Meaninglessness

[rusmeister]

As to my faith, it is called a faith. I CHOOSE the certainty, just as you have the right to a faith - even a blind faith - in a different certainty. If I have a brother or friend that constantly borrows money and fails to pay it back, I will be prone to not trust him - but I can always choose to trust him again, whether it be through love or foolishness. Or the Indiana Jones example:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_-BOvWVycM
A leap of faith that is revealed to be rational in hindsight - but is not at all obvious when the leap is made. In hindsight it is all lit up, so to speak, and is obvious to me. It confirms my certainty.

Does that clear up a little bit of where I stand?

I interpret that scene otherwise. Because of multiple direct experiences, Indy had every reason to believe that leap would be successful. It went against his eyes, but was entirely supported by his rationality. I was once in my parked car, which was not even running. An 18-wheeler was doubleparked next to me, preventing me from leaving the parking space. I was looking down onto my lap reading comic books as I waited for the driver to show up. I didn't see him get in, since his door was on the other side of his truck from where I was sitting. When he started to pull away, the sight of his truck moving from the corner of my eye made it seem that *I* was moving. Because of where I was looking, the only thing outside of my car that I could see was the huge side of his trailer - and it was moving! I thought my car had started to roll backwards! It was a startling moment of panic. And I lifted my foot to slam it on the brake. BUT, for the same fraction of a second, my mind was screaming that I couldn't be rolling. I knew I was in park, and the car was turned off. And I stopped my descending foot from slamming down onto the brake.

Indy DIDN'T have every reason to believe the leap would be successful. He had ONE reason to believe it - and many reasons not to: that rationality works both ways, and tells us, in general, to trust our physical senses. The one reason became more important than the many, driving a leap of faith.

I don't think your own story to be the same thing as the Indy example. The one was a strong but vague sense impression, the other was sensory input carefully considered. But it does have the common idea that what we sense is not what is. But this seems to me more of an argument against materialism, or naturalism, as Lewis called it, rather than for it.

[rusmeister]

If the priests tell the king what laws to make, and the priests can whip the king, in what way are the priests NOT in charge?

The priests don't make the decisions that run government. They are not involved. They don't decide whether more advantage is to be gotten out of a treaty with France or with China, or whether wine may be sold ten hours a day or twelve. It is when the king commits definite moral violation that they have something to say - that whatever he does, the king's immortal soul is more important than the kingdom, which is but a passing thing. (That bodily resurrection is part of the deal can be left out of the discussion for now...)

[Fist and Faith]

Indy DIDN'T have every reason to believe the leap would be successful. He had ONE reason to believe it - and many reasons not to: that rationality works both ways, and tells us, in general, to trust our physical senses. The one reason became more important than the many, driving a leap of faith.

I don't think your own story to be the same thing as the Indy example. The one was a strong but vague sense impression, the other was sensory input carefully considered. But it does have the common idea that what we sense is not what is.

Indy had gone through two tests. He found that there were very real, physical explanations for how things were set up. Although he couldn't imagine what the explanation for the leap would be, and it was scary because it went against his senses, his belief that he would be ok was justified. Just as my knowledge told me that what my senses seemed to be telling me couldn't be right, and I was justified in not hitting the brake.

But this seems to me more of an argument against materialism, or naturalism, as Lewis called it, rather than for it.

Yeah, in a very two-, or maybe one-, dimensional way. But using what physical facts I knew to doubt what my eyes seemed to be telling me, and not hitting the brake, is as different as can be from believing, for no reason, that there is a supernatural basis for all reality, with a supernatural supreme being, with an uncountable number of other supernatural beings doing various things, in supernatural realities - all of which are things that my senses cannot perceive. The best reason you can give in support of all that is that we don't have all the answers and explanations for everything we can perceive. Which is no reason at all, since there is exactly the same explanations for all the supernatural stuff. We each accept that we can't explain how it came to be.

[Fist and Faith]

If the priests tell the king what laws to make, and the priests can whip the king, in what way are the priests NOT in charge?

The priests don't make the decisions that run government. They are not involved. They don't decide whether more advantage is to be gotten out of a treaty with France or with China, or whether wine may be sold ten hours a day or twelve. It is when the king commits definite moral violation that they have something to say - that whatever he does, the king's immortal soul is more important than the kingdom, which is but a passing thing. (That bodily resurrection is part of the deal can be left out of the discussion for now...)

