Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Hell yeah.
Originally posted by Patdys:
You seem to have very strong opinions Byron.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:"Rationalism" is the hallmark they apparently have which we Christians do not. So not true as the history of Christianity will tell you. Or you can put it even more simply for rhetorical flourish.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Whoa - pull back guys. Carry on thinking rationally and you'll end up joining me on the dark side!
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
SCK, that's where I am, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
And here we have it, boys and girls: Evensong standing up for the Ship's greatest and most oppressed underdogs, reasonable Christians who aren't particularly comfortable with Hell.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:If this is snide condescension, I'm a jellied eel. It's an attempt at humour (this much should be evident by the reference to the 'dark side', rather than the 'right side' or the 'right-thinking side').
Originally posted by HughWillRidMe:
Whoa - pull back guys. Carry on thinking rationally and you'll end up joining me on the dark side!
quote:What if everyone, save one lonely voice, agreed with her?* would she then be forced to argue with herself?
Originally posted by Ariston:
Evensong standing up for the Ship's greatest and most oppressed underdogs,
quote:I like this thread.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What if everyone, save one lonely voice, agreed with her?* would she then be forced to argue with herself?
Originally posted by Ariston:
Evensong standing up for the Ship's greatest and most oppressed underdogs,
*I know, I know; but let's pretend for a moment.
quote:So, as many people know, I used to be in training to be a professional philosopher. Now, philosophers are a notoriously fractious bunch; we'll disagree with one another just to have an excuse to argue. We'll change our positions just to avoid agreeing with one another. However, if you want to end a Philosopherargument, no matter what schools of thought, no matter how deep the animosities, just say that Atlas Shrugged changed your life for the better.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Of course atheistic life stances shouldn't escape criticism either; can we take the followers of Ayn Rand to this hell board?
quote:Problem's arisen with the discovery of evidence that contradicts doctrine. Before, internal logic got you along fine; now there's a conflict, and many believers put doctrine first.
Originally posted by Evensong:
[...] "Rationalism" is the hallmark [atheists] apparently have which we Christians do not. [...]
quote:Because, of course, it is apostasy. By the way, what "evidence" does Spong follow, other than his own fevered imaginings?
Originally posted by Byron:
Christianity is just as capable of rationalism as anything else, if it follows the evidence. Unfortunate, the sort of Christianity that emerges (say the Tillich kind popularized by Robinson and Spong) gets accused of apostasy by many other Christians.
quote:Didn't it develop more with our Muslim brethren? Also, as has been argued many times, there is no contradiction between Christianity and science for a great many people. You seem to have very strong opinions Byron.
Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]
Irony of ironies, the scientific method developed within Christendom, motivated by a desire to understand God's creation. Talk about sowing the seeds of your own destruction!
quote:Appreciate the demonstration!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because, of course, it is apostasy.
quote:The fruits of two millennia of scientific, political and psychological discovery. To give a common example, the ascension story and creeds presuppose a three-tiered universe as normative.
By the way, what "evidence" does Spong follow, other than his own fevered imaginings?
quote:Islamic scholars certainly played a substantial role in its early development, perhaps greater than Europeans.
Originally posted by Patdys:
Didn't it develop more with our Muslim brethren?
quote:Hell yeah.
Also, as has been argued many times, there is no contradiction between Christianity and science for a great many people. You seem to have very strong opinions Byron.
quote:It uses definition. If having definitions of words is irrational, then throw away all your dictionaries and stop reading this post.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Appreciate the demonstration!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because, of course, it is apostasy.
The very concept of apostasy (along with its justification, heresy) is irrational, in that that it uses the authority fallacy to shut down debate.
quote:You can't possibly believe science proves that the ascension story presupposes a three-tired universe as normative. Please tell me you just picked a bad example.
quote:The fruits of two millennia of scientific, political and psychological discovery. To give a common example, the ascension story and creeds presuppose a three-tiered universe as normative.
By the way, what "evidence" does Spong follow, other than his own fevered imaginings?
quote:He jettisons Christianity and shows respect to his own fevered imaginings, which he gives a Christian-like varnish to make what amounts to miquetoast deist humanism more palatable to a post-Christian audience that still has residual yet largely irrational feelings about the old stories.
Spong works to incorporate advances of knowledge into a religion framed in pre-scientific terms, which shows Christianity far more respect that quarantining it inside a premodern ghetto.
quote:No, no it didn't. Not unless you are going for a One, True Scientific Method kind of thing.
Originally posted by Byron:
Irony of ironies, the scientific method developed within Christendom,
quote:Bad analogy. Dictionaries record usage, not dictate it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Apostasy] uses definition. If having definitions of words is irrational, then throw away all your dictionaries and stop reading this post.
quote:Nope, the most rudimentary exegesis does that: Christ rises up to heaven.
You can't possibly believe science proves that the ascension story presupposes a three-tired universe as normative. Please tell me you just picked a bad example.
quote:Who gets to decide that he's jettisoned Christianity? You? Ancient councils? On what grounds?
He jettisons Christianity and shows respect to his own fevered imaginings, which he gives a Christian-like varnish to make what amounts to miquetoast deist humanism more palatable to a post-Christian audience that still has residual yet largely irrational feelings about the old stories.
quote:Love the postmodern irony there.
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the one hand its understandable, on the other hand they are just returning tit for tat and perpetuating the cycle which seems hypocritical.
What pisses me off too is that I stoop to their level and become part of the problem.
quote:And yet the Christian doctrine has always been that God is omnipresent. Not "only present in the top tier".
Originally posted by Byron:
Nope, the most rudimentary exegesis does that: Christ rises up to heaven.
quote:Not at all. Belief in a literal ascension doesn't require any specific cosmology unless, of course, one happens to have a very one dimensional understanding of the Ascension. Using that logic you'd have to argue that St. Luke believed that the Father literally has a right hand.
Originally posted by Byron:
Nope, the most rudimentary exegesis does that: Christ rises up to heaven.
What cosmology d'you think the authors of Bible and creeds held? Presumably you'd accept that it's an inaccurate one? If so, then it's reasonable to accept that this inaccurate understanding is represented in the text.
quote:Besides Australia.
orfeo: Byron, heaven could be absolutely anywhere besides the centre of the earth, and the first bit of the journey would be 'up'.
quote:Kudos for your passion, but it seems that some of what you believe others believe is inaccurate. I personally have never burned a witch, or an astronomer.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Hell yeah.
Originally posted by Patdys:
You seem to have very strong opinions Byron.
quote:There is no journey from here.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Besides Australia.
orfeo: Byron, heaven could be absolutely anywhere besides the centre of the earth, and the first bit of the journey would be 'up'.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:It's not about whether God has the stuffing, but the location of his realm at the time. That said, anyone caught on the specifics is missing the point. Even accepting, arguendo, that the early church didn't view heaven as "up there," we can guarantee that they, along with everyone else on earth, were ignorant of everything from Germ Theory to evolution, and this prescientific worldview shaped their theology.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[...] Any pre-modern Christian who thought God lived somewhere that was physically overhead would also have breached the doctrine that God has no physical body, and so 'up' or 'down' are not categories that can apply to Him. [...]
quote:I'm saying that hiving Christianity off into a supernatural ghetto is a distinctly modern phenomena. The religion didn't being with special pleading: it simply applied worldviews of the time.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So what you are saying is that to the ancient mind miracles were widespread and didn't prove anything, and that the Evangelists attributed miracles to Jesus in order to prove ... er ... something?
Or are you just saying that attributing miracles to Jesus was supposed to show he was divinely favoured but not necessarily God? In which case I agree with you, but I think you are arguing against a strawman.
quote:As for this. Nice try but no cigar. Everybody has a lens and a confession that they see through.
Originally posted by Byron:
Liberalism's guiding star is to examine sources without a confessional lens.
quote:Few things irritate me more about modern people than their inbuilt assumption that ancient people were all stupid.
Originally posted by Byron:
Orfeo, Spong, and other liberals, don't believe in a physical resurrection because it's rooted in that premodern framework.
quote:That's a bit stupid.
Originally posted by Byron:
Clearly, the gospel authors were trying to argue that Jesus' miracles were signs of God's favor; what they weren't doing is arguing that God had overturned the laws of nature, 'cause they didn't know they existed.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Few things irritate me more about modern people than their inbuilt assumption that ancient people were all stupid.
Because, you know, back then they all saw at least a couple of resurrections a year and it was no big deal. It's not like you'd write a book about one or anything...
quote:Ignorant, not stupid.
Originally posted by St Deird:
That's a bit stupid.
The only reason to marvel at someone walking on water is because you know that normally people can't. The fact that they wouldn't necessarily phrase it as "it is a law of nature that people cannot walk on top of waves" doesn't mean that they didn't know that it just doesn't happen.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that Byron was saying that Jewish holy men (hasidim), were believed to carry out healings, exorcisms, and miracles. I sometimes think of India today, where holy men are reputed to do such things.
I don't know how much the ancient world thought in terms of laws of nature, but presumably they thought that certain people were favoured by God, and could do such deeds. A commonly cited example is Honi the Circle Drawer.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Absolutely, along with the millions who keep a bead on their horoscope and treat prayer like ordering up a pizza.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And there are still people in the world today who use magical thinking, aren't there? I mean tribesmen who think that they can affect nature through their rituals; sympathetic magic it used to be called. I think Honi drew a circle and asked for rain inside it, which duly came.
I wasn't referring to US evangelicals!
quote:Interesting point. I suppose the former is more diffuse, isn't it?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But really, it is conceit to think there is a difference between the world is magic and all the magic resides in one being.
quote:And ours are, of course, infinitely superior.
Originally posted by Byron:
This doesn't make the ancients "stupid," as the straw man has it; it makes their frame of reference alien to ours. Our notions of common sense weren't theirs.
quote:In areas based on increased knowledge, it is, vastly so.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And ours are, of course, infinitely superior.
Originally posted by Byron:
This doesn't make the ancients "stupid," as the straw man has it; it makes their frame of reference alien to ours. Our notions of common sense weren't theirs.
quote:So, modern theists do not pray for assistance?
Originally posted by Byron:
To the ancients, it was common sense that disease was a punishment from the gods, to be avoided by offerings and righteousness; to us,
quote:I don't think the two halves of this paragraph go together. If people didn't know about laws of nature, why should they think Jesus' healings were a sign of God's favour rather than just 'what happens'? Presumably if a doctor healed by bleeding or leeches, that would not be God's favour but the application of medicine, which implies they were able to distinguish between miraculous healing and medicine.
Originally posted by Byron:
Magic and spirits were viewed as normative in the ancient world: Rome had laws against using harmful magic; the gospels famously attribute mental illness to demons. Clearly, the gospel authors were trying to argue that Jesus' miracles were signs of God's favor; what they weren't doing is arguing that God had overturned the laws of nature, 'cause they didn't know they existed.
quote:No it wasn't. It was common sense that disease was caused by an imbalance of bodily humours and cured by leeches. And given that leeches apparently do have some antiseptic capabilities, this was actually based on the limited observational evidence available.
Originally posted by Byron:
To the ancients, it was common sense that disease was a punishment from the gods, to be avoided by offerings and righteousness; to us, it's common sense that it's caused by bacteria, and can be avoided via sanitation.
quote:By "magical thinking," I simply mean "thinking that isn't confined by naturalism." Magic can of course be defined more specifically, as early Christians did.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think the two halves of this paragraph go together. If people didn't know about laws of nature, why should they think Jesus' healings were a sign of God's favour rather than just 'what happens'? Presumably if a doctor healed by bleeding or leeches, that would not be God's favour but the application of medicine, which implies they were able to distinguish between miraculous healing and medicine.
As for the idea that they had no idea of natural laws - bollocks. They had some strange ideas of what those laws were, yes, but why else do you think they developed those theories of bodily humours and four elements? Have you ever read Galen or Aristotle?
And if early Christians saw Jesus' miracles as merely a species of magic, why do some of the Church Fathers expend so much energy on refuting magicians as deluded, illogical or fraudulent? Hippolytus on magicians.
quote:I hope that, like Humpty Dumpty, when you use words to mean something they don't, you pay them extra.
Originally posted by Byron:
By "magical thinking," I simply mean "thinking that isn't confined by naturalism."
quote:But by definition, the New Testament was written by the literate, educated minority.
Originally posted by Byron:
It should be remembered that, in a society in which literacy was vanishingly rare, these concepts would be rarefied. Folk worldviews are a lot more diverse and intuitive.
quote:Various magicians I have known, not all of them Christian in any theological sense, define it more specifically as well.
Originally posted by Byron:
Magic can of course be defined more specifically, as early Christians did.
quote:No, the conspiracy wackos don't all accept it's possible.
Originally posted by Byron:
What this harrumph ignores is the difference between "unusual" and "impossible." No, ancients probably hadn't seen someone rise from the dead (although in the days before modern medicine, this was far from unknown), but the concept didn't violate their worldview in the way that it violates ours.
We've never walked on the moon, but even the conspiracy wackos accept that it's possible. Likewise, people who feel it necessary to have laws against witchcraft accept the possibility of magic.
quote:How many people, in this day and age, actually have a clear understanding of cloud formation?
Originally posted by Byron:
The rain example gets to a crucial point: with the info at their disposal, a magical worldview was rational.
quote:Y'mean like confusing "dictionary" with "diktat"?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I hope that, like Humpty Dumpty, when you use words to mean something they don't, you pay them extra.
quote:Okay, I was going to let the dictionary thing go, but...
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Y'mean like confusing "dictionary" with "diktat"?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I hope that, like Humpty Dumpty, when you use words to mean something they don't, you pay them extra.
quote:Not according to tradition, which holds quite a few of its authors to have been Galilean peasants who took a correspondence course in Greek.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But by definition, the New Testament was written by the literate, educated minority.
quote:Nope. But you are confusing "idiolect" with "communication."
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Y'mean like confusing "dictionary" with "diktat"?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I hope that, like Humpty Dumpty, when you use words to mean something they don't, you pay them extra.
quote:What the fuck does that even mean in a first century context?
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Not according to tradition, which holds quite a few of its authors to have been Galilean peasants who took a correspondence course in Greek.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But by definition, the New Testament was written by the literate, educated minority.
quote:You seem mighty hung-up on this "disproving the resurrection" malarkey. Can we get a restraining order already?
Originally posted by orfeo:
[...] And saying that it 'violates our worldview' is just making my point for me. Someone like Spong doesn't reject a bodily resurrection on the basis of evidence, he does it on the basis that it violates his worldview. Which isn't remotely the same thing as proof, and you're bloody silly for confusing it with proof.
quote:Communication is a two-way street; I doubt the Tsar Bomba would make it through your blinders.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope. But you are confusing "idiolect" with "communication."
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Not a lot, which is why scholars have concluded that so many NT books are forgeries.
quote:What the fuck does that even mean in a first century context?
Originally posted by Byron:
Not according to tradition, which holds quite a few of its authors to have been Galilean peasants who took a correspondence course in Greek.
quote:Your skills at insulting are top-notch. Your skills at thinking leave something to be desired. If you use a word in a way that nobody else uses it, then the problem with communication lies with you, and bitching that communication is a two-way street is just so much special pleading.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Communication is a two-way street; I doubt the Tsar Bomba would make it through your blinders.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope. But you are confusing "idiolect" with "communication."
quote:If we're going by handcount, it's commonly accepted that two of the 20th century's greatest Christian theologians are Rudolf Bultman and Paul Tillich, whose theories Spong is popularizing. It's also commonly accepted that such a thing as liberal theology exists, and has done since at least the early 19th century.
Originally posted by St Deird:
Okay, I was going to let the dictionary thing go, but...
YES, you are correct that dictionaries record usage rather than dictating it. HOWEVER, they record usage for the population as a whole, thereby defining how others will perceive your usage of words, whether you intend to use them in that way or not. They are, thereby, dictating what words to use if you wish to be understood in a discussion using English as it is currently spoken by the population. Using a word to mean something wholly other than its dictionary definition and then insisting that others understand you in the way you prefer because "dictionaries record usage, not dictate it" is pig-headed and ridiculous.
Mousethief is correct to insist that you give a word its commonly understood definition if you are using it in a debate. Otherwise, you might as well be rolling a dice and picking random words.
quote:Thing is, plenty of people do think the word "Christian" can encompass liberal theology. Certainly the universities and seminaries that teach it to candidates for ordination as a valid branch of Christian thought, institutions that remain in good standing with various denominations.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your skills at insulting are top-notch. Your skills at thinking leave something to be desired. If you use a word in a way that nobody else uses it, then the problem with communication lies with you, and bitching that communication is a two-way street is just so much special pleading.
quote:Ah, so your memory is as bad as your vocabulary?
Originally posted by Byron:
So if anyone wants to insist that liberal theology doesn't fit the definition "Christian," they've missed the bus by a good two centuries.
quote:Since apostasy is leaving a faith, it's rather tied up with the definition of Christianity, wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by St Deird:
Ah, so your memory is as bad as your vocabulary?
The discussion was about the definition of "apostasy". Nothing else.
quote:They jolly well knew that dead people didn't just come back to life.
Originally posted by Byron:
So yes, there may have been a resurrection in which God overturned natural laws, but that wasn't what 1st century Christians believed, 'cause they had no idea that such laws existed.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:No, it doesn't. Traditionally St Matthew was a tax-collector and St Luke was a physician. St Paul was a highly educated scholar of Jewish law (it used to be believed he was a Platonist as well but I think that view has gone out of fashion). St John and St James were traditionally equated with the sons of Zebedee, who was a very wealthy man (as in, he owned several fishing boats with hired hands and his wife seems to have been one of the rich women who bankrolled Jesus). St Mark the Evangelist was traditionally equated with John Mark whose mother, according to the book of Acts, lived in a house large enough for many people to gather in.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Not according to tradition, which holds quite a few of its authors to have been Galilean peasants who took a correspondence course in Greek.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But by definition, the New Testament was written by the literate, educated minority.
quote:But this only works because you are defining 'magical thinking' so broadly that a lot of contemporary attitudes qualify as well. Any number of people today, without any particular religious affiliation say things like 'it was meant to be' or 'everything happens for a reason' or 'don't do that, you'll jinx it', which by your definition is magical thinking. Ergo, again on your definitions, the worldview of the New Testament writers wasn't alien, it was the same worldview as people have today.
