Is science a religion?

[Fist and Faith]

On the ant, there certainly could be reasons to not avoid pain or suffering, and they require the application of thought - to be more than an animal. The Christian martyrs (if you would accept their logic, at least for long enough to be able to understand their actions) are an example of this, or for a non-Christian analogy from literature, the 'gom jabbar' test in Frank Herbert's Dune. There can be reason and logic at places and times to do a very unusual and un-animal action - that of choosing to accept pain for a reason. Thus, mere physical stimuli are not a reliable and consistent guide to what is actually desirable, or for providing any ability to determine whether something is actually desirable. If the Christians are right, or Paul knows that the gom jabbar will kill, then they will choose the un-animal action of accepting extreme suffering to attain what is really desirable. Thus, reason calls on us to be more than the ant, not less (and to not reduce the value of the human being to the value of the ant). Just trying to show that there can be logic - the kind that requires the specifically human ability of reason - that does require thought beyond mere stimuli.

Yes, there are certainly times when enduring pain is better than avoiding it. But that's not the point you have been making. You've been claiming that, if there is no objective, God-given meaning to all of us, then it is illogical to avoid pain, or put effort into continuing to live.

It seems to me that what you call pride may be a feeling of relief or gladness for oneself at having found the truth or having survived. I completely disagree that one must necessarily feel pride (which - speaking of the sinful kind as opposed to a father's pride in his son's accomplishments - is a specifically personal and egotistical thing and seeks the demeaning of others).

I don't believe what I've been saying about pride. I've been taking a stubborn stance on something I have no business taking such a stance on. As you have been doing with this meaninglessness-despair stuff.
-I claim all people must be prideful if they believe they've accomplished what you believe you've accomplished. I've even known people who demonstrate this. You claim all people must feel despair if they accept meaninglessness and think about it enough. And there are surely people who have despaired at this.

-In the face of some people I know, like Furls Fire, people whose beliefs I have not the least reason to doubt, and in whom I have never seen the least bit of pride, I know my claim is wrong. It is not an absolute. In the face of people you know, like me, people whose beliefs you have not the least reason to doubt, and in whom you have never seen the least bit of despair, you maintain that your premise is still correct. It is an absolute.

But what it seems you really object to is simply the idea that it could be possible to actually discover the true state of affairs, the nature of the universe and man's place in it. What could someone possibly do or say to you if they did? Surely, regardless of how they attempted to present it you would knock them equally, based on a dogma that it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

No, I do not object to that idea. I have no reason to believe it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

In fact, I have done so.

Or, at least, I believe I have. Just as you believe you have. What makes you think we are different? You act as though yours is the default position, and I am deviating from it. That I am being stubborn, or blind, or whatever, for not seeing things your way.

I have never seen a reason to believe I am wrong, although I have often asked. It's a sort of open invitation. If you have reason to believe I am wrong, please tell me. Doesn't mean I will come to believe you are right.

Various approaches would be acceptable. I can't imagine how many such approaches, but one is to show that the universe must have had a creator; that it cannot be uncreated.

Lewis hinted at another. He claimed that all people have the same moral compass, given to us by God. Then, he attempted to explain why so many people act contrary to that compass. The problem is, his starting point was that God gave us all the same moral compass. The correct starting point is looking at how people act. But the idea of using something like that, some common aspect of the human psyche, and showing that it cannot be explained in any way but God's will, is cool.

[aliantha]

[quote="On the "sinful" kind of pride, rusmeister"](P)ride ... is a specifically personal and egotistical thing and seeks the demeaning of others....[/quote]
But Rus, this is exactly what you have been doing here in the Close. You claim that Orthodoxy is the only religion that has the answers; that's hubris. You have been critical of other Christians here and dismissive of their beliefs if they're not "Christian enough" to suit you; that's pride in your own religious beliefs and demeaning to those who don't believe the way you do. You have repeatedly chastised everybody here for not taking on your reading list; that's egotistical, don't you think? Certainly you've been taking it personally that nobody here will agree with you.

Never mind the way you have treated the beliefs of non-Christians like Fist and me.

I hope, for your sake, that you are right about the afterlife. Because otherwise when you stand before the Pearly Gates, you are going to get hammered. I would hate to see that happen to anybody.

[rusmeister]

[quote="On the "sinful" kind of pride, rusmeister"](P)ride ... is a specifically personal and egotistical thing and seeks the demeaning of others....

But Rus, this is exactly what you have been doing here in the Close. You claim that Orthodoxy is the only religion that has the answers; that's hubris. You have been critical of other Christians here and dismissive of their beliefs if they're not "Christian enough" to suit you; that's pride in your own religious beliefs and demeaning to those who don't believe the way you do. You have repeatedly chastised everybody here for not taking on your reading list; that's egotistical, don't you think? Certainly you've been taking it personally that nobody here will agree with you.

Never mind the way you have treated the beliefs of non-Christians like Fist and me.

I hope, for your sake, that you are right about the afterlife. Because otherwise when you stand before the Pearly Gates, you are going to get hammered. I would hate to see that happen to anybody.[/quote]

Hi Ali,
It is helpful when you restate what you perceive to be my ideas - it (to me) reveals the gap between what I intend and what you perceive.

I do not claim that only Orthodoxy has answers; in fact, I maintain that practically all human views have some measure of truth in them. The degree to which they are true varies. Thus, I claim that Orthodoxy has the fullness of the truth - it is completely true. However, I see other faiths to teach things that express small or greater parts of that truth.

I have attempted to communicate where some do depart from the truth of Orthodoxy. If you believe something is true, are you necessarily prideful in doing so? If you believe that all killing is bad (not that you necessarily do), are you prideful over a soldier who believes that it is right to kill to defend his family or his country? Do you demean the soldier when you deny that he is right?

There is a base idea here, a dogma, something unquestioned and unexamined, that all ideas have equal value and deserve equal respect. Furthermore, this is frequently confused with the value and respect we (I hope) believe in attributing to people. People are not ideas. But people may be wrong about ideas. If the dogma of relativism is assumed and not questioned, then yes, you will take my ideas, which deny absolute relativism, as offensive, especially if you take them as attacks on your person.

Actually, we all expect and fear the "getting hammered" at the Last Judgement (the modern image of "pearly gates" is only a metaphor, after all). I wonder if you are aware of the Orthodox non-dogmatic concept of "Toll Houses"? But our concern for self there is rightly egotistical, for the very reason that God is the ultimate judge, not me, of both myself and others. So quite honestly, I hope that, even if you do not find Orthodoxy (you have not learned it merely by chatting with me), that you, and all will be saved, and that we will have many opportunities to laugh over this together in eternity. However, I am forbidden from taking a Universalist position on this, and so, have to say that it does matter what you believe, and that is what I imagine rubs against people here.

[rusmeister]

On the ant, there certainly could be reasons to not avoid pain or suffering, and they require the application of thought - to be more than an animal. The Christian martyrs (if you would accept their logic, at least for long enough to be able to understand their actions) are an example of this, or for a non-Christian analogy from literature, the 'gom jabbar' test in Frank Herbert's Dune. There can be reason and logic at places and times to do a very unusual and un-animal action - that of choosing to accept pain for a reason. Thus, mere physical stimuli are not a reliable and consistent guide to what is actually desirable, or for providing any ability to determine whether something is actually desirable. If the Christians are right, or Paul knows that the gom jabbar will kill, then they will choose the un-animal action of accepting extreme suffering to attain what is really desirable. Thus, reason calls on us to be more than the ant, not less (and to not reduce the value of the human being to the value of the ant). Just trying to show that there can be logic - the kind that requires the specifically human ability of reason - that does require thought beyond mere stimuli.

Yes, there are certainly times when enduring pain is better than avoiding it. But that's not the point you have been making. You've been claiming that, if there is no objective, God-given meaning to all of us, then it is illogical to avoid pain, or put effort into continuing to live.

If nothing has meaning, then I do not mean anything. My thoughts and words do not mean anything. Any "meaning" that I ascribe to my life doesn't mean anything. Logic doesn't mean anything. And so, living and avoiding pain doesn't mean anything. If Flavius Maximus, a slave in 3rd century Rome 's life doesn't mean anything, except for the fact that he was an ancestor of mine, then my life doesn't mean anything either. If, 10,000 years from now, no one can say what your meaning was, if Fist's life and actions are meaningless, then you don't mean anything. For there must be someone (or Someone) for something to mean something to. To whom are you proposing any kind of meaning? If yourself, then what does that mean after your death and the death of everyone who ever knew you?

-In the face of some people I know, like Furls Fire, people whose beliefs I have not the least reason to doubt, and in whom I have never seen the least bit of pride, I know my claim is wrong. It is not an absolute. In the face of people you know, like me, people whose beliefs you have not the least reason to doubt, and in whom you have never seen the least bit of despair, you maintain that your premise is still correct. It is an absolute.

I have no doubt that Furls is justifiably admired here. I would have only one problem with that - and that is if it really didn't bring you folks closer to Christ, Who is the Truth (which IS an absolute). If people simply said, "Look at that - what wonderful beliefs he/she has", and are not driven to find what that person has, and to consequently change their lives, then it wouldn't matter how kind a person is, or appears to be over electronic forums. And that's another thought. We communicate via naked spoken words. No facial language, no personal knowledge of each other in a live setting. The possibility of misunderstanding others is high, and some of us are poor communicators in this medium, including me (from the obvious fact that we are having conversations like this for what - 2 or three years now? As well as Ali seeing my ideas in the way that she expressed, which says that I am evidently a pretty poor communicator.)

But what it seems you really object to is simply the idea that it could be possible to actually discover the true state of affairs, the nature of the universe and man's place in it. What could someone possibly do or say to you if they did? Surely, regardless of how they attempted to present it you would knock them equally, based on a dogma that it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

No, I do not object to that idea. I have no reason to believe it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

In fact, I have done so.

Or, at least, I believe I have. Just as you believe you have. What makes you think we are different? You act as though yours is the default position, and I am deviating from it. That I am being stubborn, or blind, or whatever, for not seeing things your way.

I have never seen a reason to believe I am wrong, although I have often asked. It's a sort of open invitation. If you have reason to believe I am wrong, please tell me. Doesn't mean I will come to believe you are right.

Various approaches would be acceptable. I can't imagine how many such approaches, but one is to show that the universe must have had a creator; that it cannot be uncreated.

Lewis hinted at another. He claimed that all people have the same moral compass, given to us by God. Then, he attempted to explain why so many people act contrary to that compass. The problem is, his starting point was that God gave us all the same moral compass. The correct starting point is looking at how people act. But the idea of using something like that, some common aspect of the human psyche, and showing that it cannot be explained in any way but God's will, is cool.

I think I've already shown what can be shown on whether the universe had a creator, and that it is at least as illogical to assume that it didn't. But I don't think that a useful approach - we would say that it is not "salvific" - the question of the manner of creation does not impact our salvation, the enabling of a new and eternal life that cancels out death. It doesn't deal with the condition of man as we see it now. (Another reason I have found Chesterton so fascinating - because that is what he deals with, and in argument he does start from common things (that we know and generally agree on). Probably a better approach for you is the egocentrical and ultimately self-destructive, or at least contradictory nature of man, explained by us in the doctrine of the Fall.


I believe Lewis DID start by looking at how people act, and don't see why you think otherwise. He did refer to the commonality of human behavior throughout the world as a starting point. The moral compass is something deduced from that, rather than the other way around. That's in MC ch 1 - by no means his best book. (FTR, his deepest and most mature work is widely considered to be "Till We Have Faces", a fictional retelling of the myth of Cupid and Psyche)

Are small steps possible? Dunno.

[Seven Words]

There is a base idea here, a dogma, something unquestioned and unexamined, that all ideas have equal value and deserve equal respect.

OK, Here's one big thing I think you're missing, rus. I do NOT subscribe to the dogma you mentioned. I do hold to something very close. I believe that all ideas which do not have objective proof have equal value and deserve equal respect. What do I mean by proof? here's a (admittedly QUITE lengthy) example of what I would take as proof. Let's say a specific energy pulse is detected from a person, every person, as they die, using just-now create technology. Now, that energy pulse varies somewhat from person to person. Say a machine to generate such and sustain such a pulse is assembled. It's turned on, with all manner of recording devices monitoring. a view of a dark hall, near a river, is seen and heard, and there's a scale with a feather on it. This would be proof that the ancient Egyptians religion was true. But if a man were visible reading from something titled "The Book of Life" and saying, "thou good and faithful servant" as someone walked past, that would prove Christianity. NO faith, as of right now, has proof. So all ARE equally deserving of equal respect and value. It's the only intellectually honest approach, I believe.

[aliantha]

If you believe something is true, are you necessarily prideful in doing so?

Of course not. But if you don't want the people you're talking to to think you're a doink, you preface your belief with "I believe." Or "Orthodoxy teaches." Or some other similar phrasing.

My point has nothing to do with dogma or Orthodoxy or any of that. What I'm trying to get across to you is basic etiquette on a message board. If you walked into my house and said to me, "Boy, your kitchen is tiny, and you haven't ever washed the walls since you moved in, and north-facing apartments are just so *dark* inside," I would think you were acting like a jerk. All of those statements are true, btw -- I live in a north-facing apartment (well, northwest-facing) with a tiny kitchen, and my housekeeping kind of stinks. But it's also true that I would consider you a jerk for stating the truth in such an insulting way.

You seem mystified as to why people aren't interested in pursuing your links. You seem to think it's because they're not interested in learning The Truth. What I am telling you is that a lot of it is because you are acting like a jerk. Maybe you feel that prefacing The Truth with "I believe" is selling it short, but I am telling you that your posts insult people. If you're good with that, then carry on. Just don't be mystified when you don't get any takers.

And note that I said "*acting* like a jerk", not that you *are* a jerk.

Oh, and btw, not all of us here are strangers to one another. I've met Fist, Menolly, and a bunch of other Watchers at Elohimfests.

Last thing I'll say today: I don't know if you ever read the Stephen C. thread in the Hall of Gifts, but the deal with Furls, in a nutshell, is that she's an AIDS activist. Her brother contracted it during a blood transfusion after an accident and died of it. Since then, she has worked for an end to the disease. She has adopted children orphaned by AIDS, and has welcomed at least two terminally-ill AIDS sufferers into her home so that they didn't have to die on the street. And now she's very, very sick with lymphoma. If anybody here at the Watch is a candidate for sainthood, it's Furls -- and frankly, the fact that you have entertained doubts about her religious beliefs because they're not Just Like Yours seriously pisses me off.

[rusmeister]

If you believe something is true, are you necessarily prideful in doing so?

Of course not. But if you don't want the people you're talking to to think you're a doink, you preface your belief with "I believe." Or "Orthodoxy teaches." Or some other similar phrasing.

My point has nothing to do with dogma or Orthodoxy or any of that. What I'm trying to get across to you is basic etiquette on a message board. If you walked into my house and said to me, "Boy, your kitchen is tiny, and you haven't ever washed the walls since you moved in, and north-facing apartments are just so *dark* inside," I would think you were acting like a jerk. All of those statements are true, btw -- I live in a north-facing apartment (well, northwest-facing) with a tiny kitchen, and my housekeeping kind of stinks. But it's also true that I would consider you a jerk for stating the truth in such an insulting way.

You seem mystified as to why people aren't interested in pursuing your links. You seem to think it's because they're not interested in learning The Truth. What I am telling you is that a lot of it is because you are acting like a jerk. Maybe you feel that prefacing The Truth with "I believe" is selling it short, but I am telling you that your posts insult people. If you're good with that, then carry on. Just don't be mystified when you don't get any takers.

And note that I said "*acting* like a jerk", not that you *are* a jerk.

Oh, and btw, not all of us here are strangers to one another. I've met Fist, Menolly, and a bunch of other Watchers at Elohimfests.

Last thing I'll say today: I don't know if you ever read the Stephen C. thread in the Hall of Gifts, but the deal with Furls, in a nutshell, is that she's an AIDS activist. Her brother contracted it during a blood transfusion after an accident and died of it. Since then, she has worked for an end to the disease. She has adopted children orphaned by AIDS, and has welcomed at least two terminally-ill AIDS sufferers into her home so that they didn't have to die on the street. And now she's very, very sick with lymphoma. If anybody here at the Watch is a candidate for sainthood, it's Furls -- and frankly, the fact that you have entertained doubts about her religious beliefs because they're not Just Like Yours seriously pisses me off.

I'm sorry you take things that way Ali. It seems like you misunderstand me from start to finish, while nearly, but not quite understanding all the while.

I didn't "walk into your house". I came to KW because I have always enjoyed SRD, and "walked" into the Close because there is nothing I find more interesting and important than the question of Truth.

I agree that at times I very likely stated my thoughts in a less than ideal way. I wish I had expressed them more ideally, and I am sorry. At the same time, who could say that they have always stated their thoughts ideally? Maybe everybody thinks I have been :"acting like a jerk". if that is all that anybody can see in my words, then I must leave.

On knowing others, I did not claim that nobody knows anybody personally. I meant that you and I decidedly do not know each other, and I am sure there are plenty of others who do not have personal acquaintance.

Yes, thanks, I did learn something of Furls' story from that thread, although I only read a portion of it. I tried to express that I mean nothing to denigrate Furls, and readily acknowledge that she may be a saint in God's eyes - I didn't tell you guys my life story, or about my mother, who is also doing something truly heroic. As I said, I do believe that there are great people in other faiths who I personally think God probably sees as His saints - it's simply that I can't say that they are - that has not been revealed to or declared by the Authority that I acknowledge. If her religious beliefs, or Ghandi's, or Mother Theresa's, conflict with mine anywhere along the way, then I'll still object to them precisely because they are mine not in the sense of 'formulated by me' but in the sense of "accepted by me". And I still have room to hope that they are saints and will be saved, and believe that they are surely objectively more deserving than me - especially people like Furls' who fulfill the greatest of Christ's commandments. I don't know how to communicate what I see as honoring them - even while disagreeing with them in some ways- in any way that you will not take as insult. It appears to be a major communication gap.

[rusmeister]

There is a base idea here, a dogma, something unquestioned and unexamined, that all ideas have equal value and deserve equal respect.

OK, Here's one big thing I think you're missing, rus. I do NOT subscribe to the dogma you mentioned. I do hold to something very close. I believe that all ideas which do not have objective proof have equal value and deserve equal respect. What do I mean by proof? here's a (admittedly QUITE lengthy) example of what I would take as proof. Let's say a specific energy pulse is detected from a person, every person, as they die, using just-now create technology. Now, that energy pulse varies somewhat from person to person. Say a machine to generate such and sustain such a pulse is assembled. It's turned on, with all manner of recording devices monitoring. a view of a dark hall, near a river, is seen and heard, and there's a scale with a feather on it. This would be proof that the ancient Egyptians religion was true. But if a man were visible reading from something titled "The Book of Life" and saying, "thou good and faithful servant" as someone walked past, that would prove Christianity. NO faith, as of right now, has proof. So all ARE equally deserving of equal respect and value. It's the only intellectually honest approach, I believe.

Hi 7W,
I'm a little weary of endless disagreements right now, so I'll just say that my response would be GKC's "The Everlasting Man". If people won't read it, oh, well. You say, "objective proof", which is a concept which desperately needs to be qualified, and you might discover that there are some forms of proof quite far from the scientific conception of identifying it. If a belief turns out to be actually untrue, then it is not worthy of equal respect with one that is - that actually describes what really is the truth about life, the universe and everything. THAT is an intellectually honest approach; and you would be right to point out that an intellectually honest approach could be mistaken - could actually be wrong.

[Seven Words]

There is a base idea here, a dogma, something unquestioned and unexamined, that all ideas have equal value and deserve equal respect.

OK, Here's one big thing I think you're missing, rus. I do NOT subscribe to the dogma you mentioned. I do hold to something very close. I believe that all ideas which do not have objective proof have equal value and deserve equal respect. What do I mean by proof? here's a (admittedly QUITE lengthy) example of what I would take as proof. Let's say a specific energy pulse is detected from a person, every person, as they die, using just-now create technology. Now, that energy pulse varies somewhat from person to person. Say a machine to generate such and sustain such a pulse is assembled. It's turned on, with all manner of recording devices monitoring. a view of a dark hall, near a river, is seen and heard, and there's a scale with a feather on it. This would be proof that the ancient Egyptians religion was true. But if a man were visible reading from something titled "The Book of Life" and saying, "thou good and faithful servant" as someone walked past, that would prove Christianity. NO faith, as of right now, has proof. So all ARE equally deserving of equal respect and value. It's the only intellectually honest approach, I believe.

Hi 7W,
I'm a little weary of endless disagreements right now, so I'll just say that my response would be GKC's "The Everlasting Man". If people won't read it, oh, well. You say, "objective proof", which is a concept which desperately needs to be qualified, and you might discover that there are some forms of proof quite far from the scientific conception of identifying it. If a belief turns out to be actually untrue, then it is not worthy of equal respect with one that is - that actually describes what really is the truth about life, the universe and everything. THAT is an intellectually honest approach; and you would be right to point out that an intellectually honest approach could be mistaken - could actually be wrong.

You're correct about untrue not deserving equal merit. In fact, untrue ones SHOULD be dismissed. However, truth in not subjective, which brings us back to my assertion that absent proof all are deserving. My example of proof above...Once the Egyptian faith has such proof, every other faith should be dismissed as demonstrably untrue. Or if Christianity were proven as I hypothesized, all others would be proven untrue. But lacking proof, asserting one faith as truth is opinion, and presenting it as objective fact is, to me, intellectually dishonest. For this reason, I try very hard to always make sure my statements say, "I believe", "I think", or "In my opinion".

Do I think I could be wrong, despite my intellectual honesty? Yes. But I'll need objective proof before I believe I'm wrong...or a subjective personal direct experience.

[aliantha]

I didn't mean to suggest, Rus, that by walking into the Watch you had walked into my house, virtual or otherwise. I was reaching for a metaphor for a situation in which someone was uttering truth in an insulting way. Apparently, my housekeeping was on my mind. (Note to self: clean the bathrooms this weekend...)

Apology accepted, but seriously, think about throwing in an "I believe" every now and then.

[Cagliostro]

Or try out E-Prime.

[Fist and Faith]

If nothing has meaning, then I do not mean anything. My thoughts and words do not mean anything. Any "meaning" that I ascribe to my life doesn't mean anything. Logic doesn't mean anything. And so, living and avoiding pain doesn't mean anything. If Flavius Maximus, a slave in 3rd century Rome 's life doesn't mean anything, except for the fact that he was an ancestor of mine, then my life doesn't mean anything either. If, 10,000 years from now, no one can say what your meaning was, if Fist's life and actions are meaningless, then you don't mean anything. For there must be someone (or Someone) for something to mean something to. To whom are you proposing any kind of meaning? If yourself, then what does that mean after your death and the death of everyone who ever knew you?

Yes, I understand the concept of meaninglessness. You don't have to list every single thing that has no meaning. (Nor could you, since that would mean listing EVERY SINGLE THING.) None of that means it is illogical to avoid pain. Even if pain has no meaning, it still hurts. Avoid it. There is no logic in standing there enduring it. (Yes, as you mentioned, there are exceptions. None I can think of are based in logic, though. Things we feel very strongly about. Children. Country. God. Things that have meaning to the one who chooses to endure the pain, or death. Just as I would die for my children. They do not have any meaning in the objective, universal, eternal sense, but they mean something to me. But you do not believe that kind of meaning can put off despair.)

I have no doubt that Furls is justifiably admired here. I would have only one problem with that - and that is if it really didn't bring you folks closer to Christ, Who is the Truth (which IS an absolute). If people simply said, "Look at that - what wonderful beliefs he/she has", and are not driven to find what that person has, and to consequently change their lives, then it wouldn't matter how kind a person is, or appears to be over electronic forums. And that's another thought. We communicate via naked spoken words. No facial language, no personal knowledge of each other in a live setting. The possibility of misunderstanding others is high, and some of us are poor communicators in this medium, including me (from the obvious fact that we are having conversations like this for what - 2 or three years now? As well as Ali seeing my ideas in the way that she expressed, which says that I am evidently a pretty poor communicator.)

Well *ahem* you haven't exactly got us beating down the church doors, eh?

I think I've already shown what can be shown on whether the universe had a creator, and that it is at least as illogical to assume that it didn't.

Yes. Absolutely true. It is no more logical to believe a universe could be uncreated than it is to believe a creator could be uncreated. The difference, of course, is that I perceive the universe in every way I am capable of perceiving anything; while I do not perceive any creator in any way. It is more logical to believe that the universe I know exists is uncreated than that the creator I don't have reason to believe exists does exist and is uncreated.

But I don't think that a useful approach - we would say that it is not "salvific" - the question of the manner of creation does not impact our salvation, the enabling of a new and eternal life that cancels out death. It doesn't deal with the condition of man as we see it now.

All well and good. But if I have no reason to believe there is a creator in the first place, I'm not too likely to worry about salvation. "First things first" is my idea.

Still, as I've said, I can't say it's impossible to come at it from the other direction. So:

(Another reason I have found Chesterton so fascinating - because that is what he deals with, and in argument he does start from common things (that we know and generally agree on).

Great! Give me one of those common things. Despite your insistence that he's a brilliant writer, and you're not, Chesterton didn't work for me. So let's go very slowly. One common thing. Just name it. Then we'll see how it can be argued.

Probably a better approach for you is the egocentrical and ultimately self-destructive, or at least contradictory nature of man, explained by us in the doctrine of the Fall.

How do you mean? In what way do you see that as an approach that might make me believe in some sort of creator?

I believe Lewis DID start by looking at how people act, and don't see why you think otherwise. He did refer to the commonality of human behavior throughout the world as a starting point. The moral compass is something deduced from that, rather than the other way around. That's in MC ch 1 -

I'll look at that again. It's been a few years. Having disagreed with it, I haven't gone back to it since. But my memory of it is that he sees some people behaving nicely toward others; some helping others; some stealing from others; some beating others; etc. A wide range of behaviors. Then he explains why those who are not behaving according to the moral compass God gave us aren't. This means:
1) God created all of us with a moral compass.
2) Many of us act against that moral compass.
3) Here is why many of us act against that moral compass.

That's all well and good, if you assume God created us in the first place. But if I do not assume that, it is certainly not going to convince me. It currently looks like this to me:
1) Morally speaking, many different people act in many different ways.
2) Based on that, it seems we do not all have a common moral compass.

Are small steps possible? Dunno.

Well, large ones certainly aren't the answer, eh? "Go from unbelief to Orthodoxy" just ain't gonna happen. Going from unbelief to a general feeling of Christianity isn't, either.

But what it seems you really object to is simply the idea that it could be possible to actually discover the true state of affairs, the nature of the universe and man's place in it. What could someone possibly do or say to you if they did? Surely, regardless of how they attempted to present it you would knock them equally, based on a dogma that it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

No, I do not object to that idea. I have no reason to believe it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

In fact, I have done so.

Or, at least, I believe I have. Just as you believe you have. What makes you think we are different? You act as though yours is the default position, and I am deviating from it. That I am being stubborn, or blind, or whatever, for not seeing things your way.

I was hoping you would address this. This is the root of what we see as arrogance in you. You do not think it is arrogance, merely a statement of fact. "You believe you have found the answer, and I believe I have found the answer. The difference is, I really have found the answer." It's the same as "Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who do." Maybe we even all think it. But you're the only one who expects everybody else to take your word for it.

[rusmeister]

Hi again, Fist!

If nothing has meaning, then I do not mean anything. My thoughts and words do not mean anything. Any "meaning" that I ascribe to my life doesn't mean anything. Logic doesn't mean anything. And so, living and avoiding pain doesn't mean anything. If Flavius Maximus, a slave in 3rd century Rome 's life doesn't mean anything, except for the fact that he was an ancestor of mine, then my life doesn't mean anything either. If, 10,000 years from now, no one can say what your meaning was, if Fist's life and actions are meaningless, then you don't mean anything. For there must be someone (or Someone) for something to mean something to. To whom are you proposing any kind of meaning? If yourself, then what does that mean after your death and the death of everyone who ever knew you?

Yes, I understand the concept of meaninglessness. You don't have to list every single thing that has no meaning. (Nor could you, since that would mean listing EVERY SINGLE THING.) None of that means it is illogical to avoid pain. Even if pain has no meaning, it still hurts. Avoid it. There is no logic in standing there enduring it. (Yes, as you mentioned, there are exceptions. None I can think of are based in logic, though. Things we feel very strongly about. Children. Country. God. Things that have meaning to the one who chooses to endure the pain, or death. Just as I would die for my children. They do not have any meaning in the objective, universal, eternal sense, but they mean something to me. But you do not believe that kind of meaning can put off despair.)

I do believe that that kind of belief in meaninglessness can put off despair if one refuses or fails to think it through to the conclusion that meaning to the individual has any meaning outside of the context of that individual’s life, and that that means that there is no transcendent meaning. In 60-70 odd years, there will BE no “you”, and thus, your life will have no meaning. If I can express that thought, even in a future tense, then it is a logical conclusion. With no transcendent meaning, it doesn’t matter what you feel about anything, because it has no meaning – indeed, it doesn’t even offer me a reason as to why I should consider any meaning in your life at all – and therefore justify exterminating it, on a meaningless whim on my part, as something that has no meaning from MY subjective standpoint. From that logic, I don’t have to take any subjective meaning on your part seriously. It is only if there is meaning, and it is objective, that you can justify any social position whatsoever. There is no reason to avoid pain - literally... unless your idea that pain is undesirable has objective meaning.

I think I've already shown what can be shown on whether the universe had a creator, and that it is at least as illogical to assume that it didn't.

Yes. Absolutely true. It is no more logical to believe a universe could be uncreated than it is to believe a creator could be uncreated. The difference, of course, is that I perceive the universe in every way I am capable of perceiving anything; while I do not perceive any creator in any way. It is more logical to believe that the universe I know exists is uncreated than that the creator I don't have reason to believe exists does exist and is uncreated.

On this I can only say that I demonstrated then that it is NOT more logical that this universe is uncreated, and you even agreed at the time. Now the arguments are evidently forgotten and you are back to square one.

But I don't think that a useful approach - we would say that it is not "salvific" - the question of the manner of creation does not impact our salvation, the enabling of a new and eternal life that cancels out death. It doesn't deal with the condition of man as we see it now.

All well and good. But if I have no reason to believe there is a creator in the first place, I'm not too likely to worry about salvation. "First things first" is my idea.

Still, as I've said, I can't say it's impossible to come at it from the other direction. So:

(Another reason I have found Chesterton so fascinating - because that is what he deals with, and in argument he does start from common things (that we know and generally agree on).

Great! Give me one of those common things. Despite your insistence that he's a brilliant writer, and you're not, Chesterton didn't work for me. So let's go very slowly. One common thing. Just name it. Then we'll see how it can be argued.

Since I think it far more valuable to engender interest in Chesterton than a prejudiced hostile attitude towards him, I would start with something outside of apologetics. “What’s Wrong With the World” is an outstanding social commentary that is entirely relevant today. But I might start from the book, "Orthodoxy", ch 2 ("The Maniac")
I'm reluctant to print the whole chapter here, and it is a whole argument, and working with only an outtake would be to refuse to do it justice. But for the sake of a teaser, to arouse interest in the argument; I'll ask you to bear with it and to pursue the link to the rest of the chapter afterwards:

THOROUGHLY worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, "That man will get on; he believes in himself." And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written "Hanwell*." I said to him, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums." He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. "Yes, there are," I retorted, "and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself. That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself. If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actors who can't act believe in themselves; and debtors who won't pay. It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has `Hanwell' written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus." And to all this my friend the publisher made this very deep and effective reply, "Well, if a man is not to believe in himself, in what is he to believe?" After a long pause I replied, "I will go home and write a book in answer to that question." This is the book that I have written in answer to it.

But I think this book may well start where our argument started -- in the neighbourhood of the mad-house. Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin -- a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

In this remarkable situation it is plainly not now possible (with any hope of a universal appeal) to start, as our fathers did, with the fact of sin. This very fact which was to them (and is to me) as plain as a pikestaff, is the very fact that has been specially diluted or denied. But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum. We all agree still that there is a collapse of the intellect as unmistakable as a falling house. Men deny hell, but not, as yet, Hanwell. For the purpose of our primary argument the one may very well stand where the other stood. I mean that as all thoughts and theories were once judged by whether they tended to make a man lose his soul, so for our present purpose all modern thoughts and theories may be judged by whether they tend to make a man lose his wits.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch2.html

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanwell_Asylum

It should be noted that GKC does NOT take the doctrine of sin as the starting point, but the existence of evil. (I'm just used to people saying, "But I don't agree with his starting point!")

Probably a better approach for you is the egocentrical and ultimately self-destructive, or at least contradictory nature of man, explained by us in the doctrine of the Fall.

How do you mean? In what way do you see that as an approach that might make me believe in some sort of creator?