And if the priests say it is wrong to make a treaty with a culture that puts SSM on equal footing with OSM? Will that be seen as finding SSM acceptable? It certainly could be, especially if the treaty brings benefits. Can't have the country benefitting from strong ties to a nation with commonly accepted SSM. That might make us think SSM isn't such a bad thing after all. Any chance the priests will tell the king not to make such a treaty? Any chance history has seen priests telling kings not to make certain treaties?

[rusmeister]

Indy DIDN'T have every reason to believe the leap would be successful. He had ONE reason to believe it - and many reasons not to: that rationality works both ways, and tells us, in general, to trust our physical senses. The one reason became more important than the many, driving a leap of faith.

I don't think your own story to be the same thing as the Indy example. The one was a strong but vague sense impression, the other was sensory input carefully considered. But it does have the common idea that what we sense is not what is.

Indy had gone through two tests. He found that there were very real, physical explanations for how things were set up. Although he couldn't imagine what the explanation for the leap would be, and it was scary because it went against his senses, his belief that he would be ok was justified.

Of course it was justified! If he had gone two thousand feet straight down and SPLAT!!!, then it wouldn't have been justified. But it was justified by what actually WAS, not by what APPEARED to be.

But this seems to me more of an argument against materialism, or naturalism, as Lewis called it, rather than for it.

Yeah, in a very two-, or maybe one-, dimensional way. But using what physical facts I knew to doubt what my eyes seemed to be telling me, and not hitting the brake, is as different as can be from believing, for no reason, that there is a supernatural basis for all reality, with a supernatural supreme being, with an uncountable number of other supernatural beings doing various things, in supernatural realities - all of which are things that my senses cannot perceive. The best reason you can give in support of all that is that we don't have all the answers and explanations for everything we can perceive. Which is no reason at all, since there is exactly the same explanations for all the supernatural stuff. We each accept that we can't explain how it came to be.

I disagree on the "one or two-dimensional" bit. And as I said, there is a fundamental difference between your experience and Indy's (admittedly) fictional one - so I'll never use your story as an example of a leap of faith...

If we throw reported miracles into the works, then we have things we can perceive that our science can not explain - and if it IS supernatural, then it can never, by definition, explain it. Plus, I have already spoken about our acceptance of things we cannot ourselves explain by accepting authority. This is a principle on which all knowledge building is based, unless you think that an isolated person could, on his own and in his own limited lifetime, completely re-establish all that has been learned in the natural sciences, or at least go from zero to Einstein and quantum physics WITHOUT referencing any authority or external knowledge not self-obtained. With that principle, it is not unreasonable to accept authority for knowledge we cannot obtain on our own. That you have a dogma that excludes anything which cannot be reproduced in scientific experiment does not make your position more rational - I believe it makes it less, for even if it does not start, it finishes with a universal negative.

A podcast by...somebody else!!! FMG would be a different stroke for you, although I've been selling her to Ali for a while, now). When I listened to this one, at first I thought - "ahh, Z or LM would rip it apart" - she speaks first about science in the 19th century - but she goes on to some impressive modern data that is pretty killer for the person who relies on what we call science.
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/scientists_are_human

Unfortunately, it's not transcripted yet, but I think increasingly that we lose too much in not hearing voices, in not seeing body language, that would turn a potentially offensive statement into something delivered with compassion and understanding, with no offense intended.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

As it is, [Christianity] is something that can rebuke any elite or despot, precisely because it holds standards that do not blow with the wind, with the human heart trying forever to find ways to increase advantage for self, to get something for nothing, and is never satisfied with what it DOES have, and willing to go in any direction, to claim and say anything to justify that. Christianity is something that correctly understands the true condition of the human heart and can always expose the lies we tell ourselves and others for what they are.

In short, it is an absolute which is to be obeyed in summary, lest thy soul be in peril. Well, that's great and all, unless you think parts of it are wrong. Heresy to you, I know, but I must content myself to take part in the portions of the RCC tradition that seem right to me, and let the rest alone. I will thus be a peripheral member, if one at all -- I believe that the cost of admission to the inner sanctum (i.e., giving up individuality, being true to onesself) is too high for my taste. I don't expect you to approve -- but thank God that isn't necessary for me to lead a happy and productive life.

