|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Rationality of Deism etc
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm well aware that being called "not a real German" can have deadly, evil consequences. Likewise for being called "not a real Christian". However, at this point in time in this part of the world, I think we can afford the luxury to apply the label "Christian" more specifically.
...and I take it we can afford to remove the label, such as Radical Whig has done to his or her self? Baptized, (presumably) living in a world of Christian imagery, etc., (as he or she said) but "not a real Christian?" What then? "Former Christian?" "Lapsed Christian?" "Used to think I was a real Christian but changed my mind and now I see not really but have leftover baggage Christian?"
I don't know. I guess maybe. But can you be a "former German" or "lapsed German?" I realize early nationality and religious affiliation are not exactly analgous, but you seem to be following along with it and this is where I would take it next. Here's a specific question: what specific label do you give to Radical Whig relative to Christianity or lack thereof?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Here's a specific question: what specific label do you give to Radical Whig relative to Christianity or lack thereof?
I would call him a "Christophile". I've suggested that general label for people attached to Christianity without being fully Christian a few years back on SoF, but I think that was before Oblivion collected old posts. Anyway, that label is not intended to be specific about precisely RadicalWhig's beliefs and was back then obviously addressed to other people with different Christianity-inspired ideas.
Christophile (Christ-lover) seems like a reasonable extension of the NT / Jewish concept of Theophobe (God-fearer) to me.
Unsurprisingly that idea sank like a stone back then, because of the general issue of labelling someone against their will (the people I wanted to call Christophile rather wanted to be called Christian by me, so I opted for the compromise of calling them heretics again ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ). I still think though that this is a fitting and even complimentary label.
(And yes, I think Germanophile would be an appropriate label for a non-German fond of things German, just like an Anglophile is into English stuff etc.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
But what interests me is why 'inhabiting the narrative' of Christ can't indeed be equated with an encounter with Christ, given that there is no other way of being human that bypasses participation in various overlapping 'forms of life'? And if your guiding form of life is the Christian narrative (understood in its broadest, ecclesial sense) surely you (generic 'you') are as close as you can be in this life... because God is not an object among others in the universe, to speak of or express something 'real' beyond the narrative is to enter the realm of analogy, metaphor, sacrament which itself seems to me to be an act of narrative.
Mudfrog please take note:
AMEN! HALLELUJAH! Praise the living God for a True Christian who is not afraid to preach the Gospel to The Lost, wherever they may be found! Who with empathy, warmth and reason announces the Good News!
Keep it up Fugue, you are a ray of sunshine in a dark world in need of candles!
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would call him a "Christophile".
Not bad, but after thinking about it a bit, what came to my mind is Believer in Exile.
I don't think it will violate copyrights to paste the two sentence definition:
quote:
It refers to Christians "... for whom the God experience is still real, but most of the religious forms used to interpret that reality have lost all meaning." They have outgrown the faith of their childhood and are searching for a new path.
I would myself substitute the word "abandoned" for "outgrown."
[pre-emptive disclaimer and thread saver]
Yes, yes, I know it was coined by John Shelby Spong who is arguably (I almost mean this with complete sincerety) an egotistical, needling, confrontational, intellectual lightweight, who narrowly avoided being charged with heresy by political maneuvering, and who came as close as one can come to abusing his political powers as Bishop in the Episcopal Church of the US to attempt, under the guise of "reform," to completely gut any semblence of Christian orthodoxy and replace it with his personal brand of Unitarian humanism. I hope I haven't missed anything important enough to add. OK, one more: kind of an asshole in general sometimes but who isn't?
[/pre-emptive disclaimer and thread saver]
For all his faults and shortcomings, I believe that Spong sincerely had Radical Whig in mind as well as himself when he coined the phrase "Believer in Exile" and launched his attempt to inaugurate a New Reformation.
So what say ye? "Believer in Exhile?" Such are still welcomed into The Episcopal Church (earthly of course) of the USA, or I wouldn't be allowed there.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I don't understand the concept of supernatural.
Well, since you are presumably referring to miracles rather than the entire supernatural order, let me quote some salient passages from an easily accessible open source:
quote:
..Some pointless bollocks from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as if that would ever help...
Er, no. Actually, I mean the whole "supernatural order".
I assume we mean something like "knowing, conscious, intelligent entities, having personality and purpose, but without any physical form or manifestation, which are not subject to the laws of nature, but able to act on nature." These might be gods, angels, demons, ghosts, demi-gods, sprites, fairies, or anything else.
Now, I accept that there are more things in "heaven and earth, Horatio, than are deampt of in my philosophy". Nature is a weird and wonderful thing and we don't understand that much of it. But, if invisible beings are eventually shown to exist (and no-one has shown that they do yet) they must be natural phenomena - that is, having some physical manifestation, and being subject to laws of nature which (although more complex than we thought) turn out to be observable, replicable, and predictable.
I think what people mean by supernatural must either be: (i) imaginary; or (ii) natural, but beyond our current range of understanding.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why don't you believe that Mohammad was a Prophet (it's TRUE, because the Angel Gabriel appeared to him in a cave; you can read all about it in the Qur'an, and the Qur'an is TRUE because Allah revealed it, etc, etc)? Why don't you believe in body Thetans? Why don't you accept the supernatural claim that we are all going to be breeding like bunnies on Kolob?
I'm not entirely sure about the latter two claims, because I don't fully know what your words mean.
[/QB]Look them up? Clue: search for "Kolob" "Mormon" and "Thetan" "Scientology".
quote:
But I'm rather certain that if I did, then just as for the first claim I would not reject them because they are impossible, for they are possible. A lot of things are possible, but implausible or disagreeable to my mind. Therefore I reject them.
We cannot go around rejecting things just because we find them disagreeable. Things are either true or not true. Choice and preference do not come into it.
quote:
The claims of traditional Christianity are the most plausible and agreeable ones that I have heard, which are possible (possible in the sense both of "thinkable" and "compatible with what I know"). The claims of atheism are for example impossible, since I know that a God with certain metaphysical properties necessarily exists.
Yawn. Atheists (and I cannot speak for them, because I am not one) know that your supposed "knowledge" is unfounded and based on no foundation. You do know (don't you?) that just because the Catholic church teaches something, that doesn't make it true.
quote:
Your Deist conception may be somewhat plausible (not very, mind you, e.g., complete disengagement from what one creates is implausible per se). But it certainly is not agreeable to my mind, it is actually repugnant.
Again, we are not looking for "what you like", we are looking for "what actually is".
What comes across is essentially "make-believe": a failure to distinguish between what is true and what you'd like to be true. "There are no American tanks in Baghdad", he said, as the tanks rolled passed the camera.
quote:
Blah
Whatever.
