|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Marriage vs God
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
"No other gods before me"? That's a recipe for disaster. You can't insist on being #1. Relationships work when each person puts the other first, but you can't demand that - it has to be a gift.
[ 19. May 2012, 15:51: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
"No other gods before me"? That's a recipe for disaster. You can't insist on being #1. Relationships work when each person puts the other first, but you can't demand that - it has to be a gift.
It sounds like a certain faith's Apostacy law!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you really want your spouse thinking of you as a "god"-- however you might define that??
Nope. Hence using a modified quotation without any form of "other" in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Really, it's two reasons
1) Why would an unbeliever air out all his dirty laundry in a christian forum, where most of the people don't even speak the same language as him (metaphorically I mean)?
2) You write in a cool detached way as if it's happining to someone else, and you're the psychologist.
1) I'm not looking for validation here (that's what my friends give me) and enjoy polite disputation. Just like everyone else I think my laudry is cleaner than other peoples, plus I'm apparently learning a lot of new words for what other groups of people would call me. Although I agree that language is a problem. Practically, not just metaphorically. (E.g. when believers talk of a personal god it always puts me in mind of personal pizzas).
2) That's probably a side effect of my training (in hard science/mathematics, not medicine).
[ 19. May 2012, 16:01: Message edited by: E to the i pi ]
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Really, it's two reasons
1) Why would an unbeliever air out all his dirty laundry in a christian forum, where most of the people don't even speak the same language as him (metaphorically I mean)?
2) You write in a cool detached way as if it's happining to someone else, and you're the psychologist.
1) I'm not looking for validation here (that's what my friends give me) and enjoy polite disputation. Just like everyone else I think my laudry is cleaner than other peoples, plus I'm apparently learning a lot of new words for what other groups of people would call me. Although I agree that language is a problem. Practically, not just metaphorically. (E.g. when believers talk of a personal god it always puts me in mind of personal pizzas).
2) That's probably a side effect of my training (in hard science/mathematics, not medicine).
OK, sorry but you wanted me to be frank. There's a third:
3) It sounds an awful lot like role playing: "Let's pretend I'm an atheist spouse whose wife has suddenly got religion, and doesn't know how to handle it."
You'd then study with fascination the sort of responses you got from various shades of christians. You'd poke a stick at them sometimes to provoke them into revealing how their thought processes worked.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, sorry but you wanted me to be frank. There's a third:
3) It sounds an awful lot like role playing: "Let's pretend I'm an atheist spouse whose wife has suddenly got religion, and doesn't know how to handle it."
You'd then study with fascination the sort of responses you got from various shades of christians. You'd poke a stick at them sometimes to provoke them into revealing how their thought processes worked.
There's absolutely no need to apologise. This is the internet, I do realise that kind of thing goes on.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.
I would define "intellectual atheism" as a personal conviction that belief in God (or multiple gods or some other higher power) is not only factually wrong but something that actively undermines the superior moral system that is purely a product of logic and reason. Ayn Rand's objectivism is an example, but not the only one.
I don't believe any of that myself but I've encountered it often enough to be able to understand people who do.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
But there still isn't a veto. There is persuasion and compromise, and then things might work out. Or there is no persuasion. Then someone stays and is unhappy, or someone flounces.
I see it as a veto insofar as there are extreme views that are not amenable to compromise or discussion. What I mean by veto is that it's not a belief set that someone can retain and expect the relationship to continue.
Anyone who postulates the existence of a choice between God and spouse has already decided that the relationship is over.
[ 19. May 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: Bartolomeo ]
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I would define "intellectual atheism" as a personal conviction that belief in God (or multiple gods or some other higher power) is not only factually wrong but something that actively undermines the superior moral system that is purely a product of logic and reason....
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?
Over to you E to the i pi... (actually anyone can answer)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?
