Kevin's Watch

rusmeister wrote:

Vraith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:
The trouble with this as a rationale is that it takes random and poor samplings of people who claim the label "Christian" and uses that as an excuse to write it all off. It is simply not a reasonable examination of what Christianity is.

No. When the majority of Christians one meets respond as the person iQuestor dealt with, and when the majority of people who have such encounters meet with this kind of response, it is not a random and poor example, it is a representative sample. They may not represent "true Christianity" in the sense that you mean, but they do represent a true relationship between Christianity and society.
YOU, as a Christian who examines his faith closely, takes care to be as true to it as possible, engage your beliefs and others beliefs thoughtfully are a 'random and poor sampling' in a statistical sense, though [as far as I can tell] a representative of what 'true' Christians could be. [though personally, I won't be persuaded unless the Christian God, or any other, sits down in my living room for a chat]
Of course, it is also worth noting that as far as I can tell the majority of Christians don't adopt a "you're all going to hell" stance/attitude in their daily lives/personal relationships, except when religion itself becomes an issue/topic for discussion. An interesting separation.

Here I can say, "No." You can't claim to understand Christianity just because you have met (even) a large number of people under various Christian labels in North America. If you don't know the history (and I mean well) then you can't understand why these divisions arose. If you don't know the various theologies - if you only know Calvinism, or fundamental Baptist views - and especially if you don't know the bases they have for having them, you are ignorant of the both the causes and nature of the divisions. You have come in on a movie late in the film where you have only seen one side of the story, so to speak. You can't from that claim to understand the film. Chesterton put it better, and evidently it bears repeating:

entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard.

I've said this before on other threads, but it gets summarily dismissed as if irrelevant - although if I applied it to a similar claim of any other humanitarian study, I would be instantly derided for being 'unscientific'. I guess it's only in religion that one need have nothing but personal experience to know what they are talking about. This is what I see as nonsense.

This kind of thing never gets resolved in places like this, or anywhere [except perhaps for occaisional individuals, I don't know]. As it happens, I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about Christianity...but that is neither here nor there. My point was that while it may be fuzzy/arbitrary/unfair/illogical to judge Christianities "truth" according to personal experiences with Christian peoples, it is perfectly logical to judge the people and the institution according to their words and deeds. Also, it isn't a matter of one persons experience, but many people having the same experience with many other people. How groups and/or individuals, naming themselves Christians, actually act in the world is in no way dependent on my understanding [or apparently theirs] of the faith/foundations/philosophies/dogma. It is probably nonsense to blame Christ for the Inquisition, but it is not nonsense to blame the church.

Man, this thread is taking off. I don't have time to respond to the many good points here. Heck, I haven't even read them all. But in skimming, this one stuck out to me.

Cybrweez wrote:

Malik23 wrote:I understand that there are apologist arguments for faith. But at the core, they are apologist arguments for something which you admit above can’t be proven scientifically. So, it seems you are the one confused about what you’re defending, not me. How do you rationally argue for something that is impossible to prove scientifically?

Is the definition of rational something that can be proven scientifically? I didn't know, that's a new definition. When I go to dictionary.com, it says exercising sound judgement, good sense, reason. Based on that definition, you are actually wrong above. Scientific proof and rationality are not hand in hand. Sound judgement, good sense and reason are.

But maybe there is a new definition. So, how does science prove rationality?

No, "scientific" and "rational" aren't the same thing. In order to talk about the difference, we'd need to get into Hume's distinction between "matters of fact" and "relations of ideas." (One of the starting points of Kant's "Copernican Revolution," for the Kant fans reading along. ). Anyway, you are correct to point out that these are separate areas of human knowledge. But if we're going to be rigorous in our language, then we can't apply reason to either the universe or to God. Logic ONLY deals with the relations between propositions, not facts or factual entities. It deals only with the formal relations between statements. In other words, you could replace words like "faith" and "god" in your arguments with the variables "x" and "y" and still talk about the logic of your statements (as is done in propositional calculus . . . i.e. "logic"). As soon as you start talking about factual beliefs, beliefs about the universe or whatever is beyond it, you're no longer talking about the formal relations between propositions (i.e. the stuff logic deals with), and you are in the realm which is decided by empirical evidence (i.e. matters of fact). The only connection between these two "realms"--the connection which allows us to apply reason to empirical evidence in order to build up general Laws of science--is induction. And this is a very tenuous connection, indeed. As Hume showed.