I'm sorry, IngoB. I'm sure that within your own narrow worldview ("channelling Tertullian" and all that) what you are saying makes perfect sense. It just doesn't connect in any way with the reality of existence as we know it and experience it.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But stop projecting those sour grapes on people like JimT, who are actually being friendly to you...
I'm not. I know JimT is being friendly, and I appreciate it. I'm just filling in the blanks so we don't have to go over all that ground again.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would call him a "Christophile".
Good label. I like it.
Other options include: (i) "Post-Christian" (NB Not "Ex-Christian", because an ex-Christian has rejected Christianity, whereas a "post-Christian" has just moved through it an out the other side, having been deeply influenced in the process); and (ii) "Non-Theistic Christian" (Dangerous and upsetting to creedalist believers, for whom this is a contradiction in terms); (iii) "Jesus Follower" (Again, folks don't like this one, because they assume that to follow Jesus you have to follow the incarnate only-begotten Son of God, and following Jesus the liberal-hippy-Jew doesn't cut it).
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Not bad, but after thinking about it a bit, what came to my mind is Believer in Exile.
That implies the exile is a bad thing - that the "post-Christian" or "Christophile" condition is just a temporary aberation, and that one day all things will be restored, and we'll all be back to chanting creeds and kneeling before priests.
quote:
For all his faults and shortcomings, I believe that Spong sincerely had Radical Whig in mind as well as himself when he coined the phrase "Believer in Exile" and launched his attempt to inaugurate a New Reformation.
It might not surprise you that the thread which started all this off, over a year ago, was called, "What would a Spongite Church be like?", and came about because I had just finished reading "A New Christianity for a New World" - a book which spoke magnificently to my situation.
quote:
So what say ye? "Believer in Exhile?" Such are still welcomed into The Episcopal Church (earthly of course) of the USA, or I wouldn't be allowed there.
My mistake, "fleeing in exile" (if you like) from the Baptists, was to assume that Episcopalian meant "liberal - basically, Unitarians in dresses and humanists with candles"; actually, to my surprise, they actually believe in the creedal supernatural stuff, and if you don't believe it too then you won't feel comfortable there at all.
Your mileage obviously did vary!
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm sorry. I'm at a complete loss to understand your last sentence.
I don't understand the concept of supernatural.
If it cannot happpen in accordance with natural processes then it cannot happen, because natural processes are what makes things happen. You can't just say that it happened magically.
Surely it is more sensible to conclude that it
Just Did Not Happen? I mean really, come on.
Do you just take any claim at face value?
And my question back to you is, what do you mean by 'natural processes'?
Because we cause things to happen all the time that don't happen in nature. I need no go no further than saying: PLASTIC.
And if we can manipulate the world so that things happen that wouldn't otherwise happen... what's so illogical about a God that can do the same?
As to taking claims at face value, if someone reports their observation than I would at least assume that they saw something that led them to report that observation. Whether they understood what they were seeing is a separate question. But I don't tend to assume people are lying through their teeth unless there's a motive for them to do so.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
My mistake, "fleeing in exile" (if you like) from the Baptists, was to assume that Episcopalian meant "liberal - basically, Unitarians in dresses and humanists with candles"; actually, to my surprise, they actually believe in the creedal supernatural stuff, and if you don't believe it too then you won't feel comfortable there at all.
Your mileage obviously did vary!
As Jack Nicholson said (under different circumstances) in Terms of Endearment, "I think we're going to have to get drunk."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by RadicalWhig:
We cannot go around rejecting things just because we find them disagreeable. Things are either true or not true. Choice and preference do not come into it.
And we are still waiting for you to offer some way of determining absolute truth about God that doesn't require us to accept your presuppositions.
quote:
originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Again, we are not looking for "what you like", we are looking for "what actually is".
What comes across is essentially "make-believe": a failure to distinguish between what is true and what you'd like to be true. "There are no American tanks in Baghdad", he said, as the tanks rolled passed the camera.
See above and right back at you.
quote:
originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm sorry, IngoB. I'm sure that within your own narrow worldview ("channelling Tertullian" and all that) what you are saying makes perfect sense. It just doesn't connect in any way with the reality of existence as we know it and experience it.
Who is we? Certainly not the billion plus people that agree with IngoB. Just use first person singluar instead of plural and "we" can all agree.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Not bad, but after thinking about it a bit, what came to my mind is Believer in Exile.
Nah, that's all about poor suffering them being excluded by nasty us etc. Makes me cheer that we got rid of them whingers, that does.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But, if invisible beings are eventually shown to exist (and no-one has shown that they do yet) they must be natural phenomena - that is, having some physical manifestation, and being subject to laws of nature which (although more complex than we thought) turn out to be observable, replicable, and predictable.
Do you mean something like "We will ask the angel nicely to move this 1 kg weight as fast as he can over one meter distance. From this we will infer how many Newtons he can exert." Well, I guess you could do that.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Look them up? Clue: search for "Kolob" "Mormon" and "Thetan" "Scientology".
What for? I prefer reading some Rumi.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
We cannot go around rejecting things just because we find them disagreeable. Things are either true or not true. Choice and preference do not come into it.
Well, well. Let's just hope that all you believe is demonstrably true. Otherwise this could become a bit embarrassing.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You do know (don't you?) that just because the Catholic church teaches something, that doesn't make it true.
Hmm, and how do you know that then? Just asking.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What comes across is essentially "make-believe": a failure to distinguish between what is true and what you'd like to be true.
See, this stuff is a bit like defusing a bomb. There are a dozen of cables, but you have narrowed it down to a red cable going to this bit, a green cable connecting these two parts and a blue cable looping around the magnet there, respectively. Now, which one are you actually going to cut? 30 seconds left on the bomb timer, and counting.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm sorry, IngoB. I'm sure that within your own narrow worldview ("channelling Tertullian" and all that) what you are saying makes perfect sense. It just doesn't connect in any way with the reality of existence as we know it and experience it.
Dang, I should have thought about that. Well, back to the drawing board...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You do not need to apologize for not being able to do what is entirely impossible to do.
Then how is it possible for you to provide such a proof for God?
quote:
... You could instead apologize for affirming with "Exactly!" a piece of anti-theist rhetoric that was strictly nonsensical in content. I would appreciate that without in any way or form assuming that therefore you have become a theist.
Fair enough! Apology herewith. I still agree with the post in general terms!
quote:
Let's talk about that once you acquire the philosophical debating skills and language to do so...
'Severely compromised vision' (as the Eye Hospital call it) and old age mean that this is unlikely, I'm afraid. I shall, however, continue to read and admire the skill of others.
[ 04. June 2011, 13:29: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Then how is it possible for you to provide such a proof for God?
