The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match! by Causal

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

So...does that mean you think I have a fragmented foundation my beliefs?

No. Unless, you know, you do...

Kidding, and what I think ain't important in such matters, actually.

Quote:

My point with the whole HK debacle (which threatens to overwhelm the thread) is that I just don't see any way around the statement "your God is a psychopath."

HK wrote:
Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.
Your characterization of how he actually phrased it seems defensive to me. 'Such a' and 'your' are very different IMO.

Quote:
Because IMHO, my response was fairly calm and measured, given what I had to work with.

Totally, C.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But I'm not ready to say that my beliefs are of an inferior category to scientific beliefs.

This is at the heart (I think) of the efforts to equate believers and non-believers - i.e. assuming each of their convictions as equally matters of faith. So many of the religious folks I've met seem to have an inferiority complex about their beliefs and I don't see why. They seem to think they can gain credibility if they can equate their beliefs to the assumptions of science.

A good friend of mine, a devout Catholic, shares my view that it's a mistake to characterize the decision in this way. His point is that the faith required for religious belief is an exalted, higher-order mental state. To compare it with the basic assumptions of the scientific mindset is to rob the concept of it's spiritual power and meaning.

Quote:
What I am curious about is what differentiates the sorts of acceptances that I hold (in spite of a lack of final proof) from the sorts of acceptances you hold (in spite of a lack of firm and final proof).

Mostly the motivation and power of the convictions. Naturalism, or science, asks the we accept logic and UP because they continue to hold up to scrutiny. When they no longer pass that test, science allows, even insists, that the assumptions be readdressed.

In religion, as I mentioned earlier, faith is the point. The mental, or spiritual, state provoked by such faith is the end goal and it's not really important how much proof or evidence support the object of the faith, or how much explanatory power a particular doctrine represents.

I haven't been religious since high school, so I'm not sure I'm representing the religious pov fairly. I've mostly gathered my understanding through discussions with religious friends and reading.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 8:00 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In my defense, I'm not the only one to whom that posted sounded angry--and I'm not sure that I would put Fred in the category of Believer!

If you did that would be one of those false beliefs that you don't want to have so you probably shouldn't.

Quote:
I've had enough experience with the disciples of Richard Dawkins et al to know that they are fighting dirty, and for keeps

In defense of the Dawkinites many of them are probably following Dawkins over from the evolution "debate" and in the evolution "debate" their opponents fight dirty and for keeps. It's only natural that they end up fighting back the same way and then get used to doing things in that manner.

Quote:
By the way, the interpretting according to your beliefs knife cuts both ways, you know. Someone predisposed to agree with HK's assessment might read it as wholly innocent and inoffensive

I agree with him for the most part (specifically the psychopath part) but I still felt he sounded angrier then was necessary. I do believe though that he wasn't angry and was actually simply trying to be confrontational which, i suppose, works to get his point across.

Quote:
Were the situation reversed, and religious believers in the majority, someone might make an attack on you using similar language about atheism.

In my experience atheism doesn't arouse nearly as much zeal as theism, in fact atheism seems to arouse more zeal in theists than atheists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm curious--what did you take as science bashing? I'm actually a big fan of science (though not in the same way or for the same reasons as many here). I'm actually a little sad that you perceived something as science bashing. What was it?

Well, maybe that was a strong statement. It's just that most (all?) of this science/religion discussion has focused on science and its weaknesses. "What is the REAL evidence of evolution? What was the big bang REALLY? How do you explain such and such, huh?

" etc etc. So it's been a whole lot of looking at where science is incomplete as if that could prove the existence of god. My point with my post up above (cosmology and all) was that the fallacies of science are just a natural part of the process. Trying to work out what happened billions of years ago and billions of light years away - of course things will be incomplete!

So, how about a break in bashing the weaknesses in scientific theory to look into the fallacies of religion? Science-bashing, religion-bashing, both fun and both necessary for a well-rounded debateisall.

Quote:
Also out of curiousity...
Quote:

The flip side: these public leaders who rally against gay rights and then we find out that they've been having gay affairs. Or high school students who are cast aside because they don't fit the norm, and they're unable to be themselves and the hate piles up until they lash out. It's a scary thing.

What do you take this to establish against religion? It seems that you take this to have some underlying significance, especially when you contrast it with an alternate view of spirituality. What do you take the significance of such things to be?

This was a little pseudo-tangent regarding human subconscious. (I tangentialize badly. Sorry!)

To better explain - I believe that a whole whole lot of evil done in this world is because people ignore their subconscious urges, and I believe religion can further this by labelling very natural things - such as attraction to the same gender - as evil and wrong. (Yes, I believe it is natural, but that's for a different thread, please!)

So, an upstanding kind of public figure may believe that his affair with a male prostitute is Evil (hmm, when did this happen?

) And he may form an idea of what gay love is based on his own guilty, shameful, *dirty* experiences. He may then work very hard on legislation to limit gay rights, and try to squash all those vile gays. He can base his argument on some words written in the Bible, but it is really coming from a battle with his own urges.

Which is not AT ALL to say religion is wrong, but that it can be misused in such a case. Science can surely be misused in a similar way, but here's the thing: I believe that religion lends itself to this kind of abuse so much more readily, because it is based in faith. Blind faith, without question, to an authority figure (who also happens to be pretty much a white male, and yes, this image of God has been held before me as a statement about power dynamic...)

Please don't see this as an attack! Relgious belief can be a beautiful thing. It can also be ugly, depending on the person welding it. It can discourage free self-discovery, shun those who behave outside some limiting norm, and - worst of all, I say - stop us from asking very important questions of ourselves and out world.

So, the connection there was this proposal: religion can be twisted into something that stomps on the human subconscious - and the human spirit - more easily than science. That is my opinionized hypothesis, of course, and I certainly don't mean to imply this of your personal religion!

As for HK's post, Chrisisall made the point that HK talks of "a" God. Not to be argumentative

I'm just saying - some folks seemed to automatically interpret that to mean their own particular God and then to apply as an attack on themselves. Yes, easy to do - but if someone says something degrading about atheism or whatever, if they say "mal4prez, you're a f***ing pyschopath because you're an atheist!" then maybe I take it personally. But if they say "I think *these* atheist beliefs are bordering on pyscholopathic, then I can look at their reasoning and respond to the theory.

Whew! So much for lurking!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 8:34 AM

mal4prez, you're a f***ing pyschopath because you're an atheist!

Nothing personal Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 8:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
mal4prez, you're a f***ing pyschopath because you're an atheist!

If only I could reach through the computer and deliver a little bitchslap...

arm... not... long... enough......

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 8:46 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Well, maybe that was a strong statement. It's just that most (all?) of this science/religion discussion has focused on science and its weaknesses. "What is the REAL evidence of evolution? What was the big bang REALLY? How do you explain such and such, huh? " etc etc. So it's been a whole lot of looking at where science is incomplete as if that could prove the existence of god. My point with my post up above (cosmology and all) was that the fallacies of science are just a natural part of the process. Trying to work out what happened billions of years ago and billions of light years away - of course things will be incomplete!