So, in a sense you're right: you can apply reason without doing science. In fact, you'd avoid a lot of contradictions and problems by keeping these two activities separate (which makes it hard to do science! But that's another issue). But if we're going to insist upon this divide, then you technically can't apply reason to faith or god, either, because god and faith aren't propositions. At least, as soon as you talk about them as real existing facts, you're not talking about propositions. And then the divide you're insisting upon between science and reason (or between "matters of fact" and "relations of ideas") must be invoked to separate what you're talking about from the realm of formal, logical issues. In other words, either we're talking about real things (and thus science bears on the question) or we're talking only about formal structures of sentences (and thus not god and faith).

[***Edit: the following was added after I posted. ***]

So, in light of this more rigorous treatment of our terms, how do I account for my statement above: "How do you rationally argue for something that is impossible to prove scientifically?"

I was talking about the logically questionable practice of using reason to prove the existence of anything. Technically, this would apply to the realm of scientific objects, too. Logical necessity does not necessitate existence, whether you're talking about things within or outside the universe. So it really shouldn't make any difference.

But at least claims about the universe can be tested. For instance, the existence of the antimatter (positron) was predicted purely on the basis of a mathematical equation. But that's a prediction which wasn't taken seriously until the evidence was checked, and we found they do indeed exist. The situation is different for things that can't be proven scientifically (i.e. things which empirical evidence cannot prove, even in principle).

If the practice of predicting the existence of objects from pure reason is on shaky ground in science, it is on much more shaky ground when you move beyond any possibility of empirically verifying such a prediction. Which is a long way of saying what I meant above.

danlo wrote:I'm not denying Christianity-I just like to cause trouble.

Isn't there something in the TOS about starting controversies?

Malik23 wrote:Man, this thread is taking off. I don't have time to respond to the many good points here. Heck, I haven't even read them all. But in skimming, this one stuck out to me.

Cybrweez wrote:

Malik23 wrote:I understand that there are apologist arguments for faith. But at the core, they are apologist arguments for something which you admit above can’t be proven scientifically. So, it seems you are the one confused about what you’re defending, not me. How do you rationally argue for something that is impossible to prove scientifically?

Is the definition of rational something that can be proven scientifically? I didn't know, that's a new definition. When I go to dictionary.com, it says exercising sound judgement, good sense, reason. Based on that definition, you are actually wrong above. Scientific proof and rationality are not hand in hand. Sound judgement, good sense and reason are.

But maybe there is a new definition. So, how does science prove rationality?

No, "scientific" and "rational" aren't the same thing. In order to talk about the difference, we'd need to get into Hume's distinction between "matters of fact" and "relations of ideas." (One of the starting points of Kant's "Copernican Revolution," for the Kant fans reading along. ).

Hume's doctrine of causality started the copernican revolution revolving. In mentioning Hume's distinction I think you're referring to what Kant called the division between analytic and synthetic propositions, something which the Humean distinction only hints at. So yes, in that regard Hume also started something, but only because he neglected to make the distinction clear. If he had, he would have seen how more accurately to employ it to logic. Because, as Kant discovered, Hume's division not only calls causality into question at a profound level, it also questions arithmetic's applicability to reality. That five fingers plus two fingers equals seven fingers is therefore, when Hume's own distinction is applied, only true by convention or wont.

Can't I joke oh wise worm? If it's controversial to call the inner circle of orthodox Christianity self-aggrandized and elitist then crucify me. I've been here since the board began and I am an admin-I think I know what the rules are. spoiler:

Spoiler

speaking of that have you apologized to Turyia yet?

Furls Fire wrote:

Worm wrote:Yes, why not? Why can't a being, normally born of sound body, also be born spiritually hale? So much for Original Sin. Kant argues it is nothing more than a propensity, or natural inclination, for evil, a potential for evil is not the same as an evil which is ground into his very soul. Indeed, human nature contains the seeds of both good and evil. An attack on religion (as in Kant's remark about "priest-craft" in the quote above) is not an attack on faith. Faith is indeed required to foster the good, but only within the limits set down by reason. Faith and reason (or science) can co-exist within the same being, it is not necessary for faith to exist only where there is ignorance.

Well said! I could not have put it any better than that.