Because it explains things that we can see, in front of our eyes every day. I thought I had posted this here:

The Fall is a view of life. It is not only the only enlightening,
but the only encouraging view of life. It holds, as against
the only real alternative philosophies, those of the Buddhist
or the Pessimist or the Promethean, that we have misused
a good world, and not merely been entrapped into a bad one.
It refers evil back to the wrong use of the will, and thus declares
that it can eventually be righted by the right use of the will.
Every other creed except that one is some form of surrender to fate.
A man who holds this view of life will find it giving light
on a thousand things; on which mere evolutionary ethics have not
a word to say. For instance, on the colossal contrast between
the completeness of man's machines and the continued corruption
of his motives; on the fact that no social progress really seems
to leave self behind; on the fact that the first and not the last
men of any school or revolution are generally the best and purest;
as William Penn was better than a Quaker millionaire or Washington
better than an American oil magnate; on that proverb that says:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance," which is only what
the theologians say of every other virtue, and is itself only a way
of stating the truth of original sin; on those extremes of good and
evil by which man exceeds all the animals by the measure of heaven
and hell; on that sublime sense of loss that is in the very sound
of all great poetry, and nowhere more than in the poetry of pagans
and sceptics: "We look before and after, and pine for what is not";
which cries against all prigs and progressives out of the very
depths and abysses of the broken heart of man, that happiness
is not only a hope, but also in some strange manner a memory;
and that we are all kings in exile.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_Thing.txt (ch 31 "The Outline of the Fall")

I believe Lewis DID start by looking at how people act, and don't see why you think otherwise. He did refer to the commonality of human behavior throughout the world as a starting point. The moral compass is something deduced from that, rather than the other way around. That's in MC ch 1 -

I'll look at that again. It's been a few years. Having disagreed with it, I haven't gone back to it since. But my memory of it is that he sees some people behaving nicely toward others; some helping others; some stealing from others; some beating others; etc. A wide range of behaviors. Then he explains why those who are not behaving according to the moral compass God gave us aren't. This means:
1) God created all of us with a moral compass.
2) Many of us act against that moral compass.
3) Here is why many of us act against that moral compass.

That's all well and good, if you assume God created us in the first place. But if I do not assume that, it is certainly not going to convince me. It currently looks like this to me:
1) Morally speaking, many different people act in many different ways.
2) Based on that, it seems we do not all have a common moral compass.

I’d say that’s not an accurate recounting at all of Lewis’s argument. He starts from the other end. He starts with people behaving differently, but appealing to a common standard (which he later calls “the moral compass”). That standard is objective. Then he discusses how the variations in the compass are not on a 360 degree scale, but actually have a relatively narrow angle of variation. In the course of the book he goes from that to the conclusion that there is a definite God that created us with this “moral compass”. But he doesn’t make any sudden leaps to that conclusion in that chapter.

Are small steps possible? Dunno.

Well, large ones certainly aren't the answer, eh? "Go from unbelief to Orthodoxy" just ain't gonna happen. Going from unbelief to a general feeling of Christianity isn't, either.

Agreed.

But what it seems you really object to is simply the idea that it could be possible to actually discover the true state of affairs, the nature of the universe and man's place in it. What could someone possibly do or say to you if they did? Surely, regardless of how they attempted to present it you would knock them equally, based on a dogma that it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

No, I do not object to that idea. I have no reason to believe it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

In fact, I have done so.

Or, at least, I believe I have. Just as you believe you have. What makes you think we are different? You act as though yours is the default position, and I am deviating from it. That I am being stubborn, or blind, or whatever, for not seeing things your way.

I was hoping you would address this. This is the root of what we see as arrogance in you. You do not think it is arrogance, merely a statement of fact. "You believe you have found the answer, and I believe I have found the answer. The difference is, I really have found the answer." It's the same as "Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who do." Maybe we even all think it. But you're the only one who expects everybody else to take your word for it.

You appear to have left out a quote of mine you intended to insert. (The quote of mine that you do have there I see as reasonable.) Still, I acknowledge that I have no doubt come across that way sometimes. For that, I apologize, although I don’t think I actually do that all that often, and that sometimes a mere dogmatic statement is taken as more than it is. It is difficult to speak about things that you actually see as true as if they were not true. Sometimes it’s like trying to speak as if murder and theft were wrong and then having people upset because you said that, assuming that they would simply agree with you, and then, after all of the offense and insult taken, outrage, etc, going back and trying to defend why murder and stealing are wrong. 100 years ago, I would have appealed to common sense – something that no one does today, for the simple reason that the sense has ceased to be common. For another thing, I really do want to challenge conventional assumptions that it seems nobody questions in our time – they are taken for granted in all media and most public discourse, and it might jar people to have those assumptions challenged. For that, I don’t apologize.
I will accept correction when I make an unreasonable dogmatic statement that takes as given something you don’t accept as given, though, and if you are sure that it is unjustified, feel free to copy and paste this and remind me so I can kick myself in the behind for carelessness.

Did I make any small steps there?

[Fist and Faith]

I do believe that that kind of belief in meaninglessness can put off despair if one refuses or fails to think it through to the conclusion that meaning to the individual has any meaning outside of the context of that individual’s life, and that that means that there is no transcendent meaning. In 60-70 odd years, there will BE no “you”, and thus, your life will have no meaning. If I can express that thought, even in a future tense, then it is a logical conclusion. With no transcendent meaning, it doesn’t matter what you feel about anything, because it has no meaning – indeed, it doesn’t even offer me a reason as to why I should consider any meaning in your life at all – and therefore justify exterminating it, on a meaningless whim on my part, as something that has no meaning from MY subjective standpoint. From that logic, I don’t have to take any subjective meaning on your part seriously. It is only if there is meaning, and it is objective, that you can justify any social position whatsoever. There is no reason to avoid pain - literally... unless your idea that pain is undesirable has objective meaning.

No. Your last two sentences are not logical conclusions. Social position can be justified by the social group, even if there is no universally objective meaning to that social group. And, again, avoiding pain just because there is no objective meaning is only illogical to your way of thinking and feeling. To me, it's a crazy idea. My subjective meaning tells me that pain hurts, and I should try to stop it. It's reflex. The overall function of pain is, of course, protecting me so that my life can continue. My life, which I find meaning in, even though I do not believe it has any meaning beyond my death, and the deaths of those who know me, may be in jeopardy because of that pain. The nerves are there to tell me when something is damaging me.

Our current discussion began when, nine days ago, you said despair was the only possible outcome for those who truly accept meaninglessness. After all the exchanges between then and now, you have yet to offer anything in the way of evidence to support your position. You are simply adding to the list of things that are meaningless in a meaningless existence, and claiming I cannot face them all without despairing. Now, you can say that my love for my children is meaningless if I'm right, and I'll say I know. Next, you can say the thoughts I've shared here, and every other thought I've had or will have is meaningless if I'm right, and I'll say I know. After that, you can say that, if there's ever an end to the universe, or just humanity, my genetic code will be gone and will have been for naught if I'm right, and I'll say I know. I could make the list with you. Just because I've never attempted to make lists of all the things that have no objective meaning (Everything), or all the ways that my life is objectively meaningless (All Ways), doesn't mean I do not have a clear idea of it in my mind. I understand that I will have as much meaning to anyone 100 years from now as any of the countless people who lived in the distant past that we have not the slightest knowledge of. Listing as many different ways that you can think of in which a meaningless existence has no meaning won't make me despair.

Again, I have not failed or refused to think this through. No matter how many times you say it, you will be wrong about me every time you say it. I understand that oblivion is the end road for me. The problem is not that I don't know what I'm talking about. The problem is that not everyone who fully believes it will despair. (Which, of course, is not a problem.)

Do you have anything to say about this that is not part of the list of meaningless things?

I think I've already shown what can be shown on whether the universe had a creator, and that it is at least as illogical to assume that it didn't.

Yes. Absolutely true. It is no more logical to believe a universe could be uncreated than it is to believe a creator could be uncreated. The difference, of course, is that I perceive the universe in every way I am capable of perceiving anything; while I do not perceive any creator in any way. It is more logical to believe that the universe I know exists is uncreated than that the creator I don't have reason to believe exists does exist and is uncreated.

On this I can only say that I demonstrated then that it is NOT more logical that this universe is uncreated, and you even agreed at the time. Now the arguments are evidently forgotten and you are back to square one.

No, it is you who forgot what you taught me. I had been thinking that it is less likely for a creator capable of all this (which would mean said creator must be even greater and more complex than all this) to be uncreated than for all this to be uncreated. You were quite right that we cannot claim to know if one of those things is less likely than the other to be uncreated. We have no way of knowing if there are any laws of uncreation, and, if there are, we certainly don't know what they are. So taking it upon myself to conclude which type of thing is more likely uncreated than another type of thing is ridiculous.

However, this is a different matter. I'm saying that I know the universe exists. It is a fact in every verifiable way. OTOH, no creator is verifiable in any way. Therefore, until I have reason to believe there is a creator, I will assume the universe is the uncreated thing. If I am to believe something is uncreated, it will be the thing that actually exists.

Since I think it far more valuable to engender interest in Chesterton than a prejudiced hostile attitude towards him, I would start with something outside of apologetics. “What’s Wrong With the World” is an outstanding social commentary that is entirely relevant today. But I might start from the book, "Orthodoxy", ch 2 ("The Maniac")
I'm reluctant to print the whole chapter here, and it is a whole argument, and working with only an outtake would be to refuse to do it justice. But for the sake of a teaser, to arouse interest in the argument; I'll ask you to bear with it and to pursue the link to the rest of the chapter afterwards:

THOROUGHLY worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, "That man will get on; he believes in himself." And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written "Hanwell." I said to him, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums." He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. "Yes, there are," I retorted, "and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself. That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself. If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actors who can't act believe in themselves; and debtors who won't pay. It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has `Hanwell' written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus." And to all this my friend the publisher made this very deep and effective reply, "Well, if a man is not to believe in himself, in what is he to believe?" After a long pause I replied, "I will go home and write a book in answer to that question." This is the book that I have written in answer to it.

But I think this book may well start where our argument started -- in the neighbourhood of the mad-house. Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin -- a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

In this remarkable situation it is plainly not now possible (with any hope of a universal appeal) to start, as our fathers did, with the fact of sin. This very fact which was to them (and is to me) as plain as a pikestaff, is the very fact that has been specially diluted or denied. But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum. We all agree still that there is a collapse of the intellect as unmistakable as a falling house. Men deny hell, but not, as yet, Hanwell. For the purpose of our primary argument the one may very well stand where the other stood. I mean that as all thoughts and theories were once judged by whether they tended to make a man lose his soul, so for our present purpose all modern thoughts and theories may be judged by whether they tend to make a man lose his wits.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch2.html

It should be noted that GKC does NOT take the doctrine of sin as the starting point, but the existence of evil. (I'm just used to people saying, "But I don't agree with his starting point!")

Good thing you said that at the end. Still, his first paragraph is nonsense. I believe in myself. But I'm not in an asylum. I'm not a drunk. (Actually, I can't stand alcohol. I think it all tastes very nasty. I have been drunk, but not in a couple decades. No, I'm not an alcoholic who's been sober for that long. It's just that I used to go out with the guys after work and have a few. But after a while, I realized I still thought the stuff tasted terrible, so I stopped wasting my money on it. Never tried even a puff of marijuana, much less any drug beyond that.) I do have a lot of credit card debt, but I'm working on paying it off. And I don't think I'm a Super-man.

The publisher was talking about people with self-confidence. It is often seen that those whose minds do not understand, say, math and science go farther in fields that depend on math and science than those whose minds are naturally inclined to those areas. The former wants it, and puts lots of work into it. While the latter doesn't bother. The former went farther in the field with less natural ability because s/he believed in him/herself. "Complete self-confidence" and "Believing utterly in one's self" is going way beyond what the publisher meant. Not believing in one's self hardly seems a way to succeed.

And, for the record, my attitude toward Chesterton is not hostile. I simply think he was wrong about most everything I've read of him. Nor is that a prejudiced attitude. I bought TEM because of your amazing attitude toward him. I had hoped - indeed, expected - to find a religious writer I was as thrilled by as I was with Fools Crow/Thomas Mails, Eknath Easwaran, and Neale Donald Walsch. And Furls Fire and her brother. I love reading such people's thoughts and beliefs. I love "hearing" the joy they have found. When they are internally consistent, all the better. Chesterton simply isn't a writer who gave me that. Don't read more into it than that. He may be the ultimate for you, but that doesn't mean anyone who does not agree is prejudiced, hostile, or any other negative thing.

Probably a better approach for you is the egocentrical and ultimately self-destructive, or at least contradictory nature of man, explained by us in the doctrine of the Fall.

How do you mean? In what way do you see that as an approach that might make me believe in some sort of creator?

Because it explains things that we can see, in front of our eyes every day. I thought I had posted this here:

The Fall is a view of life. It is not only the only enlightening,
but the only encouraging view of life. It holds, as against
the only real alternative philosophies, those of the Buddhist
or the Pessimist or the Promethean, that we have misused
a good world, and not merely been entrapped into a bad one.
It refers evil back to the wrong use of the will, and thus declares
that it can eventually be righted by the right use of the will.
Every other creed except that one is some form of surrender to fate.
A man who holds this view of life will find it giving light
on a thousand things; on which mere evolutionary ethics have not
a word to say. For instance, on the colossal contrast between
the completeness of man's machines and the continued corruption
of his motives; on the fact that no social progress really seems
to leave self behind; on the fact that the first and not the last
men of any school or revolution are generally the best and purest;
as William Penn was better than a Quaker millionaire or Washington
better than an American oil magnate; on that proverb that says:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance," which is only what
the theologians say of every other virtue, and is itself only a way
of stating the truth of original sin; on those extremes of good and
evil by which man exceeds all the animals by the measure of heaven
and hell; on that sublime sense of loss that is in the very sound
of all great poetry, and nowhere more than in the poetry of pagans
and sceptics: "We look before and after, and pine for what is not";
which cries against all prigs and progressives out of the very
depths and abysses of the broken heart of man, that happiness
is not only a hope, but also in some strange manner a memory;
and that we are all kings in exile.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_Thing.txt (ch 31 "The Outline of the Fall")

That's rubbish. From where does he get the gall to say that no other view of life is encouraging?? Or that every other creed is a surrender to fate?? THIS is the kind of thing that is so insulting. HE (and you) believe certain things. Fine. So do I. What he says, and what you believe and repeat, is akin to me saying, for example, that my view is the only one that embraces honesty. You and Chesterton are stark-raving terrified by meaninglessness, so you have turned to a fantasy, embracing something you know to be false, just because it comforts you.

But I do not say that. I know that there are many different reasons that people have the faith they have, and many of those reasons have nothing to do with fear. You and Chesterton, however, have no problem making statements with the same kind of insult in them. That Fall quote is such a statement.

Also, American oil magnates do not represent the last of the school or revolution of which Washington represented the first. There are, literally, hundreds of thousands of wonderful Americans. Chesterton picked a group with what are commonly seen as bad qualities, and tried to make it seem like they are Washington's legacy. Just as if I had pointed to the KKK as Jesus' legacy. They are only part of the legacy, and likely not the one Washington/Jesus intended, or would appreciate. But various people twist things around. They should not be used as THE representative.

I’d say that’s not an accurate recounting at all of Lewis’s argument. He starts from the other end. He starts with people behaving differently, but appealing to a common standard (which he later calls “the moral compass”). That standard is objective. Then he discusses how the variations in the compass are not on a 360 degree scale, but actually have a relatively narrow angle of variation. In the course of the book he goes from that to the conclusion that there is a definite God that created us with this “moral compass”. But he doesn’t make any sudden leaps to that conclusion in that chapter.

Having just moved, I can't find MC (Which, for what it's worth, was either voted best book of the twentieth century by Christianity Today in 2000, or third best since 1945. Wikipedia says different things in different places.) at the moment. I'll give it another go when I do. (In the meantime, I'm reading Miracles.)

No, I do not object to that idea. I have no reason to believe it is not possible to actually discover that truth.

In fact, I have done so.

Or, at least, I believe I have. Just as you believe you have. What makes you think we are different? You act as though yours is the default position, and I am deviating from it. That I am being stubborn, or blind, or whatever, for not seeing things your way.

I was hoping you would address this. This is the root of what we see as arrogance in you. You do not think it is arrogance, merely a statement of fact. "You believe you have found the answer, and I believe I have found the answer. The difference is, I really have found the answer." It's the same as "Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who do." Maybe we even all think it. But you're the only one who expects everybody else to take your word for it.

You appear to have left out a quote of mine you intended to insert. (The quote of mine that you do have there I see as reasonable.)

No, it's not reasonable. You are wrong in what you say about me. I do not object to the idea that it could be possible to actually discover the true state of affairs, the nature of the universe and man's place in it. As I said, I believe I have discovered it.

Still, I acknowledge that I have no doubt come across that way sometimes. For that, I apologize, although I don’t think I actually do that all that often, and that sometimes a mere dogmatic statement is taken as more than it is. It is difficult to speak about things that you actually see as true as if they were not true. Sometimes it’s like trying to speak as if murder and theft were wrong and then having people upset because you said that, assuming that they would simply agree with you, and then, after all of the offense and insult taken, outrage, etc, going back and trying to defend why murder and stealing are wrong.

The difference here is that I don't disagree that murder and theft are wrong; but you keep insisting that I do.

For another thing, I really do want to challenge conventional assumptions that it seems nobody questions in our time – they are taken for granted in all media and most public discourse, and it might jar people to have those assumptions challenged. For that, I don’t apologize.

Not only would I not ask for an apology for such a thing, but I would wholeheartedly welcome such a thing!! By all mean!!! Pick one assumption in particular that you would like to challenge.

Did I make any small steps there?

Who can tell at this point? Heh. However, I wouldn't mind hearing something of you, rather than Chesterton, Lewis, or anyone else. You believed before you read them. Why?