It is very facile to speak of "a psychology of persecution", but what exactly IS psychology? What exactly caused - and causes - Christians to expect persecution? (not in all places and times, I might add) I think a serious examination of that statement would cause it to fold like a house of cards.

Consult your nearest dictionary for the definition of psychology.
And though I have no apologist to cite at length on the subject, I would expect that persecution is what caused Christians to expect persecution, at least when the cause was nascent. Be not afraid, et al.
In times since, I think that mentality has persisted, whether there is now actual persecution or not.
The analogy to business is not a great one, and you skittered off to beat the analogy to death. The point I was attempting to make was that perhaps the 'Christianity as much-maligned underdog' theme has served its useful purpose and is now more of a hindrance to the cause, like an aged chip on the shoulder?

dw

[Vraith]

It is very facile to speak of "a psychology of persecution", but what exactly IS psychology? What exactly caused - and causes - Christians to expect persecution? (not in all places and times, I might add) I think a serious examination of that statement would cause it to fold like a house of cards.

Consult your nearest dictionary for the definition of psychology.
And though I have no apologist to cite at length on the subject, I would expect that persecution is what caused Christians to expect persecution, at least when the cause was nascent.

There is a really simple explanation for this, actually...they feel persecuted because if you disagree, you're persecuting them.
Not that that is a distinguishing characteristic only of Christians [though they have absolutely perfected the art]...and not that sometimes they aren't correct...
OTOH, it's ridiculous for the single largest religious group on earth to call itself "persecuted," especially when the second largest religion is divided into 2 major and one minor division that are actively warring with each other.

[rusmeister]

It is very facile to speak of "a psychology of persecution", but what exactly IS psychology? What exactly caused - and causes - Christians to expect persecution? (not in all places and times, I might add) I think a serious examination of that statement would cause it to fold like a house of cards.

Consult your nearest dictionary for the definition of psychology.
And though I have no apologist to cite at length on the subject, I would expect that persecution is what caused Christians to expect persecution, at least when the cause was nascent.

There is a really simple explanation for this, actually...they feel persecuted because if you disagree, you're persecuting them.
Not that that is a distinguishing characteristic only of Christians [though they have absolutely perfected the art]...and not that sometimes they aren't correct...
OTOH, it's ridiculous for the single largest religious group on earth to call itself "persecuted," especially when the second largest religion is divided into 2 major and one minor division that are actively warring with each other.

I'd say that persecution is not something one feels. It is something that happens or does not happen and can be measured. Persecution of Christians in a America is a rather nascent thing and quite subtle - but it can be measured when, for example, teachers are not allowed to offer their faith in counseling a teenager facing pregnancy or considering suicide, or when a teenager is told they may not wear a cross even under their shirt. This is a measurable thing, not a feeling. But it is nothing at all like the persecution under Diocletian or in the Soviet Union in the 20th century, for which we can be thankful. So if a person speaks about "feeling persecuted" and I'll say they're speaking nonsense - something that cannot be measured and is purely a matter of opinion. Speak about actual things that are actually done, and we can measure and discuss. Is there anyone who would attempt to deny the persecution of the 20th century in the SU? Tens of thousands of facts can be brought that have nothing at all to do with feelings. I'll start with the Butovo Polygon. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butovo_firing_range

You scientist types like to demand facts, not feelings. Well, time to turn the tables.

[rusmeister]

As it is, [Christianity] is something that can rebuke any elite or despot, precisely because it holds standards that do not blow with the wind, with the human heart trying forever to find ways to increase advantage for self, to get something for nothing, and is never satisfied with what it DOES have, and willing to go in any direction, to claim and say anything to justify that. Christianity is something that correctly understands the true condition of the human heart and can always expose the lies we tell ourselves and others for what they are.

In short, it is an absolute which is to be obeyed in summary, lest thy soul be in peril. Well, that's great and all, unless you think parts of it are wrong. Heresy to you, I know, but I must content myself to take part in the portions of the RCC tradition that seem right to me, and let the rest alone. I will thus be a peripheral member, if one at all -- I believe that the cost of admission to the inner sanctum (i.e., giving up individuality, being true to onesself) is too high for my taste. I don't expect you to approve -- but thank God that isn't necessary for me to lead a happy and productive life.

It is very facile to speak of "a psychology of persecution", but what exactly IS psychology? What exactly caused - and causes - Christians to expect persecution? (not in all places and times, I might add) I think a serious examination of that statement would cause it to fold like a house of cards.

Consult your nearest dictionary for the definition of psychology.
And though I have no apologist to cite at length on the subject, I would expect that persecution is what caused Christians to expect persecution, at least when the cause was nascent. Be not afraid, et al.
In times since, I think that mentality has persisted, whether there is now actual persecution or not.
The analogy to business is not a great one, and you skittered off to beat the analogy to death. The point I was attempting to make was that perhaps the 'Christianity as much-maligned underdog' theme has served its useful purpose and is now more of a hindrance to the cause, like an aged chip on the shoulder?

dw

OK. On what basis do you think that certain parts are wrong, and is it at all possible that YOU could be wrong? The one that doesn't understand? if not, then that would seem pretty absolutist to me... I for my part, admit my own insufficiencies and that it is far more likely to be me that is wrong, having examined the authority and considered both its resources in comparison to my own, and to past instances where I discovered that it was I who was mistaken. This is quite far from an absolutist who thinks he personally has all the answers. I know that I don't.

Your idea that one must "give up their individuality" is very strange. No one "on the inside" (and anyone who wants to be "in the inner sanctum" can be - its an EOE and open to all) would complain of this. Why do you think that one must give up their individuality? Everyone who knows me thinks that I am VERY individual - my personality has been left intact and we value the diversity of the individual. What we believe in terms of worldview is common of course, or we could not have the same understandings of things - but the enormous diversity of a faith that is for everybody, and embraces both the intellectual and the mental retard, invites the wealthy and the poor, crosses all national and racial boundaries, leaves an awful lot of individuality. There simply is no valid basis to make such a claim, not even of the RCC. (I ought to pair you off with Stanley Anderson - the most gentlemanly poster I know, and a convert from Anglicanism to the RCC.)

As I said, claims of feelings of persecution are nebulous and cannot be proved - but instances of persecution CAN be.

Lastly, what "purpose"has a 'Christian underdog theme' served, and whose purpose is that and how exactly is it served? What exactly is "the cause" you refer to? What connection does this have to Orthodoxy, or even the Roman Catholic Church?

[Cambo]

On a completely unrelated note to the last few posts, I 've sometimes wondered whether my faith is rooted in, or a reaction to, despair. I don't believe it is (obviously), I think my beliefs are true. But then, I would wouldn't I?

Some of the facts could support the security blanket theory. I came to my spiritual beliefs almost directly after emerging from cyclical depression. I do use my spirituality as a crutch when times are rough. And, to be honest, mine is the kind of belief system one might design specifically for maximum warm fuzzy feelings, with a minimum of responsibilies, commitments, discomfort and inconvenience. A God that loves me, and that I am a part of, but yet have no obligation to worship, live by any code, or generally acknowledge in any way...taylor made for a slothful depressive looking for a cosmic cuddle .

But what if I did make the Greater Self up? What if there really is nothing transcendental, metaphysical, divine, and every experience I've had that tells me so is a product of my subconscious, or a willful delusion? Well, then Fist is right, and it's all meaningless. So what? I'll have lived a life filled with Love, some of which was real, some a delusion. I'll have treated people to the best of my ability as if they really were divine, done my best to reflect upon them some of the divine Love we all share in. I'll have lived a life of blissful ignorance, hiding my fragile psyche from the reality of an uncaring cosmos, I'll die and some people will miss me for a while, then they'll die and soon everyone will have forgotten that I've ever existed. And if I'm right, my ego will dissolve and "Cameron" will cease to exist, but the Greater Self will go on as it always has, remembering Cameron as it remembers all that has ever happened within it, and Love his memory as it Loves all parts of Itself. There will be no "I" to know he is remembered, however.

Effectively the same thing. My life is either as meaningless as everything else, or as meaningful. In neither of those scenarios does what I think or feel or believe have any effect on the ultimate outcome. It's the infinite Love/infinite indifference thing all over again. But ain't it fun?

[TheFallen]

And utterly unsurprisingly, positions remain as entrenched as ever (as they were bound to)...

One thing that I get from some of you, is that you see only absolutes in everything I believe - as if there were only "good guys and bad guys", black and white. The fact that I DO see absolutes does not mean that I think in those black-and-white terms; as Solzhenitsyn said, I think the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. Since everyone has free will, and in general, personal responsibility for action, we could all choose to be better than what we are.

Yes and it would be beyond lunacy to believe anything else. However, it's the absolutism in the self-supporting righteousness of your beliefs that I'm utterly certain causes issues to so many.

I see nothing illogical or untenable in believing that there really IS a definite answer to these questions - it is self-evident , for example, that this universe came about in one definite way, and not many different ways, each according to his beliefs. Therefore it is eminently logical that there is either a creator or there isn't - but there is not BOTH a Creator and NOT a Creator. That is absolutism - and it is the rational stand, and the other, that says that both/all are true or that it doesn't matter at all that is irrational nonsense. So I certainly respect the atheist who says there is no Creator. Huxley was far more rational than many thinkers today in that sense.

Yes, I think that makes entire sense, with the following riders:-
1. We may be incapable of comprehending how the universe came into being, whether it did so via physical laws beyond our capability of ever detecting or understanding, or via the actions of a Creator who may equally be beyond our capability of ever detecting or understanding.
2. It's more than possible that the stance "it doesn't matter at all" as per your quote above is not in the least irrational - it may well be a view based on the purest pragmatism.

I think that when you say things like "less experienced", etc - you take my words some place that I do not. Being right does not mean being more experienced. A little dumb dog might be the one to rip open the curtain where the Wizard of Oz is hiding. Doesn't make him more experienced - but it DOES mean he managed to see through something that the others didn't. So coming from that angle, there's no fascism, etc involved.

Fair enough - what I should have said for total clarity is something like "not fortunate enough to have undergone those experiences that have led to the ultimate truth having been revealed to you" rather than "less experienced", but my point still stands, despite my shorthand - and as such I can't get away from the taste of belief fascism in your stance.

It can be blind luck (except that I don't believe in luck - which is an atheist concept - I believe in Divine Providence).

Careful... the last thing we need this thread spiralling off into is a discussion on fatalism and predestination versus randomness and chance.

I'm not better than any one else, and I don't secretly think that I am just because I've learned something that many of you don't know. It was how my life worked out. There are many things where you could say similar things about what you have learned - and I would respect that on a great many of those things.

Okay but you cannot help but think yourself more enlightened than those who differ, and to an absolute degree of greater enlightenment - solely because you know the one true way. This entirely prevents you from respecting my world view, my experiences, my thought processes - because I'm wrong. Your starting point is your conclusion that you're right and that's not up for discussion - everything else branches off from there. That's never going to win friends or influence people, I'm afraid - because it's necessarily sectarian.

I recognize that this is unpopular. Christianity is an unpopular faith. If really engaged, it means renouncing a great many things that many embrace in this world. It is a fighting religion in a sense - it is a great many things, and I only bring a couple of its many facets here - the ones I can do well... I think I deliver its uncompromising character - for that is what it is.

Rus, the one thing you do blazingly well is demonstrate the intolerance and exclusionism inevitably inherent in your school of Christianity - it cannot tolerate any differing view. I'm not disputing the honesty of your motivations in any way - those disagreeing with you are presumably damned or at the very least misled or ignorant, so presumably you feel duty-bound to show us the path to redemption. But this, when combined with the possibly unwitting and certainly unshakeable self-righteousness that you evince, does smack of the self-appointed "busybody hall monitor", as Dukkha Waynhim cogently put it.

That you do not accept things that are not empirical evidence reveals that you hold the fundamental dogma of materialism. OK. I believe that there are aspects of truth that are NOT amenable to the physical sciences, and so consider that to be a short-sighted dogma. But all that says that you hold different dogmas than I do. I don't know how well-thought out those dogmas are, but I know that simply claiming the materialist (what Lewis called "naturalist") view does not by any invocation of empirical science make the person one whit more rational than the super-naturalist.

Am I what you term a materialist? Yes, in part of course I am. I believe there are objective truths that can be proven by empirical scientific means. However, I also allow that there may be other truths that are not (currently or indeed possibly ever) provable by scientific means - I believe in some of those because of personal and experiential reasons. This second set of truths is to me entirely subjective and their existence does not preclude other conflicting beliefs that others may hold co-existing with mine. Their current existence also does not preclude my being wrong about them, either in all or in part - so maybe that makes me a combo materialist/subjectivist.

