REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match!

POSTED BY: CAUSAL
UPDATED: Friday, August 24, 2007 06:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16177
PAGE 7 of 7

Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:57 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
I'm not debating for him, I'm in it for me. I'm learning a lot. I'm learning about evolution, and I'm learning about the arguments creationists make. As a scientist, this is a topic I may be faced with in the real world someday. I like feeling like I've got some experience with it.

And, well... I think it's fun too.

Thanks for the comments; I'm much clearer on what you meant above.

Likewise, doing the research to be able to try to explain the science to Anti has gotten me -way- updated on the current science backing up evolution. In a way, it's kind of cool seeing that what I learned in high school has been further confirmed and supported, needing very little modification in the fundamentals over time. Never would have done 'the work' if not for the disussions here.

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:28 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Or maybe, after backing up my statement for the umpteenth time only to be told once again that I pulled the descriptive: "psychopath" out of thin air and spite, I gave up trying to get my point across to you. Plenty of folks here have demonstrated that they understood perfectly well what I was talking about (thanks everybody, for speaking up, that means a lot to me), so I don't think the problem lies in my ability to get my point across.

For what its worth, I'm normally one of the folks who get it. Probably a serious a disconnect in our cognative processes.
Quote:



Simply put, if we grant God a psychology

but I don't grant that
Quote:

, and therefore, discernible motivations, then we should be allowed to psychoanalyse the actions and motives ascribed to Him by scripture. The actions performed by AG in the Old Testament--genocide (the flood, S&G, killing the first borns, etc.), torture (Abraham and Job), racism (chosen people), etc.--these actions (to the extent, I say, that God is a being with a psychology) would be congruent with a diagnosis of severe mental pathology (hence the term psycho-path).
and since I don't grant that, it leaves us not much more to discuss on this particular topic.
Quote:


Now, you can say, "But God doesn't have a human psychology" or "His motives are beyond our understanding" and that's fine, but it also DERAILES ANY AND ALL DISCUSSION OF GOD'S PSYCHIC NATURE. Either we are allowed to judge the God of the Bible by His actions, or we are not. If the statement "God loves us" is to mean anything, then we have a right to analyse the form His love takes based on His actions and His defining qualities.

So when I say that an "all-powerful" God would be a "psychopath" it's because of what absolute power does to psychology, what a belief in the justice of absolute power does to those who live under such a regime. If you then come to me and say, "but when God performs acts which to us could be seen as malevolent in the extreme, it's not because he means us harm, it's because we cannot fathom His motives," then you're simply trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

What scares me more than anything about some Christians is that they do judge God's actions in the OT, but rather than being appalled, they find them laudable. They see justice in His genocides, and love in His condemnation. Such folk hold an ideal of Totalitarian intolerance and such folk fuel the central pathology of the present historical moment.

Beyond that, leadb, you simple didn't read what I had to say clearly and sympathetically. In your last post to me you chided me when I said that I'd had the same problem with both you and Causal.
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Sadly, it's a different problem; because I'm a different person. Much of of the problem is getting the frames of reference consistent.


This is the statement I got stuck on, the reason I decided to walk away. You're telling me that I cannot have the same problem with two different people. Nonsense. Two separate people step on my toes, I can say they both stepped on my toes. When you and Causal supply completely self-generated context and implications to what I said, based on absolutely nothing that I ACTUALLY wrote, I call that "having the same problem with both of you."

Sorry if that discouraged you; while I still disagree, I see some significant differences; however, I do recognize your observations and can see why you see it as the same.
Quote:



When someone you're conversing with tells you, "You're misunderstanding me," simply telling them they're wrong, that you do understand them, does not improve matters. I presented my case for why omnipotence was not a healthy way of looking at God and you rejected it. Fine. The thing I don't appreciate is when you try simply to undermine my position without supplying any ideas of your own (the downside of playing devil's advocate, I guess).

yes, it is terrible downside of playing devil's advocate. In hindsight, I should have simply let the matter go.
Quote:



When you tell me, "I am attempting to prove that the following item -could- (but does not necessarily) exist: An 'all-powerful god' which is -not- 'a dangerous psychopath,'" all you're really doing is trying to undermine my position. You're playing what I would call a "philosophical game" and, yes, students of philosophy love this stuff. After all, that's what philosophers do, they define the limit of what is known and knowable. But, I submit to you that that is in no way the agenda of a Causal or an Antimason.

Actually, I've had some very good and interesting exchanges with Causal exactly along those lines. And yes, obviously I'm trying to undermine your position, if not, I simply would have said 'Yes, you must be right, the Chrisitians maintain their god is all powerful, thus they are worshipping an insane god.' This was the heart of the disagreement. However, again, I have this niggling I should simply let this slide. Anti is a very different matter; but then, he's been quite clear on his agenda.
Quote:



Wait a second, leadb. Listen. Fundamentalists love your philosophical gambits, not because they love philosophy as you do; not because they love defining the limits of man's knowledge in the tradition of Socrates. They love the philosophic method because they can hide their most cherished lunacy under a blanket of indeterminacy.