[rusmeister]

Hey, Fist!
I could go into a point-by-point response, and perhaps I will, but right now I just want to comment on my impressions from your post.
It seems to me at this point that we are speaking Chinese to each other. At which point you will say that you are not speaking Chinese, and you will be right - but you will have missed my point. I think this is true about quite probably everything you have ever gotten from my posts - and you might say the same about me.
I went to wash the dishes and think a little about it. At first I thought that it might be the communication in electronic form, which has such a high potential for misunderstandings to occur, but then (now that you have finally responded to something from Chesterton) I see the same thing in your response there, so it is obviously to (at the very least) the printed word in general. Your understanding of Chesterton's meaning in leaping from what he actually said to the idea that he is saying that the writer the publisher is speaking about has complete confidence in himself is a case in point. That is NOT what he was saying. yet that is how you took it. (Just as you (and perhaps Ali) probably took things said in TEM.) This is a general problem of mis/understanding. This is why my posting here is probably useless, why small steps may not be possible - if every attempt at communication is so misunderstood, what progress can be made? Because progress has to be made in the direction of objective truth, something which your purely subjective stance regarding meaning actually denies. There can be no progress if we do not agree on the ideal. (One of Chesterton's great revelations to me.) So I maintain that, when examined, it is not Chesterton that is wrong, it is your understanding of him. You say that his words are insulting, yet you don't seem to see that he assumes objective meaning, something that you effectively deny. Chesterton's ideas ARE a direct attack on modern thinking, so they will be shocking to people who think in modern ways - and some will be unable to disentangle insult to person from attack on ideas. I would welcome direct attacks by you on Christianity, because I believe my faith is true, and can stand the test. It's what i was saying to Malik before about GKC's semi-whimsical story, "The Ball and the Cross", where the determined atheist and the determined Christian actually have more in common than they imagine, and the real enemy is the kind of thinking that says that truth is subjective, that it doesn't really matter what you believe, where everybody admires each other's beliefs, but no one examines them for truth. I know that Chesterton is right on Buddhism/pantheism, that it does spring from the idea that we have been trapped in a bad world that someday will get better. The Fall DOES explain the colossal contrast between the completeness of man's machines and the continued corruption of his motives and the fact that no social progress really seems
to leave self behind. Again, on Chinese - you misunderstand him when he says "better". (I'm not sure whether this can be translated into your language, but I'm trying.) He does not mean "wonderful people" (Americans or otherwise) and not that it is a legacy; he means it as a solid explanation of why people are not getting "better and better"; that they are not improved from the days of Washington - and btw, the ref to oil magnates in 1908 was completely modern for him. IOW, he is talking about the popular myth of 'evolutionism' (see Lewis's "The Funeral of a Great Myth), which holds that mankind is gradually improving; the Fall explains why it does not. Even by the logic of reincarnation, at some point it ought to improve.
Evolutionism, btw, IS an example of a popular modern assumption that I challenge; a well-known incarnation is Roddenberry's Star Trek. It's really the western version of 'the bright future of Communism". (Note - Star Trek is not popular in Russia, and I'll bet that's one reason why.)

My comment on murder and theft was only a parallel; I was not saying that you do approve of murder and theft.

On our previous conversation, we'd have to dig it up, but I recall fairly clearly that what you agreed to was that the idea of an uncreated universe is not more logical than an uncreated Creator. Maybe that's more Chinese comprehension.

I love hearing about Furls' (and others') joy, too, and believe that God's grace extends to anywhere where it is actually sought. But my point is that it doesn't lead you to seek it. You remain entrenched in your subjectivism. I think it would be far better for you for you to embrace Furls' faith, if you find it so wonderful.

On wanting to hear my words - I have written gobs from me by now. I don't see that it has helped.

Oh, and I had been solidly lazy agnostic for 20 years when I read Lewis. While not the only factor in my conversion, I was still fairly thoroughly a (lazy) skeptic when I encountered him. Screwtape and MC were pretty instrumental in my conversion - in which a personal crisis was going on - because I knew that what they said was true, and true about me.

I do believe in your eternal value, something that extends beyond your death. It is your belief that does not. You affirm that you will die and that your life will cease to have meaning, because it is subjective. I affirm that you can live forever in joy and meaning, one that is objective as well as subjective. Whose, then, is more life-affirming?

I'm reading Laura Ingall's book "The Long Winter" (from the genuine* 'Little House' series) to my 8 yr-old daughter, and at one point they describe the efforts to get a train through a pass ("the Tracy cut"). The men dig out the tracks, throwing the snow to the sides, but then blizzard after blizzard strikes, heaping more snow, and as the men dig, they create mountains of snow that eventually prove to be completely impassible. That's how it is with us. Even where there IS truth, I can't get my trains through - and from your perspective, you can't either.


*as opposed to the fake series published much more recently.

On further reflection, the essay that might be most helpful for understanding (and hopefully not insulting) would be Lewis's "The Poison of Subjectivism". It may go to the heart of the matter. I'd have to reread it myself. You can find it in a collection called either "Christian Reflections" or "The Seeing Eye" (a re-issued version of CR that for some reason edits out his essay on church music).

[Fist and Faith]

Your understanding of Chesterton's meaning in leaping from what he actually said to the idea that he is saying that the writer the publisher is speaking about has complete confidence in himself is a case in point. That is NOT what he was saying. yet that is how you took it.

This is a good example of why we can't communicate. Yes, Chesterton did say that. The words I put in quotes were his:

Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belief...

He tried to invalidate the concept the publisher brought up by taking it to an extreme that, though we can find examples, is not what the publisher was talking about. Not nearly the majority of people who believe in themselves take it to the, literally, insane degree that Chesterton did.

I know that Chesterton is right on Buddhism/pantheism, that it does spring from the idea that we have been trapped in a bad world that someday will get better.

That's fine. But Buddhism/pahtheism are not the only "real alternative philosophies." I believe we have misused a good world. We have not merely been entrapped into a bad one. I am not Buddhist or Pessimist or Promethean. So my view is not a "real alternative philosophy." See how easily I am dismissed?

My comment on murder and theft was only a parallel; I was not saying that you do approve of murder and theft.

I know you're not saying literally that. I'm simply trying to work within the parallel you gave. In that scenario, you say murder and theft are wrong. And you are quite surprised that I disagree. But no matter how many time I say I do not disagree, that murder and theft are wrong, you keep repeating that I disagree.

On our previous conversation, we'd have to dig it up, but I recall fairly clearly that what you agreed to was that the idea of an uncreated universe is not more logical than an uncreated Creator. Maybe that's more Chinese comprehension.

Yes and no. In principle, it is not more logical to assume a universe can be uncreated than a creator. If neither existed, if nothing whatsoever existed, I don't see that it would be more likely for one to spring into being, uncreated, than the other. You were right, it is not logical to assume that the more complex thing (creator) has a lesser chance of being uncreated simply because of the greater complexity. We have no way of knowing that Uncreation favors less complicated things.

But there is a universe. It is fact in all ways. OTOH, there is no evidence that a creator exists. It is merely something various people, for various reasons, believe exists. It is more logical to assume that the thing that exists was uncreated than to assume that the thing that does not exist was uncreated.

I love hearing about Furls' (and others') joy, too, and believe that God's grace extends to anywhere where it is actually sought. But my point is that it doesn't lead you to seek it. You remain entrenched in your subjectivism. I think it would be far better for you for you to embrace Furls' faith, if you find it so wonderful.

Because I have no reason to. Just as I have no reason to embrace your faith. Your two faiths are equally unable to bring me to Jesus.

I do believe in your eternal value, something that extends beyond your death. It is your belief that does not. You affirm that you will die and that your life will cease to have meaning, because it is subjective. I affirm that you can live forever in joy and meaning, one that is objective as well as subjective. Whose, then, is more life-affirming?

In different ways, they are equally life-affirming. To me, mine is. Yours is making my life less important, because it is not truly its own. It is a... what's a good phrase... staging ground? It's purpose is what comes after it. It is not its own. But in my view, the glory of my life is its own. Again, as Angel said in the tv show:

"If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today....Because if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

That is extremely life-affirming.

I know it is not to one of your beliefs. This is why such things cannot be used by either of us to convince the other of anything. Our views on some things can even be nonsensical to the other.

And, regardless, if I thought your view was more life-affirming, and regretted that my beliefs were second-rate, that would not be a reason to embrace yours. Not likeing what happens to us is not a valid reason for embracing ideas that I do have no reason to believe are true.


(I've yet to find anything insulting in Lewis, btw.)

[Furls Fire]

Ah, no wonder my ears have been ringing. Tho, I really can't get a clear thought through right now, and have only just skimmed over some of the posts (you all are quite winded) I just have this to say:

Fisty? Are you saying I need to stop bashing you over the head with my Bible???