As I have said before, I am not a "religious" person, I am a "faithful" person. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus Christ, His Son. But, "church" is another matter. Too many religions are all about condemnation and guilt and power. I am of the ilk that God is Love. Jesus Christ is the Embodiment of that Love. For me, there is nothing else. I call myself "Christain", because I believe Jesus is the Son of God. No "church" taught me this, I just am this. And I live in the Light, (sorry danlo..LOL!!), because for me, darkness just isn't an option.

and..since no one's told me not to, i'll have to say again... great posts, both of you! (furls and worm)

and i agree with dromond and will add that i usually feel pretty comfortable saying what i think about most anything around here.
i feel safe enough in the company of watchers to do so as they (watchers
in general) have always respected me and tolerated me doing so.
i thank you all for a place to do that.


(and also agree with malik this is a good thread)

Yes, and as malik said, very hard to keep up, so many differing threads w/in.

For the part about reading/studying Christianity, it seems fist that rus talks about this in order to debate Christianity. IOW, you say you have no desire for a deep study of Christianity, which is fine. I agree, w/o a compelling reason, why would you?

But to then debate what Christianity teaches, you can understand why someone would be frustrated b/c you haven't studied it. And what rus and I see alot in here, is that type of debate. I think that's rus's frustration, he says read some deep thinking about Christianity, and the response is, no, I just want to debate it. If the intent is to learn, that's different. However, the tone is never one for learning.

Furls, God is love, and He is also holy. I think, especially in America, His holiness is slighted. We think love means don't hurt anyone's feelings.

Cybrweez, I've been trying for a few days to come up with the post you've just written.

Yes, it is a good post! I think it gives everybody some starting points. Exactly what point is being debated?

-I won't debate anything but this: Was the universe caused? As far as I can tell, an uncaused reality is just as possible as an uncaused cause. If anyone has evidence or logic to the contrary, I'd be happy to hear it. If I'm convinced there was a cause, I'll be pleased to discuss and/or debate whether or not that cause was a creator. If I'm convinced the cause was a creator (Perhaps the particular thing that prooves there was a cause will make a creator necessary, and two steps will be accomplished in one stroke. ), I'll discuss and/or debate the nature of that creator. And on we'll go. But first things first. Heh.

-Rus won't debate any form of Christianity except the one he adheres to, which came from extremely intensive reading/research. Fair enough. It's what he believes, so there's no reason to think he should defend other versions of Christianity. Indeed, he may strongly disagree with them.

-Is there a basic core of Christianity that all calling themselves Christians believe? It really doesn't seem there is. It would be good if there was, because it would give a point to debate. Anybody who believes that core idea would be a Christian, despite any differences, and anybody who doesn't believe that core idea would not be a Christian. They could debate it. The very basic definition of the word might mean something like follower of Christ (or Christ's teachings). But there are widely differing opinions of exactlly what Christ taughts. (The KKK and Furls Fire don't quite see eye-to-eye, for example.) Heck, there's even disagreement on Christ's exact nature. Some believe Christ was God come down in human form; others believe Christ was not God, but another being created by God.

It's no wonder it's so difficult to have a discussion here! The only type of debate possible is Malik vs. rus; or me vs. rus; or Cyberweez vs. TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd; or whatever. One person debating another person. Throwing out preconceived assumptions about what the other believes is very difficult.

uh huh. nods head

Fist and Faith wrote: -I won't debate anything but this: Was the universe caused?

Is that true? That's the only thing you'll debate? I don't think that's true in past posts.

Fist and Faith wrote: -Is there a basic core of Christianity that all calling themselves Christians believe? It really doesn't seem there is. It would be good if there was, because it would give a point to debate.

True, the core itself is debatable. It would be good if there were a core set of beliefs for Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, American, Philadelphia Eagle fan. But, there's not. However, Christianity does have a starting point, the Bible, that at least one can refer to in study to determine whether certain claims are legitimate or not. (I don't say true or not, but at least legitimate)

Fist is right. When this many different perspectives are coming in, you can't lay out necessarily deep and complex examinations of all at once, even to defend just one POV. Like when FF complains of "guilt, condemnation and power" (in one breath) I know of strong, but deep considerations of how an awareness of guilt can be both deserved and good - and in what I defend, guilt and condemnation could be discussed, but power is irrelevant to it (just for example, Furls - I know you weren't speaking specifically to me). Also, as Andy said, love sometimes requires more than warm fuzzy feelings - even tough love.

A response to Vraith would involve pointing out that Christianity, as a whole, teaches that all men are sinners - including the people who strive to practice Christianity - IOW, it predicts the negative behavior that the faith is judged by, and people totally miss that the faith is absolutely right, and is speaking the truth.