The simple reason for this is that there is no positive evidence (at least that I am aware of) for ID or creation, thus proponents of those views have to attack the existing views instead of promoting their own. Additionally it looks better in the public eye to have your side putting the other side on the defensive then to try weakly to shore up your own arguements.

Quote:
Which is not AT ALL to say religion is wrong, but that it can be misused in such a case. Science can surely be misused in a similar way, but here's the thing: I believe that religion lends itself to this kind of abuse so much more readily, because it is based in faith. Blind faith, without question, to an authority figure (who also happens to be pretty much a white male, and yes, this image of God has been held before me as a statement about power dynamic...)

This is the same argument that I used in a previous thread, many religions (particularly organized religions) lend themselves to abuse and, just like any other power structure, attract those who want to abuse power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Blind faith, without question, to an authority figure (who also happens to be pretty much a white male, and yes, this image of God has been held before me as a statement about power dynamic...)

Well, she's black, but let's not get into that....

Yeah, the whole 'His only son' thing is pretty tranparently patriarchal, and a true maker-of-all-things would be beyond being defined as one sex or the other, IMHO. There's where the whole Bible routine falls apart for me, looking beyond the writing, it's a primitive mess. Like if you had those peeps back then describe a rocket ship that landed, the wording would be strange "..a large silver-hued cylander with bursts of angry fire..." but the point would come across. The way the Bible goes, God approves of MEN IN CHARGE, and that's clearly primitive misogenistic thinking. Dated fantasy at best.

Sulu: screens and shields!

Waiting for it Chrisisall

Edit to add: Don't be offended anyone, remember, all's fair- call Buddhism retarded if you want, our beliefs should be stronger than a few big-mouthed morons....not that I AM one...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
or is that just my own talent for thread killing?

I seemed to have borrowed it..

Wanted for thread murder Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
or is that just my own talent for thread killing?
I seemed to have borrowed it..

Wanted for thread murder Chrisisall

They must be out gathering ropes and clubs to beat you with...

Me? I'm going to obey my subconscious urges and go have a burger and a guinness.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wanted for thread murder Chrisisall

Are you tag-teaming with Kaveman?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 12:39 PM

HKCAVALIER

Causal,

I did not simply say "God is a Psychopath" and I most certainly didn't say "Your God is a psychopath." That would indeed be disrespectful and hostile. You insist on taking my very unfavorable assessment of this idea of an "all-powerful God" as some kind of personal focused attack on you. You're fine with people disagreeing with that concept supposedly, but you object to how strongly I disagree with that concept?

I don't get it, you seem to crave a debate about the legitimacy of your concept of God, but when you come up against someone who has serious issues with that concept, you call foul.

I said:

Quote:
Looks to me like belief in such [an all-powerful] God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.

Here I list a series of psychological flaws and fallacious premises which I perceive to be inherent in modern monotheism, if not Western Culture as a whole. Do you believe these characteristics describe the God of your understanding? If not, there's a conversation to be had. Can you point to any of Almighty God's actions or prescriptions that speak against hierarchy, control and intolerance?

The hierarchical thing, the control thing, the denigration of the innocent and the ignorant (i.e.: children and the non-human species with whom we share the planet)--these are deadly serious problems we can see in the "big three" religions, in government, in the family system, in personal psychology. These problems are real.

I would say that the sayings of Jesus, for instance, can go a fair distance toward counteracting a lot of this stuff, but, at least in the way St. Paul and St. John (and thereby the Church and tradition) have interpreted His life, Jesus still gives lip service to the power and righteousness of the Authoritarian God. And I, for the reasons stated--not whimsically, not prejudicially--have a serious problem with that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Many, many people have contradicted my beliefs in this thread alone, and HK's was the only post that seemed hostile to me. I think that that is the combination of two things: an utter lack of respect for the things I believe (e.g. "God is a psychopath" seems to be pretty plainly a confrontational thing to say) and the attendant implication that anyone who believes the things I do is stupid, crazy, or evil--or some combination thereof. There's quite a good deal of ugliness of both sides of the God debate--and it's not just religious folk that can perpetrate wrongs. Thus I approach anyone who makes the kinds of comments that HK did very cautiously indeed because I've had enough experience with the disciples of Richard Dawkins et al to know that they are fighting dirty, and for keeps (though it remains an open question for me whether HK falls into that camp).

This kind of gloss is very dispiriting to read, Causal. You apparently have lumped me with everyone who has ever disagreed with your religious beliefs to the point where you can't see any difference between my position and that of a Richard Dawkins. This is exactly the kind of false dichotomy I'm talking about. It turns any discussion of these issues into a framed debate between you and the heathen hordes that seek to tear you down; I either endorse your God or I'm a rabid atheist. I posted specifically to offer a third option (neither atheist nor monotheist) and you missed it completely. What am I supposed to do with that, man?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
If you're interested, you can read my term paper on Plantinga's solution to the logical problem of evil here: http://calebkeller.blogspot.com/2007/05/plantinga-and-problem-of-evil.
html. My professor gave me quite a good grade indeed, even though I argued against one of his own journal articles!

Interesting read! I've never really felt that the Problem of Evil proved much at all anyway. Accepting the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god would seem to counter any attempt to apply human logic to the infinite. To put it another way, why would God be bound to our conception of logic?

But as long as we are constraining ourselves to logic, I did notice one thing about Plantinga's argument. It seemed to be firmly set on the notion of 'free will'. Free will is one of those concepts I've never been able to wrap my head around. What does it even mean? If we're really talking about being free from causation then what does that mean? If our volition isn't caused by anything, how does it happen? Is it purely random?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 2:52 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Interesting read! I've never really felt that the Problem of Evil proved much at all anyway. Accepting the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god would seem to counter any attempt to apply human logic to the infinite. To put it another way, why would God be bound to our conception of logic?

The standard answer to this question given by most theistic philosophers is that it isn't "our logic" at all--it's God's logic. Basically, the view is that the rules of logic are what they are in virtue of who God is. This avoids the problem that if he didn't create them then God is "bound" by them; it also avoids the difficulty that if he did create them they're arbitrary. Essentially, we say that God can't do the logically impossible because to do so would be to violate his essential nature--and he can't not-be what he is; he can't be what he is not. Logic obtains (on some theistic views) in virtue of the fact that God exists and is what he is. That's my view, anyway.

Quote:
But as long as we are constraining ourselves to logic, I did notice one thing about Plantinga's argument. It seemed to be firmly set on the notion of 'free will'. Free will is one of those concepts I've never been able to wrap my head around. What does it even mean? If we're really talking about being free from causation then what does that mean? If our volition isn't caused by anything, how does it happen? Is it purely random?

Well, the view of free will he works with is Libertarian freedom, which is the view that every human decision is fully and finally determined by the human agent himself, and is not constrained by any causal factor. Essentially, it is the view that humans are fully responsible for their own choices. Of course that view is hotly contested (I don't even know if I want to commit myself to so extreme a vision of human volition). The beautiful thing about Plantinga's solution to the problem of evil is that it doesn't have to be true that libertarian freedom obtains--it only has to be possibly true. And I can't see why it's not at least possible.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:02 PM

CAUSAL

Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one. I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism. I can't begin to describe how disappointing that is to me, because I started the thread with the intent of having discussion around the issue that didn't devolve into this kind of ugly name-calling. And I've failed utterly. Another reason, I guess, to avoid RWED entirely. I can't possibly continue the discussion from this point with any kind of credibility for two reasons. In the first place, the thread has become emotional (and I don't exclude myself from that assessment; but I definitely don't limit that assessment to myself), and that's not exactly the most conducive environment for rational inquiry. In the second place, the thread has become evaluative, and that is also not a conducive environment for discourse.

And it is that assessment that the thread has become evaluative that is the source of all this trouble. I finally figured out what irked me so bad about HK's original post. It's this: he's not making arguments-as-such for his case as much as he is making evaluative claims about my beliefs. I'll talk to him all day long (and anyone else, for that matter) if what he's saying is, "Your beliefs are false." But that's not what his post was all about--or at the least not just what they were about. Rather, he engaged in evaluative discourse. "Such a God would be a psychopath" is an inherently evaluative statement, because some of the very traits that he decries (e.g. power) are ones that I don't dislike. He dislikes certain features about God as I conceive Him as existing and doesn't simply argue that there is no such being, but further says that such a being is bad. And that's what bothered me. I think that that's why I read him as being upset in the first place.

In any event, I don't feel like there's any profit for me in continuing the thread, because it just isn't fun anymore. I feel like I can talk with Rue--and she disagrees with me on nearly every point. But I don't think I have a voice in the thread anymore, and that's disappointing.

No doubt, my exit will be met with exultant cries with respect to my defeat or my inability to argue further. I assure you, I'm not going for either of those reasons, but because I'm just not enjoying the discussion anymore. Thanks to those with whom I've been able to talk profitably--to the rest, thanks for the object lesson about how not to put my foot in my mouth.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one. I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism.

When did this all happen? looks like I'm gonna have to work my way upstream, like a spawning salmon.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 5:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm, yes I see. What is so all-fired good about being in TOTAL CONTROL? What paradigm does that point to in our own culture and belief? It doesn't seem like a healthy choice to be either totally "free" (as in "free will" or outside of causation) or completely controlling. I'm not sure that shamanistic religions are as you say... I'm not really familiar with those religions... but you've really pointed to a new direction.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one.

Oh good grief. Can't you just ignore the dramatics and focus on the conversation? It's pretty easy to tell when someone is just trying to get under your skin. Even if they aren't trying to, if they bug you, just don't read their posts.

I guess that's harder to do than it sounds, but it seems worth a try.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:22 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure that shamanistic religions are as you say... I'm not really familiar with those religions...

Signy, you do know that I've studied and practiced Native American Shamanism for many years, don't you? I've also been friends to practitioners of Hawaiian Shamanism and Celtic Shamanism and done a ton of research besides. I'm not just picking animism out of the hat, it's my personal orientation to spirituality.

Is that why Causal thought I was a big ol' atheist, because he assumed that I was picking animism just to antagonize him? I'm with Sgt. X, good grief!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2007 3:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CAUSAL

Quote:
Well, regrettably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one. I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism

Well FWIW I didn't get that out of the thread. I think it's just another avenue to explore. It does seem to me that much of our current religion has to do with control. It's a little like the early naturalists steeped in a culture of class and hierarchy: What did they see when they looked at animal behavior? Hierarchy! The struggle for dominance! They missed 95% of animal behavior and we are JUST beginning to undo the damage.

Anyone who can point out our deep assumptions is to be blessed not cursed. It doesn't mean we agree with that person willy-nilly. It means we think... and perhaps feel... our way to greater understanding and insight.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2007 6:35 AM

Wow. Bummer. Causal - I'm sad to see you go. But - who called you a name? I honestly don't see it. Sure, HK got frustrated over being misunderstood, but his post seems to focus on explaining himself better, not on putting you down. (He called you "man." Was that the insult?

)

I don't really understand what you mean about evaluative arguments. You obviously know much more than me about logic and philosophy and methods of debate, so there's a fine distinction there that's over my head. What I do understand is that it may be difficult for a theist to have an emotionally detached discussion about how certain of God's traits might be seen as unhealthy. After all, religious belief is closely tied to emotion. Detachment isn't part of it.

Thing is - doesn't this kind of illustrate my earlier point? Religious belief can hinder discussion, end questions. In the end, all HK did was introduce a new topic for debate: Is God as an authoritarian figure a bad thing? To me, this is just another topic. For you, it's an attack. It's emotional. It becomes too unpleasant to be continued.

Contrast this to earlier topics: Is evolutionary theory a bad thing? For me, not an attack. Though it questions my own world view, it isn't tied to my emotions, and I can debate it without getting upset and bowing out.

The scientific approach invites questions - it needs to be doubted. Blind faith? Not so much. When it gets questioned too closely, it fights or runs away. That's been my experience, anyway.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The simple reason for this is that there is no positive evidence (at least that I am aware of) for ID or creation

1 Corinthians 2
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. "

so Jesus, Judiasm, the Canaanites, and the rest of the ancient world.. thats not 'positive evidence' to you? but aside from that, take a look around.. it should be obvious

Romans 1
"..what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Quote:
proponents of those views have to attack the existing views instead of promoting their own. Additionally it looks better in the public eye to have your side putting the other side on the defensive then to try weakly to shore up your own arguements.

if your argument has holes it in, they deserve to be exposed. a completely absent fossil record of missing links is one of them. matter exploding from nowhere, arising from nothing to design and evolve itself is another

Quote:
This is the same argument that I used in a previous thread, many religions (particularly organized religions) lend themselves to abuse and, just like any other power structure, attract those who want to abuse power

fair enough.. but so does secular atheism. you are not immune to corruption either

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The simple reason for this is that there is no positive evidence (at least that I am aware of) for ID or creation

1 Corinthians 2
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. "

so Jesus, Judiasm, the Canaanites, and the rest of the ancient world.. thats not 'positive evidence' to you? but aside from that, take a look around.. it should be obvious

Romans 1
"..what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

There's a fair ton of folk who have interpreted the bible differently and such that it allows acceptance of evolution (even to create a new 'archetype'); what you present is an interesting interpretation, but is not 'evidence' in the sense of scientific definition. As such it may be the reason you believe what you do, but is not scientific evidence (and ID purports to be science) per se.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one.

O crud, I was on vacation and just got caught up too! Not sure I had anything to contribute at this point, but a lot of interesting material.

Quote:

I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism.

Well, no one manage to convince -me- of that; but I certainly cannot speak for all parties.

Quote:
{...}
I assure you, I'm not going for either of those reasons, but because I'm just not enjoying the discussion anymore.