The difference is that many serious thinkers have done exactly that. You can engage with them, maybe disagree with them and attempt a refutation. No such intellectually heavyweight tradition exists for the flying spaghetti monster, though it does for other secular systems such as Marxism, which I think has to be included in the "systems of belief that merit serious attention" category.
I expect you are familiar with some of the well touted proposed proofs of God. Of course none are scientific proofs, any more than that there is a scientific proof that only scientific proofs can establish truth.
PS Ernesto the Anteater is doing well. Petty the shipmeets appear to be in abeyance.
As a matter of sheer interest, having posted you quite a bit (this really should be a private post) how fooled are screen readers by spelling bloops? I do try to get it right, but I've no idea how well they can handle this sentence if it was written: Iv no ieda how well the can hanedl this sentence.
[ 04. June 2011, 16:12: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
Well, I never met a proof for God I didn't like; but then I've never actually met a proof for God.
I have come across interesting intellectual experiments, and I've met some proofs for certain kinds of God, but in the end life goes on as it always has done, and 'God' remains marvellously both enigmatic and knowable, so it seems.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
...many serious thinkers have done exactly that. You can engage with them, maybe disagree with them and attempt a refutation.
Since I am pretty certain that there is nothing now that will ever convince me to change from atheism, and that, if evidence of God/god/s existed, it would then be known fact, I would not attempt to take on such arguments with said 'serious thinkers'. (I hope that doesn't make me sound like an air-head, or lightweitht or something!)I do, however, thoroughly enjoy reading the arguments of others on the three or four forums I frequent, and of course joining in! I love the immediacy of it and the fact that one day I can agree with someone and the next disagree.
quote:
No such intellectually heavyweight tradition exists for the flying spaghetti monster, ...
Give it time...!! Well, okay - no , I think Russell's teapot is more likely to stay the course.
quote:
...though it does for other secular systems such as Marxism, which I think has to be included in the "systems of belief that merit serious attention" category.
Yes of course, but as I have seen pointed out clearly by many sceptical posters (other forums), atheism is a lack of belief in God/god/s...... and that's it. No ideologies, no belief systems, no dogmas etc. So although there are systems as you say which are part of history, and therefore must be studied, there is an empty space at the centre of all religious faiths. This is given many names, characteristics, shapes, qualities, attributes, etc but there are also so many different versions of what these are, I cannot see any advantage in spending a lot of my declining years (!!) studying them.
quote:
I expect you are familiar with some of the well touted proposed proofs of God.
No, I'm afraid not! It's only in recent years, since acquiring a computer and access to the internet, that I have read more in the way of discussions on the subject.
quote:
Of course none are scientific proofs, ...
Nor can they ever be!
quote:
any more than that there is a scientific proof that only scientific proofs can establish truth.
That may be an exercise in logic, but something of a bar to progress if applied in practice, I think!
quote:
PS Ernesto the Anteater is doing well. Petty the shipmeets appear to be in abeyance.
Delighted to hear it! And yes, I agree. Perhaps something can be arranged at Christmas.
quote:
As a matter of sheer interest, ... ... how fooled are screen readers by spelling bloops?
They follow the rules of spelling and read what's there! If it's not obvious from the context, I can slow down the speed and greatly increase the magnification and have a peer at it! With the sentence you wrote, it was enough to slow the speed.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
@ SusanDoris quote:
Yes of course, but as I have seen pointed out clearly by many sceptical posters (other forums), atheism is a lack of belief in God/god/s...... and that's it. No ideologies, no belief systems, no dogmas etc.
There is potentially a non sequitur in there, and it's defined by the 'ism'. The moment atheists get collectivised with an 'ism' is the moment that ideologies, belief systems, and dogmas enter the picture.
And in reality they enter the picture anyway because atheists are not all the same, each is an individual, and while some may make a fuss about a pedantic and precise meaning of 'atheist' individuals frequently break the rules; rather like 'theists' actually.
In my experience the reasons atheists give for not believing in God/gods are often the ones I and other theists share, except that the 'God' I trust is not the 'God' they have decided doesn't 'exist' (but then I don't think that 'God' exists either).
To me, the absolute freedom to believe what ever we choose, including not to believe at all is very important. Not believing in something for which there is no definitive evidence either way is a belief in itself, and a perfectly legitimate one.
Belief in God, let alone trust in God, is not dependant on 'evidence'. I t is certainly not an empirical exercise, and although intellect is clearly a factor it probably isn't decisive.
The most uneducated, 'thick as two short planks' person may be freer to recognise God than the sophisticated intellectual, and that is as it should be---we're all alive in this existence for a little while, and if we're around long enough we all make choices about what we understand to be the things that really matter, and how we are going to act because of them.
Whether we pin the label 'God' over them or not probably doesn't matter too much, especially if we have chosen wisely, but it does no harm to keep being willing to learn and grow, and maybe encounter what we have never allowed for; or to have the humility to cry out into the darkness because it remains a possibility that someone really is listening.
[ 04. June 2011, 19:52: Message edited by: Alisdair ]
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Then how is it possible for you to provide such a proof for God?
Because metaphysics is about the principles of being, and the "God" we are talking about here is posited as the fundamental Principle of Being. Metaphysics is not about invisibility, pinkness, or unicorn-ness, therefore it will not tell you anything about invisible pink unicorns.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I still agree with the post in general terms!
Yorick was demonstrably spouting nonsense. Beats me why you are still trying to support that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Then how is it possible for you to provide such a proof for God?
Because metaphysics is about the principles of being, and the "God" we are talking about here is posited as the fundamental Principle of Being. Metaphysics is not about invisibility, pinkness, or unicorn-ness, therefore it will not tell you anything about invisible pink unicorns.
Right!
And it doesn't tell you much about Jahweh, Bible-God or Wafer-God either! The only God to which Metaphysics can point is some sort of Deistic or Panthiestic "fundamental principle of Being", not the trinitarian God of Christianity.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
What I don't understand is that clearly Jesus believed in a personal, very concerned and actively involved God - one he called "Abba."
quote:
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
That's from Matthew.
The question, then, is: how can anybody who finds that kind of God ridiculous, or an instance of "magical thinking" - how can somebody like that find it reasonable to "follow Jesus"?
I mean, I often doubt the existence of this kind of God myself - but at the end of the day, if I'm going to be a "Jesus follower," I kind of have to buy it. It was, from all indications, completely central to his own life and thinking. I think I sort of have to buy it, at some level, if I buy the rest of the story.
So I do, not always comprehending, I admit....
[ 04. June 2011, 23:53: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Jesus was a product of his culture, and bound, to a greater or lesser extent, by the ideas and understandings of that culture. Of course, he challenged and developed them, but he couldn't entirely see beyond them. What's interesting, and appealing to me, is the general direction of that challenge - away from the rule-bound, heirarchical, God-appeasing religion of priestcraft, and towards the practical, liberating religion of simplicity, sharing and social conscience.