Sorry...couldn't resist.

Seems like this argument keeps getting rehashed. Whose belief is right, whose is wrong, whose is the Truth...

No one can tell another what or how to believe. I'm sorry, that's just how I feel about it. People may think that the way I worship and serve the Lord and His Son are wrong, but until I'm told different by Him, I'm going to keep on doing what I'm doing...or die trying. I call myself a Christain, because I'm a follower of Christ. My heart and soul swell with His Presence, I hear Him whisper in my ears, I feel His Hands on my shoulders and I feel His Divine Embrace enwrap me during these days of illness. I Love Him with all my heart and I Praise Him with all my soul. I believe that is more important than reading a list of rules, or following some structured doctrine laid down by any church. I do His work, and so far, He seems pleased with that.

I don't know about science being a religion. But, I do know that God's gifts are precious, and the gifts given to our sceintists have produced many miracles and will continue to do so.

And rus, I would love to hear more about your mother.

[aliantha]

And rus, I would love to hear more about your mother.

Me too, actually. Meant to post that before and got sidetracked....

[rusmeister]

Your understanding of Chesterton's meaning in leaping from what he actually said to the idea that he is saying that the writer the publisher is speaking about has complete confidence in himself is a case in point. That is NOT what he was saying. yet that is how you took it.

This is a good example of why we can't communicate. Yes, Chesterton did say that. The words I put in quotes were his:

Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belief...

He tried to invalidate the concept the publisher brought up by taking it to an extreme that, though we can find examples, is not what the publisher was talking about. Not nearly the majority of people who believe in themselves take it to the, literally, insane degree that Chesterton did.

I know that Chesterton is right on Buddhism/pantheism, that it does spring from the idea that we have been trapped in a bad world that someday will get better.

That's fine. But Buddhism/pahtheism are not the only "real alternative philosophies." I believe we have misused a good world. We have not merely been entrapped into a bad one. I am not Buddhist or Pessimist or Promethean. So my view is not a "real alternative philosophy." See how easily I am dismissed?

My comment on murder and theft was only a parallel; I was not saying that you do approve of murder and theft.

I know you're not saying literally that. I'm simply trying to work within the parallel you gave. In that scenario, you say murder and theft are wrong. And you are quite surprised that I disagree. But no matter how many time I say I do not disagree, that murder and theft are wrong, you keep repeating that I disagree.

On our previous conversation, we'd have to dig it up, but I recall fairly clearly that what you agreed to was that the idea of an uncreated universe is not more logical than an uncreated Creator. Maybe that's more Chinese comprehension.

Yes and no. In principle, it is not more logical to assume a universe can be uncreated than a creator. If neither existed, if nothing whatsoever existed, I don't see that it would be more likely for one to spring into being, uncreated, than the other. You were right, it is not logical to assume that the more complex thing (creator) has a lesser chance of being uncreated simply because of the greater complexity. We have no way of knowing that Uncreation favors less complicated things.

But there is a universe. It is fact in all ways. OTOH, there is no evidence that a creator exists. It is merely something various people, for various reasons, believe exists. It is more logical to assume that the thing that exists was uncreated than to assume that the thing that does not exist was uncreated.

I love hearing about Furls' (and others') joy, too, and believe that God's grace extends to anywhere where it is actually sought. But my point is that it doesn't lead you to seek it. You remain entrenched in your subjectivism. I think it would be far better for you for you to embrace Furls' faith, if you find it so wonderful.

Because I have no reason to. Just as I have no reason to embrace your faith. Your two faiths are equally unable to bring me to Jesus.

I do believe in your eternal value, something that extends beyond your death. It is your belief that does not. You affirm that you will die and that your life will cease to have meaning, because it is subjective. I affirm that you can live forever in joy and meaning, one that is objective as well as subjective. Whose, then, is more life-affirming?

In different ways, they are equally life-affirming. To me, mine is. Yours is making my life less important, because it is not truly its own. It is a... what's a good phrase... staging ground? It's purpose is what comes after it. It is not its own. But in my view, the glory of my life is its own. Again, as Angel said in the tv show:

"If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today....Because if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

That is extremely life-affirming.

I know it is not to one of your beliefs. This is why such things cannot be used by either of us to convince the other of anything. Our views on some things can even be nonsensical to the other.

And, regardless, if I thought your view was more life-affirming, and regretted that my beliefs were second-rate, that would not be a reason to embrace yours. Not likeing what happens to us is not a valid reason for embracing ideas that I do have no reason to believe are true.


(I've yet to find anything insulting in Lewis, btw.)

Like, I said, the "Chinese problem" probably makes going back and forth futile. I now sense (something I didn't before) a level of misunderstandings on both of our parts. I think misunderstanding each other is the single biggest problem to attempts at communication.

I earlier took you for a (simple) agnostic; realizing that subjectivism as such is your actual philosophy (if I understand you correctly) took forever.

The worst thing for any of us is to think we understand the position of the other when we in fact do not. I've constantly, and to your very last post, gotten that there are things you misunderstand about my position, and it is very likely you feel the same. We cannot even logically go on to the step of agreeing or disagreeing until we do correctly understand what is being said. Naked words, very often without context, can be very misleading. That we see them through the prism of a worldview, and accept or reject them based, not only on conflict between worldviews, but often with emotional attitudes (we are not robots and do have emotional reactions) that color our perception of what we hear/read.

For example, you quote Chesterton's words, and incorrectly see them as being specifically about the person who the publisher had spoken to. I see them as being a broader thought about the general concept of believing in oneself, and what its implications are, and so, do not have the reaction you have. He wasn't really talking about the exact attitude of the publisher or his client. He was talking about what it means to believe in oneself, and he does generally assume objective meaning to our thoughts. If all thought had meaning only to ourselves; if it had no universal application, then communication would be impossible. Which I would suggest has happened in our case, and that it may be an outgrowth of your view of subjectivism vs my rejection of it.

Is Chesterton a perfect communicator? No. He was just another man. (Of course, if you ever learn about the broad sweep of his works, by no means limited to apologetics - if you ever read the epic poem "The Ballad of the White Horse" (with a little boning up on King Alfred's England), I don't think you could fail to be impressed - and in his time, lines from it were popular and regular quotes in Britain during both world wars. Or his biography of Robert Browning, which forever changed how I view biographies. Or many of the 80-odd books or 4,000+ essays that he wrote and the topics dealt with. For me, it is something like having discovered Shakespeare in a world that had never heard of him. What would you do, if you made such a discovery? How would people perceive you if you tried to tell them about it?

Anyway, if you don't understand GKC, as I maintain is the case, then there is no point disagreeing.

But there is a universe. It is fact in all ways. OTOH, there is no evidence that a creator exists. It is merely something various people, for various reasons, believe exists. It is more logical to assume that the thing that exists was uncreated than to assume that the thing that does not exist was uncreated.

Stubbornly insisting that such thoughts and the discussions that spring from them have objective meaning, and that any truth to be derived is, axiomatically, objective, or it is not truth, I can say that this is not a valid logic chain, at least as stated. The section I bolded is already an unproven assumption. Therefore it is not more logical. The fact that the universe exists does not in any manner make it more logical to assume that it was uncreated - a piece of fantasy at least on a level of the existence of God. (I have no idea on how to easily find our old posts on this.)

Yours is making my life less important, because it is not truly its own. It is a... what's a good phrase... staging ground? It's purpose is what comes after it. It is not its own.

This is another example of not understanding my position. We hold this life to be incredibly important and valuable. If by "its own" you mean insisting on it being something with only subjective meaning and coming to a final end, though, then I would consider "my own" to be a very paltry and temporary thing, and I'd be very glad to discover that my life was more than merely "my own".

"If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today....Because if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

Angel's quote does express sentiments that we know to be good, but it is self-contradictory and illogical.If nothing we do matters, then it does NOT matter what we do. No logician could agree with Angel's statement and pretend to be logical. It's like saying, "What you eat does not matter because it matters what you eat."

I could also, by that logic, say that the smallest act of viciousness (or of anything) - is the greatest thing in the world. And that if nothing matters, by what criteria do we determine that it is great?

(This is where I'd call on Lewis for help - it was precisely the approach to logic that his atheist tutor, Kirkpatrick, drilled into him that he later brought to Christianity, and that I have learned so much from - but I still see him as my master in logic.)
I'm glad you find Lewis tolerable - like I said, I'd look up "The Poison of Subjectivism" when you can.

[StevieG]

"If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today....Because if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

It makes perfect sense to me! Anyway, I just wanted to add this short post - it's been the longest page ever (but a very interesting read)...

OK, carry on (on the next page, naturally).