Ah, rats... well, it's not exactly your job, so if it's lost it's charm, can't say I blame you. Perhaps it may settle out and you'll find your way back to this thread. Otherwise, catch in the next one!

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 5:37 AM

Well, Causal having bowed out, I'm going to take a shot at a logical discussion of HK's comments (here's hoping I don't regret this!!!!)

HK,
First, a bit of back ground. I'd say I'm a deist; I believe there's a being of 'first cause'; but probably what most would call a 'weak deist' (some might even call me a 'working atheist'), as I don't necessarily believe the Creator has 'kept a hand' in the on-going activities of the universe (though I don't necessarily deny it).
On the other hand, I spent my youth in a Christian household, spent 10 years in various Catholic schools (and thus attendant 'religion class') including high school. As a young adult, I attended various Christian denominational churches until I 'wandered off' to my rather odd spot. So, I'm hoping my past experience with various Christian forms coupled with the 'distance' of past practice rather than current will allow me to approach logically your statements which to me came out as evaluative rather than logical; but perhaps we can dig back to the logic.
O, and while it may not matter to our topic of discussion, I hold fairly mainstream scientific views on such matters as evolution, etc. I see science as the means to understand how the world was designed by the Creator.

I will caution I likely won't do as well as Causal on the logic end; I'm only an amateur philosopher.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Who says God is all powerful anyway?

Most Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects do; based on the common ground of the old testament. I'll call this the Abrahamic God or just AG for short. Obviously, there's other positions; however, since the core of this sub-thread was started between Rue and Causal, this is the currently discussed position pair. One of the draw backs of philosophical discussions is trying to 'keep in mind' exactly what one is discussing, so it is easy to lose track if you start throwing around multiple 'models', but I'll try.

Quote:
Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

Actually, we've discussed other options at times; however, I will concede that's been the bulk of this particular sub-thread.

Quote:

Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical,

That's the first point you need to prove; that an 'all powerful god' requires a deeply hierarchical construct. I've met any number of Christians, though clearly a minority, who believe all you need is a bible and time to contemplate; nothing more. Most of these would state AG is all-powerful. On flip side, you have things such as the Catholic Church, which can't get much more hierarchical. I suggest you either re-qualify your original blanket statement to either restrict your self to an additional premise of 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure' or support the blanket statement with additional evidence.

Quote:

judgemental

Again, not all adherent of AG are judgmental. A 'good' Baptist for instance will often take a stance that the relationship between you and your god is between you and your god; it is not appropriate for another to assess. Of course, they have beliefs, and given half a chance will try to convert you to them; but my experience with this sect has been pretty positive overall (again, note my personally held beliefs above). So, again, you need to either support your position with additional logic or add additional assumption: 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure and if judgmental'

Quote:
and hostile to innocence,

Ouch! Almost all Christian sects that I've done any digging into provide some form of relief for the innocent; from babies who die not going to hell; to provisions for ...

Quote:
ignorance

of the Bible from going to hell. I've also run into some Fundamentalists who are as you describe (or at least as I envision as you describe); however, they are a distinct minority, and I'd definitely need to see more support for your position, or you need to subset/restate your assumptions

Quote:
and egalitarianism.

You lost me here, what are you referring to?

Quote:
Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable.
(...)
HKCavalier

Well, I could go on, but I think it is important to clarify assumptions before attempting further. We (various folks under the 'evolution etc thread set') have tried to take this approach consistently when taking on a philosophical debate items; I know, it is very slow going at first, but it truly does help keep the threads on a fairly logical and even keel.

LeadB.
{a few edits, all completed by 12 noon ET 7/29, committed to clarify; sorry, complex post and needed a few re-reads.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:28 AM

Quote:
LeadB-

There's a fair ton of folk who have interpreted the bible differently and such that it allows acceptance of evolution (even to create a new 'archetype')

thats true, but the extent to which is very important. if anything, i think the bible proposes 'devolution', rather then progressive evolution.. as we are in a period of death and decay, which has effected all creation(from the beginning). a strict evolutionists view truly has nothing in common with the Abrahamic beliefs, because it negates or relegates any work done by God to something which happens purely randomly, by chance, with no higher purpose or guidance or design. elements come together to create an object.. so did the elements intelligently guide themselves to form the objects function? thats what i mean by design.. a scientist can tell you how something works, but not how it got to that point, which to me is where evolution and the atheistic view falls short

Quote:
what you present is an interesting interpretation, but is not 'evidence' in the sense of scientific definition. As such it may be the reason you believe what you do, but is not scientific evidence (and ID purports to be science) per se.

i agree, although discrediting strictly evolution does benefit my position. the point above, with the quote from Romans, is that the 'order' and 'design' of Creation may just be completely obvious, only maybe we are simply too stubborn(or shortsighted) to acknowledge what is right in front of us. this makes sense to me.. especially in light of recorded history

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
only maybe we are simply too stubborn(or shortsighted) to acknowledge what is right in front of us.

I think we are at the agree to disagree point. I agree with what you say; but in the opposite direction. I feel the science supporting evolution -is- that obvious and 'right in front of us'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:15 AM

On the subject of religion, specifically Christianity, being used to control people, establish the primacy of authoritarian hierarchy, etc, I think there's truth to this. But I don't think it was a deliberate choice.

Arguably the religions that we have today are the ones that spawned the most successful civilizations. Within recent history (last few thousand years) civilizations have been rewarded greatly for being aggressively expansionist. The religions best suited for driving expansion seem to be those that feature the concept that there is one righteous way to live. That makes it possible to dehumanize those who are in the way of the expansion and justifies conquering other nations to show them the shining light of the 'one' truth.

That 'feature' is my principal beef with Christianity (and most of the other revealed, evangelical religions). I honestly think it's a strength that's become a weakness. If we haven't already crossed it, we're rapidly approaching the point where 'aggressively expansionist' is no longer what's called for.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 1:18 PM

HKCAVALIER

Heya leadb,

Thank you for demonstrating that a conversation can arise out of my contribution to this thread. I am sorry that Causal felt he had to go, no "exultant cries with respect to (his) defeat" here (no concept of his defeat, for that matter). I'm sure everyone who has contributed to this thread would be glad to see him return.

So, on to the topic at hand. O' course, my "Who says God is all powerful anyway?" was not intended as a formal opening of a debate. I was simply announcing that I, for one, wasn't a big fan of the idea.

That said, I don't know that the epithet "all-powerful" is really very helpful in discerning God's nature, Abrahamic or not. I find it very interesting that God's conduct in the very first book of the Bible announces the limits of his power. "Don't eat of the tree" he says, and they do. Whoopsie! Yeah, yeah, free will, I know--but then when they've eaten, discovered shame and hidden themselves at God's return, he says a very peculiar thing for an all-powerful, omniscient being to say:

"Where are you?"

So unless he's just a sadistic creep sarcastically rubbing their noses in their shame, he doesn't know where they are or what they've done.

Yeah, I know, "literature," but it's interesting.