Snark aside, yup, it was, which is why I cited Josephus to emphasize that magical thinking cut across classes. Pliny cataloging nature fit into that framework: his nephew, educated and guided by him, suppressed Christianity for being a jumped up superstitio that led people astray and defied the state cult of the Emperor. A pagan heresy hunt, joined by the educated elite.
quote:As I noted upthread with a link to a handy safety coffin (full satisfaction or you money back), no, they didn't, as the boundary between death and life was a lot fuzzier in the premodern world.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
They jolly well knew that dead people didn't just come back to life.
quote:If we're doing definitions, "quite a few" isn't a synonym for "all." James shared Jesus' humble background, and Simon Peter of course had the fishing gig.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
No, it doesn't. Traditionally St Matthew was a tax-collector and St Luke was a physician. St Paul was a highly educated scholar of Jewish law (it used to be believed he was a Platonist as well but I think that view has gone out of fashion). St John and St James were traditionally equated with the sons of Zebedee, who was a very wealthy man (as in, he owned several fishing boats with hired hands and his wife seems to have been one of the rich women who bankrolled Jesus). St Mark the Evangelist was traditionally equated with John Mark whose mother, according to the book of Acts, lived in a house large enough for many people to gather in.
quote:Yup, many of us are schizo between modern and premodern. The crucial difference is, after we've done the superstitio, we by and large put our trust in testable methods. All but the fringe of religion tells believers to seek conventional treatment alongside prayer.
But this only works because you are defining 'magical thinking' so broadly that a lot of contemporary attitudes qualify as well. Any number of people today, without any particular religious affiliation say things like 'it was meant to be' or 'everything happens for a reason' or 'don't do that, you'll jinx it', which by your definition is magical thinking. Ergo, again on your definitions, the worldview of the New Testament writers wasn't alien, it was the same worldview as people have today.
quote:That depends. Can we find a way to keep you off the message board I host?
Originally posted by Byron:
Can we get a restraining order already?
quote:I'm not convinced Jesus' background was all that humble (carpentering was a skilled craft after all), although I will admit to confusing my Jameses. St Peter of course explicitly needed a scribe for his epistles: 1 Peter 5:12.
Originally posted by Byron:
If we're doing definitions, "quite a few" isn't a synonym for "all." James shared Jesus' humble background, and Simon Peter of course had the fishing gig.
quote:Like this:
The crucial difference is, after we've done the superstitio, we by and large put our trust in testable methods. All but the fringe of religion tells believers to seek conventional treatment alongside prayer.
quote:St Mark's Gospel clearly distinguishes between conventional treatment and Jesus' miraculous healing. It is true that for most of the sick people Jesus met, no conventional treatment existed at the time, but it doesn't follow that people had no concept of conventional treatment at all.
From Mark 5:
Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years. She had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse.
quote:Of course they did: what they didn't have were the combined modern theories, and the data they rest upon.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[...] St Mark's Gospel clearly distinguishes between conventional treatment and Jesus' miraculous healing. It is true that for most of the sick people Jesus met, no conventional treatment existed at the time, but it doesn't follow that people had no concept of conventional treatment at all.
quote:The content of 1 & 2 Peter indicates later authorship regardless (particularly the excuse-making for a tardy apocalypse), but yes, Peter could feasibly have dictated in Aramaic to a scribe. The translation into Greek would lead to such drastic changes in meaning that the "scribe" would, in effect, be a co-author.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not convinced Jesus' background was all that humble (carpentering was a skilled craft after all), although I will admit to confusing my Jameses. St Peter of course explicitly needed a scribe for his epistles: 1 Peter 5:12.
quote:Motion carried.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That depends. Can we find a way to keep you off the message board I host?
Originally posted by Byron:
Can we get a restraining order already?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Sure its finale will be suitably apocalyptic.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is a brilliant thread, although I've just realized to my shock that it's in hell; ah well.
quote:It's understandable, as we're no different to people 2,000 years back, we've just discovered more.
It fascinates me how modern people still retain some elements of magical thinking, along with post-Enlightenment thinking.
After all, the medieval philosophers developed the notion of secondary causes, which was a kind of primitive form of methodological naturalism, yet this did not rid them of the magical stuff at all.
quote:It's a helluva ask, to be sure, but I don't believe it's impossible. Folks like E.P. Sanders and Géza Vermes have done a standup job.
And it seems very difficult for us to enter the world-view of the 'charismatic hasidim', such as Jesus. Maybe impossible.
quote:... and would also have placed the author firmly in the ranks of the literate minority.
Originally posted by Byron:
The content of 1 & 2 Peter indicates later authorship regardless (particularly the excuse-making for a tardy apocalypse), but yes, Peter could feasibly have dictated in Aramaic to a scribe. The translation into Greek would lead to such drastic changes in meaning that the "scribe" would, in effect, be a co-author.
quote:I think that comes from projecting an artificial distinction onto the world and then being astonished that people don't fit into neat categories.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It fascinates me how modern people still retain some elements of magical thinking, along with post-Enlightenment thinking.
quote:Interestingly, one can scroll up this page and see quite clearly and plainly that the term I accused you of Humpty Dumptying was "Magical Thinking" not "Christianity." You're turning into a regular IngoB. (I don't mean in knowledge or intelligence, either.)
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Thing is, plenty of people do think the word "Christian" can encompass liberal theology. Certainly the universities and seminaries that teach it to candidates for ordination as a valid branch of Christian thought, institutions that remain in good standing with various denominations.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your skills at insulting are top-notch. Your skills at thinking leave something to be desired. If you use a word in a way that nobody else uses it, then the problem with communication lies with you, and bitching that communication is a two-way street is just so much special pleading.
Spong remains a bishop of the Episcopal Church: when Spong's episcopal opponents tried to get to him via a heresy charge against his assistant Walter Righter, he was unanimously acquitted. Spong's mentor, Robinson, was never even charged with heresy.
More's the pity, you may say, but those are the facts on the ground.
quote:I'm not sure I like the implicit equation of 'naturalism' with 'rational'. ISTM the scientific method works because it starts from the outset by limiting its field of reference. Using the scientific methods to solve problems that it wasn't intended to solve is, by definition, irrational.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Except I didn't say 'astonished', I said 'fascinated'. I think they're quite different: thus, I've witnessed all my life that people are a mish-mash of rational and irrational stuff, so I don't find it astonishing; but it still fascinates me.
quote:Yes, sorry for the mix-up, wires got crossed in the flyting.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interestingly, one can scroll up this page and see quite clearly and plainly that the term I accused you of Humpty Dumptying was "Magical Thinking" not "Christianity." You're turning into a regular IngoB. (I don't mean in knowledge or intelligence, either.)
quote:Nice evasion of your misquoting me.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I'm not sure I like the implicit equation of 'naturalism' with 'rational'. ISTM the scientific method works because it starts from the outset by limiting its field of reference. Using the scientific methods to solve problems that it wasn't intended to solve is, by definition, irrational.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Except I didn't say 'astonished', I said 'fascinated'. I think they're quite different: thus, I've witnessed all my life that people are a mish-mash of rational and irrational stuff, so I don't find it astonishing; but it still fascinates me.
However, if one accepts that rational is approximately equivalent to naturalistic, then the reason why people are a mixture of rational and irrational behaviours is because not all questions have rational solutions.
quote:Indeed, the adjective describes an aspect of the noun, hence "thinking that isn't confined by naturalism," and not, "thinking that includes every component of the OED definition of 'magic.' "
Originally posted by mousethief:
You really can't define "magical thinking" by defining "magic" and then adding the definition of "thinking." Language doesn't work that way. That you think it does explains so much. So very, very much.
quote:or
a belief that merely thinking about an event in the external world can cause it to occur. It is regarded as a form of regression to an early phase of development. It may be part of ideas of reference, considered normal in those instances, or may reach delusional proportions when the individual maintains a firm conviction about the belief, despite evidence to the contrary. It may be seen in schizophrenia.
quote:or
The erroneous belief, similar to a normal stage of childhood development—Piaget’s pre-operational phase—that thoughts assume a magical power capable of influencing events without a physical action actually occurring; a conviction that thinking equates with doing, accompanied by an unrealistic understanding of cause and effect
quote:or
[thought] characterized by the belief that thinking or wishing something can cause it to occur.
quote:or
Dereitic thinking, similar to a normal stage of childhood development, in which thoughts, words or actions assume a magical power, and are able to prevent or cause events to happen without a physical action occurring; a conviction that thinking equates with doing, accompanied by an unrealistic understanding of cause and effect Examples Dreams in children, in primitive peoples, and in Pts under various conditions
quote:So as you can see, Magical Thinking is more than just thinking something unscientific or not-naturalistic. It specifically refers to thinking that you can make something happen with your mind alone.
irrational belief that one can bring about a circumstance or event by thinking about it or wishing for it; normal in preschool children, it also occurs in schizophrenia.
quote:I apologise for wrongly interpreting 'fascinated' as 'astonished'. It was not my intention to distort your meaning. Nevertheless, I stand by the comments in my most recent posts.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Nice evasion of your misquoting me.
quote:... kicks off its definition of the phrase "magical thinking" with "the identification of causal relationships between actions and events, where scientific consensus says that there is none."
Originally posted by mousethief:
freedictionary.com ...
quote:Not according to your own source! Always love it when the other party makes my point for me.
So as you can see, Magical Thinking is more than just thinking something unscientific or not-naturalistic. It specifically refers to thinking that you can make something happen with your mind alone.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Good advice, make sure to follow it in future.
Everyone should try to use words in such a way that others will understand them. Insisting on one's own private definition of words hinders communication.
quote:No, sorry. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that a dead person might come back to life, but with the difficulty of telling for certain whether someone in a really deep coma was definitely dead. If we were stuck on a desert island, with all we know of medicine, but without our fancy gadgets, and someone (as far as we could tell without those gadgets) stopped breathing, had no heartbeat, etc., we'd be in precisely the same boat.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:As I noted upthread with a link to a handy safety coffin (full satisfaction or you money back), no, they didn't, as the boundary between death and life was a lot fuzzier in the premodern world.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
They jolly well knew that dead people didn't just come back to life.
quote:As the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto goes, when the Ranger says, "Good Lord, Tonto! Hundreds of Indians are going to attack! What shall we do?"
This is one of the many ways in which we struggle to empathize with our ancestors.
quote:Then why are you still here?
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Motion carried.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That depends. Can we find a way to keep you off the message board I host?
Originally posted by Byron:
Can we get a restraining order already?
quote:I am not disputing that we know more about natural laws now than then. I am disputing your original assertian that the people of Jesus' time did not believe natural laws existed. Are you retreating from this position?
Originally posted by Byron:
Medicine at the time of Jesus was rooted in philosophy, not clinical testing. We forget just how recent modern medicine is. Until the late 19th century gave us Germ Theory we had no idea what caused disease; the first randomized and double-blind trials didn't occur until the 1940s.
If a person believes that disease is caused by magic, spirits, or humors, their worldview is different in kind to one that accepts evidence-based medicine. The evidential revolution applies across the disciplines, and has, to put it mildly, implications for theology.
quote:It has wider implications than being unable to diagnose a trip across the Styx. The dead rose. For people without any concept of blood circulation or brain chemistry, who associated "death" with breathing (they couldn't even check a pulse), it raised questions we'd find baffling.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
No, sorry. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that a dead person might come back to life, but with the difficulty of telling for certain whether someone in a really deep coma was definitely dead. If we were stuck on a desert island, with all we know of medicine, but without our fancy gadgets, and someone (as far as we could tell without those gadgets) stopped breathing, had no heartbeat, etc., we'd be in precisely the same boat.
quote:We're disagreeing over terms. By "laws of nature" I'm referring to the concept of the universe as a closed system operating according to predictable norms. You're referring just to the norm. The difference lies in whether an experience violates our understanding of what's possible.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Poking my nose in: Yes, the ancients definitely knew about the laws of nature, whether they called them that or not. That is clear from the fact that they noticed and were surprised by miracles. Why take note of a resurrection if you were not absolutely certain that the dead stay dead? Why be surprised at a virgin birth if you didn't know, absolutely know, that babies are a result of sex? If you did not know the sun always rises in the east, there is no reason at all why you should pay attention to it suddenly rising in the west one morning.
They knew the laws of nature, all right. Miracles are defined in opposition to the laws of nature (which are simply another name for "what always happens in our experience").
Now as for individual cases where you have to determine was it a true miracle or not--of course they could be fooled in a particular case, just as we can. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that they had the basic knowledge of those laws. If anything, it reinforces it.
quote:Humorism isn't naturalistic in the way modern science would understand the term: it's rooted in philosophy, not systematic, testable observation. Along with the four humors were four temperaments.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I am not disputing that we know more about natural laws now than then. I am disputing your original assertian that the people of Jesus' time did not believe natural laws existed. Are you retreating from this position?
Also, there is a qualitative difference between bodily humours and spirits / magic. Bodily humours are a naturalistic explanation that happens to be wrong. Spirits and magic are not naturalistic.
quote:
Probably the most radical change in the meaning of cause happened during the seventeenth century, in which there emerged a strong tendency to understand causal relations as instances of deterministic laws. Causes were no longer seen as the active initiators of a change, but as inactive nodes in a law-like implication chain.
quote:ISTM you are describing empiricism, rather than naturalism. Empiricism is a methodology. It is a tool: it is not a statement about how the world is. I agree that it is (with certain caveats) the most efficient way of finding out things about natural laws. However, the fact that the ancients used inefficient means of establishing natural laws doesn't imply that they didn't believe in natural laws.
Originally posted by Byron:
Humorism isn't naturalistic in the way modern science would understand the term: it's rooted in philosophy, not systematic, testable observation. Along with the four humors were four temperaments.
quote:A genuinely fascinating article.
Originally posted by Byron:
This is a neat summary of the concept of natural laws,
quote:Methodical observation more than empiricism, as empiricism alone can easily mislead, i.e., we can watch a storm, and conclude that lightening is animated by spirits, not electricity.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM you are describing empiricism, rather than naturalism. Empiricism is a methodology. It is a tool: it is not a statement about how the world is. I agree that it is (with certain caveats) the most efficient way of finding out things about natural laws. However, the fact that the ancients used inefficient means of establishing natural laws doesn't imply that they didn't believe in natural laws.
quote:Just to confirm, I'm not flying the flag for defunct branches of 20th century philosophy. Rather, I'm focusing on how different methods of categorizing the world shape our understanding of what's possible.
a. Empiricism itself relies on certain a priori assumptions, e.g. falsifiability, uniformitarianism, even Occam's Razor. There are good reasons for these assumptions but they are still a priori.
b. I don't think empiricism can, by itself, establish whether something is a miracle or not. You would need some a priori means of saying whether a miracle was more likely than, say, some kind of undiscovered quirk in the laws of physics - which is the very point under dispute.
c. I have a feeling - and I may be putting words into your mouth - that you are arguing for logical positivism, i.e. the idea that things are only worthy of belief if they can be empirically verified. Again, I agree that positivism is incompatible with traditional Christianity, but there are plenty of intelligent, non-religious, scientifically minded people today who aren't positivists either, so the clash of worldviews is not ancient vs modern, but ancient vs a particular subset of modern.
(Also the idea that only empirically verifiable things are worthy of belief is itself not empirically verifiable - which I think was Wittgenstein's objection to positivism, despite the fact that the positivists regarded him as a kind of secular Messiah.)
quote:Exactly! Hell be damned, great way of putting it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
A genuinely fascinating article.
The conclusion in fact says that both the Aristotelean and the scientific concept of 'cause' are alive today, to everyone's confusion.
quote:Again, exactly so. Most anything can be interpreted both ways.
In any case, I think the article is describing a difference in the way people describe or model the world, not in the way people think the world actually is. I am not convinced there exists a law that could not be re-expressed as an active cause on the part of the thing governed, or a description of active causation that could not be re-expressed as a law governing the cause and effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If you want to get one over on condescending atheists, stop giving 'em reason to condescend.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:John Macquarrie always made sure to reinforce a believer's subjectivity. As he wisely noted, even if revelation exists, there's no way to bypass the human filter, so its transmission will always be flawed.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I usually stay in Purg, but have been toying with the idea of composing a question on the lines of: Since not one of the believers here has ever actually seen God, and since all understanding of said being's character, wishes, etc has always been thought up by humans, I wonder if I dare ask why you believe s/he/it exists? However, thought it might be better in Hell!! ... and saw this thread.
quote:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
quote:Again with this "we"--you mean questions you'd find baffling. Dead people rising--actually dead people, not people who were buried when they weren't fully dead--was considered a very non-natural thing--whether miracle or some other form of the supernatural.
Originally posted by Byron:
It has wider implications than being unable to diagnose a trip across the Styx. The dead rose. For people without any concept of blood circulation or brain chemistry, who associated "death" with breathing (they couldn't even check a pulse), it raised questions we'd find baffling.
quote:Yes, the notion of the universe as a "closed system" in which miracles and the supernatural aren't involved is definitely not something I believe in. Sorry!
By "laws of nature" I'm referring to the concept of the universe as a closed system operating according to predictable norms. You're referring just to the norm. The difference lies in whether an experience violates our understanding of what's possible.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:While encounters with ghosts are indeed rare, and the incident has much more detail than one usually finds in such things, I see no reason to assume that this couldn't have happened. As for the dragon description, it actually sounds like a comet or some such thing--it doesn't talk about them getting close up, eating people, scales, wings, etc., just "immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery, dragons flying across the firmament."
If I see an asteroid slam into a hill, I'm shocked, but accept it's possible; likewise, for people who believe the world is driven by providence and spirits, reality will be understood differently. Take this medieval account, where an army of ghosts is recorded by a monk in a scholarly history. Or this casual reference to dragons in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Either Daenerys Targaryen went for a joyride over Northumbria, or premodern times had a very different concept of what's possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Poking my nose in: Yes, the ancients definitely knew about the laws of nature, whether they called them that or not. That is clear from the fact that they noticed and were surprised by miracles. Why take note of a resurrection if you were not absolutely certain that the dead stay dead? Why be surprised at a virgin birth if you didn't know, absolutely know, that babies are a result of sex? If you did not know the sun always rises in the east, there is no reason at all why you should pay attention to it suddenly rising in the west one morning.