It's interesting that you seem to know that the Church "just changed its mind" after the death of Maximus.

The issue at hand was I believe Maximus's Dyothelite belief - i.e. that Christ possessed both a human and a divine will. This ran counter to the prevailing Monothelite view at the time and Maximus was tortured and condemned for heresy. Only 20 years after his death, the Church abruptly u-turned and decided that Dyothelitism was in fact the "correct" view and that it was Monothelitism that should be considered as heretical. My sole point here was that this whole subject is not about Maximus having been right - the whole issue was never a dispute over a matter of fact and therefore remains one of pure speculation on the nature of Christ. Thus the Church's u-turn can only have been a change of opinion.

As to my faith, it is called a faith. I CHOOSE the certainty, just as you have the right to a faith - even a blind faith - in a different certainty.

So you're generously allowing me the right to be incontrovertibly wrong, then? Not much of an allowance, with respect.

You could be a sock puppet of Fist, for all I know.

Pfft - only in his wildest dreams could Fist ever aspire to my many intellectual gifts and rigorous rational methodology! That aside, given Fist's non-absolutist and tolerant stance, I can't help finding myself singing largely off the same hymn sheet as him. Where I radically differ from Fist is that I have acknowledged from my very first post the utter futility of entering into a debate with someone with the type of a priori absolutism that I'm sure you'd grant is inherent in and core to your belief set.

Dukkha put this nicely a while back:-

I would say that there is a difference between apathy and antipathy. Fist is unconcerned, i.e., he is apathetic, about Christ as King because he simply does not believe it to be true. However, that's different from actively opposing your belief because he believes it is in your (and his) best interest to spread his nonbelief. That would be antipathy.

You believe it is in his best interest to also believe as you do, so you oppose his viewpoints to remain in agreement with your worldview. Fist's worldview does not require active opposition, because it is not absolute, it allows for co-existence, as long as differing worldviews are similarly interested in coexistence.

Why should we consider premises that require firm foundation in absolutism, if we do not agree with an absolutist worldview? I assume your answer to that is that you are Right and we are wrong. I remain 100% unconvinced.

I also agree with Fist and Dukkha (again) when they both highlight what is effectively a marketing problem that you bring to your brand of Christianity:-

Aside from you, nobody of any worldview comes here and continually tells everybody else they're wrong about their worldview, and that they know those worldviews better than those who hold them. Everybody else largely says, "I believe ___." You began your posting here, and continue to this day, saying little of, "I believe ___.", and lots of, "You are wrong." That's the bandwagon everybody's jumping on...

So, again, how's it working out for you??? Is digging in your heels about how you're right to tell everybody they're wrong about everything getting you what you're after?

The point I was attempting to make was that perhaps the 'Christianity as much-maligned underdog' theme has served its useful purpose and is now more of a hindrance to the cause, like an aged chip on the shoulder?

As I said way back at the beginning of this post, Rus, your methodology in spreading the "one true" message is never going to win friends or influence people - looking at numerous threads in The Close as a whole, that seems to have been empirically proven by repetition of result well before now. And yet you continue to cast yourself into your self-created bear-pit with what seems to be a driven wannabe martyr zeal and in so doing, alienate so many. As such, surely this has to be counter-productive to your presumably evangelical objectives? Time to change presentational tactics, maybe...

[Fist and Faith]

Extremely well said, Cambo!

[Fist and Faith]

You could be a sock puppet of Fist, for all I know.

Pfft - only in his wildest dreams could Fist ever aspire to my many intellectual gifts and rigorous rational methodology!

Yeah, only in Fis... Hey, wait a minute!!!

That aside, given Fist's non-absolutist and tolerant stance, I can't help finding myself singing largely off the same hymn sheet as him. Where I radically differ from Fist is that I have acknowledged from my very first post the utter futility of entering into a debate with someone with the type of a priori absolutism that I'm sure you'd grant is inherent in and core to your belief set.