To pick up on a comment from Signy from a few posts back, I think Free Will in the context of an "all-powerful God" is a bit of a paradox. God seems to have granted humans the power to step outside God's awareness and to alter the Universe directly and conclusively. There's something lovely and poetic about a God abdicating power in this way, bequeathing to us mortals the power to shape reality as we will, but if we swallow this "Almighty God" stuff whole, we miss out on such poetry. Sometimes, it seems to me that "all-powerful" is simply an honorific that His worshipers apply to Him out of awe and respect and not to be taken literally.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
That's the first point you need to prove; that an 'all powerful god' requires a deeply hierarchical construct. I've met any number of Christians, though clearly a minority, who believe all you need is a bible and time to contemplate; nothing more. Most of these would state AG is all-powerful. On flip side, you have things such as the Catholic Church, which can't get much more hierarchical. I suggest you either re-qualify your original blanket statement to either restrict your self to an additional premise of 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure' or support the blanket statement with additional evidence.

Yeesh, "prove." That has got to be one of the most cringe-worthy terms in human discourse (outside of mathematical theory, of course). Most of us humans manage to live our entire lives without proving a damn thing--proof doesn't feed us, nor clothe us, nor delight our children. Mostly it just sits over there on the other side of possibility with nothing to say.

Mostly what I got for you is existential psychology. Psychology: hardly the most provable stuff on earth. One's concept of God is equivalent to one's ideal self--ideal, not necessarily possible. God is the ideal being, the purest expression of self-hood. So, psychologically, one's concept of God reflects one's idea of the perfect identity. So it follows that whatever characteristics we ascribe to God will reflect our own highest values. In the case of those folks who describe God in hostile or frightening terms, he embodies not so much their avowed ideals as their sense of that which is unalterable; the ultimate might that is definitively right--tough luck if you don't like it.

So a God that sits at the top of the world looking down on His creation describes a particular fantasy of power--of what constitutes majesty and perfection. Such a God does not require a "deeply hierarchical construct," He is a deeply hierarchical construct.

I gotta interject something at this point. The vast, vast majority of Christians I have known, good and bad, have been very inconsistent in their theology. So it is not at all necessary for each and every Christian to maintain that the Abrahamic God's judgemental, hierarchical, intolerant nature is part of their personal cosmology.

Unfortunately for them, ignorance of His nature does not protect them from it. One of the more insidious qualities of Christian dogma (from the standpoint of mental health) is the notion of man's essential sinfulness. Christians therefore can see God as a hard-ass without admiring or condoning those qualities within themselves. In psychological terms, the idea that one is essentially sinful is an artifact of low self esteem. When one describes one's self as a "sinner in the eyes of God" one definitively esteems one's self pretty low.

So, I don't think you'll actually find a lot of non-judgemental Christians anywhere if you take into account their self-judgements. Psychologically, the tendency to judge others is directly linked to the judgements one holds of one's self, anyway.

Quote:
Almost all Christian sects that I've done any digging into provide some form of relief for the innocent.

Certainly, but I am not here discussing the nature and practices of Christians, but the nature and actions of God the Father. Causal seemed to have serious difficulty with that distinction as well. Am I missing something here?

As to God the Father's intolerance of ignorance, good gravy, where to start? Eve's ignorance of sin, the ignorance of all humanity lost in the Flood, etc. You yourself mention the granddaddy of all Godly hatreds of the ignorant: His will that every human who has ever lived who was ignorant of the teachings of an obscure sect of desert people from an extremely unstable moment in history should be condemned to Hell everlasting.

Quote:
Quote:
and egalitarianism.
You lost me here, what are you referring to?

"Egalitarian" is simply the opposite of "hierarchical." So strictly speaking, I was being redundant, but I wanted to include egalitarianism in the discussion because it resonates with values shared by most right-thinking people everywhere.

Your thoughts?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 1:58 PM

Quote:
LeadB-
I think we are at the agree to disagree point. I agree with what you say; but in the opposite direction. I feel the science supporting evolution -is- that obvious and 'right in front of us'.

thats fair... i dont, but we are entitled to our differences. i can see the microchanges within a particular species archetype(or phenotype), but i do not see the 'evidence' for these dramatic changes, that supposedly guided us from a primordial soup, to our current state. but only time will i guess..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
On the subject of religion, specifically Christianity, being used to control people, establish the primacy of authoritarian hierarchy, etc, I think there's truth to this. But I don't think it was a deliberate choice.

thats true, if you really study the bible you learn that authoritarianism is not conducive with christianity.. but it has become so, IMO due to the frailties of the human charachter, and less so by Gods choice or instruction. a careful reading of Ephesians makes it clear that it is the 'dark forces in the heavenly realms' that guides world government(during this age), and less God himself(or obedience to his doctrines). but thats a very long and complicated discussion.. ill spare you by saying that the book of Samuel makes it clear by explaining how government originated to begin with, by a rejection of Gods supreme authority

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
One of the more insidious qualities of Christian dogma (from the standpoint of mental health) is the notion of man's essential sinfulness. Christians therefore can see God as a hard-ass without admiring or condoning those qualities within themselves. In psychological terms, the idea that one is essentially sinful is an artifact of low self esteem. When one describes one's self as a "sinner in the eyes of God" one definitively esteems one's self pretty low.

i disagree... i believe it is essential for man to accept that by nature we are are imperfect, sinful beings... if we dont acknowledge this, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, especially in one critical aspect: government. we HAVE to recognize that human beings by nature are imperfect, or we are setting ourselves up for disaster when this global government is ushered in, to 'protect us from ourselves'. understand how human beings by nature are sinful and unruly, and we can preempt this absolute tyranny, by all future authorities elected to represent us. the bible, if anything, speaks of the frailties of the human character and the danger of forsaking God for the wisdom of men, which to me is crucial to peace and independence

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
(...} I don't know that the epithet "all-powerful" is really very helpful in discerning God's nature, Abrahamic or not. I find it very interesting that God's conduct in the very first book of the Bible announces the limits of his power. "Don't eat of the tree" he says, and they do. Whoopsie! Yeah, yeah, free will, I know--but then when they've eaten, discovered shame and hidden themselves at God's return, he says a very peculiar thing for an all-powerful, omniscient being to say:

"Where are you?"

So unless he's just a sadistic creep sarcastically rubbing their noses in their shame, he doesn't know where they are or what they've done.

Yeah, I know, "literature," but it's interesting.

To pick up on a comment from Signy from a few posts back, I think Free Will in the context of an "all-powerful God" is a bit of a paradox. God seems to have granted humans the power to step outside God's awareness and to alter the Universe directly and conclusively. There's something lovely and poetic about a God abdicating power in this way, bequeathing to us mortals the power to shape reality as we will, but if we swallow this "Almighty God" stuff whole, we miss out on such poetry. Sometimes, it seems to me that "all-powerful" is simply an honorific that His worshipers apply to Him out of awe and respect and not to be taken literally.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
That's the first point you need to prove; that an 'all powerful god' requires a deeply hierarchical construct. I've met any number of Christians, though clearly a minority, who believe all you need is a bible and time to contemplate; nothing more. Most of these would state AG is all-powerful. On flip side, you have things such as the Catholic Church, which can't get much more hierarchical. I suggest you either re-qualify your original blanket statement to either restrict your self to an additional premise of 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure' or support the blanket statement with additional evidence.