They knew the laws of nature, all right. Miracles are defined in opposition to the laws of nature (which are simply another name for "what always happens in our experience").
Now as for individual cases where you have to determine was it a true miracle or not--of course they could be fooled in a particular case, just as we can. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that they had the basic knowledge of those laws. If anything, it reinforces it.
quote:The great miracles certainly violated the ancients' view of what was possible. Witness Joseph's decision to divorce Mary (he knew very well where babies came from, and that virgin conception in human beings was impossible). Witness the absolute shock from both Jesus' enemies and his friends at the resurrection. They were not shocked because it was extremely rare and unlikely; they were shocked "because it violated their sense of what was possible." And so they should have been. There was no room for such goings-on within their concept of the universe. For something to violate the norms, the laws, of the universe in such a way clearly pointed to an outside-the-universe actor.
Originally posted by Byron:
We're disagreeing over terms. By "laws of nature" I'm referring to the concept of the universe as a closed system operating according to predictable norms. You're referring just to the norm. The difference lies in whether an experience violates our understanding of what's possible.
quote:Certainly their definition of what's possible varied in slight ways from yours, and from mine, as well. I doubt you'll ever find two human beings, let alone two cultures, which agree on exactly where those boundaries lie. But the great miracles lie well within the common ground human cultures share. Name me a culture which would find nothing odd in the idea of a virgin conceiving. Or one which found nothing odd in the notion of a man rising from the really, truly dead.
Originally posted by Byron:
If I see an asteroid slam into a hill, I'm shocked, but accept it's possible; likewise, for people who believe the world is driven by providence and spirits, reality will be understood differently. Take this medieval account, where an army of ghosts is recorded by a monk in a scholarly history. Or this casual reference to dragons in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Either Daenerys Targaryen went for a joyride over Northumbria, or premodern times had a very different concept of what's possible.
quote:Checking this link got the me the only YouTube ad I didn't automatically click through—one for Jorge Cham's Ph.D. TV, specifically the episode on how coffee works. Coffee, Cham, and Feynman? Yes Please.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
quote:Yeah, I noticed that too.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Susan Doris shows up in Hell and responds to a post claiming atheists have a right to be condescending by making a condescending statement based on a self refuting epistemology she admits she can't defend philosophically.
quote:And now you have lost me again. In the first paragraph you are agreeing with me that it's just a difference in description, and in the second paragraph you are saying that a.) one model has evidential support and the other doesn't, and b.) this creates an immense gulf between the ancient view and ours.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Again, exactly so. Most anything can be interpreted both ways.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I am not convinced there exists a law that could not be re-expressed as an active cause on the part of the thing governed, or a description of active causation that could not be re-expressed as a law governing the cause and effect.
We've come round to the modern view of causation 'cause it best fits the evidence. If it had been current when the authors of Christianity shaped the faith, it would've changed how they interpreted events. All folk like Spong are doing is trying to integrate our religious understanding with other branches of knowledge.
quote:Pfft. In the good old days atheists expressed their satire in proper dactylic hexameters like Lucretius. None of this dumbed down easy-to-write, easy-to-read prose nonsense.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Alas Susan, the believers are too busy quarreling with each other about the good old days to get around to bashing atheists. I've been wondering if it's a post-modern ironic joke on the original poster.
quote:Probably!
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Alas Susan, the believers are too busy quarreling with each other about the good old days to get around to bashing atheists. I've been wondering if it's a post-modern ironic joke on the original poster.
quote:And I know I won’t have an after-life in which to study it!!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Susan Doris shows up in Hell and responds to a post claiming atheists have a right to be condescending by making a condescending statement based on a self refuting epistemology she admits she can't defend philosophically.
quote:Byron. Both you and SusanDoris have missed the point of the OP entirely.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If you want to get one over on condescending atheists, stop giving 'em reason to condescend.
I usually stay in Purg, but have been toying with the idea of composing a question on the lines of: Since not one of the believers here has ever actually seen God, and since all understanding of said being's character, wishes, etc has always been thought up by humans, I wonder if I dare ask why you believe s/he/it exists? However, thought it might be better in Hell!! ... and saw this thread.
quote:Perhaps it's just not possible for atheists and theists to have civilised conversations in online mediums.
Being an atheist is okay.
Being an atheist and shaming religions and spirituality as silly and not real is not okay.
Being a Christian is okay.
Being homophobic, misogynistic, racist or an otherwise hateful person and blaming it on your religion is not okay.
Being a reindeer is okay.
Bullying and excluding another reindeer because he has a shiny red nose is not.
quote:I have.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Since not one of the believers here has ever actually seen God ...
quote:Of course it is. But not on all topics. When you hold diametrically opposite positions of faith, then you have no common ground to debate.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Perhaps it's just not possible for atheists and theists to have civilised conversations in online mediums.
quote:Yeah, I've have mirrors in my house too.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I have.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Since not one of the believers here has ever actually seen God ...
And I'm not unique. It's fairly common.
quote:It was a clearly a quote. As to who it's a quote of, those sufficiently curious can use the magic of the internet to find out. Leave the hosting to the Hosts, thanks.
Originally posted by QLib:
Arnold may be past caring about copyright, but don't you think you should still credit him?
quote:I'm not sure that's entirely true. Most vociferous atheists usually hold empiricists and materialists philosophical frameworks. Christianity can speak on those terms, but only in so far as the limitations of those philosophies allow.
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:Of course it is. But not on all topics. When you hold diametrically opposite positions of faith, then you have no common ground to debate.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Perhaps it's just not possible for atheists and theists to have civilised conversations in online mediums.
quote:I think I get what you're saying here: only openness leads to real and true dialectic.
Originally posted by Patdys:
The debate about God can only exist for those of us who are not as fixed in out beliefs. For those in the dark hours of insomnia say 'what if there is no God?' or "what if there is a God?' in quiet small scared voices, then we can talk about our beliefs and fears. But when there is no doubt, there is no discussion. Only proselytisation. And hell calls.
quote:Bloody doctors!
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:Yeah, I've have mirrors in my house too.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I have.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Since not one of the believers here has ever actually seen God ...
And I'm not unique. It's fairly common.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:What does He look like, then?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I have.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Since not one of the believers here has ever actually seen God ...
And I'm not unique. It's fairly common.
quote:I think there sort of is a Schroedinger's God, if you go along with various non-dualist theories. These might say that from the point of view of the ego (which promotes a kind of self/other dualism), there is indeed no God; but if that dualism collapses, via the annihilation of the ego, then there may be an experience of transcendence or the numinous or the divine, or whatever.
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:Of course it is. But not on all topics. When you hold diametrically opposite positions of faith, then you have no common ground to debate.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Perhaps it's just not possible for atheists and theists to have civilised conversations in online mediums.
'There is no God'. 'Yes there is'.
Unfortunately there is no Schroedinger's God.
But that is one small issue in a world of debate. Social justice, politics, sports, dead horses can all be discussed.
The debate about God can only exist for those of us who are not as fixed in out beliefs. For those in the dark hours of insomnia say 'what if there is no God?' or "what if there is a God?' in quiet small scared voices, then we can talk about our beliefs and fears. But when there is no doubt, there is no discussion. Only proselytisation. And hell calls.
quote:Isn’t this where offence is taken, not intended at the person with the belief? As time passes, an objective, scientific Theory for any god, ever, throughout history remains at zero, doesn’t it?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Byron. Both you and SusanDoris have missed the point of the OP entirely.
I'll reiterate it.:
[QUOTE] Being an atheist is okay.
Being an atheist and shaming religions and spirituality as silly and not real is not okay.
quote:**or anything else for that matter.
Being homophobic, misogynistic, racist or an otherwise hateful person and blaming it on your religion** is not okay.
quote:But surely those of us who join forums such as this enjoy discussions like these, and I know there isn’t any such group anywhere near where I live! And, of course, if we all met at a big get-together, we’d all be saying things like, ‘Oh, how very nice it is to meet you; I do so like to read what you have to say.’ I would also say how grateful I am for the opportunity to take part, bearing in mindthe the restrictions imposed by my sight loss.
Perhaps it's just not possible for atheists and theists to have civilised conversations in online mediums.
quote:I have too. It is indeed fairly common.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I have.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Since not one of the believers here has ever actually seen God ...
And I'm not unique. It's fairly common.
quote:I am unconvinced. The way you posted originally, I was expecting an account roughly analogous to the one I could give of the car I can see parked outside my window right now. Instead you appear to be describing some kind of "beautific vision" or dream sequence. Pity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Too gargantuan to see fully. Only saw a tiny part of the hem of his robe. But it filled my vision.
quote:Of course it is. Hell, the dream I had last night where I was riding a panda to the store so that I could buy all the rice in Japan and feed it to my army of mutant geese made perfect rational sense at the time.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
To me, who experiences it, it is perfectly rational.
quote:I assumed the quote was sufficiently familiar to most on this ship. But if you want the full Matthew Arnold (1822-1888), "Dover Beach" (1867). He was also great-uncle of Julian Huxley if we want to bring it back to more modern atheists.
Originally posted by QLib:
Arnold may be past caring about copyright, but don't you think you should still credit him?
quote:I'm glad you asked that!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: What does He look like, then?
quote:Interesting point. The thing that I find somewhat annoying is that so many people seem to think that agnosticism and atheism are equally valid, considering them to be on a 50/50 basis.
Originally posted by Caissa:
I had a roommate who refused to call himself an atheist. He argued it was allowing the theists to set the terms of the debate.
quote:A beautiful statement of faith. I can respect those whenever I see them.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:And I know I won’t have an after-life in which to study it!!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Susan Doris shows up in Hell and responds to a post claiming atheists have a right to be condescending by making a condescending statement based on a self refuting epistemology she admits she can't defend philosophically.
quote:There you go, you have made sense of your experience by categorising it as a dream. The problem is, that you may try to categorise my experience as a dream too, and discount any other rationale to the point of becoming condescending. But you didn't experience it, I did, and it's up to me to think it through and reach my own conclusions. I do this in a perfectly rational way.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Of course it is. Hell, the dream I had last night where I was riding a panda to the store so that I could buy all the rice in Japan and feed it to my army of mutant geese made perfect rational sense at the time.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
To me, who experiences it, it is perfectly rational.
quote:I'm curious how you know that this process is perfectly rational.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:There you go, you have made sense of your experience by categorising it as a dream. The problem is, that you may try to categorise my experience as a dream too, and discount any other rationale to the point of becoming condescending. But you didn't experience it, I did, and it's up to me to think it through and reach my own conclusions. I do this in a perfectly rational way.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Of course it is. Hell, the dream I had last night where I was riding a panda to the store so that I could buy all the rice in Japan and feed it to my army of mutant geese made perfect rational sense at the time.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
To me, who experiences it, it is perfectly rational.
quote:You appear to be using "rational" in two different ways. In what way is the first inference (from cat experience to maleness of cat) more rational than the second (from God experience to femaleness of God)? In the first you appear to be using "rational" to mean "a result of a thinking process" and in the second to mean "a valid or defensible result of a thinking process."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand the idea that a vision of God is perfectly rational, since no experience is. I suppose you can say that various inferences are rational; thus, if I see a very large cat outside, I tend to think it's a male. This is not definitely correct, but it is a rational inference. But the initial experience of the cat is not.
So if you had a vision of God as a woman, it would be rational to infer that God is a woman. Hang on, no it wouldn't, it would be rational to infer that you had had an experience of God as a woman.
quote:This may surprise you but I do have serious doubts about my faith, but I'll take a pleasant surprise against the eternal alternative.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
And I know I won’t have an after-life in which to study it!!
quote:Really? Are you quite sure about that?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Besides 'laws of nature' only exist as mental constructs or abstractions. Universals have no extra-mental existence, as a certain pre-modern philosopher once said. No-one believes there's some sheet of cosmic vellum with An Act for the Regulation of Gravity on it. So to that extent, the 'law of nature' model is not really proposing the existence of something absent from the 'active causation' model.)
quote:If I maintained that it was an absolutely real experience, would you concede that I actually do have an army of mutant geese that just happen not to be visible to anyone else, or indeed to me except on a few isolated occasions?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:There you go, you have made sense of your experience by categorising it as a dream.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Of course it is. Hell, the dream I had last night where I was riding a panda to the store so that I could buy all the rice in Japan and feed it to my army of mutant geese made perfect rational sense at the time.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
To me, who experiences it, it is perfectly rational.
quote:I think my post is too elaborate actually; bringing in maleness and femaleness isn't needed. I just think that cats are part of public knowledge, or 'intersubjective knowledge', as some call it; gods aren't.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You appear to be using "rational" in two different ways. In what way is the first inference (from cat experience to maleness of cat) more rational than the second (from God experience to femaleness of God)? In the first you appear to be using "rational" to mean "a result of a thinking process" and in the second to mean "a valid or defensible result of a thinking process."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand the idea that a vision of God is perfectly rational, since no experience is. I suppose you can say that various inferences are rational; thus, if I see a very large cat outside, I tend to think it's a male. This is not definitely correct, but it is a rational inference. But the initial experience of the cat is not.
So if you had a vision of God as a woman, it would be rational to infer that God is a woman. Hang on, no it wouldn't, it would be rational to infer that you had had an experience of God as a woman.
But that's a guess; please tell me what you meant.
quote:How many would it take? At which point on the spectrum that starts with me and my geese, goes through all the people who claim to have seen UFOs or ghosts, and ends with the masses who claim to have seen G/god/s do you start taking them seriously, exactly?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If it was you alone claiming to be followed by a flock of invisible, mutant geese, I wouldn't care one way or the other.
quote:Bugger, I should have known someone would call me on that. Nonetheless, I think one's view on the nature of universals is unlikely to be determined by amassing empirical evidence.
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:Really? Are you quite sure about that?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Besides 'laws of nature' only exist as mental constructs or abstractions. Universals have no extra-mental existence, as a certain pre-modern philosopher once said. No-one believes there's some sheet of cosmic vellum with An Act for the Regulation of Gravity on it. So to that extent, the 'law of nature' model is not really proposing the existence of something absent from the 'active causation' model.)
quote:
From Arnobius the Elder, Adversus nationes I.11:
And because you are unable to endure the hottest rays of the sun, is summer to be removed from the year, and a different course of nature to be instituted under different laws?
quote:It's not argument ad populum. Billions of people across time and culture believing in God isn't proof of the existence of God. It is evidence that God exists. Add to that some pretty convincing philosophical arguments about the necessity of God's existence then top it off with personal experience gives one a pretty convincing argument for the existence of God. I'm supposed to disregard that because there is no room in the self refuting epistemology of the new atheists for God? To me, doing so would be irrational.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hello, is the argumentum ad populum getting an airing? It's been in the wardrobe for far too long, with all those moth-balls.
quote:I would agree with this--and I mean this seriously, I also take this as at least some evidence of some of the other "odd" or "uncanny" things mentioned before that pretty much the entire human race has accepted for all of human history we can find. (Ghosts and the like, yes (all cultures across time and space), mutant geese not so much.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's not argument ad populum. Billions of people across time and culture believing in God isn't proof of the existence of God. It is evidence that God exists.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Any chance you might answer the question?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Either you are deliberately missing the point or you are just stupid.
quote:Surely it is evidence that people think god(s) exist - and one can argue that they do exist in the brains of those who believe - but it no more (or less) suggests the extra-cranial existence of the Christian "God" than of other, non-Christian, gods. If belief is all that is required to create evidence then all gods who have been believed in are also evidentially supported.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I would agree with this--and I mean this seriously, I also take this as at least some evidence of some of the other "odd" or "uncanny" things mentioned before that pretty much the entire human race has accepted for all of human history we can find. (Ghosts and the like, yes (all cultures across time and space), mutant geese not so much.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's not argument ad populum. Billions of people across time and culture believing in God isn't proof of the existence of God. It is evidence that God exists.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Bugger, I should have known someone would call me on that. Nonetheless, I think one's view on the nature of universals is unlikely to be determined by amassing empirical evidence.
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:Really? Are you quite sure about that?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Besides 'laws of nature' only exist as mental constructs or abstractions. Universals have no extra-mental existence, as a certain pre-modern philosopher once said. No-one believes there's some sheet of cosmic vellum with An Act for the Regulation of Gravity on it. So to that extent, the 'law of nature' model is not really proposing the existence of something absent from the 'active causation' model.)
quote:This is an entirely different thing; you are now no longer talking about male cats, which is an inference. Simply saying "there is a cat" is neither reasonable nor unreasonable; it is merely an expression of your perceived experience. This is a whole new conversation. You didn't just move the goalposts, you dismantled them and took the ball out of the stadium, out of the parking lot, and into the department store across the street.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think my post is too elaborate actually; bringing in maleness and femaleness isn't needed. I just think that cats are part of public knowledge, or 'intersubjective knowledge', as some call it; gods aren't.
So if I see a cat, it's reasonable to say that there's a cat;
quote:That there is a God Who created the world is one thing, and not something the sciences can prove or disprove; specifically ignoring or writing off things that the sciences can actually tell us about, say, evolution (which could either be how God, or the gods, or what have you, created the world, or how it all came together in a non-supernatural cosmos) is another thing.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Lots of people are creationists - about half of Americans, I think. Is this evidence that creationism is true?
quote:Your former roommate was a pretentious fool lacking analytical skills.
Originally posted by Caissa:
I had a roommate who refused to call himself an atheist. He argued it was allowing the theists to set the terms of the debate.
quote:Why so defensive?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Like I said, you are either deliberately missing the point and want me to waste my time typing the answer or else you are stupid and explaining would be a waste of time.
quote:I don't really get that. Why isn't it reasonable to say that there's a cat? We do that all the time; but sometimes we don't. For example, I have a neighbour who's a shaman, and she says that we all have a power animal, which we can call on. I find that interesting, but I don't really believe it, as I don't experience it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is an entirely different thing; you are now no longer talking about male cats, which is an inference. Simply saying "there is a cat" is neither reasonable nor unreasonable; it is merely an expression of your perceived experience. This is a whole new conversation. You didn't just move the goalposts, you dismantled them and took the ball out of the stadium, out of the parking lot, and into the department store across the street.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think my post is too elaborate actually; bringing in maleness and femaleness isn't needed. I just think that cats are part of public knowledge, or 'intersubjective knowledge', as some call it; gods aren't.