For what it is worth, I think it is possible to interpret that sense of closeness ans intimacy with God in a very deistic / pantheistic way. I certainly feel much closer to God, much more aware of God's being and presence, now, than I ever did when I stuck to the trinitarian model (because I can understand the Deistic / Pantheistic god as actually existing, whereas the trinitarian God was always just a character in a story for me).
It is harder for the concept of "God's will", to be read in that way. Jesus' idea of God as it is recorded in the gospels was clearly a personal, active, conscious, willful, mono-theistic God. Still, when I a faced in my life with "not my will, but thine" situtations, I tend to think of the "thine" in terms of what is ethically right (what God's "natural law" for humans as highly inter-dependent social animals requires) or what is unavoidable (what God's "law of nature" makes so, regardless of any human will). So even in my Gethsemene moments the Deist / Pantheist idea just makes more sense to me.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
But that brings us closer than I had previously assumed: It appears you would attribute a higher explanatory power of ontology to Christian Scripture than to pink unicorns. Would that be something to establish further debate on?
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Right! And it doesn't tell you much about Jahweh, Bible-God or Wafer-God either! The only God to which Metaphysics can point is some sort of Deistic or Panthiestic "fundamental principle of Being", not the trinitarian God of Christianity.
Insofar as the Christian God is identifiable with the "Principle of Being", metaphysics can prove Him to exist. Insofar as not, not - though this does not mean that metaphysics necessarily rejects other aspects. It merely may not apply to them. So if somebody really wanted to believe that an invisible pink unicorn is the First Cause, or omniscient, etc. - then as far as those claims goes, metaphysics would show that such a Being exists.
However, metaphysics and for that matter logic can constrain further claims about God, even where it cannot prove them. For example, Trinitarian dogma which you love so much is in its worked out (Western) form essentially a construct that allows one to say several apparently contradictory things about God without in fact running into metaphysical and logical contradictions. The construct cannot be proven, because it is based on external ("revealed") truths, but it can be shown to hold up.
It is at this point where the invisible pink unicorn belief collapses, even if somebody believes it to be the First Cause and whatnot. Because one can ask whether it is possible for something to both be essentially invisible and essentially pink, since metaphysics can show that there are no accidents in God. The answer is no. One can ask whether it makes sense to identify God with a unicorn, and metaphysics will reject this because God cannot be a species of any genus. Of course, the believer could still claim that there is some analogical or metaphorical meaning to this word. That may well work, but the believer then would have to agree that God is not really a unicorn in the sense of being a horse-like being with one horn on the forehead.
Finally, all these concerns are basically Christian. Of course, people have made some philosophical proofs of God before Christianity. Of course, other religions have philosophical systems that are worked out to a lesser or greater degree. But nowhere else do we find this heavy metaphysical emphasis, with many dozen if not hundreds of proofs and millennia of dedicated effort to secure all aspects of its faith against metaphysical and logical attack. Culturally speaking, Christianity truly is the lovechild of the Jews and the Greeks. Spiritually speaking, Christianity is truly the religion of the Logos. It is objectively unique in this regard, whether you believe that that is due to historical circumstance or Divine intervention.
In consequence, most metaphysical and logical attacks on Christianity nowadays are based on the ignorance and inability of the attacker. Not that I believe that all this is done and dusted, but it has long passed the stage where some amateur can topple it all with a snide comment or two.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...God cannot be a species of any genus.
Right!
(That includes homo sapiens).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
@ SusanDoris quote:
Yes of course, but as I have seen pointed out clearly by many sceptical posters (other forums), atheism is a lack of belief in God/god/s...... and that's it. No ideologies, no belief systems, no dogmas etc.
There is potentially a non sequitur in there, and it's defined by the 'ism'. The moment atheists get collectivised with an 'ism' is the moment that ideologies, belief systems, and dogmas enter the picture.
You are probably right! But for me it's very simple - no God/god/s. Full stop.
quote:
In my experience the reasons atheists give for not believing in God/gods are often the ones I and other theists share, except that the 'God' I trust is not the 'God' they have decided doesn't 'exist'...
How do you know it is 'not the God they have decided not to believe in?! I do not feel that I have to have a reason for not believing in God/god/s !
quote:
To me, the absolute freedom to believe what ever we choose, including not to believe at all is very important.
Agreed, and for me that most decidedly includes not indoctrinating children into believing there is. Teach about, i.e. history, yes; indoctrination, no. Otherwise, how will they have the freedom to choose?
quote:
Not believing in something for which there is no definitive evidence either way is a belief in itself, and a perfectly legitimate one.
If I was a computer whizz, I'd have a nice, neat filing system, where I'd have a set of responses to that ... but I haven't!
quote:
Belief in God, let alone trust in God, is not dependant on 'evidence'.
As evidenced by the huge number of people who do so believe!
quote:
The most uneducated, 'thick as two short planks' person may be freer to recognise God than the sophisticated intellectual,
Are you implying more gullible? More easily persuaded? That would be manipulation, wouldn't it? However, I don't suppose you implied this.
quote:
...or to have the humility to cry out into the darkness because it remains a possibility that someone really is listening.
Why would one need humility? That sounds as if you already assume that whatever you cry out to is a power? As for it remaining a possibility, I'd say that that was so minute that I'd discount it. If I needed to cry out for help, rather than sorting out things in my head, I would go to a fellow human being.
Interesting post. Thank you!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
But that brings us closer than I had previously assumed: It appears you would attribute a higher explanatory power of ontology to Christian Scripture than to pink unicorns. Would that be something to establish further debate on?
Err, possibly, but you are going to have to clarify, because I'm struggling to see exactly what you meam here.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...God cannot be a species of any genus.
Right!
(That includes homo sapiens).
Actually, this is made perfectly OK by Chalcedon; the second person of the Trinity is both "fully man and fully God" - i.e., not a "species of any genus"!
The Christian God is beyond classification by this system, IOW.
Just as an aside: I write a little music blog, and was putting together a post on music for Trinity Sunday. I was surprised to find that there are lots of very famous hymns, anthems, and other music dedicated to the Trinity! I didn't really expect this, because it's a bit of a strange thought: how could really interesting or important music be dedicated to a theological abstraction? But there it is: "Holy, Holy, Holy," the Te Deum, the Gloria Patri (said or sung throughout the Hours), and quite a number of others - including the first hymn for which we have a musical score: the Oxyrhynchus hymn, from the end of the 3rd Century, they think. Here's a translation:
quote:
.. Let it be silent
Let the Luminous stars not shine,
Let the winds (?) and all the noisy rivers die down;
And as we hymn the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Let all the powers add "Amen Amen"
Empire, praise always, and glory to God,
The sole giver of good things, Amen Amen.