They can go on and on and on listening to argument after argument and trump everything with their, "Yeah, but you can't prove it one way or the other!" You see? They love that part! You gotta wonder about people like that. Who gets off on indeterminacy? Who's greatest triumph is that no one can prove they're wrong?

As you wish, I was trying to get you to qualify a broad statement to allow for some other possiblities; you don't wish to; I understand.
Quote:



Well, criminals. Liars. Corrupt governments.

I mean, here I am with my psychic awareness, my shamanism, my near-death experience, and all kinds of phenomena that no one online can prove or disprove, but the fact that no one can disprove these things is not my crowning argument for their legitimacy. In fact, I don't tend to make much of an argument for their legitimacy, period. 'Cause I simply don't have to. I know what I know, and I know the limits of what I know, AND I understand perfectly well that folks who have not had similar experiences have NO REASON to believe in any of it (other than my personal credibility, such as it is).

And, after allowing the possibly that perhaps an almighty god could exist which wasn't insane (or at least reach a conclusion regarding same that perhpas it wasn't possible, or we agreed to disagree), I had hoped we might discuss some of those things; but apparently the atmosphere degraded too much
Quote:




P.S.: Hey, everybody, can we please acknowledge that there are many reasons a person may stop posting on a thread other than their inability to admit defeat or their cowardice? Can we please just recognize that people have lives outside of RWED that (sometimes ) take precedence?

2nded. Sorry I did rather imply that, I didn't mean to. Just frustrated.
Quote:


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.




(said quietly, almost to myself... 'I think maybe I should have gone with that tongue biting thing')


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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


UUUhhhhh ... you lost me. :crossed-eyes head-spinning.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Thanks HK. Like you said about having cake and eating it too, and indeterminism.

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

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:25 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey leadb,

I really appreciate your last post to me. I really felt like you heard what I was saying and didn't jump to conclusions. You didn't have to agree with me, but you didn't wildly misinterpret what I was saying either.

In the ensuing calm between us, let me ask you a question or two (you are, of course, under no obligation to answer unless you find the topic of interest ).

Firstly, if God does not have a psychology, what is the significance of "God's love?" Or is there any? Without psychological holism, without any recognizable similarities between the human mind and the mind of God, how are we even to talk about whether God is "good" or "evil?" Do we speak of a storm's love or an earthquake's purpose? Then why speak of God in these terms?

Way up near the top of the thread, Causal introduced three ideas: God's omnipotence, God's goodness and the evil in the world. I suggested that God's goodness was inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence, that He had at least abdicated some of His power in investing us with free will. But if God lacks psychology, how can we talk of God being "good" at all? What is "goodness," or "love" outside the context of psychology?

Certainly, as a deist, you may have no personal need of a "loving God." Deists I've known and known of tend to see God as a relatively impersonal principle of "natural law" or creativity or reason. I mean, if that's where you're at, then whether or not God is insane is a simple non sequitur, like wondering whether the Sun is carnivorous or a vegetarian. I guess, what I want to know is: what's your stake in this discussion?

For me, the central trouble with a concept of God as "All-powerful" is that it romanticizes and legitimizes "absolute power" as an ideal and is therefore at the heart of the Fundamentalist violence we see in the world. My sense is that if we humans were to emphasize God's abdication of powers, for instance; or think of God more as a unified field of light and loving awareness moving through existence, say--we might not be so close to self-annihilation as we are. But when we glamorize autocracy, celebrate hierarchy and lionize absolutism with our concept of the Most High, we plant the seeds of our destruction.

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  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:13 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey leadb,

I really appreciate your last post to me. I really felt like you heard what I was saying and didn't jump to conclusions. You didn't have to agree with me, but you didn't wildly misinterpret what I was saying either.

In the ensuing calm between us, let me ask you a question or two (you are, of course, under no obligation to answer unless you find the topic of interest ).

Firstly, if God does not have a psychology, what is the significance of "God's love?" Or is there any? Without psychological holism, without any recognizable similarities between the human mind and the mind of God, how are we even to talk about whether God is "good" or "evil?" Do we speak of a storm's love or an earthquake's purpose? Then why speak of God in these terms?

I really have to step out of the role of devil's advocate here. Thing is, I don't talk in those terms. The closest I can come is drawing an analogy. Let's say aliens come to visit, can we apply human psychology to them? Simply because we have a set of characteristic responses, will they have the same? I think it would be dangerous to assume so. I'm simply not well suited to address the question.
Quote:



Way up near the top of the thread, Causal introduced three ideas: God's omnipotence, God's goodness and the evil in the world. I suggested that God's goodness was inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence, that He had at least abdicated some of His power in investing us with free will.
Quote:

This speaks against AG as being all powerful. Personally, I don't have a problem saying AG is 'just short of being all powerful; but clearly there's others who feel otherwise. Again, not a point I'm personally out to support. And of course, if we stop short of 'all powerful', then the question becomes, in your context, is He still doomed to be a psychopath?
But if God lacks psychology, how can we talk of God being "good" at all? What is "goodness," or "love" outside the context of psychology?