So if I see a cat, it's reasonable to say that there's a cat;
quote:Interesting use of the term 'defensive'...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Why so defensive?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Like I said, you are either deliberately missing the point and want me to waste my time typing the answer or else you are stupid and explaining would be a waste of time.
quote:Yes, they sometimes do. The whole thing is played for comedy after all, and it's highly amusing to watch someone desperately wanting to say an answer and wrestling with the decision whether or not to say it and risk the sirens.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
orfeo
I wonder if they ever do a double bluff - that is, where the obvious popular answer is the correct one? Sneaky.
quote:No doubt the Klaxon was named after the mythological male singing creatures who lured gay sailors onto the rocks.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that it's a siren and not a klaxon has also come up as a question! Klaxon is a brand name.
quote:I think Fry also jabbered on about the similarities between Mithras and Jesus, didn't he? Thus, exciting much opposition from historians and the like.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Yes, they sometimes do. The whole thing is played for comedy after all, and it's highly amusing to watch someone desperately wanting to say an answer and wrestling with the decision whether or not to say it and risk the sirens.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
orfeo
I wonder if they ever do a double bluff - that is, where the obvious popular answer is the correct one? Sneaky.
NB The fact that it's a siren and not a klaxon has also come up as a question! Klaxon is a brand name.
quote:That rather depends on your intention: whether you are operating in "good faith" with the other (as Patdys mentions above). That is usually discernible by the nature of the dialogue.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Isn’t this where offence is taken, not intended at the person with the belief?
quote:And this is a prime example. A multitude of very patient persons have explained to you how and why science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God on this ship over and over again but you seem either incapable of understanding them or you are being willfully ignorant.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As time passes, an objective, scientific Theory for any god, ever, throughout history remains at zero, doesn’t it?
quote:Seeing as how the nature of God is nothing like a parked car outside your window, I wonder why you expected such an answer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I am unconvinced. The way you posted originally, I was expecting an account roughly analogous to the one I could give of the car I can see parked outside my window right now. Instead you appear to be describing some kind of "beautific vision" or dream sequence. Pity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Too gargantuan to see fully. Only saw a tiny part of the hem of his robe. But it filled my vision.
quote:Nicely said.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:It's not argument ad populum. Billions of people across time and culture believing in God isn't proof of the existence of God. It is evidence that God exists. Add to that some pretty convincing philosophical arguments about the necessity of God's existence then top it off with personal experience gives one a pretty convincing argument for the existence of God. I'm supposed to disregard that because there is no room in the self refuting epistemology of the new atheists for God? To me, doing so would be irrational.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hello, is the argumentum ad populum getting an airing? It's been in the wardrobe for far too long, with all those moth-balls.
quote:That's quite a "civilised" post. Go you.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Surely it is evidence that people think god(s) exist - and one can argue that they do exist in the brains of those who believe - but it no more (or less) suggests the extra-cranial existence of the Christian "God" than of other, non-Christian, gods. If belief is all that is required to create evidence then all gods who have been believed in are also evidentially supported.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I would agree with this--and I mean this seriously, I also take this as at least some evidence of some of the other "odd" or "uncanny" things mentioned before that pretty much the entire human race has accepted for all of human history we can find. (Ghosts and the like, yes (all cultures across time and space), mutant geese not so much.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's not argument ad populum. Billions of people across time and culture believing in God isn't proof of the existence of God. It is evidence that God exists.
Going back to the OP - I note that neither of those I'm supposed to have treated with snide condescension have complained about what I intended to be a light-hearted and encouraging comment (I don't actually think I inhabit the dark side). Should either (or both) feel belittled I, of course, apologise for any hurt I unintentionally (and perhaps rather clumsily) caused.
Seeing God is a difficult area isn't it. The Bible's writers seem to disagree about it. Lots of people in OT stories apparently saw God (Exodus 24:9-11 for instance) and yet John the Baptist (John 1: 18) and Timothy (6:16), amongst others, apparently know that no-one can. There is a huge difference, is there not, between seeing someone and seeing a fragment of clothing which one believes to belong to that (possibly imaginary) person. Would anyone think it rational if, because I was totally convinced that I saw the base of a wine bottle, I claimed that I had, in fact, seen Bacchus?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Because your comment was "I have seen God", not "I have seen Him in a beautific vision" or "I had a picture of God in my mind".
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Seeing as how the nature of God is nothing like a parked car outside your window, I wonder why you expected such an answer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am unconvinced. The way you posted originally, I was expecting an account roughly analogous to the one I could give of the car I can see parked outside my window right now. Instead you appear to be describing some kind of "beautific vision" or dream sequence. Pity.
quote:No, because the bit that was being compared isn't "God v.s. car" but "seen v.s. not-really-seen".
Apples and Oranges.
quote:The claim is not that God is a physical being who is able to be seen by physical eyes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because your comment was "I have seen God", not "I have seen Him in a beautific vision" or "I had a picture of God in my mind".
If you're going to baldly claim to have seen something, then there should be no difference between seeing that thing and seeing the car outside my window.
quote:No, because the bit that was being compared isn't "God v.s. car" but "seen v.s. not-really-seen".
Apples and Oranges.
quote:Matthew's birth narrative actually illustrates the differences in the ancients' idea of the possible: Joseph's disbelief is overturned by a vision of an angel! He doesn't think, "Oh, I was just dreaming," he awakes and obeys. Ditto the resurrection: Paul's keen to emphasize the power of God, not explain its possibility in the face of natural laws he had no idea existed. (The later gospel accounts add the empty tomb, probably to counter Docetism.)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The great miracles certainly violated the ancients' view of what was possible. Witness Joseph's decision to divorce Mary (he knew very well where babies came from, and that virgin conception in human beings was impossible). [...]
quote:Ironically, your medium of expression contradicts your claim, as you accept modern ideas of causation by using a computer, as you'd accept them by taking antibiotics, or getting into a plane.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[...] "Times" don't have ideas about what's possible. Only people do that. And many people now--including me--don't share your deterministic worldview. [...]
quote:Okay now the confusion appears to be that you have switched from "rational" to "reasonable." When you first brought up your infamous cat you said:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't really get that. Why isn't it reasonable to say that there's a cat?
quote:You were talking about drawing inferences as being "rational." Then you switched to talking about "reasonable" and I assumed you were still talking about inferences. You moved the goalposts far earlier than I realized. I was still talking about drawing rational inferences. You had moved on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand the idea that a vision of God is perfectly rational, since no experience is. I suppose you can say that various inferences are rational; thus, if I see a very large cat outside, I tend to think it's a male. This is not definitely correct, but it is a rational inference.
quote:Only those who've drunk deep on the po-mo would argue that laws of nature don't correspond to external forces. Yes, the phrase is a construct, but the thing it signifies isn't.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And now you have lost me again. In the first paragraph you are agreeing with me that it's just a difference in description, and in the second paragraph you are saying that a.) one model has evidential support and the other doesn't, and b.) this creates an immense gulf between the ancient view and ours.
To take a specific example. Jesus is said to have miraculously cured a man from blindness by putting mud in his eye. The 'active causation' model would say that 'causing the blind to see' is not a natural property of mud and the 'law of nature' model would say there is no law that blind people become sighted upon the application of mud to their eye. Either way the miracle is a violation.
(Besides 'laws of nature' only exist as mental constructs or abstractions. Universals have no extra-mental existence, as a certain pre-modern philosopher once said. No-one believes there's some sheet of cosmic vellum with An Act for the Regulation of Gravity on it. So to that extent, the 'law of nature' model is not really proposing the existence of something absent from the 'active causation' model.)
quote:Fine, but my friend the shaman has seen power animals with her shamanistic eyes.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:The claim is not that God is a physical being who is able to be seen by physical eyes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because your comment was "I have seen God", not "I have seen Him in a beautific vision" or "I had a picture of God in my mind".
If you're going to baldly claim to have seen something, then there should be no difference between seeing that thing and seeing the car outside my window.
quote:No, because the bit that was being compared isn't "God v.s. car" but "seen v.s. not-really-seen".
Apples and Oranges.
I have seen God, who is spirit, through spiritual eyes. A vision seen by spiritual eyes is as real as physical objects seen by physical eyes. It is different from a dream.
quote:I don't see how that can be true. Surely for something to be real it has to actually exist independently of the imaginations (or spiritual vision) of the one (or ones) claiming existence on its behalf. Things we can see with out real eyes do, things we can "see" with our "spiritual eyes" don't.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A vision seen by spiritual eyes is as real as physical objects seen by physical eyes.
quote:a. I was referencing the 'active causation' model discussed in the article you pointed me to. If you think that particular model is irrelevant, why did you point me to it?
Originally posted by Byron:
Your example of Jesus curing a man would apply only to the most philosophically rarefied model of active causation. This wasn't close to normative in an ancient world that had laws against black magic and worshiped emperors as gods.
quote:I would say, however, that if independent witnesses see very, very similar things with their "spiritual eyes," there is at least a suspicion if not presumption of something objective, although it could be merely something about the workings of the human brain common to all.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't see how that can be true. Surely for something to be real it has to actually exist independently of the imaginations (or spiritual vision) of the one (or ones) claiming existence on its behalf. Things we can see with out real eyes do, things we can "see" with our "spiritual eyes" don't.
quote:It's not irrelevant, it highlights that even the most rarefied philosophy was different in kind to modern thinking. When you jump to the man in the street, as with your miracle example, the Aristotelian methodology would be unknown, and the "active cause" indistinguishable from what we'd call miracles.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
a. I was referencing the 'active causation' model discussed in the article you pointed me to. If you think that particular model is irrelevant, why did you point me to it?
quote:We're taking "natural processes" to mean different things.
b. It's not in dispute that the ancients saw magic and gods as working above or in parallel to natural processes. What we're disputing is your assertion that they had no concept of natural processes at all.
Where is your evidence for this? I have pointed to the primary sources and you have dismissed them as unrepresentative. So where are your more representative sources?
Of course, most people weren't philosophers: they worked the land. Now we actually possess ancient farming manuals (e.g. Columella, De Re Rustica). They describe good farming in mechanistic terms: that is, 'if you plant X under these conditions at this time of year, it will grow well'. Now Columella may have been writing for the gentleman-farmer but you can be sure it was the lower class hired men and slaves who would be putting the precepts into practice.
quote:If you can't conceive of a supernatural event which exists outside of our imaginations, you may immediately assume that the event is an imagined one, and that the person describing it has misinterpreted rather than discerned its reality.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I don't see how that can be true. Surely for something to be real it has to actually exist independently of the imaginations (or spiritual vision) of the one (or ones) claiming existence on its behalf. Things we can see with out real eyes do, things we can "see" with our "spiritual eyes" don't.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A vision seen by spiritual eyes is as real as physical objects seen by physical eyes.
quote:I do wonder what they are/were, yes. None should be worshiped, of course, as that's idolatry, but perhaps some have been misunderstood angels; perhaps some have been elemental forces; perhaps some are things in Creation we don't really know about yet but will get to know better when it is safer for us to do so. (And of course some may indeed be malevolent beings seeking human worship!) Though I should point out that I'm not just thinking of people believing in them but actually claiming to have encountered them, which is a little different from, say, the myth of Narcissus or the like.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Surely it is evidence that people think god(s) exist
quote:No, not really. I think you're selling pretty much the inhabitants of virtually all of human history ridiculously short. Sorry!
Originally posted by Byron:
Ironically, your medium of expression contradicts your claim, as you accept modern ideas of causation by using a computer, as you'd accept them by taking antibiotics, or getting into a plane.
quote:This is why some of Charles Williams' discussion of the notion of things being "arch-natural" may be relevant--I think Descartes was wrong in the way he divided things up. But I'd also make a distinction between supernatural things within Creation and God's supernatural nature and miraculous actions. He's supernatural in a way that even archangels aren't--much more "outside" or "transcending" everything else that is not Himself, as it were.
You may well, in addition, believe in the supernatural, but the natural/supernatural split is different in kind to the ancient worldview, which integrated what we'd think of as miraculous.
quote:And it is our duty to try to overcome that as much as we can, of course. (And of course use the insights we have from them, too!)
We're all shaped by the understandings in which we're raised and surrounded.
quote:Presumably this means you can recommend a good spiritual optometrist.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I have seen God, who is spirit, through spiritual eyes.
quote:Suggestibility, groupthink and confirmation bias, mostly.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would say, however, that if independent witnesses see very, very similar things with their "spiritual eyes," there is at least a suspicion if not presumption of something objective, although it could be merely something about the workings of the human brain common to all.
quote:Your statements above are not logical and do not follow. If we can't see something with our physical eyes, it doesn't mean they don't exist or are not real.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I don't see how that can be true. Surely for something to be real it has to actually exist independently of the imaginations (or spiritual vision) of the one (or ones) claiming existence on its behalf. Things we can see with out real eyes do, things we can "see" with our "spiritual eyes" don't.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A vision seen by spiritual eyes is as real as physical objects seen by physical eyes.
quote:If it exists outside of our imaginations then it should be independently verifiable. That does not seem to be the case, therefore...
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If you can't conceive of a supernatural event which exists outside of our imaginations, you may immediately assume that the event is an imagined one, and that the person describing it has misinterpreted rather than discerned its reality.
quote:That last couple of sentences seems to me to give the lie to your claim not to be looking for meanings or connections. You say the experiences have to be extraordinary or they would not point to God. I do not, therefore, find it remotely surprising that you do in fact identify them as such, because you want them to point to God.
I'm not superstitious or gullible, I don't look for meanings so that I can make connections.
Those connections do happen however, the experiences happen, and they are extraordinary. They have to be extraordinary. If they were ordinary, they would not indicate God.
quote:What is spiritual, then? Is a Tibetan monk who sees a vision of the Buddha seeing what is truly there? Ramakrishna claimed to see visions of Kali, Sita, Krishna, Jesus and Mohammed during his life - were all of these real?
Spiritual vision is not about imagination, it is about seeing what is spiritual.
quote:The context is sight and/or being able to see something. As such what I said is perfectly logical.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your statements above are not logical and do not follow. If we can't see something with our physical eyes, it doesn't mean they don't exist or are not real.
It just means they're not available to that particular sense receptor.
quote:That's only the case because of the limitations of our current scientific paradigm. We are restricted to materialism for verification.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If it exists outside of our imaginations then it should be independently verifiable. That does not seem to be the case, therefore...
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If you can't conceive of a supernatural event which exists outside of our imaginations, you may immediately assume that the event is an imagined one, and that the person describing it has misinterpreted rather than discerned its reality.
quote:My argument has not changed, it's just bigger than seeing only physical things. There is more than one way to see.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The context is sight and/or being able to see something. As such what I said is perfectly logical.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your statements above are not logical and do not follow. If we can't see something with our physical eyes, it doesn't mean they don't exist or are not real.
It just means they're not available to that particular sense receptor.
If you want to go into things we can detect with our other senses but not our eyes then so be it, but you were the one who first claimed to be able to "see" God, so it's your own argument that is changing.
quote:So you posit that, just as we were unable to detect microscopic entities prior to the development of suitable technology, so were are also unable to detect spiritual entities pending the development of suitable technology by which to view them?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:That's only the case because of the limitations of our current scientific paradigm. We are restricted to materialism for verification.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it exists outside of our imaginations then it should be independently verifiable. That does not seem to be the case, therefore...
It's a small system but it's the best we have at the moment.
quote:It's not about sight either, any more than saying "I'll go along with that" in response to a proposed theory is about locomotion.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another way is if we have a greater understanding of something. "Oh I see!" That's not something physical.
quote:I'm not a scientist (bar half a biology degree) but I suppose it might be possible if we progress beyond an empirical and materialistic scientific paradigm.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:So you posit that, just as we were unable to detect microscopic entities prior to the development of suitable technology, so were are also unable to detect spiritual entities pending the development of suitable technology by which to view them?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:That's only the case because of the limitations of our current scientific paradigm. We are restricted to materialism for verification.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it exists outside of our imaginations then it should be independently verifiable. That does not seem to be the case, therefore...
It's a small system but it's the best we have at the moment.
An interesting postulation.
quote:Oh but it is about sight. It's about in-sight. It's much more than just "going along with something", it's about making obscure connections that you never made before to come to a kind of AHA! moment. I get it! That is seeing: seeing the connections that you never saw before. That's understanding. But it's abstract.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's not about sight either, any more than saying "I'll go along with that" in response to a proposed theory is about locomotion.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another way is if we have a greater understanding of something. "Oh I see!" That's not something physical.
quote:But SusanDoris's question was the wrong question. It assumed only an empirical and materialistic framework made things real.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Basically, if you're claiming to be using "see" in that kind of figurative sense then your response to SusanDoris - who was clearly talking about literal sight - should have been an agreement that you have not seen God.
quote:Yes, it's understanding. No, it's not seeing. Not the way SD meant.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh but it is about sight. It's about in-sight. It's much more than just "going along with something", it's about making obscure connections that you never made before to come to a kind of AHA! moment. I get it! That is seeing: seeing the connections that you never saw before. That's understanding. But it's abstract.
quote:Depends what you mean by "real". You appear to think that the only criterion for whether something is real is if someone can "spiritually see" it - which would means that Allah, Brahma, Shiva, Cthulhu, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Thor, Ra, Osiris, Apocatequil, Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Mami Wata and Pele are just as real as the Christian God.
But SusanDoris's question was the wrong question. It assumed only an empirical and materialistic framework made things real.
quote:The hell it is.