Other responses, regarding the denial by some that faith is compatible with reason would deal with facts such as that nearly all scientists and philosophers up to the so-called "Enlightenment" were actually Christians, theists, or at least deists. And a lot more... But it's an awfully big topic, and DOES require reading - if you haven't already discovered it in life, you are unlikely to do so unless you set out to learn whether it is true or not.

A response to Worm's idea that Christianity is somehow pessimistic in holding the doctrine of the Fall would involve pointing out that recognizing the true state of affairs is only the first half of the Christian equation. The second half is called "the Gospel" (Good news) which gives us more optimism than you could possibly find in all of Kant or anywhere else. (I do intend to get back to Kant after Lent, as promised. I've just back-burnered that for now.) Also, that bit on Christian eschatology may be widespread, but I don't accept it as put.

To Danlo - you can't say anything to someone who just likes to "cause trouble". All you can do is hit the ignore button. But going on about 'exclusive cliques' is just willful ignorance at this point.

Fist, I would say Andy responded for me in how people want to pretend to knowledge when all they have is limited personal experience. If they don't know academic things like history and scholarship they have no tools to understand what they experienced. You certainly can disagree if you have thoroughly examined the arguments that I have either stated directly or pointed to - but disagreeing with what you haven't learned about is just silly. That's what I meant (and all that I meant) by ignorance. On everything else, I basically agree with you.

iQuestor - yes, of course, except the last point:

faith requires the absence of those things.

There I can say, no it doesn't. But it is stronger when those things are absent. And you are right insofar that it is a choice which often flies in the face of reason, experience, or our senses. But there are some things that our reason can accompany us on in faith. Moral law (such as presented by Lewis in "Mere Christianity" is a good example of where reason can support faith.

Dromond, of course, the Puddleglum argument is not proof of anything. But it is a choice made because something other than reason tells us that this IS preferable, which is another way of saying that it is the right thing to do. It is the final optimism of faith, which some here can't seem to see.

Lucimay, it IS cheerleading. That's easier to see if you put the shoe on the other foot. But isn't it curious (granted that we do not share beliefs) that certain posters seem to say things that strike you as sensible or good posting, but, say, Andy and I don't?

Anyway, this is too 'multi-directional' to really make much progress in genuine understanding of people we disagree with. The one thing I'll say is to be sure you know their best arguments, rather than mediocre or worst.

I'll add that I would have to disagree with Andy on the core, as it is the interpreter of what Scripture means that determines what the faith means. Thus, the divisions of Christianity. The closest objective core would probably be the Nicene Creed - if you accept this, then you fall into the broad general understanding of Christianity. if you do not, you are in left field. Thus, Aryans and Mormons are out. Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Orthodox are in. (This to the extent that I can defend Christianity as a whole.)

Cybrweez wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:-I won't debate anything but this: Was the universe caused?

Is that true? That's the only thing you'll debate? I don't think that's true in past posts.

Yeah, I've debated a lot of things. Wisely or un. Heh. But regarding debates about Christianity, for me, it's jumping ahead way too many steps. Can't shingle the roof before building the foundation, eh?

Although I guess there are other things. Lewis' ideas in Mere Christianity are a good example. In that case, however, I disagree with his interpretation of what we see going on all around us. (As I said in the thread I started about it, when someone asked about comments I had made about the book.)

Cybrweez wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:-Is there a basic core of Christianity that all calling themselves Christians believe? It really doesn't seem there is. It would be good if there was, because it would give a point to debate.

True, the core itself is debatable. It would be good if there were a core set of beliefs for Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, American, Philadelphia Eagle fan. But, there's not. However, Christianity does have a starting point, the Bible, that at least one can refer to in study to determine whether certain claims are legitimate or not. (I don't say true or not, but at least legitimate)

And even that's a problem. How many people strongly disagree on the interpretation and/or translation? What is Christ's message? Was he God in human form? No, I'm not debating one way or another, I'm just saying that even people who strongly believe in what the Bible says, and try to live by it, disagree a lot.

rusmeister wrote:If they don't know academic things like history and scholarship they have no tools to understand what they experienced.

Can you give any examples of the kinds of experiences you're talking about?

rusmeister wrote:
A response to Worm's idea that Christianity is somehow pessimistic in holding the doctrine of the Fall would involve pointing out that recognizing the true state of affairs is only the first half of the Christian equation. The second half is called "the Gospel" (Good news) which gives us more optimism than you could possibly find in all of Kant or anywhere else. (I do intend to get back to Kant after Lent, as promised. I've just back-burnered that for now.) Also, that bit on Christian eschatology may be widespread, but I don't accept it as put.

