FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-21-2001, 08:54 AM   #41
James Still
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Meta =&gt;I didn't say I made belief a matter of reason. I said I could give good reasons. I also said you would not accept them because of your biases. That has just been borne out.</font>
Fair enough. It's true that I interpret the world through naturalism. But this assumption is properly basic and in no need of justification; therefore, it is incorrect to say that I am exercising bias. On the contrary, unlike theism I have the luxury of holding to a worldview that is self-correcting for I am willing to abandon it at any time if I have reason to think it false.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Meta =&gt;No that's just an ideological camp-follower kind of statment. It's absurd to claim that science or philosophy, neither of which would even exist in a modern [sense] without Christianity, somehow privilege atheism.</font>
This curious remark is right up there with Amos' statement that Catholics are not Christians. The Scholastics, especially Thomas, were heavily informed by "The Philosopher" (Aristotle), who lived centuries before Jesus. Boethius was consoled by a pagan goddess. The Neoplatonists and Plato's cosmology provided Christians with their philosophical conception of God. In fact, it is not a stretch by any means to say that pagan philosophy is the philosophical foundation of everything in Christendom. So while modern thought follows the Scholastics chronologically -- a trivial truth -- modern thought depends upon the insights of pagan philosophy for its very foundations. Scientific progress really only took off once faith was bracketed out from scientific inquiry. But I don't have to tell you all of this because you already know it. I suspect yours was a casual remark tossed out without too much reflection beforehand.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Of course they wouldn't find it to be superstition becasue its not, if one understsood it. I wonder if you even know what supersition is.</font>
I'm happy to take this opportunity to explain my distinction between superstition and genuine faith. Genuine faith is belief without evidence or as Bultmann might say, "evidence destroys faith." Superstition then is religious belief based on evidence. I take it a step further to say that superstition is also the belief that the natural world can be manipulated by supernatural forces. So belief in miracles, the efficacy of prayer, horoscopes, magic, faith-healing, and all such things are superstitious.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And again, I did not say belief is predicated upon reason i said I can give good reasons. You haven't even heard them but have decided that can't be good. That just proves what I'm saying; your bar of reason is a kangaroo court.</font>
Ok, thanks for correcting my assumption. Indeed, I retract my comment if you were not saying that theism is verified by reason and evidence. If your "good reasons" lie more in the realm of faith, aesthetics, values, and judgments within your worldview then I fully support you. I am confident that mature people can make up their own mind as to which worldview -- theism or naturalism -- they should embrace as an operating framework.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Meta =&gt;ahahahaah, Metaphysical naturalism? O you mean the suicide of humanity. Gee can I be a robot too?</font>
Ah, this is beneath you my friend. I am not a robot because there is no supreme omniscient being who directs everything and knows my thoughts before I think them. In the absence of God I am burdened with freedom and with freedom comes responsibility. I believe that each and every one of us must create meaning in our own lives and also to seek ways to improve the lives of those around us.
James Still is offline  
Old 06-21-2001, 12:49 PM   #42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
D'oh! Did I say that out loud?!

Do you realize how bitter and self-righteous your posts come across to others (even toward your fellow atheists), Rodahi?


I haven't heard a complaint from a reasonable person yet, Ish. You can take my remarks any way you wish, but they are meant to simply convey my thoughts.

Ish: Anyway, as an atheist you believe that death is the end, right?

I have no way of knowing what happens to living organisms after they die. One thing is for certain, they ALL decompose. There is zero evidence suggesting that any living organism has a life after it decomposes.


Ish: Do you have any evidence that this is what really happens when we die, or do you just believe this is what happens when we die?

See above.

Ish: You seem very confident in your world-view, so let's see your evidence...

My world view makes good sense, yours does not. BTW, you make the claim there is life after death, the burden of proof is on you.

rodahi

 
Old 06-21-2001, 12:54 PM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:

Hey whatever floats your boat man. But I know you haven't read SK and doubt that you would understand him.


1. What specifically is this a response to? 2. Can you demonstrate the validity of SK's philosophy with anything other than faith? 3. I don't think you are in any position to tell me or anyone else what they would or would not understand.

Metacrock: Not to worry, I'm not just trolling you, I'm moving the thread to the Philosophy board. I'll be over soon, need to formulate my attack.

Good. You have admitted the Creed cannot be rationally supported. That is all I asked for.

rodahi

 
Old 06-21-2001, 12:59 PM   #44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they wouldn't find it to be superstition becasue its not, if one understsood it. I wonder if you even know what supersition is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Still: I'm happy to take this opportunity to explain my distinction between superstition and genuine faith. Genuine faith is belief without evidence or as Bultmann might say, "evidence destroys faith." Superstition then is religious belief based on evidence. I take it a step further to say that superstition is also the belief that the natural world can be manipulated by supernatural forces. So belief in miracles, the efficacy of prayer, horoscopes, magic, faith-healing, and all such things are superstitious.

Well said.

rodahi
 
Old 06-21-2001, 10:24 PM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Still:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta =&gt;I didn't say I made belief a matter of reason. I said I could give good reasons. I also said you would not accept them because of your biases. That has just been borne out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough. It's true that I interpret the world through naturalism. But this assumption is properly basic and in no need of justification; therefore, it is incorrect to say that I am exercising bias.
[/font]

Meta =&gt;I don't think it is properly basic. However, beleif in God is properly basic and requires no justification. ATheism is thorwing away 50,000 years of human social evolution and swiming away from the philosphical spawning grounds of humanity toward the swamp of reductionsim. Although I realize that atheist don't have to be reductionists, somehow they seem to tend toward that option.