Yeesh, "prove." That has got to be one of the most cringe-worthy terms in human discourse (outside of mathematical theory, of course). Most of us humans manage to live our entire lives without proving a damn thing--proof doesn't feed us, nor clothe us, nor delight our children. Mostly it just sits over there on the other side of possibility with nothing to say.

Foul! Foul! Where's the umpire! ;-) Ok, you come to a thread called 'Philosophical Grudge Match!', and decide to not play by the rules. That's somewhat like showing up at a chess tourney and insisting on playing cribbage. A fine game, but throws a javelin in the spokes.

Quote:

Mostly what I got for you is existential psychology. Psychology: hardly the most provable stuff on earth. One's concept of God is equivalent to one's ideal self--ideal, not necessarily possible. God is the ideal being, the purest expression of self-hood. So, psychologically, one's concept of God reflects one's idea of the perfect identity. So it follows that whatever characteristics we ascribe to God will reflect our own highest values. In the case of those folks who describe God in hostile or frightening terms, he embodies not so much their avowed ideals as their sense of that which is unalterable; the ultimate might that is definitively right--tough luck if you don't like it.

Well, now you've gone right out of Philosophy into arm-chair psychology (or, if you are a pro, genuine psych); with just a tad of theology thrown in for good stride.
I don't know how to assess the psych of what you have up there, other than to respectfully disagree. Some folk will do exactly as you say, while other will seek out a father or mother figure. Some want a savior. Others will portray whatever they feel will frighten those they wish to control. I fear you will end up with a genuine mishmash if you take this approach. In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any projection becomes meaningless, and the quest is not to entertain what people will -project- onto AG, but instead, what is the reality of AG. How does one successfully peel off the projections to understand the truth? That becomes the question, which I surely don't have the answer to.

Quote:

So a God that sits at the top of the world looking down on His creation describes a particular fantasy of power--of what constitutes majesty and perfection. Such a God does not require a "deeply hierarchical construct," He is a deeply hierarchical construct.

At this point, I understand your distinction between the church and AG. I certainly can't quibble that no matter how you look at it, an all-powerful God must, by definition, be at the top of the 'food chain'; however, I don't know as that necessarily supports the 'psychopath' assessment.

Quote:

I gotta interject something at this point. The vast, vast majority of Christians I have known, good and bad, have been very inconsistent in their theology.

Perhaps; however, you are the one who made the broad statement regarding that an all-powerful god must be a 'psychopath'. I will also concede that I was using the 'philosophic' method to disprove a uniformity which would require qualification to your original position if accepted.

Quote:
So it is not at all necessary for each and every Christian to maintain that the Abrahamic God's judgemental, hierarchical, intolerant nature is part of their personal cosmology.

But if it is in fact true, as many AG adherents maintain that he is merciful, etc., and does not qualify as 'judgmental', does that not undermine the 'psychopath' assessment?

Quote:

Unfortunately for them, ignorance of His nature does not protect them from it. One of the more insidious qualities of Christian dogma (from the standpoint of mental health) is the notion of man's essential sinfulness. Christians therefore can see God as a hard-ass without admiring or condoning those qualities within themselves. In psychological terms, the idea that one is essentially sinful is an artifact of low self esteem. When one describes one's self as a "sinner in the eyes of God" one definitively esteems one's self pretty low.

sorry you are hitting heavily into theology here, and as you've pointed out there significant variation between sects; and this is clearly one of the items that varies. Certainly, you could maintain that you feel this is true effect where this position is maintained.

Quote:

So, I don't think you'll actually find a lot of non-judgemental Christians anywhere if you take into account their self-judgements.

Yet if one varies too far, lacks too much in self-judgment, does this not lead to amorality and lack of self control? Show me someone lacking any form of self judgment and I'll be running the other way.

Quote:
Psychologically, the tendency to judge others is directly linked to the judgements one holds of one's self, anyway.

I might have mentioned I'm not a qualified psych officer.

Quote:

Quote:
Almost all Christian sects that I've done any digging into provide some form of relief for the innocent.

Certainly, but I am not here discussing the nature and practices of Christians, but the nature and actions of God the Father. Causal seemed to have serious difficulty with that distinction as well. Am I missing something here?

Well, this gets into theology, which is a sticky wicket for all the reasons mentioned above. I'll agree I tend to focus on the practitioners because it is rather difficult to pin down AG Himself. However, as mentioned, I now better understand the tact you are taking.

Quote:
As to God the Father's intolerance of ignorance, good gravy, where to start? Eve's ignorance of sin, the ignorance of all humanity lost in the Flood, etc. You yourself mention the granddaddy of all Godly hatreds of the ignorant: His will that every human who has ever lived who was ignorant of the teachings of an obscure sect of desert people from an extremely unstable moment in history should be condemned to Hell everlasting.

The interpretation of this last point varies from sect to sect. The Catholic Church, for instance, does not teach that those who lived in ignorance of God's way will necessarily go to hell; -if- this teaching is a correct reflection of God's will (and certainly that church so believes) then this severely undermines your position. Amongst many Muslims there is also significant allowance for tolerating behaviors amongst the non-initiated which would not be by practicing Muslims. Again, if this properly reflects AG will (and they certainly so believe or would not teach it), then your position is weakened.

Quote:
(...)
Your thoughts?
HKCavalier

I was somewhat prepared to pickup a philosophical debate on the topic as per the indicated direction of the thread title, but not especially a psychological/theological debate. It bothers me a bit that you would come in and make a broad claim (that AG is a psychopath) then refuse to engage in a philosophic exchange on the matter.

From a philosophic perspective, I feel the weakest part of your discussion above is a failure to recognize that there is only one truth, and damaging to the frail human psyche or not, the truth is as it is. If AG really is what you maintain, and is that 'truth', it does not matter one iota if you have a 'better pitch': that is simple denial. The second problem is you wish to then present your pitch as 'it makes more sense', yet then you refuse to recognize that all the various Christian, Muslim, Jewish sects' pitches which may completely be at ends with your portrayal of AG.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 4:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anti I think it's amusing and kind of weird that I can hopscotch thru your posts and agree wholeheartedly with about 50% and disagree just as completely with the other 50%.... and sometimes all within one sentence!

Quote:
for man to accept that by nature we are are imperfect, sinful beings

Can you describe the "perfection" of God? Is it within human comprehension? If not, can you at least describe how a "perfect" human should behave? Quite honestly I'm leery of anyone who claims the concept, especially as the agent of some higher universal power. Seems a little controlling. As far as "sin"... that's another concept that I don't really "get".