Here's a recording of it.
So, somehow, this Trinity idea has been remarkably sticky for a surprisingly long time. I personally think it's a sort of Christian koan - a means of "letting go" of ideas about God precisely by confounding reason.
[ 05. June 2011, 11:34: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
@SusanDoris, 11:11
quote:
To me, the absolute freedom to believe what ever we choose, including not to believe at all is very important.
Agreed, and for me that most decidedly includes not indoctrinating children into believing there is. Teach about, i.e. history, yes; indoctrination, no. Otherwise, how will they have the freedom to choose?
This always makes me wonder: my example is your indoctrination, and equally so the other way round. No one grows up/lives in a vacuum, but in my experience most of us, of what ever age, are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves (rightly and wrongly), what is bullshit or mere oppression. Having said that I guess we would stand together against those who wilfully set out to bully others into believing and acting through fear.
All I can say in my defence is that such faith as I have certainly did not come through anyone imposing their ideas on me, quite the reverse in fact. But this is always an easy way out for anyone who wants to dismiss others: they were obviously indoctrinated as children or too weak to stand up to the reality of life, therefore their point of view is of no value. That may be true, but it may not---it's not a given.
quote:
The most uneducated, 'thick as two short planks' person may be freer to recognise God than the sophisticated intellectual,
Are you implying more gullible? More easily persuaded? That would be manipulation, wouldn't it? However, I don't suppose you implied this.
In Christian history one of the reasons the 'Gnostic heresy' was denounced as a heresy was because it required secret knowledge only accessible to the initiated. If 'God' truly is, then why should such a one who is worthy of that name be accessible only to those who we perceive as being 'bright'. Some of the most intelligent people I have met have also been the stupidest when it comes to living loving and constructive lives; whereas some of the least educated and least able in the eyes of society, repeatedly show themselves able to live `good lives' that bring joy and hope to others (belief in God not being a prerequisite for this, just in case you are wondering). Wisdom and intelligence are not the same.
quote:
Why would one need humility
Simply because without humility why would anyone dream of crying out to someone/something for which they have no definitive evidence of their presence and risk making themselves look foolish (at least in their own eyes if no one else's), and/or risk disappointment. Humility pre-supposes a willingness to know that we are not the centre of the universe, and that there may be more going on than we either know or understand. Humility may also imply hope.
As for `possibility': how could we possibly calculate the odds for `God'? And the `help' in this context is for something beyond human help, we are all in the same boat, surely? People who are drowning cannot help each other.
In my life so far I have met atheists for whom I have far more respect (and who from my point of view are far closer to `God'), than others I have met who say they believe in God. What we say, and how we say it, doesn't necessarily conform to what we actually do.
Perhaps you'll say, "So, why the need for God?". All I can say is I just can't help thinking we're still being born, i.e. we're learning (or not), how to live and how to love, and still very much in the ante-room of life. But I could be wrong. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...God cannot be a species of any genus.
Right!
(That includes homo sapiens).
Actually, this is made perfectly OK by Chalcedon; the second person of the Trinity is both "fully man and fully God" - i.e., not a "species of any genus"!
So Jesus wasn't homo sapiens?
Now I've heard it all. I'm sorry. You people are certifiably batshit crazy. There's just no other way of looking at it. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Right! (That includes homo sapiens).
Certainly. If you are referring to the Incarnation, that's about one Person having two unadulterated natures (plural), not about somehow identifying Divine and human nature. The Divine Person of the Son assumed a human nature (which otherwise would have had its own personality). Your nature makes your activities human, your body associates your human activities with a particular individual and your person exercises your human individual acts in the world and to others. If you shake Christ's hands, then you shake God's hands in the sense that this human individual activity is exercised Divinely. It does not follow for example that God as God has hands. Hence no conflict with metaphysical statements about the nature of God ensues due to the Incarnation.
There is perhaps an analogy to be had with heterogeneous computing, where one program in say OpenCL can have part of its activity run on a CPU and part on a GPU, but integrates these two to achieve its aims. One software running on two hardware architectures...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
IngoB, it's just a babble of white noise. You cannot get through my bullshit filters. Again, I'm sorry; don't take it personally, but nothing you say on this theme makes any sense at all to me. We might as well be on different planets and speaking different languages.
Molopata, I'm interested in picking up your point above - that might still be a fruitful line of enquiry, if we can untangle it.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is perhaps an analogy to be had with heterogeneous computing, where one program in say OpenCL can have part of its activity run on a CPU and part on a GPU, but integrates these two to achieve its aims. One software running on two hardware architectures...
What about the analogy to light (or all matter) i.e. wave and particle in one packet?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
QUOTE]Originally posted by Twangist:
As a music educator I would say that the method and tradition you were trained in were far more significant than genetics. Most musicians trained exclusively in the western classical tradition have real difficulties when it comes to improvisation and playing by ear because the teaching method, and the underlying ethos behind it, elevate the text of the score over any form of spontaneous creativity - it's almost a form of fundamentalism. Consequently you probably never had the chance to develop skills which were latent.[/QUOTE]
That's very interesting; I didn't know that! (Or if we have had this conversation before, I've forgotten!)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. Both are true. Any analysis that doesn't acknowledge both are true is incomplete. Reductionist scientific views/explanations of human behavior too often (not always of course) can't see the software for the hardware (so to speak)
Don't you think it might be useful and interesting sometimes to be able to separate the two and consider them separately, since one is concrete and the other abstract?
quote:
There was a name for the piggybacking of meaning on signal when I was in grad school but now I can't remember what it was. The point was that you could describe (for instance) an electromagnetic wave pattern thoroughly and completely from a physical point of view, but still miss out the fact that it was a recording of a symphony orchestra. Mere analysis of the physical isn't always enough.
Perhaps such separation might vastly increase the appreciation of the music?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So Jesus wasn't homo sapiens?
Now I've heard it all. I'm sorry. You people are certifiably batshit crazy. There's just no other way of looking at it.
Actually, that's an interesting question; Jesus had to take on human nature fully in the Incarnation, in order to redeem it. But of course, he was also fully God at the same time - so was he in totality homo sapiens, or homo something else? Certainly he must have been different than any other human being in some way - "homo sapiens" refers to specific characteristics, after all, including psychic (if I can use that designation here) ones.
Anyway, Ingo said that "God cannot be a species of any genus"; he didn't refer to Jesus - that's something you brought in yourself. And I wasn't talking about "Jesus," either - but about "the second person of the Trinity," the Son. Christians don't worship Jesus as a man, of course - that's blasphemy - but as part of the Godhead. In the Incarnation, he "emptied himself" of divine power and glory to take on the form of a human being.