Christian eschatology is whatever it was according to Kant's own instruction received as a child in a Pietist household while living in 18th century Königsberg. Everybody, even you Rus, knows the old "cant" about it always being the end-of-days. From the very first century after Jesus it was the end-of-days. At any given time a Christian proselyte may knock on my door in order to offer the divine inspiration that this is indeed the end-of-days. He or she will give as evidence all kinds of worldly signs that indeed the end is nigh - just as someone might have in the first century AD. This element of eschatology is one of the doctrines that makes Christianity into a laughing-stock with those who take a skeptical approach to things.

OTOH, I gladly concede your point that certain key elements of Christianity are optimistic. The end-of-days also entails the defeat of Satan and the dawning of a new era in which Jesus is King and not merely through faith. In that regard, faith is also optimistic in regarding the end as positive, as a New Beginning, and it is the very nature of faith to do so.

However, this only bypasses and ignores the doctrine of Original Sin which was key to understanding my post. And it does not explain Furls' optimistic response to my post. Because it seems to me at least that using the Kant quote to bash Original Sin in the present moment held more promise than century after century after century of promises about a New Era that never seems to actually arrive.

It seems that if it wasn't for new generations of humans arriving in the world to con and swindle anew with that sort of doctrine, that canard would have died out centuries ago. But what gave it its longevity to begin with? Perhaps it has something to do with people's innate capacity for hope kept active by ignorance (but not activated by it), and not so much with some ungrounded faith in the ultimately unseen and unknowable. And that, as Kant argued, what is hoped for is not ultimately grounded in faith, but in the needs of reason which induces faith to make certain demands of our capacities that reach far beyond the empirical understanding (either scientific or common), and that these demands are somehow satisfied to an extent by stories about a future yet imminent envisioned paradise.

rusmeister wrote:Lucimay, it IS cheerleading. That's easier to see if you put the shoe on the other foot. But isn't it curious (granted that we do not share beliefs) that certain posters seem to say things that strike you as sensible or good posting, but, say, Andy and I don't?

oh hooey. say something that strikes me as well put and i don't care what side of the debatable or undebatable fence you're on.

i'm not a christian. furls fire is. i frequenly understand what she's saying and even if i don't agree, it's easy for me to see her point and enjoy her posts.

i frequently don't understand you in the least. thats not to say that you're not making a good post or a good point, i just don't get you most of the time.
andy? you mean cyberweez? if that's who you mean, i frequently find his posts to be a bit defensive and accusatory so, well, tho he may have good points to make, they're coming across as...well...defensive and accusatory (to me) and i am, in fact, missing his good points if they're there due to "tone". i'm not gonna say "good post" for that now am i?

(thats not to say that i have any problem with what either of you believe or don't believe. its a free country! believe what you want. i'm fine with living next door to christians. )

as i said, if you find my comments or posts to be caustic or inflammatory in any way, i'm happy to butt out.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Cybrweez wrote: (I don't say true or not, but at least legitimate)

And even that's a problem. How many people strongly disagree on the interpretation and/or translation? What is Christ's message? Was he God in human form? No, I'm not debating one way or another, I'm just saying that even people who strongly believe in what the Bible says, and try to live by it, disagree a lot.

That's what I meant by my last point. Determining truth is up to someone. However, w/the Bible, you can determine whether any claim is legitimate. Same w/some other religions as well. It just has some thing to look to for legitimacy, unlike most other ideologies like Liberal, Conservative or what have you.

rus, the Nicene Creed is gotten from the Bible. If it affirmed something that disagreed w/the Bible, would it be true?

rus wrote:To Danlo - you can't say anything to someone who just likes to "cause trouble". All you can do is hit the ignore button. But going on about 'exclusive cliques' is just willful ignorance at this point.

OK point 1: I explained above to Worm that I was being humorous, not controversial when I said "cause trouble".
point 2: re: 'exclusive cliques' thanks for the compliment. Maybe your brand of Christianity would even welcome such a troubled soul as I, but, to me, God's light shines on everyone equally and no group or religion holds a patent on it. If any of these groups are immersed in the community doing service in the name of God (service, not to be confused with conversion) then I applaud their actions. Since I don't believe in religion calling me "ignorant" is indeed a great compliment. I am blissfully ignorant. Thank you!

danlo's posts were easily understood as light hearted, with intended humor. To me at least.

Dromond wrote:danlo's posts were easily understood as light hearted, with intended humor. To me at least.

Ditto.