Which is simply false.
quote:The next step to insisting that my interpretation cannot be true is to follow up with the accusation that I've made it true because I want it to be true. I can tell you categorically that I did not want it to be true. It was the last thing I wanted to happen. But as you think I am a liar, you perhaps won't believe that either.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it exists outside of our imaginations then it should be independently verifiable. That does not seem to be the case, therefore...
quote:That last couple of sentences seems to me to give the lie to your claim not to be looking for meanings or connections. You say the experiences have to be extraordinary or they would not point to God. I do not, therefore, find it remotely surprising that you do in fact identify them as such, because you want them to point to God.
I'm not superstitious or gullible, I don't look for meanings so that I can make connections.
Those connections do happen however, the experiences happen, and they are extraordinary. They have to be extraordinary. If they were ordinary, they would not indicate God.
quote:I cannot verify or deny the experiences of other people. If I and someone else see a blue sky and describe it as such, I don't know whether what they see as blue is the same as what I see as blue, only that we use the same word to describe it and draw on outside references for the purposes of communication.
quote:What is spiritual, then? Is a Tibetan monk who sees a vision of the Buddha seeing what is truly there? Ramakrishna claimed to see visions of Kali, Sita, Krishna, Jesus and Mohammed during his life - were all of these real?
Spiritual vision is not about imagination, it is about seeing what is spiritual.
quote:I think there are a number of levels on which we "see things" in a different dimension. If your shaman neighbor sees power animals, fine. Who is to say s/he hasn't? I grew up in Indonesia. Extra dimensions and visions of odd things are nothing unusual. I don't doubt visions of all sorts of things exist. Hell, in Indoneisa I saw an Angel. And it was physical. And I wasn't the only person to see it. One other did too.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just seems to make 'I have seen God' rather meaningless. Or it becomes metaphoric, which is OK, but nothing to do with sight.
As I said, my neighbour has 'seen' power animals, which is nice.
According to Marlowe, Faust saw Christ's blood streaming in the firmament, a lovely image.
quote:No, not the way SD meant. I was looking at the bigger picture.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, it's understanding. No, it's not seeing. Not the way SD meant.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh but it is about sight. It's about in-sight. It's much more than just "going along with something", it's about making obscure connections that you never made before to come to a kind of AHA! moment. I get it! That is seeing: seeing the connections that you never saw before. That's understanding. But it's abstract.
quote:I said no such thing. I said that something may be real if it is not available to our usual senses. There is no reason to presume not.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Depends what you mean by "real". You appear to think that the only criterion for whether something is real is if someone can "spiritually see" it
But SusanDoris's question was the wrong question. It assumed only an empirical and materialistic framework made things real.
quote:You think like SD then. Only the current scientific paradigm makes things real.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The hell it is.
Which is simply false.
quote:Of course our religion is one among many. I am convinced that the living Christ is real, and that if we invite Christ into our lives with open hearts and minds then we will find ourselves on a pilgrimage of faith which leads to God and to transformation of ourselves. If others through their religions are transformed too: if they bear the good fruit of the spirit of love, joy, peace, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control and kindness in ever greater quantities; if they forgive, and serve God in all humility; these are signs that they too love the one living God.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think all that is fine if Christians were to say that their religion is one among many; but they have tended in the past to say that theirs is true, and others false, or maybe liberals have said that theirs is truer. That is the point, which seems strange to me. How can one say that, and how can one know that, except via circularity?
quote:Or to put it another way, you were dissembling dishonestly in order to avoid having to admit that you haven't, in fact, ever seen God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
No, not the way SD meant. I was looking at the bigger picture.
quote:There's even less reason to presume it is real. For my part, I prefer evidence that's actually evident.
I said no such thing. I said that something may be real if it is not available to our usual senses. There is no reason to presume not.
quote:I think that only science can demonstrate that things are real. Everything else is in the "maybe" category at best, and if one of the "maybes" contradicts one of the "demonstrateds" then there can be only one winner...
You think like SD then. Only the current scientific paradigm makes things real.
quote:If I saw something that others might think of as a ghost, I would know that it certainly wasn’t! I’d then try to think what it might be – a trick of light and shadow, interpreted by my mind as whatever I’d thought I’d seen etc, or in my omeparticular case it might just possibly be Charles Bonnet syndrome but I've only had it a few times and I see large areas of colourful patterns, at which times I wish I could paint!!
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I have a question here for Byron and others who do not believe in the supernatural or related things: What would you do if, for the sake of argument, you saw a ghost?
quote:That's not a terribly empirical point of view.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
If I saw something that others might think of as a ghost, I would know that it certainly wasn’t!
quote:I'll see your video and raise you an a capella version.
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I don't think believing in extra dimensions (beyond the third - or is it fourth?) that we currently have is beyond the pale. I think quantum physics currently posits ten already doesn't it?
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:... how??
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]If I saw something that others might think of as a ghost, I would know that it certainly wasn’t!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I'm not offended. I just am not used to atheists believing something unprovable on faith alone.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mousethief
Sorry it's not empirical!
quote:THEN DON'T FUCKING ANSWER IT! Christ Almighty, people like you raise my blood pressure. You suddenly 'reveal' the 'truth' 5 steps down the line after someone catches you out on your first tactic.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:But SusanDoris's question was the wrong question.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Basically, if you're claiming to be using "see" in that kind of figurative sense then your response to SusanDoris - who was clearly talking about literal sight - should have been an agreement that you have not seen God.
quote:That's a much more reasonable position.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I think that only science can demonstrate that things are real. Everything else is in the "maybe" category at best, and if one of the "maybes" contradicts one of the "demonstrateds" then there can be only one winner...
You think like SD then. Only the current scientific paradigm makes things real.
quote:Come, come my little steaming teapot. Broadening one's horisons really shouldn't be so stressful.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:THEN DON'T FUCKING ANSWER IT! Christ Almighty, people like you raise my blood pressure. You suddenly 'reveal' the 'truth' 5 steps down the line after someone catches you out on your first tactic.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:But SusanDoris's question was the wrong question.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Basically, if you're claiming to be using "see" in that kind of figurative sense then your response to SusanDoris - who was clearly talking about literal sight - should have been an agreement that you have not seen God.
quote:Having come from a very eclectic background I used to get nervous about it too.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I have become an instrumentalist, meaning that I find religious symbols and rituals valuable, and some of them connect with my own experiences. It's when people start saying that their own version is 'true' that I get nervous. Remember all those who were burned by Christians (and others).
quote:SD isn't believing something. She knows it. There must therefore be some rational explanation for whatever-it-was not being a ghost.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'm not offended. I just am not used to atheists believing something unprovable on faith alone.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mousethief
Sorry it's not empirical!
quote:Oh, don't bullshit me you condescending little turd. You were perfectly happy to use the word 'seeing' and convey the idea of a 'vision' and THE FUCKING HEM OF GOD'S ROBE right up until the point Marvin caught you out. THE HEM OF HIS ROBE. IT FILLED YOUR VISION. THE NON-VISIBLE KIND OF VISION YOU'RE SUDDENLY CLAIMING YOU MEANT WHILE SMUGLY ANSWERING A QUESTION ABOUT ACTUAL VISION.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Come, come my little steaming teapot. Broadening one's horisons really shouldn't be so stressful.
quote:That is completely wrong. There is not a vestige of truth there.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But I don't think you operate that way. I think you purposely seek to discredit and ridicule because it makes you feel good.
quote:I have read, understood and appreciated the explanations! I agree that Science cannot prove a negative, but that does not make the existence of any God, let alone the particular one Christians believe in, the truth or the default position, does it?
And this is a prime example. A multitude of very patient persons have explained to you how and why science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God on this ship over and over again but you seem either incapable of understanding them or you are being willfully ignorant.
quote:The problem is (1) Evensong now says she didn't 'see' it, and (2) Claiming that seeing a vision is proof of the reality of the thing envisioned.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If a vision appears to us, we see it. What's the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That is of course, apart from the innate intellectual superiority of atheists.
quote:Because, having throughout my life
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:... how??
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]If I saw something that others might think of as a ghost, I would know that it certainly wasn’t!
quote:Claiming to see anything is no proof of its reality, whether seen with physical eyes or inner eyes. One of the ways God is seen is through visions. Visions of God are common. This shows no superior or inferior intellectual or any other capacity, by those who see or by those who don't see.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The problem is (1) Evensong now says she didn't 'see' it, and (2) Claiming that seeing a vision is proof of the reality of the thing envisioned.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If a vision appears to us, we see it. What's the problem?
quote:If there are no facts which are 'provable' in the sense that they can be replicated, it remains a possibility that some people do see ghosts, and that if they see them, it is reasonable to use the word 'ghost' to describe them, as what they have seen has been described by others and that is the word used to describe it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Because, having throughout my life
read as much as I could about mysteries and as much as I could find (the amount having greatly increased during the later part of my life),about the knowledge that replaces them, I do not expect to find a fact about ghosts that is objective, or provable, or rational, etc.
quote:Have you taken your pills this evening dear?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh, don't bullshit me you condescending little turd. You were perfectly happy to use the word 'seeing' and convey the idea of a 'vision' and THE FUCKING HEM OF GOD'S ROBE right up until the point Marvin caught you out. THE HEM OF HIS ROBE. IT FILLED YOUR VISION. THE NON-VISIBLE KIND OF VISION YOU'RE SUDDENLY CLAIMING YOU MEANT WHILE SMUGLY ANSWERING A QUESTION ABOUT ACTUAL VISION.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Come, come my little steaming teapot. Broadening one's horisons really shouldn't be so stressful.
It's one thing to believe that God spoke to you or that you saw God. Heck, I believe God spoke to me once. Seriously. But it's quite another thing to parade around your vision (the one that apparently doesn't use your eyes despite the fact it allowed you to assess the size of God's clothing) as if it's some kind of proof of God's existence that atheists have to explain away. It fucking isn't.
quote:I deny both of those allegations your honour.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The problem is (1) Evensong now says she didn't 'see' it, and (2) Claiming that seeing a vision is proof of the reality of the thing envisioned.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If a vision appears to us, we see it. What's the problem?
quote:Yup, she really does know it all. And she knows that she knows it all.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Because, having throughout my life
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:... how??
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]If I saw something that others might think of as a ghost, I would know that it certainly wasn’t!
read as much as I could about mysteries and as much as I could find (the amount having greatly increased during the later part of my life),about the knowledge that replaces them, I do not expect to find a fact about ghosts that is objective, or provable, or rational, etc.
quote:I agree. You might try letting Evensong know.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Claiming to see anything is no proof of its reality, whether seen with physical eyes or inner eyes. One of the ways God is seen is through visions. Visions of God are common. This shows no superior or inferior intellectual or any other capacity, by those who see or by those who don't see.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The problem is (1) Evensong now says she didn't 'see' it, and (2) Claiming that seeing a vision is proof of the reality of the thing envisioned.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If a vision appears to us, we see it. What's the problem?
quote:There's a hell of a lot of difference between "I don't expect X" and "I know with certainty not-X." The path from the former to the latter is a leap of faith.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Because, having throughout my life
read as much as I could about mysteries and as much as I could find (the amount having greatly increased during the later part of my life),about the knowledge that replaces them, I do not expect to find a fact about ghosts that is objective, or provable, or rational, etc.
quote:I have no argument with any of that; sounds absolutely reasonable to me!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If there are no facts which are 'provable' in the sense that they can be replicated, it remains a possibility that some people do see ghosts, and that if they see them, it is reasonable to use the word 'ghost' to describe them, as what they have seen has been described by others and that is the word used to describe it.
Anyone who saw one would be likely to consider alternative explanations. Reason is used to reach conclusions as to what we have seen, whether it conforms to the current laws of physics as we know them, or not.
quote:Exactly. No way around this.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:There's a hell of a lot of difference between "I don't expect X" and "I know with certainty not-X." The path from the former to the latter is a leap of faith.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Because, having throughout my life
read as much as I could about mysteries and as much as I could find (the amount having greatly increased during the later part of my life),about the knowledge that replaces them, I do not expect to find a fact about ghosts that is objective, or provable, or rational, etc.
quote:Okay, I can't deny that is logical but I'd say that the balance of probability of my being right is pretty high. How do you know that anyone dying today, for instance, is very likely to go straight on to an after-life? I think you have to have much more faith to believe that than that they are no more.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:Exactly. No way around this.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:There's a hell of a lot of difference between "I don't expect X" and "I know with certainty not-X." The path from the former to the latter is a leap of faith.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Because, having throughout my life
read as much as I could about mysteries and as much as I could find (the amount having greatly increased during the later part of my life),about the knowledge that replaces them, I do not expect to find a fact about ghosts that is objective, or provable, or rational, etc.
quote:ISTM the reasonable and honest default position for someone that believes solely in an empiricist worldview would be agnosticism, not atheism.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I have read, understood and appreciated the explanations! I agree that Science cannot prove a negative, but that does not make the existence of any God, let alone the particular one Christians believe in, the truth or the default position, does it?
And this is a prime example. A multitude of very patient persons have explained to you how and why science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God on this ship over and over again but you seem either incapable of understanding them or you are being willfully ignorant.
quote:Evensong knows and Evensong agrees.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I agree. You might try letting Evensong know.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Claiming to see anything is no proof of its reality, whether seen with physical eyes or inner eyes. One of the ways God is seen is through visions. Visions of God are common. This shows no superior or inferior intellectual or any other capacity, by those who see or by those who don't see.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The problem is (1) Evensong now says she didn't 'see' it, and (2) Claiming that seeing a vision is proof of the reality of the thing envisioned.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If a vision appears to us, we see it. What's the problem?
quote:Can't you see the example in the above of your condescending attitude? One which builds up a straw Christian who wastes his life worrying about an afterlife - and what are the chances of going straight onto an after-life after all! - when if he were as educated as you are he would know how extremely unlikely its existence could be, to the point of being ridiculous!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, I can't deny that is logical but I'd say that the balance of probability of my being right is pretty high. How do you know that anyone dying today, for instance, is very likely to go straight on to an after-life? I think you have to have much more faith to believe that than that they are no more.
Slight tangent: I wonder how much time believers here spend thinking a bout their after-lives? I don't spend a second thinking about something I, personally, am sure does not exist; especially since listening to the video 'Quantum Field Theory' by Dr Sean Carroll and a long discussion on it on another forum.
quote:You deride us for spending too much time thinking about the afterlife, after you listened to a video and had a long internet discussion about it?
SusanDoris: Slight tangent: I wonder how much time believers here spend thinking a bout their after-lives? I don't spend a second thinking about something I, personally, am sure does not exist; especially since listening to the video 'Quantum Field Theory' by Dr Sean Carroll and a long discussion on it on another forum.
quote:The underlying feeling behind 'Regret' is that one may have made wrong choices and decisions. Do you have any experience of this?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Some people wonder why I read and post on the Ship! Well, I've just been reading 'Regret' on All SSaints, and if that isn't a good enough reason, I don't know what is.
quote:Given the right starting presuppositions, sure. This could be a good thread on its own: how does one derive odds on such things?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, I can't deny that is logical but I'd say that the balance of probability of my being right is pretty high.
quote:Not much at all. As far as my faith goes, I spend most of my thinking time on why I'm such an asshole, and what to do about that.
Slight tangent: I wonder how much time believers here spend thinking a bout their after-lives?
quote:On the contrary, you brought it up here, not we. You clearly DO think about it. And take part in long discussions about it. You have spent a hell of a lot more than a second on it, and are still doing so.
I don't spend a second thinking about something I, personally, am sure does not exist; especially since listening to the video 'Quantum Field Theory' by Dr Sean Carroll and a long discussion on it on another forum.
quote:If you consider "atheism" to be the absence of belief, the two are indistinguishable. If instead you go with atheism as a positive belief, you can still draw reasonable inferences from empirical observation.
Originally posted by Evensong:
[...] ISTM the reasonable and honest default position for someone that believes solely in an empiricist worldview would be agnosticism, not atheism. [...]
quote:
Byron: cosmic processes that can annihilate billions of stars in an instant
quote:He brings sex into everything.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Byron: cosmic processes that can annihilate billions of stars in an instant
quote:Agnostic =\= Atheist
Originally posted by Byron:
f you consider "atheism" to be the absence of belief, the two are indistinguishable.
quote:Atheism is not a belief, it is a singular lack thereof.
Originally posted by Byron:
If instead you go with atheism as a positive belief, you can still draw reasonable inferences from empirical observation.
quote:Eek! The Mouse disappears?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mousethief
My software keeps crashing, making the mouse and voice disappear, so... back tomorrow.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Awesome stuff.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Byron: cosmic processes that can annihilate billions of stars in an instant
quote:Freud would've dined out on your association for decades!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He brings sex into everything.
quote:The mouse was stolen. A Shipmate is helping police with their enquiries.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Eek! The Mouse disappears?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mousethief
My software keeps crashing, making the mouse and voice disappear, so... back tomorrow.
(squinty-eyed, suspicious-looking emoticon)
quote:In fact, lack of a very specific belief. That certainly doesn't prevent them from believing other things.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheism is not a belief, it is a singular lack thereof.
quote:What a pity the dictionary link you provided doesn't agree with you.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheism is not a belief, it is a singular lack thereof.
quote:That video is here, and is indeed quite excellent. I would recommend to anyone who wants to have an entertaining but accurate "pop science" introduction to quantum field theory. As Dr Carroll correctly points out, QFT is what physicists think of as the best current theory of the universe, and QFT is their workhorse for practically all fundamental physics, but physicists rarely bother explaining it to non-physicists.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Slight tangent: I wonder how much time believers here spend thinking a bout their after-lives? I don't spend a second thinking about something I, personally, am sure does not exist; especially since listening to the video 'Quantum Field Theory' by Dr Sean Carroll and a long discussion on it on another forum.
quote:Not at all. Since the metaphysical case for the existence of an Uncaused Cause is very strong, the rational default position is some kind of deism (but not Christianity, which positively requires the acceptance of revelation in hope).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one could approach the question with no presupposition, the most rational conclusion would be agnosticism looking towards atheism.
quote:I suspect it predates atheism.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just hope that that the idea of oblivion is not a hoax by satirical atheists.
quote:I most definitely do. Fortunately, I do not believe oblivion is true.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you think oblivion is worse than Hell?
quote:Actually, I happen to know something about colliding galaxies. Your description "cosmic processes that can annihilate billions of stars in an instant" misses the mark completely.
Byron: Awesome stuff.
quote:First Cause or Uncaused Cause does not inherently need a being. That itself is a presupposition. At best, your argument pushes back towards the neutral of pure agnostic.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Not at all. Since the metaphysical case for the existence of an Uncaused Cause is very strong, the rational default position is some kind of deism (but not Christianity, which positively requires the acceptance of revelation in hope).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one could approach the question with no presupposition, the most rational conclusion would be agnosticism looking towards atheism.
quote:Oh you hush.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:What a pity the dictionary link you provided doesn't agree with you.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheism is not a belief, it is a singular lack thereof.
quote:They most certainly do need a being, indeed, a necessary being. That is not a presupposition in the slightest, but rather just the argued conclusion. However, the question whether such a being must be a person, at least in some analogical sense, is different. I would say that that question cannot be answered with quite the same force. So it is perhaps going too far to say that deism is the rational default option. However, atheism and agnosticism - as they are commonly understood - are excluded nevertheless. Since commonly these focus on the supernatural rather than the personal aspect of God. (For the same reason, traditional Buddhism is not really "atheist" in the usual sense of the word though it does not believe in a god.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First Cause or Uncaused Cause does not inherently need a being. That itself is a presupposition. At best, your argument pushes back towards the neutral of pure agnostic.
quote:I do believe in Oblivion. But that aside, I also think it is possible to prefer oblivion to Hell. If Hell was better than oblivion wouldn't that comfort those who were in Hell, which doesn't seem the point of Hell.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I most definitely do. Fortunately, I do not believe oblivion is true.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you think oblivion is worse than Hell?
quote:Yes, I'd agree with you that it's not a belief system. The only belief that atheists have in common is a belief that there isn't a God. What they then go on to positively believe about the nature of the world is endlessly varied (although theists, of course, manage to find a great deal of disagreement about the nature of the deity they all believe in).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Oh you hush.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:What a pity the dictionary link you provided doesn't agree with you.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheism is not a belief, it is a singular lack thereof.
Atheism is not a belief system then. As this is what is typically meant by theists when they say atheism is belief and certainly appears to be what Byron meant.
quote:Well, it was a kind of joke, since oblivion can't exist. But it sounds too good to be true.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:I suspect it predates atheism.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just hope that that the idea of oblivion is not a hoax by satirical atheists.
Do you think oblivion is worse than Hell?
quote:But it’s based on the knowledge of what happens to living beings when they die. Obviously I do not accept that there is a discrete part of me called a soul or something which can live on.
Originally posted by Mousethief
There's a hell of a lot of difference between "I don't expect X" and "I know with certainty not-X." The path from the former to the latter is a leap of faith.
)
quote:No it's not. We don't know what happens specifically to living beings when they die.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But it’s based on the knowledge of what happens to living beings when they die.
Originally posted by Mousethief
There's a hell of a lot of difference between "I don't expect X" and "I know with certainty not-X." The path from the former to the latter is a leap of faith.
quote:Um, yeah, no. There are explanations for those phenomena that do not involve the supernatural.
Can you verify that empirically?
quote:No, no there is not. There are stories by people who may or may not have existed.
The Resurrection of Christ.
And there's good historical evidence for that.
quote:I didn't say anything upset me about an atheist believing in oblivion. You asked, "Do you think oblivion is worse than Hell?" and I said that I did, though I don't believe we get oblivion.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:I do believe in Oblivion. But that aside, I also think it is possible to prefer oblivion to Hell. If Hell was better than oblivion wouldn't that comfort those who were in Hell, which doesn't seem the point of Hell.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I most definitely do. Fortunately, I do not believe oblivion is true.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you think oblivion is worse than Hell?
But assuming you think Hell is better than oblivion what upsets you about an atheist believing in oblivion? I'm missing your point.
quote:Hypotheses constructed by the self-refuting philosophy of materialism? They hold no more evidence than the idea that they may be real experiences.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Evensong:quote:Um, yeah, no. There are explanations for those phenomena that do not involve the supernatural.
Can you verify that empirically?
quote:Ah I see. You're one of the irrationals that believe it's all a made up fairy tale then?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No, no there is not. There are stories by people who may or may not have existed.
The Resurrection of Christ.
And there's good historical evidence for that.
quote:Well, yes, also there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural. There are guesses.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Evensong:quote:Um, yeah, no. There are explanations for those phenomena that do not involve the supernatural.
Can you verify that empirically?
quote:No, no there is not. There are stories by people who may or may not have existed.
The Resurrection of Christ.
And there's good historical evidence for that.
quote:No more impressive than that pulled off by the founders of every other religion that's ever existed.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pretty impressive hoax those early Christians managed to pull off eh?
quote:Um, surely this is understood to be that we would "get oblivion" in the sense of being extinguished like a candle, not in the sense of getting an object called "oblivion." "And you get... OBLIVION! 'Bye now!" "No, wait--" *poof*
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We can't get oblivion. It's impossible. How can you have nothing? Where would it exist?
quote:The resurrection appearances are both natural and supernatural. Jesus was both physical and non-physical.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, also there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural. There are guesses.
quote:Is.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus was both physical and non-physical.
quote:Gibberish.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:The resurrection appearances are both natural and supernatural.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, also there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural. There are guesses.
quote:Everybody in the history of mankind has faked a transcendent other or a sense of the numinous?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No more impressive than that pulled off by the founders of every other religion that's ever existed.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pretty impressive hoax those early Christians managed to pull off eh?
quote:Sure. But a friend of mine once casually remarked that oblivion could not exist, and it had quite an impact on me. There isn't nothing, and I do not go back to nothing.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Um, surely this is understood to be that we would "get oblivion" in the sense of being extinguished like a candle, not in the sense of getting an object called "oblivion." "And you get... OBLIVION! 'Bye now!" "No, wait--" *poof*
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We can't get oblivion. It's impossible. How can you have nothing? Where would it exist?
quote:looks at board name, looks at Evensong, looks back at board name
Ah I see. You're one of the irrationals that believe it's all a made up fairy tale then?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Dude. When was the last time you read through the fourteen odd resurrection appearances in that funny old book we call the bible?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Gibberish.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:The resurrection appearances are both natural and supernatural.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, also there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural. There are guesses.
quote:You know, I've never thought you stupid before. Batshit crazy, yes, but not stupid. I am beginning to reevaluate that position, though.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Everybody in the history of mankind has faked a transcendent other or a sense of the numinous?
That's even more irrational than thinking Christianity is totally made up.
quote:I would agree. I think.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't nothing, and I do not go back to nothing.
quote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ad hominem is usually a good sign. It means you've run out of sensible options with which to counteract my brilliant* observations.
quote:Maybe you go to the place where you were before you were born?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't nothing, and I do not go back to nothing.
quote:What I am objecting to is your certainty. Which is not supported by the evidence. Certainty never is. Science doesn't work that way -- it always allows its findings to be changed or even reversed. Certainty is always a product of faith, not reasoning.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But it’s based on the knowledge of what happens to living beings when they die. Obviously I do not accept that there is a discrete part of me called a soul or something which can live on.
Originally posted by Mousethief
There's a hell of a lot of difference between "I don't expect X" and "I know with certainty not-X." The path from the former to the latter is a leap of faith.
quote:Only if you make an a priori assumption to that effect. As Lewis said of Hume, it's circular.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural.
quote:I wasn't born; I'm from the unborn.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Maybe you go to the place where you were before you were born?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't nothing, and I do not go back to nothing.
quote:Oh no, not back to the sugar beet my dad tells me they tore me out of.
Marvin the Martian: Maybe you go to the place where you were before you were born?
quote:My underlying point about a chaotic universe is unaffected by the corrective to dramatic license, which is duly noted & appreciated.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Actually, I happen to know something about colliding galaxies. Your description "cosmic processes that can annihilate billions of stars in an instant" misses the mark completely.
Byron: Awesome stuff.
Collision of galaxies is a process that spurs an increase in star creation, not star annihilation. Also, the process doesn't happen in an instant but takes millions of years to complete.
quote:It's more that it's categorically impossible to assess miracle claims, because probability judgments require a stable frame of reference, and miracles, by definition, overturn it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Only if you make an a priori assumption to that effect. As Lewis said of Hume, it's circular.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Sugar Beets. That's fascinating. The tradition here is cabbages.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Oh no, not back to the sugar beet my dad tells me they tore me out of.
Marvin the Martian: Maybe you go to the place where you were before you were born?
quote:Yes, I suppose so, but it doesn't feel inconsistent to me! Any perceived hypocrisy is entirely accidental; I really do not like hypocrisy.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But can't you see the inconsistency, perhaps even hypocrisy, of you yourself moving from "the probability is high" to "I am certain of it,"
quote:It is probably obvious, but the reason I say that Christians need more faith for their beliefs is that they cannot ppoint to the (scientific) Theory which supports their claims and beliefs. I don’t ever have any intention to deride people; I’ll challenge and criticise the faiths/beliefs here, since this is a message board, and I’ll keep senses alert for evidence which will change atheists to believers;, but it is nice to be in the same room as everyone here..
…and then deriding Christians for their leaps of faith? And your excuse is that it takes "much more faith" for the Christian than it does for you. Well if faith is okay, and you have just admitted it is, maybe more is better than less? Why should less be better?
quote:Now, I definitely argue with that, Mousethief!
as my faith goes, I spend most of my thinking time on why I'm such an asshole, and what to do about that.
quote:My faith doesn't feel inconsistent to me either. Welcome to the club!
SusanDoris: Yes, I suppose so, but it doesn't feel inconsistent to me!
quote:If Christ did not resurrect, it would be quite rational for some followers to make up comforting stories to keep the religion going after the authorities snuffed their leader. Why shut down a perfectly good organization when you could in fact profit from a few stories about his resurrection? You could even make some up something about a second coming within the lifetime of some of the followers.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But foolish me. I'm forgetting the best evidence for life after death.
The Resurrection of Christ.
And there's good historical evidence for that. (Unless of course you think everyone made it up for a huge joke. But that would be irrational. And I think we're talking about reasonable things at the moment.)
quote:Thank you very much for your post IngoB. I’ve been trying to sort of sum it up for various friends, but need to work out a few clear sentences to pinpoint the main idea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That video is here, and is indeed quite excellent. I would recommend to anyone who wants to have an entertaining but accurate "pop science" introduction to quantum field theory. As Dr Carroll correctly points out, QFT is what physicists think of as the best current theory of the universe, and QFT is their workhorse for practically all fundamental physics, but physicists rarely bother explaining it to non-physicists.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Slight tangent: I wonder how much time believers here spend thinking a bout their after-lives? I don't spend a second thinking about something I, personally, am sure does not exist; especially since listening to the video 'Quantum Field Theory' by Dr Sean Carroll and a long discussion on it on another forum.
quote:I deny ‘divine judgement’ of course, but I think I’m pretty strict with myself while I’m alive!
To answer your question, I do not spend that much time contemplating the afterlife. We do not actually know much about the afterlife, and this reduces quickly to mere speculation. What we do know more about is the coming Divine judgement, and that has a rather direct impact on what we do here and now. I spend a reasonable amount of time thinking about that, which seems entirely appropriate.
quote:How much "organization" did the apostles and disciples have 3 days after the crucifixion? What, in the absence of the rabbi, was it providing them? And what would be gained by trying to expand their little circle, especially knowing that it could be fatal, given what happened to the rebbe?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:If Christ did not resurrect, it would be quite rational for some followers to make up comforting stories to keep the religion going after the authorities snuffed their leader. Why shut down a perfectly good organization when you could in fact profit from a few stories about his resurrection? You could even make some up something about a second coming within the lifetime of some of the followers.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But foolish me. I'm forgetting the best evidence for life after death.
The Resurrection of Christ.
And there's good historical evidence for that. (Unless of course you think everyone made it up for a huge joke. But that would be irrational. And I think we're talking about reasonable things at the moment.)
quote:The living Christ has continued to be seen since the resurrection. The number of witnesses continues to grow. There is no need to make it up, it's real.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If Christ did not resurrect, it would be quite rational for some followers to make up comforting stories to keep the religion going after the authorities snuffed their leader. Why shut down a perfectly good organization when you could in fact profit from a few stories about his resurrection? You could even make some up something about a second coming within the lifetime of some of the followers.
quote:Much like the guesses we have for most 'natural' events, then. Broadcast endlessly on 24-hour news channels.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, also there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural. There are guesses.
quote:Better than being from the undead!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I wasn't born; I'm from the unborn.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Maybe you go to the place where you were before you were born?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't nothing, and I do not go back to nothing.
quote:Regarding probability judgements--that is NOT the way to assess the Resurrection or any other miracle story. You are quite right, when "God did it" enters the the picture, you can no longer count on probability. Rather like when "Mom did it" enters the picture vis-à-vis laundry--there's no sense calculating the probability that one's underwear suffered reverse entropy and became wearable again.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:It's more that it's categorically impossible to assess miracle claims, because probability judgments require a stable frame of reference, and miracles, by definition, overturn it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Only if you make an a priori assumption to that effect. As Lewis said of Hume, it's circular.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural.
I like to illustrate with the blasphemous time traveler. How do we know the resurrection wasn't faked by a devout Christian who traveled back to 1st century Judea? Sure, a predestination paradox may be unlikely in the extreme, but no more so than a miracle. If anything, it's more likely, as it may be possible via natural means.
When "God did it!" becomes a possibility, all bets are off.
quote:Or maybe you've shifted from conscious 'faking' - what Lamb Chopped was talking about - through 'dishonesty' to what you just mean is 'wrong'.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, creationists certainly do dishonest stuff, like quote-mining and twisting the meaning of scientific research; still, maybe they are not considered to be true Christians.
quote:Enough organization to throw a dinner for all of them. Do you think all churches die when a charismatic founder disappears? The reasons for expanding their circle are probably the same ones for the circle being there in the first place.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:How much "organization" did the apostles and disciples have 3 days after the crucifixion? What, in the absence of the rabbi, was it providing them? And what would be gained by trying to expand their little circle, especially knowing that it could be fatal, given what happened to the rebbe?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:If Christ did not resurrect, it would be quite rational for some followers to make up comforting stories to keep the religion going after the authorities snuffed their leader. Why shut down a perfectly good organization when you could in fact profit from a few stories about his resurrection? You could even make some up something about a second coming within the lifetime of some of the followers.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But foolish me. I'm forgetting the best evidence for life after death.
The Resurrection of Christ.
And there's good historical evidence for that. (Unless of course you think everyone made it up for a huge joke. But that would be irrational. And I think we're talking about reasonable things at the moment.)
quote:I'll point out that I wasn't saying the resurrection didn't happen, just pointing out that Evensong claiming that it happened because it would be irrational to make up stories about the resurrection. That nonsense founders on the point that it would be perfectly rational to lie so the organization continues.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:The living Christ has continued to be seen since the resurrection. The number of witnesses continues to grow. There is no need to make it up, it's real.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If Christ did not resurrect, it would be quite rational for some followers to make up comforting stories to keep the religion going after the authorities snuffed their leader. Why shut down a perfectly good organization when you could in fact profit from a few stories about his resurrection? You could even make some up something about a second coming within the lifetime of some of the followers.
quote:Many, in fact, do, depending on how much they were wrapped up in the personality of the founder. Perhaps what you (generic) think about the possibility of Jesus' disciples continuing their little clique after his death and non-resurrection depends on whether you think they were centered on his message, or on him.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Enough organization to throw a dinner for all of them. Do you think all churches die when a charismatic founder disappears?
quote:So here you're saying that they were not focused on the person of Jesus, but on his message. Because once he's gone, THAT "reason" is gone. If the reason is the same before and after his disappearance/death, then it must be his message, not him.
The reasons for expanding their circle are probably the same ones for the circle being there in the first place.
quote:Atheists lie too; presumably, they think this is justified in order to discredit theists.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, creationists tell lies; presumably, they think this is justified in order to defend God.
quote:Yes, but, and it is a big but. The words written, even should they be falsely attributed, have no change in validity.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Heck, I seem to recall there are at least a couple of extremely famous ancient Greek writers from whom we HAVE no writings, only second-hand reports and quotes from the next generation down.
quote:Huh? What does this post have to do with his point, which you have not even addressed?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yes, but, and it is a big but. The words written, even should they be falsely attributed, have no change in validity.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Heck, I seem to recall there are at least a couple of extremely famous ancient Greek writers from whom we HAVE no writings, only second-hand reports and quotes from the next generation down.
AND, in those cases we are speaking of, erm, speaking. The words are there. Does it change the nature of a Shakespearean play if some timid toff wrote them instead of the Bard? Events which are far beyond the natural and generally observed which depend upon the action having occurred are in a different category.
So, though your point remains true, does it ring true?
quote:Many is not all. Some in fact don't. See the Buddha or Joseph Smith.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Many, in fact, do, depending on how much they were wrapped up in the personality of the founder. Perhaps what you (generic) think about the possibility of Jesus' disciples continuing their little clique after his death and non-resurrection depends on whether you think they were centered on his message, or on him.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Enough organization to throw a dinner for all of them. Do you think all churches die when a charismatic founder disappears?
quote:It's not like previous religious figures weren't killed by the Romans. Christ and his followers still chose to organize. The fact that there were additional deaths doesn't mean the group had to disintegrate.
quote:So here you're saying that they were not focused on the person of Jesus, but on his message. Because once he's gone, THAT "reason" is gone. If the reason is the same before and after his disappearance/death, then it must be his message, not him.
The reasons for expanding their circle are probably the same ones for the circle being there in the first place.
quote:Yes, but as I said, that's a side issue, and the main point is that you can't decide a priori that reports of resurrections are ahistorical just because. It's importing your personal beliefs into your historiography, and just isn't scientific or empirical or however you want to put it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Response to mousethief
The Greek comparison is irrelevant.
Whether or not any particular one existed, the philosophy attributed to them still exists.
Not the same for stories of Jesus.