Yeah, I've acknowledged that too. But we're both still debating with him, eh? I've said a couple times that the reason I continue is that I can't let his ideas go unopposed. You're doing a great job now, and DW and Cambo and ali, and others pop in now and then. But I'm not taking chances. I can't have others assume that his mistaken understandings of worldviews that are not his own (particularly mine, of course, and particularly when they are insulting, to say nothing of impossible) are correct. And I don't want people thinking his version of reason is what everybody in the world considers to be reason. So I offer another view of things. To wit:

I see nothing illogical or untenable in believing that there really IS a definite answer to these questions - it is self-evident , for example, that this universe came about in one definite way, and not many different ways, each according to his beliefs. Therefore it is eminently logical that there is either a creator or there isn't - but there is not BOTH a Creator and NOT a Creator. That is absolutism - and it is the rational stand...

Excellent. Very clear thinking. Alas:

and the other, that says that both/all are true or that it doesn't matter at all that is irrational nonsense. So I certainly respect the atheist who says there is no Creator. Huxley was far more rational than many thinkers today in that sense.

I guess there are people who think these way out there, but I don't remember anybody here saying such things. You're trying to invalidate various worldviews by lumping them in with others that, afaik, everybody here agrees are... silly/not well thought out/whatever. Has anyone here said there is BOTH a Creator and NOT a Creator? I'll bet not. So let's not continue with that bit of nonsense.

Has anyone said it doesn't matter at all? I don't know. Others can answer for themselves. As for me, it could well be the most important question of all. If there is a Creator, and if that Creator wants, expects, or demands something in particular, it would be good to know what those things are. (At which point we can decide whether or not we want to do those things.) But if there's no way to tell whether or not there is a Creator, the best we can all do is find what works best for us. What makes us happy in this life. What makes us able to cope with everything without killing ten people every day out of frustration, or boredom, or rage, or whatever. What makes us NOT want to fight with others. All the while, keep looking to see if there's reason to believe our worldview is wrong, and there is reason to believe we should, or are expected, to do certain things.

That you do not accept things that are not empirical evidence reveals that you hold the fundamental dogma of materialism. OK. I believe that there are aspects of truth that are NOT amenable to the physical sciences, and so consider that to be a short-sighted dogma. But all that says that you hold different dogmas than I do. I don't know how well-thought out those dogmas are, but I know that simply claiming the materialist (what Lewis called "naturalist") view does not by any invocation of empirical science make the person one whit more rational than the super-naturalist.

There are plenty of irrational materialists. But the super-naturalist is, by definition, intentionally, leaving rationality behind. It is rational to assume that what has been invariably and incontrovertibly demonstrated to be fact exists. Even you will not deny that a hunk of lead moving through your brain at the speed of sound is an undesirable thing. Or that eating lead is an undesirable thing. Or that electricity and various materials act in specific, predictable ways. It is not rational to assume that something for which there is no empirical evidence, or reason to believe exists, exists. It is not rational to accept the fact that people have been teaching that something for which there is no empirical evidence, or reason reason to believe exists, exists as evidence that said thing exists.

[TheFallen]

I see nothing illogical or untenable in believing that there really IS a definite answer to these questions - it is self-evident , for example, that this universe came about in one definite way, and not many different ways, each according to his beliefs. Therefore it is eminently logical that there is either a creator or there isn't - but there is not BOTH a Creator and NOT a Creator. That is absolutism - and it is the rational stand...

Excellent. Very clear thinking. Alas:

and the other, that says that both/all are true or that it doesn't matter at all that is irrational nonsense. So I certainly respect the atheist who says there is no Creator. Huxley was far more rational than many thinkers today in that sense.

I guess there are people who think these way out there, but I don't remember anybody here saying such things. You're trying to invalidate various worldviews by lumping them in with others that, afaik, everybody here agrees are... silly/not well thought out/whatever. Has anyone here said there is BOTH a Creator and NOT a Creator? I'll bet not. So let's not continue with that bit of nonsense.

I'd agree with your summary of the flaw in rus's example, Fist. Lampooning something idiotic that nobody has said in an attempt to weaken what actually has been said is classic sophistry.

However - and simply because I have a compulsive devilish streak - I just HAVE to point out that both Messrs. Schroedinger and Heisenberg might well have said that in unobserved state, there may well be BOTH a Creator AND not a Creator - though I'm not sure which of these two would have the live cat and which of these two would have the defunct kitty. The Creator's state would only become determined once someone takes a look.

Hang on a second - does the fact that Rus observes a Creator mean that He exists? Actually yes it does... but only to Rus. We're back to subjectivism again.