Quote:
if we dont acknowledge this, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, especially in one critical aspect: government. we HAVE to recognize that human beings by nature are imperfect, or we are setting ourselves up for disaster when this global government is ushered in, to 'protect us from ourselves'.... how human beings by nature are sinful and unruly,

It's a good thing to acknowledge mistakes. But calling mistakes "sinful", "unruly", "evil", "prideful" is LESS likely to get people to acknowledge them because it associates mistakes with so much negative emotion (guilt, hopelessness) that it tends to create avoidance.

Quote:
and we can preempt this absolute tyranny, by all future authorities elected to represent us. the bible, if anything, speaks of the frailties of the human character and the danger of forsaking God for the wisdom of men, which to me is crucial to peace and independence

We can preempt this absolute tyranny ... how? By creating a different tyranny, a world-wide government of men who claim to represent God? Or are you proposing that individual but widespread "changes of heart" would eliminate the need for government altogether? From your posts, it seem to me that you're promoting the former but I could be misunderstanding your intent.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 5:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thats fair... i dont, but we are entitled to our differences.

You liking tomato soup and me disliking it is a "difference". But to get back to the philosophical underpinnings of this thread:

Do you accept that there is only one reality?
Do you accept that we are all part of it?
Do you accept that our senses tell us something about it?

If you do, then you have a very deep chasm in your mentation. It's one thing to conceptualize about that which cannot be sensed. It's another thing to reject that which can be demonstrated through the senses. You my friend are in category number two.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
From a philosophic perspective, I feel the weakest part of your discussion above is a failure to recognize that there is only one truth, and damaging to the frail human psyche or not, the truth is as it is.

Wow, speaking of assumptions...

As far as scientific matters, yes, I believe there is one truth, one "right answer" that is consistent everywhere. Our observations back that up. But religious and spiritual matters are outside the realm of logic and direct observation. They may be purely creations of the human psyche and hence not exist outside ourselves, or they may be human interpretations of a spiritual realm that very alive, and will be still be there when we're gone. In either case, I don't see religion as something with only one truth. No one religion is right, not in my worldview anyway!

So - how are you sure that there is only one truth?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 5:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any projection becomes meaningless, and the quest is not to entertain what people will -project- onto AG, but instead, what is the reality of AG. How does one successfully peel off the projections to understand the truth? That becomes the question, which I surely don't have the answer to.

What if Zeus is real? What if Moloch is real? What if Gaia is real? There are so many gods and goddesses that it seems limited to discuss the potential reality of only one.

Quote:
Yet if one varies too far, lacks too much in self-judgment, does this not lead to amorality and lack of self control? Show me someone lacking any form of self judgment and I'll be running the other way.

You're mixing up two very different concepts: morality and self judgment. It is possible to have someone who is is self-judging AND amoral. For example, the person who kicks themselves for not having committed the "perfect" murder would be self-judging but (in our vew) amoral.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 7:59 AM

FREDGIBLET

Anti, I'm going to respond over in the old evolution thread so as not to pull a threadjack.

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29385

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
From a philosophic perspective, I feel the weakest part of your discussion above is a failure to recognize that there is only one truth, and damaging to the frail human psyche or not, the truth is as it is.
Wow, speaking of assumptions...

As far as scientific matters, yes, I believe there is one truth, one "right answer" that is consistent everywhere. Our observations back that up. But religious and spiritual matters are outside the realm of logic and direct observation. They may be purely creations of the human psyche and hence not exist outside ourselves, or they may be human interpretations of a spiritual realm that very alive, and will be still be there when we're gone. In either case, I don't see religion as something with only one truth. No one religion is right, not in my worldview anyway!

So - how are you sure that there is only one truth?

A good philosophic question! There is a single reality (feel free to disagree, if you don't that's ok, we'll have to start at an earlier point), and when I say there is only one truth, it is the 'accurate description of this one reality.' In this particular case, either there is or there is not an 'all powerful' Abrahamic God. The truth of this is not affected by the 'fact' that if HK is correct (and I do not agree that he is) such a god is damaging to the frail human psyche.

As far as is there any one 'right' religion; I personally happen to believe there's a whole stack of 'rightness' in many religions. However, we were discussing a particular point, and on that point I feel fairly comfortable that either one of these two things is true:
1) There is an (I'm personally willing to concede there may be multiple, if that pleases anyone) all powerfull god.
2) or there isn't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any projection becomes meaningless, and the quest is not to entertain what people will -project- onto AG, but instead, what is the reality of AG. How does one successfully peel off the projections to understand the truth? That becomes the question, which I surely don't have the answer to.
What if Zeus is real? What if Moloch is real? What if Gaia is real? There are so many gods and goddesses that it seems limited to discuss the potential reality of only one.

If one or more of them are 'real', it does not impact the reality of the existence (or the lack thereof) of the 'all powerful AG' (though -additional- descriptions normally attached to AG would; however, I have not (yet) attempted that hurdle, and frankly -I- probably will not ;-) )

Quote:
Quote:
Yet if one varies too far, lacks too much in self-judgment, does this not lead to amorality and lack of self control? Show me someone lacking any form of self judgment and I'll be running the other way.
You're mixing up two very different concepts: morality and self judgment. It is possible to have someone who is is self-judging AND amoral. For example, the person who kicks themselves for not having committed the "perfect" murder would be self-judging but (in our view) amoral.

I said that lack of self-judgment leads to amorality (especially if that lack is complete). I did not say (or if I did, I'll hastily retract it) that the presence of self-judgment would ensure morality. Sorry if I was not clear.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 1:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

leadb- Self judgment- necessary but not sufficient for morality. Got it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 4:59 PM

Quote:
Signym-

Anti I think it's amusing and kind of weird that I can hopscotch thru your posts and agree wholeheartedly with about 50% and disagree just as completely with the other 50%.... and sometimes all within one sentence!

that's funny.. me too! i know we differ on our religious views, but otherwise politically i think we're on the same page

Quote:
Can you describe the "perfection" of God? Is it within human comprehension?

its beyond my comprehension personally, but the NT equates good and evil to 'light' and 'darkness', and many times it says that nothing dark exists within God because he is infinitely just. i believe because we exist within Creation, that we and subsequently God have become distanced by the 'darkness', which cannot exist within God.

1 John 1:5
And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

Ephesians 5:7-9
Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places

Quote:
If not, can you at least describe how a "perfect" human should behave?

to start, we have to acknowledge that God established moral absolutes. we believe that the ten commandments, and Jesus commandments, and the '7 deadly sins'(in principle), are universal rules that were established by God, to restore 'harmony'. Jesus in some ways was what Adam should have been, sinless and in harmony with God. this is the reason he dies for our sins, because we are in a 'fallen' state, and incapable of perfection. when we fall, we need to acknowledge fault and 'repent' for our mistakes

Quote:
Quite honestly I'm leery of anyone who claims the concept, especially as the agent of some higher universal power. Seems a little controlling. As far as "sin"... that's another concept that I don't really "get".

i think we should be 'leery' about our desire to become in essence our own 'gods'. appropriately, we should acknowledge that we will never be perfect(which would be egomaniacal). the fundamental truth is that God established moral absolutes, that morality is not 'relative', and our actions have eternal consequences.