If you're really interested in my personal opinions then:
i) No system of logic alone is going to derive a moral code or system of ethics (whether there is a difference between the two is another question).
ii) Given a couple of extra axioms (e.g. the Golden Rule) then, depending on the axioms, it's either possible or trivial, but being axiomatic these starting conditions are of course not in themselves logical. Indeed portions of many religious works consist of attempting to logically extend the axioms assumed provided by their higher power into a useful moral code.
iii) In this sense only truly rational philosophy of live is an absolute agnosticism (even as to whether life itself exists) that doesn't really provide any useful message as to what to do in any particular situation.
iv) No follower of a coherent philosophy of life ever believes it to be unreasonable.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?
If you're really interested in my personal opinions then:
i) No system of logic alone is going to derive a moral code or system of ethics (whether there is a difference between the two is another question).
ii) Given a couple of extra axioms (e.g. the Golden Rule) then, depending on the axioms, it's either possible or trivial, but being axiomatic these starting conditions are of course not in themselves logical. Indeed portions of many religious works consist of attempting to logically extend the axioms assumed provided by their higher power into a useful moral code.
iii) In this sense only truly rational philosophy of live is an absolute agnosticism (even as to whether life itself exists) that doesn't really provide any useful message as to what to do in any particular situation.
iv) No follower of a coherent philosophy of life ever believes it to be unreasonable.
Well... I did ask! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!
In that case you should really read up on eg. Euclidean geometry. It requires five axioms to be held true to be able to then logically construct most of what people innately hold to be true about shapes. Or you could try Russell's Principia Mathematica but that takes many tens of pages to reach 1+1=2.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!
In that case you should really read up on eg. Euclidean geometry. It requires five axioms to be held true to be able to then logically construct most of what people innately hold to be true about shapes. Or you could try Russell's Principia Mathematica but that takes many tens of pages to reach 1+1=2.
OK - so it sounds like the supposed origins of religion/morals/ethics (which I would have thought of as a "soft" science) actually overlaps into "hard" science/maths, yes?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - so it sounds like the supposed origins of religion/morals/ethics (which I would have thought of as a "soft" science) actually overlaps into "hard" science/maths, yes?
I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Formal logic is certainly a prime mover in both philosophy and mathematics, although of course the context is slightly different. Previously the gap between philosopher and natural philosopher hasn't always been as large as is assumed today. Pythagoras combined a secret mystic school of mathematics with a religion based on beans. Or look at Aristotle, who seems to have had fans from both sides of the cultural divide, although both groups now see his opinions as outdated or wrong.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - so it sounds like the supposed origins of religion/morals/ethics (which I would have thought of as a "soft" science) actually overlaps into "hard" science/maths, yes?
I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Formal logic is certainly a prime mover in both philosophy and mathematics, although of course the context is slightly different. Previously the gap between philosopher and natural philosopher hasn't always been as large as is assumed today. Pythagoras combined a secret mystic school of mathematics with a religion based on beans. Or look at Aristotle, who seems to have had fans from both sides of the cultural divide, although both groups now see his opinions as outdated or wrong.
I'm not really making any point, just trying to establish a relationship between (a) your answer to how any sort of moral system derives from logic and reason, and (b) the subjects you read at university.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not really making any point, just trying to establish a relationship between (a) your answer to how any sort of moral system derives from logic and reason, and (b) the subjects you read at university.
Oh I see. In which case the connection is an understanding of the basic principles of formal logic from having read maths. I admit my later career in mathematics and geophysics has less innate connection.
Does this mean that you see moral systems as innately illogical then? That sounds frightening like the people who say "If it were true there is no God then there would be no reason for me not to kill you".
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not really making any point, just trying to establish a relationship between (a) your answer to how any sort of moral system derives from logic and reason, and (b) the subjects you read at university.
Oh I see. In which case the connection is an understanding of the basic principles of formal logic from having read maths. I admit my later career in mathematics and geophysics has less innate connection.
Does this mean that you see moral systems as innately illogical then? That sounds frightening like the people who say "If it were true there is no God then there would be no reason for me not to kill you".
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
To be fair, I'm not certain Christians' motives for doing good aren't ever self-serving. At least mine are sometimes. Or always.
