Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:45:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1127 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> We keep branching off into areas that could each entail lengthy
> discussion on their own. I'll try to provide only brief answers
> to your main points in the hopes of us staying focused.
Well-- I guess my issues here are that in order to stay focused on a topic,
one must often branch out to its extremities, implications, and more
importantly, it's roots, no matter how vast. And further, it is often
helpful to examine areas akin to the issues so that parallels in successful
and unsuccessful logic can be incorporated into the present discussion...
Basically, I guess I really don't mind straying here and there :)
> Certainly scientific evidence is preferable to testimonial evidence.
> Both can and should be used for court proof. I think we basically
> agree - we can't by definition have scientific proof or disproof of God,
> while the remaining court proof is sufficient for me but not for you.
Excellent! We've reached the point of agreeing to disagree. I think we
understand each other here, which is the goal (for me).
> Hmm - I suppose we would have to define fair. If by fair you
> mean God treating everybody equally, no - He doesn't.
Bob and Joe are twins. They share exactly the same experiences by some
ridiculous miracle of hypotheticalness, and 'inside' are both the same in
terms of morality, intelligence, faith, caring, selfishness/selflessness,
and so forth.
Both Bob and Joe die at the same exact time, in the same exact manner. Can
God condemn Bob to eternal damnation and Joe to eternal bliss in heaven?
That's fair, in the sense I'm looking for. You're welcome to say either yes
or no, but I say no. Such a system is one I wouldn't believe in. It goes
against my fundamental principles for how some envisionment of 'ultimate
good' "should" act. (One reason why I don't believe in 'ultimate good', by
the by)
> Quite - That's what I'm trying to do, but you don't seem to be
> willing to have your assumptions corrected. :-)
Oh I'm quite willing to have my assumptions corrected, but it seems rather
that when I make a statement, you dispute it saying my assumptions are
incorrect, and when I ask you what my assumptions should be, you seem to
change the subject. Fundamental question: What is it about the subjective
ideals held by the Bible (I.E. X is right because the Bible says so) vs some
other text? In other words, you've already admitted that testimonial
evidence is sufficient for you. Let's say Bob and Joe (our two favorite
twins) are both giving testimonial. Bob gives testimonial in favor of
Christianity. Joe gives testimonial in favor of Hinduism. For what reason do
you believe Bob over Joe? It's a subjective choice, no? Barring physical
evidence, does either one REALLY have any more merit over the other? Can you
stand firmly in your place solely on testimonial evidence, and be not only
sure yourself, but so sure as to presume that your choice is THE correct
choice? I.E. that everyone would/should make YOUR choice?
> NOT my only ;-) disagreement, just the most obvious one. The other
> _primary_ one being your assumption that man is basically good.
That's actually not really an assumption, but the extention of the theory.
My theory holds that what we tend to call 'good' is one aspect of human
nature that extends out of moral development. Same with being 'bad'.
Basically my theory says:
Assumption 1 - People will only act insofar as they percieve that their
actions will benefit themselves.
Assumption 2 - People learn over time, realizing different things that are
percieved as self-benefiting. (This assumption can actually be broken down
further, so it's not REALLY a fundamental assumption)
As a result, when people change their definitions of self-benefit, their
actions will change in accordance with those perceptions of self-benefit,
resulting in what 'we' call 'good' actions. And as a further consequence, in
societal relationships, people come to expect similar actions among others.
People that do not adhere to those expected actions are deemed 'bad', if
only in minor part.
So, it's really not an assumption that people ARE 'good', but that 'good' is
merely regarded by people as self-beneficial at some level of development.
> > I see a man on the street. He's dying of thirst. I just happen to have:
> > A. A truck full of Poland Springs(R) water (it's all owned by me) and
> > B. Information on where he can go in the future to GET water if I'm not there
> >
> > I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) that I "should", according to Christian
> > morality, give him either some of A or B or both. I.E. I should "be" good.
> > True? I should hope so, or else I don't know what to say about Christian
> > morality, and you've got a lot of explaining to do to me so I can
> > understand, cause otherwise I'll be completely confused.
>
> lol True enough - A stereotypical act of Christian charity.
Ok. Phew! Got something right...
> > Let's call the act of giving the man A and/or B 'good'. If it's not, then
> > go back and correct me. But, assuming I'm right, WHY should I do that?
> > WHY should I give him A or B or both? What happens if I don't? What
> > happens if I do? WHY should I BE a good person? And keep in mind this
> > is HYPOTHETICAL. You might say 'being' good is not based upon works,
> > but it IS based on something (I certainly hope!). I would think (again,
> > correct me if I'm wrong!) that BEING good is something not determined
> > by your ACTIONS, but by your HYPOTHETICAL actions. IF you DID see
> > someone in this situation, what WOULD you do, not what DID you do?
> >
> > Anyway, again, assuming you agree with the above, you have two recourses:
> > 1. There is no reason. Good is an end in and of itself. One should be good
> > because one should be good.
> > 2. One should be good because ____________.
>
> Why are you always so quick to fit things into your little definitions?
> What if it's not A or B, but C or D, and what if (more likely) your original
> hypothesis isn't accurate such that A, B, C, and D aren't even valid?
Heehee... I notice that in myself. Maybe it's all that computer programming
rubbing off on me :)
Actually, 2 reasons.
1. It's the way I think. I try to examine all possibilities so that I can
account for them, and at each level, try and figure out if there is a flaw
in my conclusion that one can draw out of one of the possibilites. And
further, I try and make sure to say "IF x, THEN y or z", rather than "y or
z". Basically, it provides yet another escape route for me. If you say "y
and z aren't relevant, neither are right", then I can say "Ok, I accounted
for that contingency by saying 'IF x', which must therefore be false".