ETA2: Yes, the stories and attributed wisdom still exist, but the resurrection is essential to the religion in a way a particular corporal being is not to Greek philosophy.
quote:I don't think I'd consider that to be dishonest as much as taking the way they read the Bible as the absolute guide for absolutely everything and therefore going through amazing contortions to make everything else fit that. It's like epicycles. If it is an absolutely unchallengeable notion that the sun goes around the Earth, the explanation for the movement of the planets becomes contorted and complex.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, creationists certainly do dishonest stuff, like quote-mining and twisting the meaning of scientific research; still, maybe they are not considered to be true Christians.
quote:Now wait a moment, I'm no fan of YEC, but do you have proof that they deliberately tell lies, or just that they are terribly mistaken?? I've not thus far ever encountered anyone from this crowd who deliberately lies about it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, creationists tell lies; presumably, they think this is justified in order to defend God.
quote:Welll said.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Response to mousethief
The Greek comparison is irrelevant.
Whether or not any particular one existed, the philosophy attributed to them still exists.
Not the same for stories of Jesus.
ETA2: Yes, the stories and attributed wisdom still exist, but the resurrection is essential to the religion in a way a particular corporal being is not to Greek philosophy.
quote:How do you decide that something is a lie about God?As an atheist, anything I say about God, apart from 'this is a human idea and does not exist' is simply another human idea!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Third, and most obvious, it's a direct lie about God. Not on any lesser, peripheral, indirectly-somehow-sort-of maybe-connected-to-God subject. Which is what makes it blasphemy.
quote:Well, modern historians don't usually discuss miracles, not because they're impious, but because history is a naturalistic discipline. It's a bit like science in this regard, although it's not a scientific discipline.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Atheists lie too; presumably, they think this is justified in order to discredit theists.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, creationists tell lies; presumably, they think this is justified in order to defend God.
I must say I found your claim that there can't be a historical record of supernatural events laughable. Basically, it boiled down to "record that says something I like = historical, record that says something I don't like = a guess".
There are any number of ancient events and persons for which we have only a very small amount of record. Heck, I seem to recall there are at least a couple of extremely famous ancient Greek writers from whom we HAVE no writings, only second-hand reports and quotes from the next generation down.
It's perfectly possible to work with those indirect sources, but to decide that some sources are 'historical' and some are 'guesses' just because some relate things you regard as plausible and some relate things you regard as implausible is essentially prejudice - you accept an account as true because it tells you something you already believe.
Which is not to say that the resurrection accounts must be accurate. It's to say that assuming they're inaccurate BECAUSE they are accounts of a resurrection is to presuppose the conclusion.
quote:You might try reading Who Moved the Stone? sometime, because it's a book dealing with these very issues.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, modern historians don't usually discuss miracles, not because they're impious, but because history is a naturalistic discipline. It's a bit like science in this regard, although it's not a scientific discipline.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Atheists lie too; presumably, they think this is justified in order to discredit theists.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, creationists tell lies; presumably, they think this is justified in order to defend God.
I must say I found your claim that there can't be a historical record of supernatural events laughable. Basically, it boiled down to "record that says something I like = historical, record that says something I don't like = a guess".
There are any number of ancient events and persons for which we have only a very small amount of record. Heck, I seem to recall there are at least a couple of extremely famous ancient Greek writers from whom we HAVE no writings, only second-hand reports and quotes from the next generation down.
It's perfectly possible to work with those indirect sources, but to decide that some sources are 'historical' and some are 'guesses' just because some relate things you regard as plausible and some relate things you regard as implausible is essentially prejudice - you accept an account as true because it tells you something you already believe.
Which is not to say that the resurrection accounts must be accurate. It's to say that assuming they're inaccurate BECAUSE they are accounts of a resurrection is to presuppose the conclusion.
It doesn't mean that the resurrection didn't happen, but that supernatural stuff is impossible to assess; or in the jargon, there are no constraints on outcomes.
Maybe Ceres returns every year to fill my garden with produce - it might be true, but it's still a guess.
By the way, it's not about disliking the resurrection; I think it's a brilliant story, which recapitulates a huge amount about God and humans.
quote:I just noticed this post - well, science uses guesses, as in that incredible film by Feynman, which is online somewhere. But scientific guesses can be checked, usually multiple times by different experimenters. I'm not sure how you check supernatural events.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Much like the guesses we have for most 'natural' events, then. Broadcast endlessly on 24-hour news channels.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, also there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural. There are guesses.
quote:How do you check natural events? We're talking about one-off events here, not scientific theories. I've no idea why you're bringing scientific guesses into it. How do you check that a report of an event somewhere in the world is accurate?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I just noticed this post - well, science uses guesses, as in that incredible film by Feynman, which is online somewhere. But scientific guesses can be checked, usually multiple times by different experimenters. I'm not sure how you check supernatural events.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Much like the guesses we have for most 'natural' events, then. Broadcast endlessly on 24-hour news channels.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, also there cannot be historical evidence for something supernatural. There are guesses.
quote:Auuuughhhh. I'm talking about the original example--the so-called devout believer who time travels and knowingly, deliberately, falsifies the Resurrection. I think we can agree that a knowing, deliberate falsification equals a lie? And similarly, the "about God" part is a lot simpler than you're making it. The imaginary time traveler is lying about Christ--specifically, about whether he rose or not. As an alleged "devout" Christian he would hold that Christ = God. Therefore, a lie about God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:How do you decide that something is a lie about God?As an atheist, anything I say about God, apart from 'this is a human idea and does not exist' is simply another human idea!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Third, and most obvious, it's a direct lie about God. Not on any lesser, peripheral, indirectly-somehow-sort-of maybe-connected-to-God subject. Which is what makes it blasphemy.
quote:Except we don't know what Jesus's opponents necessarily believed since the gospel accounts are written by his followers well after the event. The historical question is why his followers at the time the gospels were written down believed what they did.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first part of the book (and in my view the best part), involves the author arriving at a conclusion he hadn't intended: that, rather than the whole thing being a complete fabrication, Jesus must have made a claim related to rising again after 3 days.
It doesn't automatically follow that the claim is TRUE. But the point is that everybody, on all sides of the Gospel accounts, Jesus' friends and enemies alike, were in unanimous agreement that the claim about rebuilding a temple in 3 days was made. It was actually used as the basis of accusations against Jesus in his trial, because he had referred to tearing down this temple and they thought he meant the physical temple in Jerusalem.
That is a proper use of the historical record. It's not simply about things that you think are true, it's about working out what people at the time perceived to be true, and the basis THEY had for it. It's about whether there's consistency or disagreement between different sources.
Whether Ceres fills your garden isn't a historical question. A historical question is whether a lot of people in the past believed Ceres filled their gardens, and why they believed it.
quote:...so you think they made up random accusations from the trial to replace the real accusations? Or do you think there was no trial (despite Josephus, for example, taking no issue with the notion that there was this bloke called Jesus who was tried and executed by the Romans)?
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Except we don't know what Jesus's opponents necessarily believed since the gospel accounts are written by his followers well after the event. The historical question is why his followers at the time the gospels were written down believed what they did.
quote:It's not only about numbers. In the case of the resurrection, if some had seen the risen Christ at the time but nobody had seen him since, that might help back up any suggestion that the story was made up. The fact that people have continued to see the risen Christ, in every generation since the crucifixion, helps back up the Christian claim of resurrection.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you credit them due to the number of witnesses?
quote:Nicely said.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of what, precisely? Of Jesus? Of Judea at the time? Of Christians? And how contemporary?
I'm well aware that it's not what we would imagine is a good record today (mind you, even our modern age, where 'news' spreads around the globe, is frequently relying on far fewer original sources than it appears), but half the point here is that the situation with early Christianity is not noticeably worse than a myriad other things that people aren't in the habit of attacking the historical accuracy of. It's not that the record of the ministry, trial and death of Jesus is in pristine shape, it's that it's no worse than a whole lot of other things people don't generally doubt basically happened.
I'm not familiar with much of an effort to suggest that either Buddha or Muhammad didn't really exist or didn't really live in a way that matches their general biography as handed down by their followers. But the fact that the accounts in relation to Jesus end with a resurrection sees people determined to not just query the supernatural interpretation of the events of his life, but to query the very existence of the events themselves.
quote:Exactly the kind of reasoning I was referring to. A court of law makes probability judgments (even "beyond reasonable doubt" equals "extremely high probability"). Witch trials illustrate the mess courts got into when they tried to rule on magic.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Regarding probability judgements--that is NOT the way to assess the Resurrection or any other miracle story. You are quite right, when "God did it" enters the the picture, you can no longer count on probability. Rather like when "Mom did it" enters the picture vis-à-vis laundry--there's no sense calculating the probability that one's underwear suffered reverse entropy and became wearable again.
No, what you want in both cases is not probability, but historical evidence. Are there any eyewitnesses? How credible are they? How reliable are the accounts we have from them (if they are now dead)? and so forth.
In short, you want the kind of reasoning that goes on in a court of law, not the kind that goes on with regard to how quasars function. Historical/legal procedure exists to deal with one-of-a-kind, non-reproducible events. Scientific procedures are focused toward the repeatable and reproducible kind.
quote:I did say blasphemous time traveler!
And now for something totally different--
I've seen it a zillion times, but can make no sense of it whatsoever. Why is it that you (and so many, many others) immediately jump to the conclusion that faking evidence for one's faith (whatever it may be) and being "devout" are compatible? I mean, what the fuck? The technical term for telling lies about God (whatever one's motivation) is blasphemy. I know of no religion which regards this as a Good Thing.
It makes me think that you just don't get religion. Of any sort.
quote:Isn't there already a SF story that goes like this?
Byron: My scenario usually runs: devout Christian goes back to 1st century to witness the resurrection, finds it didn't happen, and stages it in a crisis of faith. He can easily be switched for an unbelieving time traveler with another motive (perhaps his family got rich publishing Bibles).
quote:Behold The Man by Michael Moorcock.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Isn't there already a SF story that goes like this?
Byron: My scenario usually runs: devout Christian goes back to 1st century to witness the resurrection, finds it didn't happen, and stages it in a crisis of faith. He can easily be switched for an unbelieving time traveler with another motive (perhaps his family got rich publishing Bibles).
quote:Thanks, I'll try to read it.
Gildas: Behold The Man by Michael Moorcock.
quote:Thanks for that. Definitely haven't read it, must have gotten the plot second- or third-hand. Will have to give it a look.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Behold The Man by Michael Moorcock.
quote:But there is historiography that can make a reasonable call.
Originally posted by Byron:
There's no way law, or historiography, can make a call on unrepeatable events that overturn natural processes. That's not to say they didn't happen. Maybe they did. But if they did, they must be believed on faith.
quote:Who Moved the Stone is an apologetic text written under a pseudonym by ad-man Albert Henry Ross. It isn't close to being historiography.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But there is historiography that can make a reasonable call.
I think orfeo answers that here.
quote:I agree that fraud, or conscious invention, are both unlikely explanations. E.P. Sanders said it best in The Historical Figure of Jesus: "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know."
As I've said before, it's much more reasonable to deduce the early Christians didn't make it all up than think they did.
And Raptor Eye raises the point of continuing witness which is important.
quote:Whatever atheists do, any analytical discipline puts the burden on the claimant. All "the presumption of innocence" means is that the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case. It's making no factual claim about the defendant's innocence. (Getting a finding of "actual innocence" is, in many jurisdictions, difficult.)
Besides that, in law one generally presumes someone is innocent until proven guilty. Atheists seem to do it the other way around. Presume guilt until innocence is proven. Odd that. Particularly seeing as how science is incapable of providing that sort of evidence.
Scientific probability is NOT the only kind of evidence that exists. There are other ways of assessing whether something is likely to be true or not. Among these are the historical/courtroom methods, which rely primarily on witnesses.quote:Ah, right! Sorry!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Auuuughhhh. I'm talking about the original example--the so-called devout believer who time travels...
quote:I've not singled out "scientific probability": historiography and courts also rely on probability judgments.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Byron, you're still not getting it.
You appear to be saying that if you can't use scientific probability in a given case, you might as well give up on the question of whether it's true. If you really hold that position, you are throwing out all ability to say anything definite about past events, let alone miracles. You can't even make definite statements about what happened last week. Heck, you can't reliably state what you had for breakfast. Probability surely won't tell you.
quote:Turns out that Michael Moorcock posited him. In any case, perhaps I don't, the issue's not dependent on my ability to empathize with any particular kind of faith.
As for your ridiculous time traveler--my point was that it is impossible to be devout and blasphemous at the same time. The fact that you posit such a character tells me that you just.don't.get.it.
quote:Damn, you're being wiggly here. Suddenly we're going to restrict all of jurisprudence to a single witness case? Whatever. In any case, the situation you mention is NOT a straight probability judgement. It is a judgement of witness credibility and testimony versus the inanimate witness available (blood tests, evidence of forced entry, etc.) We are still not dealing with a repeatable event here.
Originally posted by Byron:
I've not singled out "scientific probability": historiography and courts also rely on probability judgments.
Say a jury is trying a single-witness case. They're asked to evaluate testimony against a burden of proof. That's making a probability judgment.
quote:Being slippery again. It wasn't Michael Moorcock who dragged the blasphemous devout time traveler onto this thread, it was you. And you appear to be conceding precisely the point I was making--that you just.plain.don't.get.it when it comes to what devout believers (like the apostles) will and won't do under certain circumstances. To use your own language, you posit a wildly improbable event (speaking in terms of human psychology) and, without any supporting evidence that it in fact happened whatsoever, regard product of the imagination as an acceptable alternative to the straightforward, evidence-backed solution we have: that Christ did in fact rise, and many credible eyewitnesses have testified to the fact.
Originally posted by Byron:
Turns out that Michael Moorcock posited him. In any case, perhaps I don't, the issue's not dependent on my ability to empathize with any particular kind of faith.
quote:By "scientific probability," d'you mean "repeatability"? If so, that's not what I meant by probability, so we've been at cross-purposes. By probability I mean, simply, a judgment that something is more likely than not. Repeatability isn't necessary.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Damn, you're being wiggly here. Suddenly we're going to restrict all of jurisprudence to a single witness case? Whatever. In any case, the situation you mention is NOT a straight probability judgement. It is a judgement of witness credibility and testimony versus the inanimate witness available (blood tests, evidence of forced entry, etc.) We are still not dealing with a repeatable event here. [...]
quote:Eye witness testimony is more likely than not to be inaccurate. Police officers usually consider eye-witness testimony to be so unreliable as to be effectively useless. Many instances exist of witnesses to the same event giving wildly varying descriptions. There are also many examples of memory manipulation (the intentional or unintentional implanting of false memories is surprisingly easy) and we change our own memories to gain approval, to avoid censure, to keep in with a group, to bolster or belittle our self-esteem etc. etc.. We now know that memory is not like a video recorder - more like the bullet-point slide of a one hour presentation. We remember some bullet points and weave a story which suits our need around them. This is not wickedness - it's the only way our brain can work. Watch elderly people with memory loss confusing a more recent bullet-point with memories from their earlier life if you doubt the well attested, much repeated research.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Byron, you're still not getting it.
quote:We don't have Jesus mentioned in any of the contemporary sources that we know of (not surprising since Jesus and the early Christian movement were pretty obscure) so in that sense what happened to Jesus was written by the victors even if they didn't win until some 300 years later. The later contemporary non-Christian sources mention he was executed but not why.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:...so you think they made up random accusations from the trial to replace the real accusations? Or do you think there was no trial (despite Josephus, for example, taking no issue with the notion that there was this bloke called Jesus who was tried and executed by the Romans)?
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Except we don't know what Jesus's opponents necessarily believed since the gospel accounts are written by his followers well after the event. The historical question is why his followers at the time the gospels were written down believed what they did.
What reason is there to create a different accusation from the one that was actually made? What benefit is there?
If you're going go down the 'history is written by the winners' line, you're going to get a heck of a lot more than the Christian gospels into trouble, and a lot quicker. Because no matter who you believe in terms of the dating of the gospels, Christians were not 'the winners' at the time. They were not in control of the history books at the time.
quote:Single witness case as in the prosecution only put on a single witness, just as it's a circumstantial case regardless of whether the defendant lines up twenty alibi witnesses and a juggler in rebuttal.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Byron, every exchange I have with you, the past gets redefined. "one person's word against another" is not a single witness case. That's a double witness case. And you were clearly using probability in the context of repeatable, scientifically studiable events before. Now you say not. [...]
quote:'Cause that's kinda the point? They work together or Jesus was just another dude laying down a righteous rap, bro.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the fact that the accounts in relation to Jesus end with a resurrection sees people determined to not just query the supernatural interpretation of the events of his life, but to query the very existence of the events themselves.
quote:No, it really isn't.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, look into it. It's the big freaking gray thing sitting in the living room, honking its nose and eating peanuts. While most people tiptoe around it, basically oblivious to what a freakin' miracle the textual support is.
quote:Which is exactly what some people think he was. A good preacher. A conclusion that is necessarily based on what he's quoted as saying.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:'Cause that's kinda the point? They work together or Jesus was just another dude laying down a righteous rap, bro.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the fact that the accounts in relation to Jesus end with a resurrection sees people determined to not just query the supernatural interpretation of the events of his life, but to query the very existence of the events themselves.
quote:What someone/some people said. Just like the Greek dudes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A conclusion that is necessarily based on what he's quoted as saying.
quote:Yes. Exactly like the Greek dudes. Whose actual existence is questioned remarkably rarely compared to an allegedly resurrected Nazarene carpenter.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What someone/some people said. Just like the Greek dudes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A conclusion that is necessarily based on what he's quoted as saying.
quote:You're quite right here when you speak of human memory.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Eye witness testimony is more likely than not to be inaccurate. Police officers usually consider eye-witness testimony to be so unreliable as to be effectively useless. Many instances exist of witnesses to the same event giving wildly varying descriptions. There are also many examples of memory manipulation (the intentional or unintentional implanting of false memories is surprisingly easy) and we change our own memories to gain approval, to avoid censure, to keep in with a group, to bolster or belittle our self-esteem etc. etc.. We now know that memory is not like a video recorder - more like the bullet-point slide of a one hour presentation. We remember some bullet points and weave a story which suits our need around them. This is not wickedness - it's the only way our brain can work. Watch elderly people with memory loss confusing a more recent bullet-point with memories from their earlier life if you doubt the well attested, much repeated research.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Byron, you're still not getting it.