[ 19. May 2012, 22:35: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.
It seems to be a surprisingly common counterargument to the non-existence of gods used by the hard of thinking.
If you believe that good can only be done in the name of a higher power then of course by your definition atheists can never do good. Of course this then assumes that your version of truth is the single absolute which pretty much removes any possibility of dialogue.
Does this mean that you do think ethics are innately illogical, or that you think the question makes no sense?
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To be fair, I'm not certain Christians' motives for doing good aren't ever self-serving. At least mine are sometimes. Or always.
My whole reason for being a christian in the first place was self-serving - I wanted to be saved, but at least I don't pretend it was something more generous than that. If someone said they became a christian to "serve their community" or "to make the world a better place", well, I might question their sincerity.
So the same arguments should be put to humanists/atheists - why do they feel they have to be good? Their sincerity would need to be questioned too.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.
It seems to be a surprisingly common counterargument to the non-existence of gods used by the hard of thinking.
If you believe that good can only be done in the name of a higher power then of course by your definition atheists can never do good. Of course this then assumes that your version of truth is the single absolute which pretty much removes any possibility of dialogue.
Does this mean that you do think ethics are innately illogical, or that you think the question makes no sense?
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?
Let's skip questions about ethics being logical/illogical for now and concentrate on the above question, yes?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?
I seek to convince you of nothing. My personal philosophy is that I can only reasonably expect others to act at or below the standard that I do myself. If I am to expect help uncalled for then I have also to be willing to provide it. Is that self-centred? Well it's motivation from the internal rather than the external, but I don't really see that as the same thing. Or just do it out of the blue to play with peoples minds.
quote:
Let's skip questions about ethics being logical/illogical for now and concentrate on the above question, yes?
That's hardly playing fair. Quid pro quo and all that.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?
I seek to convince you of nothing. My personal philosophy is that I can only reasonably expect others to act at or below the standard that I do myself. If I am to expect help uncalled for then I have also to be willing to provide it. Is that self-centred? Well it's motivation from the internal rather than the external, but I don't really see that as the same thing. Or just do it out of the blue to play with peoples minds.
quote:
Let's skip questions about ethics being logical/illogical for now and concentrate on the above question, yes?
That's hardly playing fair. Quid pro quo and all that.
You haven't answered my question - do I have to type it out again?
I'm going to bed now, but if you can give me an answer to what I asked you without evading or changing the question, then we can include "Quid pro quo and all that" in our next discussion. But for now, it's goodnight! You should get some sleep too - it can wait till tomorrow! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
I had understood your question to be "Why do you perform altruistic acts?" to which my answer was "Because if I don't act altruistically to others I can't expect them to act altruistically to me". If that wasn't your question then I apologise and can only ask you to restate it in another form.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin: if people on this thread have considered what their reaction would be if the couple in question had started out Christian but one of them decided to renounce their faith. Would the spouse who remains in the church be expected to just suck it up and deal, or would any unhappiness or discomfort on their part be seen as justified?
That's me.
There is a problem but it needn't be a show stopper. Married 30yrs when it happened. You adjust but some doors of intimacy shut. Biggest issue is growing apart but you can work to control what you can as Bible says "strengthen things that remain." (Revelation) You can't have a happy relationship that is controlling other person. Can't look on spouse as pet monkey.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.
It seems to be a surprisingly common counterargument to the non-existence of gods used by the hard of thinking.
If you believe that good can only be done in the name of a higher power then of course by your definition atheists can never do good. Of course this then assumes that your version of truth is the single absolute which pretty much removes any possibility of dialogue.
Does this mean that you do think ethics are innately illogical, or that you think the question makes no sense?
I'm with E on this one. My own motives for doing good are always a muddled business. The more I try to do good out of altruism alone, the more I start to feel proud of myself for doing so... and find that self-serving... or find myself hoping Christ will be pleased... and find that prideful works-righteousness... and so on.