[aliantha]

I also agree with Fist and Dukkha (again) when they both highlight what is effectively a marketing problem that you bring to your brand of Christianity:

Thank you! This is what I meant earlier, rus, when I suggested that you drop your defenses and reread Fist's post. It's not your message that people are objecting to, it's the way you market it. That's what gets people's hackles up, and that's why they reply to you as if stung.

I'm pretty sure you'll write this post off as another ad hominem attack, so I don't know why I'm bothering to write it. But maybe if I give it this one last try.... (And why the hell would I do that? Maybe because I care about all y'all. )

[Fist and Faith]

Seriously. I have some problems with Christianity, some of which I have gotten into from time to time. Hell/Gehenna, homosexuality, and Job come to mind. (And don't get me started on that apple tree!! ) But I'm entirely capable of distinguishing between my objections to Christianity and my objections to rus.

And, of course, I'd rather not bother objecting to Christianity anyway. I don't believe it's the Truth any more than I believe the much better worldview offered by Conversations With God is, so I don't really need to point out problems I have with it. But, here we are in the Close, discussing these kinds of things. I guess my thoughts on it are bound to come out now and then.

[Cambo]

I would happily spend the majority of my life in a friendly discussion on matters no-one involved will ever agree upon, hence my presence

[Fist and Faith]

It would seem me too.

[Avatar]

Hang on a second - does the fact that Rus observes a Creator mean that He exists? Actually yes it does... but only to Rus.

Exactly. Everything is true to the person who believes in it. Because we act as though what we believe is true, it is the same as if it was actually true.

Whether or not a god exists for example, doesn't really matter as long a people behave as if one does. If they do, then one (or many) might as well.

The only difference will be after life. And if they were wrong, they'll never know it.

--A

[rusmeister]

Well, if it truly is a marketing problem, is it too much to ask whether the product itself may be marketed at all?

This is where I find the greatest sin to be in refusing to discuss dead authors merely because they are dead. It is a sin against democracy - putting ourselves in a snobbish position vis-a-vis the dead people at the very least. Ali, you claimed 70+ factual errors in TEM but never listed any of them. Fist said the book was "very bad" (when I say it is very good) and REFUSED to say why. This is what I respect the least, and this is why I am not interested in people 'helping me to better communication skills'. To any outside observer it is obviously an evasion, and the reason for the evasion is not difficult to imagine - and not terribly flattering to the evaders.

I think the problem quite a simple one. Anyone who claims that a particular view is true MUST come into conflist both with people that claim another view is true, and with people that claim that no view is true (never noticing that that, too, is a view that they claim to be true; thus cutting off the very branch they are sitting on). Going on about personal psychology, delivery methods, complaints of arrogance, etc are all evasions of that simple fact. I can resort to the same kind of tactics, which really are about discrediting the man rather than his argument - which is what ad hominem means. In Ali's argument with RR, if RR focuses completely on that lesbian activist author, and refuses to engage the ideas at all, that would equally be ad hominem. While I think an author or presenter certainly may be questioned, if this questioning takes the place of the engagement of ideas then it is an evasion of the ideas, whether it be ones I agree with or no.

I can't have others assume that his mistaken understandings of worldviews that are not his own (particularly mine, of course, and particularly when they are insulting, to say nothing of impossible) are correct. And I don't want people thinking his version of reason is what everybody in the world considers to be reason.

This answers my opening question - to Fist, my claims may not be marketed at all - for he will oppose them wherever and however I attempt to 'market' them. So speaking about my delivery manner is moot. It is precisely the message that people are opposed to, Ali. I see no eager engagement of Alexander Men' or CS Lewis here - people who find plenty to praise in other worldviews. The kindest and humblest people are ignored. It doesn't matter how kind and humble I try to be - although I try to be both, no doubt frequently fail, and ask your forgiveness for the failures.

Fist, you are obviously driven (and the passive voice tells me that there is a hidden subject of the sentence here, which I think I could name) to NOT ignore me, but to deny what I say - and this is not indifference - this is not honest doubt - this is active opposition to the ideas themselves. To the claim that Christ is risen from the dead, and that a person can be reasonable in believing that, and deny opposing claims and be reasonable in doing so.

Since you claim you can distinguish, then distinguish - and let us see these arguments against the thing itself. Let us see why "The Everlasting Man" is a 'bad' book. That would interest me greatly.