2. Rhetoric. Were I a psychologist, I would try and predict what you'd say
and NOT tell you, but merely 'lead' you where I wanted you to go. I like to
provide nice neat little options because it shows both that I've thought
about it, and also very clearly allows the other person to see what I think
their options are, so they can be more aware of what I'm getting them into.
If ever you see another option, let me know. Or if my assumption (like x) is
wrong, say so, and don't even bother responding to trying to pick y or z.
> When you ask "Why SHOULD I be a good person" you are already including
> the foundation of morality - right & wrong - good and evil. When one says
> that people _should_ stop and a red light or that one _should_not_ molest
> a child, right and wrong is implicit in the should/should not. This entire
> line of questioning (and this is one of the two main branches) is somewhat
> of a "catch-22" is it not?
Completely true. And in so saying, you've opted for #1 (just letting you
know :). "Being good" is an end in and of itself. That IS the end. To say
'should' one implies inherent 'goodness' in that 'should' which is
inseperable from the 'good' mentioned as the object of the 'should'. Yes?
(gosh, that was a rather confusing sentence in retrospect... :)
Here's where I won't let you off the hook. But before I go on, I'll say I
think you've opted for the better choice for yourself-- opting for #2 could
easily lead to contradiction in logic, as should be obvious. I think we'll
quickly find another place where we'll agree to disagree.
Anyway, my argument is that the human psyche doesn't work like that. 'Being'
good DOES produce a self-benefit in the form of self-satisfaction, which
would be absent in NOT being good. And even further, in some people, NOT
being good (not to say actually being bad, but simply not being good),
creates a sense of dissatisfaction, which, as being non-beneficial to the
self, these people don't opt for. And in so saying, this is where we'll
simply be forced to disagree. I'm essentially telling you that even if you
THINK you're simply acting good BECAUSE you 'should', you're really
extracting self-benefit out of your good action, or you're avoiding the
opposite which would result from either your inaction in a good manner or
your action in a 'bad' manner. But you can simply argue the opposite.
> <snipped birds of a feather flocking together>
>
> > Anyway, you get the idea. So let me ask. Let's assume that feathers
> > really DO come from birds. What could be done to PROVE it? How
> > would my friend EVER know or even suspect the 'truth'?
>
> Isn't it again a problem of definitions and classifications? God created
> the first bird, including it's ability to reproduce. The first bird's
> feathers He created (along with the bird) out of nothing, while subsequent
> birds grow their own feathers, as He designed them to do. Why do you
> and your friend have to be considered to be of opposing positions?
No no... VERY important distinction I think I tried to make which was that
according to the Bibo, feathers are ONLY of direct divine origin. No birds
allowed. What you're arguing for is a refined definition of the 'direct'
words of the Bibo, similar to evolutionary theroy refining the definition of
the creation story in the Bible. And such is the more 'common' theory among
Christians today, as I believe-- that evolutionary theory may be correct,
but that as such, it involves a different, less 'direct' interpretation of
the Bible. The question becomes, though, at what point are you "forced" to
actually change your interpretation of the Bible? And at what point is that
interpretation changed sufficiently such that it is no longer what it once
was? And at what point is it no longer salvageable? Can there be such a
point? And if not, how must your definition of Christianity change such that
it is invulnerable to such a point? Basically, is creationism necessary to
the religion? Is the EXACT story of Jesus necessary? Is it not more
fundamental that one have faith, be good, and love others?
> As Jennifer says - evolution, in the sense of change and development, is
> quite apparent - and I would concur. The absurd part is when Darwin or
> whomever claims that one species evolved into another, (a lizard grows
> wings and becomes a bird, a cat becomes a dog becomes a horse, or
> whatever the precise nonsense is) that all living things "just happened"
> by chance, that the earth and everything else "evolved" into the amazing
> universe we inhabit somehow without God having created it.
That's the interesting thing... check out Chaos theory. At first glance,
yes, it seems extraordinary, but what's more extraordinary is that these
complex systems and beings evolved out of something so simple that it
boggles the mind. One of the most amazing examples of this is something like
the Mandelbrot set. A simple mathematical equasion iterated ad infinitum,
resulting in a complex, wonderous design far more complex than you'd expect
out of such a simple equasion... and from looking at nature, I see so many
paralells to fractals that I can't help but relate the two... Saying "by
chance" implies randomness, and yet, there's no such thing...
> That's the
> theory for which I say there is no evidence, and it's the other main branch
> I referred to.
Like I said, only bits of evidence to support the theory have been found.
Not enough to 'verify' it by any scientific method I know of. However, so
far, it's the only thing that's matched the evidence that I can see as
plausible...
> When I present creation as evidence of the Creator in our
> hypothetical court and you? disallow it,
I suppose it's not that I disallow such evidence, but that I disallow such a
conclusion. It does not make logical sense to me to assume that a complex
creation like our universe REQUIRES an intelligent creator. I'm much more of
the mind to think of that as rather a desperate conclusion...
> I presume that you ascribe to
> this theory. If you do, then let's make it the main branch and I'll show
> you how it's rotten to the core and can't support the weight of scientific
> and objective examination.
By all means you may try and show why the theory of evolution as it stands
doesn't hold up under scientific analysis-- but I'll most likely argue that
your objections either say nothing concrete or are subject to similar
critique by the scientific method.
> The choice of branch is yours, (the two I stated or another entirely)
> but my male-single-tasker brain will work better if we stick to one. :-)
Done and done. Maybe I'm rubbing off on you... :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| We keep branching off into areas that could each entail lengthy discussion on their own. I'll try to provide only brief answers to your main points in the hopes of us staying focused. (...) Certainly scientific evidence is preferable to testimonial (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