I try to do good. I am pleased when others, whether Christian or not, try to do the same. Beyond that, it's dicey enough worrying about my own motives w/o worrying about someone else's.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Just to summarise - we have only talked thus far of good works for reward. For example, E to the i pi stated his theory:
quote:
My personal philosophy is that I can only reasonably expect others to act at or below the standard that I do myself. If I am to expect help uncalled for then I have also to be willing to provide it. Is that self-centred?
OK, it isn't entirely self-centred, but it isn't entirely selfless either.
What about the sort of love for neighbour Jesus talked about? Where other's don't even know of your good deeds, and there is no chance of any sort of reward or recompence?
Of the sort of works E to the i pi speaks of, Jesus would say "verily, they have their reward in full".
So, back to the question, which I'll repeat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just to summarise - we have only talked thus far of good works for reward.
I fear here we've run into a place where the language of our philosophies don't translate to each other. I'm doing those things observed or unobserved for the same reason, I have no prior reason to expect society to be more ethical than I am myself.
To try a concrete example: if a box of things is left out on the street with a sign saying "Help yourself, please take one only" and I take four, I shouldn't be surprised if the next time I see such a box it's empty.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?
I've said before, I see no reason to try to convince you of anything. You aren't someone who claims to have committed to a relationship to me and you aren't trying to push your opinion on me.
I'd also like to note that my ethics are orthogonal to my theist position. It's perfectly possible to believe the Christian deities exist but not buy their morality, look at tabloid Satanism. Equally one could be a socially Christian atheist, accepting the morality but not the faith.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I fear here we've run into a place where the language of our philosophies don't translate to each other...
Well, in the language of my philosophy, it's called "evading the question".
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I fear here we've run into a place where the language of our philosophies don't translate to each other...
Well, in the language of my philosophy, it's called "evading the question".
Depends on where you go w/ it. Defining your terms is an essential first step to any conversation, otherwise you end up talking past one another.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
[QUOTE]
I'd also like to note that my ethics are orthogonal to my theist position. It's perfectly possible to believe the Christian deities exist but not buy their morality, look at tabloid Satanism. Equally one could be a socially Christian atheist, accepting the morality but not the faith.
I would completely agree. Which makes our conversation here all the more puzzling, though, since I would think you have here the foundation for a good, productive marriage between two persons of different faiths, but hopefully common ethics & values.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, in the language of my philosophy, it's called "evading the question".
I'm sorry you see it like that. I've tried three times to answer the question I think you're asking. I'll try once more, if this doesn't answer then question you think you've asked, maybe this will give you an idea of how to rephrase the question so that I understand it, or so that someone else can attempt to translate it for me:
I believe you to be asking:
"Why do you, not believing that there's a divine score keeper out there, perform altruistic acts which are not going to immediately reward you?"
My answer is (still) that I believe in a generalised form of the tit for tat system between me and society which doesn't just act in the short term but over the course of my life. I suppose in this respect you could say I believe that no good deed goes unrewarded, or unpunished.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would completely agree. Which makes our conversation here all the more puzzling, though, since I would think you have here the foundation for a good, productive marriage between two persons of different faiths, but hopefully common ethics & values.
While my wife was a fellow travelling "Christian agnostic" then yes there was, but my value system is such that I see commitment to false gods as coming out of my pool as it were.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I think I'm getting it now.
As far as Jesus is concerned, selfless good works are akin to storing up "treasure in heaven", whereas the "rich fool" stored up treasure for himself in this world.
Anyway, that's (hopefully) set the cat amongst the pigeons. Anyway, I have to get some sleep now - catch y'all tomorrow! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would completely agree. Which makes our conversation here all the more puzzling, though, since I would think you have here the foundation for a good, productive marriage between two persons of different faiths, but hopefully common ethics & values.
While my wife was a fellow travelling "Christian agnostic" then yes there was, but my value system is such that I see commitment to false gods as coming out of my pool as it were.
Again, that pov seems contrary to the earlier statement I quoted.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, that pov seems contrary to the earlier statement I quoted.
I suppose the word false was rather pointed, but seemed to make the language flow better. I suppose I would make three divisions, the life value system of a religion, the commitment to deities of a religion and the existence of the deities in question. The first question I'd call moral/ethical, the second venerative, and the third theistic. Each of these is in some respects independent, although of course it's probably difficult to venerate something which one doesn't believe exists.
I don't have major issues with a life partner having the first taken verbatim from the Abrahamistic religions. I don't even draw the line at the third, but I find the middle one incompatible with a commitment to me. I suppose to use Barnabas' language I hold "forsaking all others" to apply equally to men, women, goats, geese and gods.
[ 21. May 2012, 00:47: Message edited by: E to the i pi ]
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
And, hypothetically, children?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And, hypothetically, children?
If you mean the future fruit of my own loins as it were, then I've always seen them as a sort of very expensive, very time consuming joint DIY project. One of the key words being joint.
If you mean the existing children of a potential future spouse, then if she actually venerated her children then I don't think I'd get involved in the first place since she wouldn't be able or interested in the kind of relationship that I was.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Since very small children are all-consuming, they tend to be practically venerated just in order to survive and thrive.
Well, at least you've learned something from all this: you seem to think that love is a limited resource and that you'd better get the lion's share in a relationship. And you are quite jealous, even to the extent of envying attention to "imaginary" people. Maybe you'll find someone who wants to be so possessed. They say there is someone for everyone.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And, hypothetically, children?
If you mean the future fruit of my own loins as it were, then I've always seen them as a sort of very expensive, very time consuming joint DIY project. One of the key words being joint.
If you mean the existing children of a potential future spouse, then if she actually venerated her children then I don't think I'd get involved in the first place since she wouldn't be able or interested in the kind of relationship that I was.
The point being that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, children pretty much always come first. And when they don't, there's usually some abusive dynamic going on. So, whether your spouse is a believer or atheist, if you have children, at some point you're going to come 2nd. To be honest, a distant 2nd. Oh, we'll still play lip service to the "you're first in my heart" thing, but it's really just empty rhetoric.
Which, again, is only a problem if you view love as a zero-sum game. Your wife isn't loving you less, her heart is expanding to include a greater love for children (or deity). Attention & time, of course, are zero-sum, which is where compromise and negotiation come in. But love is not.
[ 21. May 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Since very small children are all-consuming, they tend to be practically venerated just in order to survive and thrive.
Well, at least you've learned something from all this: you seem to think that love is a limited resource and that you'd better get the lion's share in a relationship. And you are quite jealous, even to the extent of envying attention to "imaginary" people. Maybe you'll find someone who wants to be so possessed. They say there is someone for everyone.
One addition, I want to be possessed to.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point being that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, children pretty much always come first. And when they don't, there's usually some abusive dynamic going on. So, whether your spouse is a believer or atheist, if you have children, at some point you're going to come 2nd. To be honest, a distant 2nd. Oh, we'll still play lip service to the "you're first in my heart" thing, but it's really just empty rhetoric.
Which, again, is only a problem if you view love as a zero-sum game. Your wife isn't loving you less, her heart is expanding to include a greater love for children (or deity). Attention & time, of course, are zero-sum, which is where compromise and negotiation come in. But love is not.
I'm interested now, would you give the same advice to someone who's wife was having an affair?
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point being that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, children pretty much always come first. And when they don't, there's usually some abusive dynamic going on. So, whether your spouse is a believer or atheist, if you have children, at some point you're going to come 2nd. To be honest, a distant 2nd. Oh, we'll still play lip service to the "you're first in my heart" thing, but it's really just empty rhetoric.
Which, again, is only a problem if you view love as a zero-sum game. Your wife isn't loving you less, her heart is expanding to include a greater love for children (or deity). Attention & time, of course, are zero-sum, which is where compromise and negotiation come in. But love is not.
I'm interested now, would you give the same advice to someone who's wife was having an affair?
No, I wouldn't. fwiw, I've been in that situation.
I'm not trying to lay out an intellectual rationale for why "loving children more than spouse" is ethically or morally right, although I think Lyda did a pretty good job of it. I'm simply stating the reality. It's the way things are. No doubt evolution conspired to make us this way, thus insuring the preservation of the species. For whatever reason, it's the way things are. So, whether you like it or not, whether it's the way you want things to be, if you want to have kids (and I'm hearing perhaps you do not-- which may be for the best), you best make your peace with it (or be content with romantic fictions).
I am suggesting that the priority of God over spouse is more similar to the priority of children over spouse than it is to the relationship of a lover to spouse.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I am suggesting that the priority of God over spouse is more similar to the priority of children over spouse than it is to the relationship of a lover to spouse.
You're welcome to suggest it. Indeed you're welcome to believe it. I just happen not to agree. Different strokes for different folks and all.
Actually, I was more eager to have children than my wife was. Certainly I wouldn't get involved in a relationship with someone I wasn't willing to raise children with.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I am suggesting that the priority of God over spouse is more similar to the priority of children over spouse than it is to the relationship of a lover to spouse.
You're welcome to suggest it. Indeed you're welcome to believe it. I just happen not to agree. Different strokes for different folks and all.
Actually, I was more eager to have children than my wife was. Certainly I wouldn't get involved in a relationship with someone I wasn't willing to raise children with.
Well, that changes things considerably then. Because I think if you do have children-- with your current spouse or another-- you are going to have to face this issue.
Setting aside the "love for deity" thing, how will you respond when your hypothetical spouse prioritizes children above you?
And (coming back to what's set aside), to put the shoe on another foot, why is that more acceptable than prioritizing a deity?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Setting aside the "love for deity" thing, how will you respond when your hypothetical spouse prioritizes children above you?
And (coming back to what's set aside), to put the shoe on another foot, why is that more acceptable than prioritizing a deity?
The same basic reason it's more acceptable than prioritising a lover I suppose. It's symmetric, a joint endeavour. How will my hypothetical spouse respond when I prioritise the child above her?
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
E to the i pi: quote:
How will my hypothetical spouse respond when I prioritise the child above her?
I imagine the way many parents do: with some shock at how thoroughly ten pounds of squall soaks up any stray love, time, and attention, and thoroughly messes with what you thought of as your life.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
E to the i pi
Shipmate
# 16762
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I imagine the way many parents do: with some shock at how thoroughly ten pounds of squall soaks up any stray love, time, and attention, and thoroughly messes with what you thought of as your life.
This is exactly why I'd like to raise kids, with a woman who respects me and I respect.
[ 21. May 2012, 19:29: Message edited by: E to the i pi ]
Posts: 60 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by E to the i pi:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I imagine the way many parents do: with some shock at how thoroughly ten pounds of squall soaks up any stray love, time, and attention, and thoroughly messes with what you thought of as your life.
This is exactly why I'd like to raise kids, with a woman who respects me and I respect.
Yes. And it seems as if that's something you don't have-- in either direction-- w/ your current spouse. Which is a shame. I disagree very much this loss of respect is the necessary outcome of your faith differences-- there's just far too much evidence to the contrary. Nonetheless, if nothing else, it's clear that is the case here, painful as it clearly is for you both.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I would define "intellectual atheism" as a personal conviction that belief in God (or multiple gods or some other higher power) is not only factually wrong but something that actively undermines the superior moral system that is purely a product of logic and reason....
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?
Books have been written on this from various points of view.
Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" approach this from similar angles. In essence she draws a system from two premises that she considers to require no proof: 1) that any system that is ethical must have the same rules of conduct for everyone and 2) people are entitled to the fruits of their own labor.
John Locke and many other liberal authors take a similar approach but are more outcome based and try to compensate for inequality of intellect, strength, opportunity, etc., by accident of genetics or station.
Both points of view are useful to consider, if for no other reason that they allow us to identify that core of uniquely Christian thought that does not overlap with ethics.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