Personally, I define good as doing that which helps others; and evil as doing that which is done for the the purpose of harm to others. Thus one might argue that the being who created the universe is 'good', as it provides the setting for these kindly folk to exist. Thus it is my human psychology which is assessing the Creator as good.
Quote:



Certainly, as a deist, you may have no personal need of a "loving God." Deists I've known and known of tend to see God as a relatively impersonal principle of "natural law" or creativity or reason. I mean, if that's where you're at, then whether or not God is insane is a simple non sequitur, like wondering whether the Sun is carnivorous or a vegetarian. I guess, what I want to know is: what's your stake in this discussion?

Yep, personally; that's where am at. So my stake: When I first read your post, my thought was, what a low blow, to classify a very decent fellow's god as psychopathic. I thought the logic weak and indefensible. I refrained from comment until it became clear that Causal was in fact offended, wasn't going to continue further, and I thought, perhaps, I'd be able to convince you the position was offensive (which you might not care) and unsupportable. I doubt I'll be able to do that.
Quote:



For me, the central trouble with a concept of God as "All-powerful" is that it romanticizes and legitimizes "absolute power" as an ideal and is therefore at the heart of the Fundamentalist violence we see in the world. My sense is that if we humans were to emphasize God's abdication of powers, for instance; or think of God more as a unified field of light and loving awareness moving through existence, say--we might not be so close to self-annihilation as we are. But when we glamorize autocracy, celebrate hierarchy and lionize absolutism with our concept of the Most High, we plant the seeds of our destruction.

Here's the thing... to the extent we define God, you make some excellent points. To the extent that we merely are observers of the universe and attempt to accurately describe the universe, we cannot be the ones to define. Thus, if God is all powerful, is it problematic for us to 'fool ourselves' into thinking otherwise because of the impact to our psyche? My personal position is fairly close to what you describe, and I'll add I do not see the Creator as all powerful, and in fact may be flawed. (As per definition of 'not perfect' as opposed to 'seriously messed up'.) And, if there's an afterlife, and he actually does sort those who will go to heaven and those who don't, AND it turns out he really is all powerful, I'm kinda counting on him having a sense of humor about me thinking otherwise ;-).

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


HER. The gods are HER, in the plural. ;-)

I couldn't resist.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:48 PM

LEADB


Well Rue, the English language has the indefinite pronoun being 'he'; I really hope the Creator is either sexless or at least not not overly sexed either way ;-) But if you like to envision God as 'she' I have no problem with it. Consider all those masculine references above replaced with feminine.

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Anyway, to talk about absolute good and evil is, as far as I can see - fairly futile. B/c the questions are - on what time scale, to what end ?

Reading the OT, the ag seems harsh, demanding, cruel and capricious. That god gave rise to three religions that - one way or another - have been at war with each other over the last couple thousand years. So, over a 2000 year time scale the result has been destructive. And unless people find a way off, it's a one-way trip to annihilation. Surely that doesn't count as a good thing. Unless of course humans serve as a negative example to some other species and prevent an even greater destruction in the future. Or there is something inherently good about destruction we don't see with our human eyes.

So, 'good', in an absolute, long-term formulation, is hard to define. And religions which claim the absolute knowledge of good and evil are merely trading in the proscriptions of their day.

BTW I know someone whose daughter is a 'breatharian'. I wonder if there is something in some people that needs absolutes, and it is that which appeals to religious fanatics of all kinds.

Anyway, I have to go. I hope I haven't put too large a monkey wrench into the discussion.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And plural ... ! Just funning ! and now I really have to go. Have a good one, all.
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Well Rue, the English language has the indefinite pronoun being 'he'; I really hope the Creator is either sexless or at least not not overly sexed either way ;-) But if you like to envision God as 'she' I have no problem with it. Consider all those masculine references above replaced with feminine.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Friday, August 24, 2007 6:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'd be able to convince you the position was offensive (which you might not care) and unsupportable.
I find it curious that two of the people who I admire greatly here should reach this point of non-understanding.

HK has a different view on this topic and ALL thoughtful views should be welcomed. I would have not thought to characterize the AG (and I don't mean Attorney General!) as a psychopath- which I thought was startling - but on further explanation I think I see HK's point: The religion thinks that being all-powerful and all-knowing is (1) possible and (2) is a good thing. That kind of assumption forms a very different social paradigm than one in which we value naivete and accept that we are limited creatures who depend on each other.

When Causal wrote
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.
it is a mantle that he put on himself not one that was placed on him. I regret that he stepped out of the discussion because I value his philosophically careful style, but for the life of me I can't see why.

AntiMason, has not answered my question on the personal, emotional impact of the concept that s/he is not a cosmic warrior in the battle between light and dark. Apparently Anti avoids discussing a whole LOT of things... reality, science, what religion means to him (her)...

You know, I don't mind believers, but only if they're consistent within their belief structure. Anti refuses to face the conundrum that his (her) belief is in vast contradiction to everyday observation. In the end, people believe in what meets their emotional needs. It's too bad that we have such a boatload of emotional cripples in the USA, which prolly explains why we are so religious.

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

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Second and Ted Murdered Laken Riley
Fri, March 29, 2024 10:13 - 16 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:56 - 2077 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:53 - 13 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:52 - 4 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL