertrand Russell when he declaims on set theory. We would have good reason to believe Jesus when he declaims on Judaic doctrine. But we would have no reason to believe Bertrand Russell when he declaims on unicorns, just as we would have no reason to believe Jesus when he declaims on God. In general it is reasonable to trust S if S is declaiming on a subject in which S is an authority. But this is only the case when we have good reason to think that the subject matter has an extension. That is, that the subject matter actually describes something real. For those of us that doubt that religious doctrines describe anything real, it is not compelling in any way to argue that Jesus' putative genius (or that of any other religious figure) bears a justificatory relation to those doctrines. It is part of the very content of our skepticism regarding religious doctrines that nobody can have the sort of religious authority sufficient for their testimony to bear a justificatory relation to religious claims. There are really smart self-proclaimed druids out there, too. But I don't take their testimony as evidence for the claim that nature spirits exist.
Your theological postings presuppose that God exists. I have good reason not to believe that presupposition. Even if I did have some reason to believe that God exists, I would still have excellent reasons to believe that God doesn't have the properties you assign to him. But even if I had some reason to believe that your ascriptions are correct, I would still have excellent reasons to doubt that God bears any sort of determinative relation to either the content or authoritativeness of morality. I've presented these reasons in these threads (though most of these threads are now long buried), and will not rehearse them here. The only reasonable position to take regarding Christianity is disbelief and active opposition (due to its especially pernicious effects on society in general and children in particular).
I know you weren't suggesting defect regarding my intellect, and nothing in my response indicated I thought otherwise. I have no idea whether peoples' gifts end up doing them in (whatever that means exactly). Whatever intellectual gifts I possess have allowed me to engage in interesting and meaningful work, and to cultivate nourishing personal relationships.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSeriously; have you ever actually read the Bible?
Alright, you big baby: I'll take a crack at your ridiculous scenario.
[b]I own a slave.
Congratulations.
He does something that displeases me like misses a spot while waxing my Mercedes.
Dude. You gave your willy a girl name?
I decide to beat him with a rod.
You mean from the Yankees? Damn! You do have some money!
...[text shortened]... vised Fourth Edition available from which I can dispense all manner of legal suggestions.[/b]
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you suggest that he become dumber so that he can embrace Christianity?
When I spoke of your intellect, it was not with the intent of suggesting defect. Rather, people who are gifted in one manner or another are typically done in by the same giftedness. Too smart for your own good, to put it bluntly.
What on earth did this last comment mean if not that?
Nemesio
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH... it is that god's responsibility to make himself known
Putative? Come now: you really aren't calling into question the genius of two of the most influential people on the face of the planet! These two are unquestionably two of the greatest genuises who ever walked the planet, not merely two genuises.
Julius Caesar, Alexander, etc., don't come around but every so often. In the small crowd of the wo ...[text shortened]... typically done in by the same giftedness. Too smart for your own good, to put it bluntly.
Then how come I don't know him?