That's the really interesting part of the story, to me. I wouldn't be bothered with this at all if it weren't for that, in fact.....
[ 05. June 2011, 15:12: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
P.S.: Misrepresenting what people say - and then declaring them to be "certifiably batshit crazy," or telling them that "nothing gets through my bullshit filters" - well, this is not actually regarded as "debate" or "discussion."
You seem to demand that people speak to you on your own terms only - and you don't seem to have enough respect for others to even attempt to understand what's actually being said. If that's the best we're going to get, then perhaps the language barrier is just way too high. It would be nice, though, if you'd accord others even the smallest benefit of the doubt.
Otherwise, this is all just a huge waste of time. It may be, anyway - but I do usually enjoy talking about ideas. It just seems wiser to cut my losses, though, if there's not much in the way of that actually happening, which there really isn't at this point.
[ 05. June 2011, 15:26: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
IngoB, it's just a babble of white noise. You cannot get through my bullshit filters. Again, I'm sorry; don't take it personally, but nothing you say on this theme makes any sense at all to me. We might as well be on different planets and speaking different languages.
That's fine RadicalWhig. If we were just talking to each other, I would have given up a long, long time ago. But in fact, all this is being read by many and responded to by some, not just you. Around here I hence talk with people, but to the crowd. So I'll quite happily continue to take apart your faulty arguments, no matter whether you get it. Anyway, thanks for your concern.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Certainly he must have been different than any other human being in some way - "homo sapiens" refers to specific characteristics, after all, including psychic (if I can use that designation here) ones.
Well, all humans differ from each other, and in that sense certainly Christ differed from all of us. In the sense however that you and me are "the same", Christ was also "the same" as us. The difference was in Divine personhood not in the human nature and body of Christ. You exercise your humanity humanly, Christ exercised His humanity Divinely. I gave an analogy here in terms of a human "taking on" dog nature.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
P.S.: Misrepresenting what people say - and then declaring them to be "certifiably batshit crazy," or telling them that "nothing gets through my bullshit filters" - well, this is not actually regarded as "debate" or "discussion."
You seem to demand that people speak to you on your own terms only - and you don't seem to have enough respect for others to even attempt to understand what's actually being said.
Actually, I'm trying very hard indeed to understand, and make sense of, what people are saying; but none of it does make sense.
That's what I said to IngoB - we might as well be speaking different languages. Either you are all insane, or you are speaking in some sort of code.
Ok, I'll try again, a different way.
"I fimble in rahyts. Sometimes, rahyts, which are iksle varient watti, ectina in my iwwqo. Why? It's all very logical. Therajubs wightwu in Avila. There? Do you understand now? Or is it werstol in yettuville? Why are you being so arrogant and dismissive? You will not get very far with that attitude. It's probably because quattik did a ouila in githana. But you wouldn't care about THAT, would you? Still, if I wouldn't bother at all if it wasn't for the rahyts's watti wightwu. I mean, why bother? There, are you convinced now, or are you going to carry on being an arse about it?"
That's what I hear.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, all humans differ from each other, and in that sense certainly Christ differed from all of us. In the sense however that you and me are "the same", Christ was also "the same" as us. The difference was in Divine personhood not in the human nature and body of Christ. You exercise your humanity humanly, Christ exercised His humanity Divinely. I gave an analogy here in terms of a human "taking on" dog nature.
And that's a nice analogy, too!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Actually, I'm trying very hard indeed to understand, and make sense of, what people are saying; but none of it does make sense.
That's what I said to IngoB - we might as well be speaking different languages. Either you are all insane, or you are speaking in some sort of code.
Ok, I'll try again, a different way.
"I fimble in rahyts. Sometimes, rahyts, which are iksle varient watti, ectina in my iwwqo. Why? It's all very logical. Therajubs wightwu in Avila. There? Do you understand now? Or is it werstol in yettuville? Why are you being so arrogant and dismissive? You will not get very far with that attitude. It's probably because quattik did a ouila in githana. But you wouldn't care about THAT, would you? Still, if I wouldn't bother at all if it wasn't for the rahyts's watti wightwu. I mean, why bother? There, are you convinced now, or are you going to carry on being an arse about it?"
That's what I hear.
Then you have 3 choices.
1) Attempt to learn our secret code and handshake.
2) Stick around and do your damnedest to cure us of our insanity through your novel use of shock therapy - AKA insults.
3) Leave.
[ 05. June 2011, 20:24: Message edited by: Squibs ]
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:(3) Believing in God is not about "accepting some things by faith and working from there" - because it would be possible, on faith, to start from any assumption, no matter how absurd and unsubstantiated - and we are back to invisible pink unicorns; rather, it is about "accepting nature as we find it, and working from there".
I'd like to pick up on this point in particular. How do we "accept nature as we find it"?
ISTM that we don't have any uninterpreted access to nature. If we just "accept it as we find it", then we're just accepting it without examining the assumptions and presuppositions we bring to it.
In other words, you're "accepting on faith and working from there" that it's even possible to simply "accept nature as we find it".
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I thought on the weekend about how a thread about 'the rationality of Deism' has mostly been about the alleged irrationality of Theism.
So I thought about Deism for a while.
And it actually made a lot LESS sense than Theism.
The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that Deism basically is the God you have when you decide that you want to believe in a God but define God in such a way that the absence or ambiguity of evidence for God is no longer a problem. You define God in such a way that evidence of God simply is impossible.
Frankly, that seems considerably less rational than either atheism or theism. Both atheism and theism can look at evidence and argue about how it should be interpreted. But Deism creates a God who is totally immune to either proof or disproof, and simply ignores the interpretation of events as irrelevant. Nothing can be used to demonstrate God's action in the world, and at the same time the lack of God's action cannot be used to disprove God's existence.
It's well and truly on a level with invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.
At least a theistic God has the guts to be capable of disproof.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:(3) Believing in God is not about "accepting some things by faith and working from there" - because it would be possible, on faith, to start from any assumption, no matter how absurd and unsubstantiated - and we are back to invisible pink unicorns; rather, it is about "accepting nature as we find it, and working from there".
I'd like to pick up on this point in particular. How do we "accept nature as we find it"?
ISTM that we don't have any uninterpreted access to nature. If we just "accept it as we find it", then we're just accepting it without examining the assumptions and presuppositions we bring to it.
In other words, you're "accepting on faith and working from there" that it's even possible to simply "accept nature as we find it".
Good question.
Of course we have to probe into the nature of existence. I can see that this table is made of wood. But I cannot see the sub-atomic particles which go to make up the wood: I would never have known that, had others not found it out, and had I not had confidence in their ways. The point I'm trying to make is that "accepting nature as we find it" is not the same as "accepting nature at first glance" - it is an on-going process, and not everyone can be part of that process. Yet, at the same time, there is a existance physical reality to be explored, and that is nature. Maybe "nature as we unfold it" would be a better turn of phrase.
But, little particles or not, I know the table is here. It is supporting the weight of this laptop. It is providing a lovely perch for my mug of tea. The knowledge that I have of the table is empirical. Likewise, for non-objects, (gravity, sound, magnetism etc) we can detect the effect.
There is a real universe that exists. We don't know everything about it. Perhaps we don't really know every much about it. But we do know something about it.
Now the key word, it seems to me, is "uninterupted". Suppose I live in a place and time where the changing of the seasons is believed to be due to a fight between sun gods and snow goddesses. What will I know about nature? Will I know that every year the sun gods and the snow goddesses fight, with alternating outcomes? If there is an unusually mild winter, will I say that the sun gods are extending their domain? Perhaps. But, if so, I'm not actually taking nature as I unfold it. I'm not really unfolding at all. Just making up stories.
It seems to me that the supernaturalist claims of the trinitarian God are unsupported, and in some places flatly contradicted, by what we do know about nature. Therefore such claims (e.g talking snakes, rib-woman, water-into-wine, virgin birth, resurrection, magic biscuits) are shown to be false, and those who believe them are deluded.
(I should mention, btw, that your blog is very interesting and I enjoy reading it).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that Deism basically is the God you have when you decide that you want to believe in a God but define God in such a way that the absence or ambiguity of evidence for God is no longer a problem. You define God in such a way that evidence of God simply is impossible.
Not necessarily strictly true, although I admit it depends on what version of deism we are talking about.
I think that there is evidence for a (pan)deistic God, and that evidence is Existence, nature itself: split a piece of wood, lift up a stone, and there is the omnipresent God-Nature, in which we live and move and have our being; the Alpha and Omega, whose law is written (so to speak) on our hearts.
Admittedly, that's a long way from the theistic concept of God.
quote:
Both atheism and theism can look at evidence and argue about how it should be interpreted.But Deism creates a God who is totally immune to either proof or disproof, and simply ignores the interpretation of events as irrelevant.
Not sure what you mean by "irrelevant" there. But it seems to me that the (pan)deistic god is rightly immune to disproof (because Nature manifestly exists), but not immune to proof (because Nature manifestly exists).
quote:
Nothing can be used to demonstrate God's action in the world, and at the same time the lack of God's action cannot be used to disprove God's existence.
Err, try boiling a kettle. You'll see lots of God's action in the world. Or planting a tree. Or stroking a cat. Or eating. Or farting. Or making sparks with a flint. Or observing the clouds. Plenty of real (pan)deist God-action to be seen.
quote:
It's well and truly on a level with invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.
No, because there are specific claims made for those gods which are unrelated to, and unsupported by, the natural universe. Show me the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Where is his noodly appendage? Where is the stripper factory and the beer volcano? What evidence - other than the "Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which offers no corroberating evidence - is there that these claims are true? None. But what evidence is there that (pan)deist claims are true? Well, you are reading with it, and thinking with it, and sitting on it, and eating it, and breathing it - NATURE, life itself!
quote:
At least a theistic God has the guts to be capable of disproof.
True. Or would have, if not disproven.
[ 06. June 2011, 01:34: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Okay, so explain this to me: if God was capable of creating Nature, why did God suddenly stop creating?
To have a God who was capable of setting everything going, but who either does not or cannot make any adjustments thereafter, simply strikes me as bizarre.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
As I said earlier in the thread, a classic Deist position was that God "Created" (FLASH!) and then "stopped creating", and sat back to watch in the sure and certain hope that all would work out ok in the end. That's the sort of Tom Paine, 18th century Deism - an early response to the realisation that nature seemed predictable and blindly mechanistic; post-Newton, but pre-Darwin and pre-Einstein. There is still, inherited from theism, the idea of God as a "Supreme Being" who stands outside of the Nature "he" has created.
A modern deist position would go further towards abolishing the God-Nature dualism; God is not a "Supreme Being", but "Being-as-such"; not the external, one-time "Creator of Nature", but the on-going eternal "Natural Creator". In this view, God-Nature is creating and adjusting all the time.
The real problem with the deist position is the problem of evil. It has no stories about rebelling angels or magic fruit to get around this one. The best it can do is to say that God-Nature has enabled us to evolve on this planet, in these conditions, and has given us reason and conscience to make the best of it while we can. But, on the other hand, "consider the lillies" - we are all just products of God-Nature, and even the hairs on our head are numbered, so we have to get on with it.
Compared to theistic religions, Deism is also a bit thin on ethics. One take would be so say that if we live "according to nature" (and I'm using the term in its Stoic sense here) then we can live well and flourish, and have a harmonious and good life as human beings within the social framework of humanity and the natural ecosystem of the planet; if we don't live according to nature, then it harms us, society and the planet. How we work that out, in practical terms, is again down to reason and conscience, acting in part through social convention. Personally, I think Jesus got alot right, but we can learn from other great teachers too.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
A modern deist position would go further towards abolishing the God-Nature dualism; God is not a "Supreme Being", but "Being-as-such"; not the external, one-time "Creator of Nature", but the on-going eternal "Natural Creator". In this view, God-Nature is creating and adjusting all the time.
Except that definition of 'god' turns the word on its head. It has a very Alice-in-Wonderland feel to it.
It's nature. I have no problem with elevating the natural world to a marvellous, wondrous thing, but call it by its name.
Also, I think you are doing even worse things to the word 'deism'. What you are describing comes across as pantheism, not pandeism.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The real problem with the deist position is the problem of evil.
Yes, that's why I asked you long ago on the thread where you stood. The explanation you gave has not a shred of rationality that I can see. If you are a rationalist you have to answer this question with a yes or no, not a rambling off-topic analogy like "lilies of the field." If God is everything there is in Nature, then God is evil because evil is in Nature. I asked the same of Marcus Borg in a public forum and he simply refused to answer. He said that "panentheism" says that God is "everything and more." So I said, "that has to include evil." He first said, "you wouldn't say that if you were from the East." I said, "Yes, but I'm from the West, so I ask the question. Are you saying that I have to somehow make myself into an Eastern person at the age of 50? Or that I just have to accept that I am permanently flawed by having come from the West, which has an inherent flaw in its view of Good and Evil and nothing can be done about it?" He said, "Look, did I ever claim that I solved the Problem of Evil? That one will never be solved." I said, "I'm not trying to say you made a false claim that you are the first to ever have solved the Problem of Evil. You've said that your view of God is that God is everything and more, so it seems that you have to be saying that God is Evil as well as Good." He said, "Look, we all just have to realize that bad things happen in life." He pointed to the next person and asked them to state their question and I said, "I didn't ask if bad things happen in life I asked if panentheism implies that God is Evil and God at the same time." He pretended not to hear and took the next question. After the question and answer, I was approached by several very kind people who stroked my back and said that I really ought to read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People."