Quote:
It's a good thing to acknowledge mistakes. But calling mistakes "sinful", "unruly", "evil", "prideful" is LESS likely to get people to acknowledge them because it associates mistakes with so much negative emotion (guilt, hopelessness) that it tends to create avoidance.

this is something we all should understand. when the bible refers to behavior as 'sinful', this is from Gods vantage point of infinite perfection. we should acknowledge 'in principle' that certain behavior does have negative consequences. i dont ever point my finger at someone and judge them for behavior that every one of us exhibit regularly, because Jesus speaks a lot about this kind of hypocrisy

Quote:
We can preempt this absolute tyranny ... how? By creating a different tyranny, a world-wide government of men who claim to represent God?

technically it cant be preempted(according to prophecy)... but no, i have never proposed a theocracy, im actually philosophically opposed to one, since the bible itself says that this age belongs to Lucifer, that man is imperfect, and that Gods message cannot be reconciled with 'the world', and its vices(like the Catholic church)

Quote:
Or are you proposing that individual but widespread "changes of heart" would eliminate the need for government altogether? From your posts, it seem to me that you're promoting the former but I could be misunderstanding your intent.

yes. the whole concept behind the 'rule of law' is that we, mankind, accept certain principles as 'self evident', which are necessary to self govern. in the OT the Israelites originally governed themselves, as a free people, by their own recognition that God was the ultimate arbiter and 'government.' but when they rejected God, they gave man the authority to govern, and men are by nature imperfect, so this became the story of history. i expect this age to climax with a literal battle between 'dark' and 'light', as Ephesians(or Revelations) suggests, before those in Gods favor return to our previous state(eternal), in harmony with the Creator, free of the 'darkness' and death of this age. but its complex, and not easy to articulate at times

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
However, we were discussing a particular point, and on that point I feel fairly comfortable that either one of these two things is true:
1) There is an (I'm personally willing to concede there may be multiple, if that pleases anyone) all powerfull god.
2) or there isn't.

3) "God" or any system of deities is an invention of the human mind, a concept created out of our need to understand the world we live in, to make us feel less helpless, to give meaning to death, and to give us guidelines to live by. As such, the concept of "God" will differ according to each believer's needs, and no single image of God is truer and righter than any other.

I'm just saying, that is an option. Whether you agree or not, omitting option 3 means you've made an assumption - one easily made by those who believe in the independent existence of God. But you can't expect a non-believer to base a philosophical argument on only the two choices you presented.

And may I add: I personally believe option 3, and I hope that doesn't insult you. I actually find it quite beautiful. This "conceptual god" is, in my mind, an ideal image of ourselves, of what we want to be. It can help us get to those good things in our subconscious, to understand ourselves and live good lives and have positive effects on the people around us.

So, yeah, it has a real effect, and is therefore a very real force acting on humanity. But I don't believe it's real in that it exists without us. And I certainly don't think that there can be only one relgious truth.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:27 AM

Quote:
Mal4prez-

3) "God" or any system of deities is an invention of the human mind, a concept created out of our need to understand the world we live in, to make us feel less helpless, to give meaning to death, and to give us guidelines to live by.

ok.. so think about that for a moment. to begin, which aspect of evolution created this need, deep in our physche, to understand a greater truth or higher power? then, nearly simultaneously, beginning about 6k years ago, human beings from all continents began to invent this same (or related)concept, out of necessity? doesnt that seem unlikely to you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This "conceptual god" is, in my mind, an ideal image of ourselves, of what we want to be. It can help us get to those good things in our subconscious, to understand ourselves and live good lives and have positive effects on the people around us.

So, yeah, it has a real effect, and is therefore a very real force acting on humanity. But I don't believe it's real in that it exists without us. And I certainly don't think that there can be only one relgious truth.

That's pretty much my take on the issue as well. Gods are real, and while they may exist only in the minds of believers, they're obviously still very powerful things. The interesting thing is the way they can, in a very real sense, be everywhere at once, or at least everywhere there are believers.

If you haven't read any of Daniel Dennett's books on consciousness and religion, I highly recommend it. He makes the point that our minds, our selves really, are by-products of the human brain - essentially self-aware 'software modules' (my term, not his) that develop in the OS of the human brain. The interesting bit, in relation to this conversation, is that he sees gods as special types of this 'software module' that have evolved to spread from human brain to human brain. They're just as real as you or I, but where we are tied to only one brain, their existence is spread across many.

It's worth noting that religions, or gods, evolve to the same criteria as physical creatures - survival. So the 'needs' of a god might be at odds with the needs of it's hosts. In other words, a relgion exists on it's ability to spread and maintain itself in the minds of followers. Whether this is good or bad for followers, or the rest of humanity, is debatable. I think that ultimately this will depend on our ability to understand how religions work and choose those that serve our needs well.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
[Bwhich aspect of evolution created this need, deep in our physche, to understand a greater truth or higher power? then, nearly simultaneously, beginning about 6k years ago, human beings from all continents began to invent this same (or related)concept, out of necessity? doesnt that seem unlikely to you?

Religion was evolutionarily advantageous because it allowed us to increase our ability to coordinate activity. It developed hand in hand with a new mode of human survival called 'civilization'. Religion paved the way by getting us "all on the same page", so to speak.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
ok.. so think about that for a moment. to begin, which aspect of evolution created this need, deep in our physche, to understand a greater truth or higher power?

I believe the need for God follows from self-awareness, from being small creatures in a big world. Now, the step of first becoming self-aware, of being able to observe nature and ask "why?", is a larger question, and I'm no expert. My guess is that those who study this hypothesize a gradual process of increasing intelligence in humans. From learning to make tools and hunt, to developing language, to having agriculture. And then we had time to sit in our huts and talk to each other and think, and stuff started really happening.

And it's still changing. 500 years ago, logical thought didn't exist as it does now. Read some stuff about Sir Francis Bacon - he pretty much introduced inductive reasoning. This was completely a new thing at the time. And even now, the computer and technology boom has changed our attention spans, our ability to process information. The point being - the process of thinking is not static.

Quote:
then, nearly simultaneously, beginning about 6k years ago, human beings from all continents began to invent this same (or related)concept, out of necessity? doesnt that seem unlikely to you?

You'll need to be backing up this idea that it all happened at the same time, because I'm not seeing it. In fact, what I see of history (though, again, I'm certainly not an expert!) are early gods who were closely tied to nature - one for water, one for air, one for death, one for the crops, etc... which have been largely replaced by a White Male in Charge figure. Interestingly, this shift has happened since we got more control and understanding of nature. (Our gods fit our needs, is how I interpret that.)

Anyway, perhaps there was a single span of time when these "nature gods" sprung into existence. But that would be because the human race had evolved to the point of sufficient awareness to ask those "why?" questions.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:20 AM