2.7 million Americans are sure that they have been abducted by aliens (apparently usually to have their genitalia admired) - regrettably not one of them had the presence of mind to acquire a memento (swab/ashtray/whatever).
I suspect that the person who wrote that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem because of a Roman census believed it to be (at least probably) true. It didn't happen, and couldn't have done because of a) the power structure in the area at the time and b) when they did carry out censuses (censi?) Romans wanted to know where to call for their taxes.
That there really is no worthwhile evidence to support the Gospel stories (or claims of actual meetings with God/Jesus) doesn't make them untrue but it means we have to choose whether we will accept them by faith or not. I, for several reasons, can't - clearly others can. But please don't tell anyone that claimed memories from 40 years or more before (as in the gospels etc.) are/were valid evidence when memories from a few days ago are demonstrably suspect
quote:Actually, denying Homer's existence is now very last millennium in the lit crit world. Or so I'm given to understand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Yes. Exactly like the Greek dudes. Whose actual existence is questioned remarkably rarely compared to an allegedly resurrected Nazarene carpenter.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What someone/some people said. Just like the Greek dudes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A conclusion that is necessarily based on what he's quoted as saying.
Well, except for Homer.
quote:Who wrote some longhair philosophy only matters to history geeks. The words are the thing. The metaphysical reality of the founder of a major religion is of different stuff.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes. Exactly like the Greek dudes. Whose actual existence is questioned remarkably rarely compared to an allegedly resurrected Nazarene carpenter.
quote:Refutation is an idle and most false imposition, oft got without merit and lost without deserving.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, except for Homer.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You're quite right here when you speak of human memory.
Multiple eye-witnesses to an event will remember different things and interpret it in different ways. That is the nature of our being and part of our entire human existence: hermeneutics.
This applies not only to big important things but to small seemingly insignificant things that happened an hour ago.
It's the basis of postmodernism and something of the fallacy of modernism and "truth".
Some people say the ancients were stupid. I think not. They knew this human limitation. That's why we have four gospels and not one. That's why the book of Kings is included right along side the book of Chronicles that have widely differing theologies. That's why the bible is a conglomeration of various viewpoints (some contradictory). That's why there are two accounts of creation.
Did this phase the ancients? Hell no. But it does phase us today.
Because we have this odd idea that we are capable of arriving at a single, unified "truth".
The myth of modernism debunked.
This has implications that are HUGE. Not only in theology, but in all disciplines and all walks of life.
So it's wrong to say there is no evidence for the Gospel stories unless you wish to deny all interpretive frameworks (science and empiricism included) and all human experience because it is "unreliable". You would have to deny all your senses, feelings, interpretations, understandings of every moment of every day. You would have to deny the reality available to you.
That's simply not possible. We would all go mad and never get anywhere or have any kind of meaningful existence.
Nihilism is no fun.
quote:Yes, usually straw men.
Originally posted by Evensong:
[...] Some people say the ancients were stupid. [...]
quote:It's not that simple. We may have progressed in some areas of knowledge but we have gone backwards in others.
Originally posted by Byron:
The ancients weren't stupid; they were, undoubtedly, ignorant of discoveries we take for granted, just as we, in turn, will rightly be viewed as ignorant by our descendants.
quote:Why then is the bible so varied? Why not present a set of scriptures that were uniform? They were more than capable of doing so.
Originally posted by Byron:
What they weren't is post-modernists in embryo. Pagan attacks on superstitio, and Christian attacks on heresy, show people in no doubt about truth.
quote:Hey. We traditionalists didn't start it. It's modern philosophy.
Originally posted by Byron:
The po-mo claim's an ahistorical saving throw for traditional religion. Modernism's scorched earth war against received knowledge has been so devastating that the last line of defense is to call all knowledge into question.
quote:Which areas? What knowledge has been lost?
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's not that simple. We may have progressed in some areas of knowledge but we have gone backwards in others.
quote:'Cause the canon wasn't shaped by a central committie, but adopted through usage and tradition. The magisterium of the church did work to harmonize it (such as claiming that James wasn't really Jesus' brother).
Why then is the bible so varied? Why not present a set of scriptures that were uniform? They were more than capable of doing so.
quote:Well no, there isn't, but such relativism is a thoroughly recent idea, born of the failure of so much ideology and tradition.
False dichotomy to boot. There is nothing stopping anyone from arguing their understanding of truth in a background of recognising why there may be multiple versions of that truth.
quote:Yup, it's borrowed from secular post-modernism, itself a ... variable movement that, at its best, produces insightful deconstruction, and at its worst, word-salad and denialism.
Hey. We traditionalists didn't start it. It's modern philosophy.
You sir, are a theological modernist. But your day is past.
quote:Samurai sword-making, Stradivarius violins and how to make a cohesive society?
Originally posted by Byron:
Which areas? What knowledge has been lost?
quote:and Roman concrete and I don't think this
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Samurai sword-making, Stradivarius violins
Originally posted by Byron:
Which areas? What knowledge has been lost?
quote:has ever existed.
Originally posted by orfeo:
and how to make a cohesive society?
quote:Why on earth do you want to keep the thread going?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. I had to throw in one bit of complete nonsense to keep the thread going.
quote:Your temptations to trouble must be very tame.
Originally posted by Ariston:
It keeps me out of trouble, mostly.
quote:Biking, coffee, pottery, and procrastination…so yes. I lead a dull life, thank you all for doing whatever it is you do.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Your temptations to trouble must be very tame.
Originally posted by Ariston:
It keeps me out of trouble, mostly.
quote:The fact that you don't know surely confirms that it is lost knowledge.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Which areas? What knowledge has been lost?
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's not that simple. We may have progressed in some areas of knowledge but we have gone backwards in others.
quote:Samurai Sword-making had not been lost. Are you trying to make the remaining Japanese Living Historical Treasures nervous?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Samurai sword-making, Stradivarius violins and how to make a cohesive society?
Originally posted by Byron:
Which areas? What knowledge has been lost?
quote:I don't think it's a matter of knowledge being lost, more we seem to have lost some things the ancients had like identity, meaning and purpose inspired by community which kind of got lost with the rise of individualism in the Enlightenment.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Which areas? What knowledge has been lost?
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's not that simple. We may have progressed in some areas of knowledge but we have gone backwards in others.
quote:The ancients decided what was in and what was out. Whether you call that a central committee or usage and tradition they are the same thing.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:'Cause the canon wasn't shaped by a central committie, but adopted through usage and tradition. The magisterium of the church did work to harmonize it (such as claiming that James wasn't really Jesus' brother).
Why then is the bible so varied? Why not present a set of scriptures that were uniform? They were more than capable of doing so.
quote:Not so. Relativism is present in the scriptures. So unless you think the ancients were too stupid to realise that (which I don't) you have to concede they had a very different framework of truth than a modernist one.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Well no, there isn't, but such relativism is a thoroughly recent idea, born of the failure of so much ideology and tradition.
False dichotomy to boot. There is nothing stopping anyone from arguing their understanding of truth in a background of recognising why there may be multiple versions of that truth.
quote:Theological modernism was important in its day. (Here's a great short history of postmodernism.) But personally I agree with the article that the most reasonable current position is critical realism.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Yup, it's borrowed from secular post-modernism, itself a ... variable movement that, at its best, produces insightful deconstruction, and at its worst, word-salad and denialism.
Hey. We traditionalists didn't start it. It's modern philosophy.
You sir, are a theological modernist. But your day is past.
Theological modernism may well be past. That has no bearing on its truth, merely its popularity. Democracy's day was past for a good two millennia. It's enjoying something of a rerun.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I do believe absolute truth exists. And I think we're capable of getting close. But our human limitations deny us it totally.
So I choose because I believe it matters. But I hold in tension the fact that I can never really know fully.
St Paul said much the same thing.
We see through a glass darkly now. But then we shall see face to face.
quote:Harmonization and heresy-hunting show that pre-modern Christians weren't remotely cool with a "multitude of viewpoints." You think people willing to expel and kill "heretics" over theological minutiae were pluralists? The very idea is painfully anachronistic.
Originally posted by Evensong:
[...] Regardless of how, [the ancients] were aware that the scriptures contained a multitude of viewpoints. And they were cool with that. [...]
quote:The harmonising of the gospels was mostly rejected by the early church (Tatian, Marcion in the 2nd century).
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Harmonization and heresy-hunting show that pre-modern Christians weren't remotely cool with a "multitude of viewpoints." You think people willing to expel and kill "heretics" over theological minutiae were pluralists? The very idea is painfully anachronistic.
Originally posted by Evensong:
[...] Regardless of how, [the ancients] were aware that the scriptures contained a multitude of viewpoints. And they were cool with that. [...]
quote:This, IMV, shows the ancients understood the limitations of human witness so provided something of a kaleidoscope (within limits) so each might enter the mystery from a different angle.
There was one gospel of Jesus Christ and it need to be protected from distortion, - but it evoked - and evokes - manifold witness...
In receiving four gospels as canonical the church accepted four different gospels as faithful and 'apostolic' accounts of the one gospel of Jesus Christ, four faithful (but different) ways to envision a life that is worthy of one gospel.
quote:I think the earliest copy of the (mostly) complete old and new testaments we have is Codex Sinaiticus which dates to the 300's. But multiple Gospels were present and circulating pretty early. How couldn't they notice the differences? They certainly did. Which is why Marcion and Tatian tried to harmonise them from the 2nd century.
Originally posted by Byron:
You've also ignored the technical chasm between pre- and post-Gutenberg worlds. Before the printing press, texts and literacy were scarce to a degree we struggle to imagine. The Bible wasn't indexed until the middle ages; in the early church, handwritten fragments were scattered between Christian communities. Before canonization, no-one was in any position to systematically look for contradictions.
quote:The overthrow of ancient certainties yes. But it replaced those with a set of its own certainties: observation, reason and the scientific method as a means of defining objective reality.
Originally posted by Byron:
Modernism isn't, as you seem to suggest, certainty; it's just the opposite, a movement that arose from the overthrow of these ancient certainties.
quote:
The modern worldview developed out of a combination of a belief in an orderly, Newtonian universe and the certitude of Cartesian philosophy. Modernism perceives the world as possessing an objective reality which can be discovered with certainty through observation and reason.
quote:I really, really hope that you know that Donald Rumsfeld was merely repeating a phrase that has been in use since 1969
Originally posted by MSHB:
Or as a more recent sage acknowledged: there are "unknown unknowns".
quote:Thanks for agreeing that memory is unreliable – you than ignore a couple of paragraphs and go to
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You're quite right here when you speak of human memory.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Eye witness testimony is more likely than not to be inaccurate. Police officers usually consider eye-witness testimony to be so unreliable as to be effectively useless. Many instances exist of witnesses to the same event giving wildly varying descriptions. There are also many examples of memory manipulation (the intentional or unintentional implanting of false memories is surprisingly easy) and we change our own memories to gain approval, to avoid censure, to keep in with a group, to bolster or belittle our self-esteem etc. etc.. We now know that memory is not like a video recorder - more like the bullet-point slide of a one hour presentation. We remember some bullet points and weave a story which suits our need around them. This is not wickedness - it's the only way our brain can work. Watch elderly people with memory loss confusing a more recent bullet-point with memories from their earlier life if you doubt the well attested, much repeated research.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Byron, you're still not getting it.
2.7 million Americans are sure that they have been abducted by aliens (apparently usually to have their genitalia admired) - regrettably not one of them had the presence of mind to acquire a memento (swab/ashtray/whatever).
I suspect that the person who wrote that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem because of a Roman census believed it to be (at least probably) true. It didn't happen, and couldn't have done because of a) the power structure in the area at the time and b) when they did carry out censuses (censi?) Romans wanted to know where to call for their taxes.
That there really is no worthwhile evidence to support the Gospel stories (or claims of actual meetings with God/Jesus) doesn't make them untrue but it means we have to choose whether we will accept them by faith or not. I, for several reasons, can't - clearly others can. But please don't tell anyone that claimed memories from 40 years or more before (as in the gospels etc.) are/were valid evidence when memories from a few days ago are demonstrably suspect
Multiple eye-witnesses to an event will remember different things and interpret it in different ways. That is the nature of our being and part of our entire human existence: hermeneutics.
This applies not only to big important things but to small seemingly insignificant things that happened an hour ago.
It's the basis of postmodernism and something of the fallacy of modernism and "truth".
Some people say the ancients were stupid. I think not. They knew this human limitation. That's why we have four gospels and not one. That's why the book of Kings is included right along side the book of Chronicles that have widely differing theologies. That's why the bible is a conglomeration of various viewpoints (some contradictory). That's why there are two accounts of creation.
Did this phase the ancients? Hell no. But it does phase us today.
Because we have this odd idea that we are capable of arriving at a single, unified "truth".
The myth of modernism debunked.
This has implications that are HUGE. Not only in theology, but in all disciplines and all walks of life.
So it's wrong to say there is no evidence for the Gospel stories unless you wish to deny all interpretive frameworks (science and empiricism included) and all human experience because it is "unreliable". You would have to deny all your senses, feelings, interpretations, understandings of every moment of every day. You would have to deny the reality available to you.
That's simply not possible. We would all go mad and never get anywhere or have any kind of meaningful existence.
Nihilism is no fun.
quote:Harmonization isn't amalgamation. The early church respected the gospels as apostolic works: it also unified church teaching, to the minutest degree.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Harmonization? We've ended up with 4 gospels, and there was a rejection of someone's attempt to combine them into 1.
quote:The four gospels were accepted through common usage. We then get defenses of their consistency. No lesser church father than Augustine of Hippo though it necessary to write De consensu evangeliorum, with his stated motive being: "For those adversaries are in the habit of adducing this as the palmary allegation in all their vain objections, namely, that the evangelists are not in harmony with each other."
Originally posted by Evensong:
[...] In receiving four gospels as canonical the church accepted four different gospels as faithful and 'apostolic' accounts of the one gospel of Jesus Christ, four faithful (but different) ways to envision a life that is worthy of one gospel. [...][
quote:You originally referred to the canon of scripture, not just the gospels, so goalposts are already in motion.
[...] I think the earliest copy of the (mostly) complete old and new testaments we have is Codex Sinaiticus which dates to the 300's. But multiple Gospels were present and circulating pretty early. How couldn't they notice the differences? They certainly did. Which is why Marcion and Tatian tried to harmonise them from the 2nd century. [...]
quote:The only thing that can be reliably stated about miracles is that they don't seem to happen unless you apply
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Byron, you're still not getting it.
You appear to be saying that if you can't use scientific probability in a given case, you might as well give up on the question of whether it's true. If you really hold that position, you are throwing out all ability to say anything definite about past events, let alone miracles. You can't even make definite statements about what happened last week. Heck, you can't reliably state what you had for breakfast. Probability surely won't tell you.
As for your ridiculous time traveler--my point was that it is impossible to be devout and blasphemous at the same time. The fact that you posit such a character tells me that you just.don't.get.it.
quote:I really really hope you know that the name Donald is not spelt that way in Gaelic. And I really really hope you can see that a point might be true and at the same time completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I really, really hope that you know that Donald Rumsfeld was merely repeating a phrase that has been in use since 1969
Originally posted by MSHB:
Or as a more recent sage acknowledged: there are "unknown unknowns".
quote:Perhaps you could be a little less sensitive to what you think I might have thought (but didn't write).
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:I really really hope you know that the name Donald is not spelt that way in Gaelic. And I really really hope you can see that a point might be true and at the same time completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I really, really hope that you know that Donald Rumsfeld was merely repeating a phrase that has been in use since 1969
Originally posted by MSHB:
Or as a more recent sage acknowledged: there are "unknown unknowns".
You seem to have imagined that I said "Donald Rumsfeld was the original author of the phrase 'unknown unknowns'". I made no such claim. I only said that he acknowledged the existence of unknown unknowns, famously using that phrase to do so. Nothing that I wrote says that Rumsfeld was the first person to use the phrase, nor would I have any reason to make such a claim.
The fact that you proffered the name "Donald Rumsfeld", even though I had not mentioned it, indicates that you yourself associate his name with the phrase "unknown unknowns". Otherwise, why did you even think I was referring to him? Rumsfeld is clearly associated with that phrase in your mind, and the recent familiarity of the phrase in other people's minds, with similar thanks to Rumsfeld, is what makes the phrase a convenient tool - a tool that people are familiar with - for pointing out a limitation in human knowledge.
It is not the origin of the phrase, it is the recent familiarity of the phrase, that makes it useful in current discussion on the limits of human knowledge. And that is why I said what I actually said, and not what you imagined I said.
quote:Nor would I, unless I were actually meaning the opposite (as I was in my original post). Next time I must put quotes around the word to make that clearer. I do not think Rumsfeld is a sage. That doesn't mean he never said anything useful - perhaps unwittingly.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I wouldn't associate Donald Rumsfeld with the concept of a "sage".
quote:Yes it is Hell and I should have taken that into account - I just can't be bothered to be aggressive, snide or potty-mouthed because some others are. But tongue in cheek - guilty - and I'm learning that it doesn't always come across as intended.
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:Nor would I, unless I were actually meaning the opposite (as I was in my original post). Next time I must put quotes around the word to make that clearer. I do not think Rumsfeld is a sage. That doesn't mean he never said anything useful - perhaps unwittingly.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I wouldn't associate Donald Rumsfeld with the concept of a "sage".
I read your sentence "I really really.." as aggressive. I am sorry that I misread you. I still cannot understand why you made the comment that you did, and that is why I took it as an aggressive putdown when I first read it. And this is Hell, after all...
As for "As to whether or not we can know anything - I rather suspect that we can" - where did I ever deny it? "Unknown unknowns" does not mean "all is unknown" - it does not mean radical scepticism.
quote:Thank you. That is actually useful to know. Reading other people is not my forte. But I can try to read your posts in the spirit you mentioned.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I just can't be bothered to be aggressive, snide or potty-mouthed because some others are.