But there is a second problem with your brand of Deism.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
"God is a Unifying Principal in-and-through Nature"
I submit that this as meaningless to anyone who does not already believe it or think in those terms as "God is a unity of a Creating Personage, Human Personage, and Spiritual Personage in one substance." Again, I recall a talk given by Marcus Borg saying to an evangelical professor, "I don't believe in the Trinity because it has no intellectual content. You can't have three persons in one substance; it makes no sense to anyone." The retort was, "And your description of Jesus as a 'spirit person' is equally devoid of intellectual content to anyone else. What does it mean? Aren't we all 'spirit persons?' What is special about his spirit person-ness? Who can even tell what you are talking about?" Borg said, "Can we agree that 'Jesus is Lord?"
What in Nature needs to be "Unified?" Are there any other kind of Principles in Nature other than "Unifying Principles?" What is the phrase "in-and-through" supposed to add to the rational mind trying to understand what you are saying "we all know about God?"
I'd like to be more on your side, but I have to admit that your definition of God is as much "all phyins are greps, of course" as the Trinity is jabberwocky to you.
Just keepin' it real bro.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I must say that I don't see what's so difficult about the idea of the Trinity.
It's simply a "best-fit" line, given the evidence of history and prior revelation. We're not really supposed to grasp it rationally, as far as I can tell; it's God we're talking about here, after all. God is, by definition, much larger than we are, and so something we can't "investigate" by whatever means we happen to have at hand. It's like the question of what there was "before" the Big Bang; we can't know, and won't ever know. We don't have the tools or the language. (Who was it that said "a God that I can understand cannot be God"? I can't remember.)
And in fact, to me the idea that God gave up his power and "humbled himself" to live the life and death of a human being on earth - well, that is an amazing, fantastic, wonderful thing, and in fact it's a theology that really goes someplace. It's got legs, and powerful ones.
And that would be enough, at least for me. But the truth is, there's really no other way to view the story, really; you can't do anything much else with the facts that we have. Perhaps it's only an approximation; perhaps there's really a "Quaternity," and we're missing somebody.
But again, the story is very sticky. All sorts of people have visions of or about Jesus - non-Christians for sure, and atheists, too, for all I know. Albert Einstein said that although he was a Jew, he was "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene" - in the Saturday Evening Post, yet!
People continue to go to church, even against their own wishes at times; we just can't give up the idea. Frankly, I never asked to be - and often enough I don't want to be - a part of such a ridiculous institution, either. But I guess I'm stuck.
Did Christianity take a wrong turn someplace? Well, if it did, it took a really interesting and productive one - and I think I want to see what's around the next corner, that's all....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Hmmm. Perhaps it was Meister Eckhart:
quote:
God is nameless, for no man can either say or understand aught about Him. If I say, God is good, it is not true; nay more; I am good, God is not good. I may even say, I am better than God; for whatever is good, may become better, and whatever may become better, may become best. Now God is not good, for He cannot become better. And if He cannot become better, He cannot become best, for these three things, good, better, and best, are far from God, since He is above all. If I also say, God is wise, it is not true; I am wiser than He. If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness. Concerning this St Augustine says: the best thing that man can say about God is to be able to be silent about Him, from the wisdom of his inner judgement. Therefore be silent and prate not about God, for whenever thou dost prate about God, thou liest, and committest sin. If thou wilt be without sin, prate not about God. Thou canst understand nought about God, for He is above all understanding. A master saith: If I had a God whom I could understand, I would never hold Him to be God.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I must say that I don't see what's so difficult about the idea of the Trinity.
<snip>
We're not really supposed to grasp it rationally, as far as I can tell; it's God we're talking about here, after all.
I think that the second sentence above is the answer to the first sentence. The first sentence says that the idea of the Trinity is not difficult, yet the second sentence implies that the idea of the Trinity is impossible to grasp rationally. So what you are saying is, "It's not a difficult idea, just impossible to understand rationally. That's a big deal? Get rid of rationality and you'll understand it just fine."
I'm getting more comfortable with what you're saying, but I'm not sure you know what it is like to be a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology. "Just abandon rationality and it will all make sense" is, well, "scientific blasphemy." It feels so way wrong that it's hard to describe.
So I can understand how different systematic theologians feel a need to construct some kind of rational system for at least describing it and I must confess that I've ranted along the way that my humanist kinds of pseudo-theological conceptions are ever so much more rational than anyone else's. I now enjoy debate on "rationality" of religious beliefs more as a spectator sport.
So I'll just get out of the way and let the more systematic theologians go at each other to the cheers and boos of the crowd!
Tuba, the Eckhart quote is a gem that I'd never heard. Thank you for it!
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I must say that I don't see what's so difficult about the idea of the Trinity.
<snip>
We're not really supposed to grasp it rationally, as far as I can tell; it's God we're talking about here, after all.
I think that the second sentence above is the answer to the first sentence. The first sentence says that the idea of the Trinity is not difficult, yet the second sentence implies that the idea of the Trinity is impossible to grasp rationally. So what you are saying is, "It's not a difficult idea, just impossible to understand rationally. That's a big deal? Get rid of rationality and you'll understand it just fine."
Yes, you are right, JimT - that was a badly-written post. I'll try again later to say what it is I'm trying to say - which is something more along the lines of, "Yes, we can talk about God; we can explain why it's reasonable/rational to believe in God; we can discuss what we think our beliefs - or our understanding of revelation - say about God. We can do all that, without a doubt. But at the end of it, we won't have a complete understanding; we can't. We're only human. God is and must be more than we can fully grasp."
See what I mean? You're right that this is not what appeared in the textbox, though! Let me try again soon.
(I love the Meister E. quote, too!)
[ 06. June 2011, 18:28: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I'm also, I think, feeling my way around tying in "revelation" - the story of Jesus and how it came to be understood - with the idea of "If I had a God whom I could understand, I would never hold Him to be God."
What I'm saying, really, is that faith in the Trinity is reasonable - even though at the end it's not possible to grasp it via ordinary human rational processes. What we have, instead, is step-step-step-step, all leading up to a final LEAP - and that final gap almost has to be there, doesn't it?
IOW, if we had a God we could understand (fully), would we hold Him to be God? There almost has to be a point at which incomprehension kicks in, doesn't there? (I have to say that this seems like something a Ship'th Mythtic might appreciate!)
Anyway, that's the idea....)
[ 06. June 2011, 18:41: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