On the contrary, unlike theism I have the luxury of holding to a worldview that is self-correcting for I am willing to abandon it at any time if I have reason to think it false.

MEta =&gt;that would seem to be a real recursion.if you abandon it than you aren't defending it. So your big defense of it can hardly be that you could abandon it. But I could say the same thing about theism. I coudl abandon theism if I felt like it so is that a defense of it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta =&gt;No that's just an ideological camp-follower kind of statment. It's absurd to claim that science or philosophy, neither of which would even exist in a modern [sense] without Christianity, somehow privilege atheism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This curious remark is right up there with Amos' statement that Catholics are not Christians. The Scholastics, especially Thomas, were heavily informed by "The Philosopher" (Aristotle), who lived centuries before Jesus. Boethius was consoled by a pagan goddess. The Neoplatonists and Plato's cosmology provided Christians with their philosophical conception of God. In fact, it is not a stretch by any means to say that pagan philosophy is the philosophical foundation of everything in Christendom. So while modern thought follows the Scholastics chronologically -- a trivial truth -- modern thought depends upon the insights of pagan philosophy for its very foundations.

Meat =&gt;Those are mainly either basic foundational contributions or just plain inspiritatonal ones. But Christianity contributed to directly to major philosphical developments right up into and beyond the enlightement. IN fact all the major enlightenment thinkers were eihter Christains up to the time of the philosophes. Locke, Descartes, Pascal, Ried, ect. (don't forget ect. he's my favorite).And hey that's not to forget Kant, who at least saw himself as a kind of Chrsitian.

And the contributions of Newton and Boyle and so on to science are what I really would argue for more so. Naturally the Greeks form the basis.Not to take away anything from the Greeks, but there is so much more to it than that. A lot of developments between Augustine and Hume.

Scientific progress really only took off once faith was bracketed out from scientific inquiry. But I don't have to tell you all of this because you already know it. I suspect yours was a casual remark tossed out without too much reflection beforehand.


MEta =&gt;That is not true. I don't know where you got...yea I do becasue you just don't recognize the accomplishments before that. But faith was a major motivation for Newton, Bolyle and many of the others. And think of the incredible chages from 1500 to 1712 I guess (death Newton?). The inverse square law alone led Newton to understand modern scientific reductionism and that is what made science what it is. And it was his faith that led him to do science in the first place.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they wouldn't find it to be superstition becasue its not, if one understsood it. I wonder if you even know what supersition is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm happy to take this opportunity to explain my distinction between superstition and genuine faith. Genuine faith is belief without evidence or as Bultmann might say, "evidence destroys faith." Superstition then is religious belief based on evidence.

Meta =&gt;I can't go along with that defition. I might agree with the notion that evidence destroy's faith, although i doubt it. But, that doesn't mean that supersition is religious belief based upon evidence. that is an inadequate defition. Supersition is the fear of illeluctable force and the attempt to control them through ritual or fetish.


I take it a step further to say that superstition is also the belief that the natural world can be manipulated by supernatural forces. So belief in miracles, the efficacy of prayer, horoscopes, magic, faith-healing, and all such things are superstitious.


Meta =&gt;No offense, but I think that shows a lack of undersanding about the nature of the Supernatural. First, one need not even posit the conceptof miracles to have a supernatural ontology. Secondly, there is a major difference in the occult phenomena you mention and that of miracles.

Horoscopes and so forth are not in the same category as the supernatual. Because the supernatural is rationalistic. It assumes a rational law which can be understood and which the natural realm moves toward as it's ground and end. The other assumes a "breaking" into the order of the natural with discord or with some unkown forces that circumvent the natrual process.


Now please forgive me for bringing this up. But I can't help but give voice to my horrid fears. I have a theory as to why you really take this tact. I hope you will put my fears to rest. I'm sure that you and Richard are really wonderful fellows and I have you all wrong. and I am ejoying this confabe. But it strikes me that you take this appraoch becasue it is alright with you as long as Christians are put in a framework which the atheist can call "irrational." But as soon as they start trying to offer the sort of evidence which atheism deamands than you have to detract from the evidence by by setting it aside before it is given thorugh the negation of the possiblity of it being given in the fist place.

Is this just peranoia?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And again, I did not say belief is predicated upon reason i said I can give good reasons. You haven't even heard them but have decided that can't be good. That just proves what I'm saying; your bar of reason is a kangaroo court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, thanks for correcting my assumption. Indeed, I retract my comment if you were not saying that theism is verified by reason and evidence. If your "good reasons" lie more in the realm of faith, aesthetics, values, and judgments within your worldview then I fully support you. I am confident that mature people can make up their own mind as to which worldview -- theism or naturalism -- they should embrace as an operating framework.


Meta =&gt;So you don't think that somethign can both lend itself to faith orented intuative assumptions, phenomenological apprehension and the like, and also be suggested as valid by reason and/or probabalistic proofs? Why would that be? I said that the major reasons underlying personal faith are in the private intutative sort of category, but why should that mean that there can't also be some form of validation for some of their tennets?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta =&gt;ahahahaah, Metaphysical naturalism? O you mean the suicide of humanity. Gee can I be a robot too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, this is beneath you my friend. I am not a robot because there is no supreme omniscient being who directs everything and knows my thoughts before I think them.


Meta =&gt;Aw I was just josh'n ya. Honest. But seroiusly, I can't help it.I find that out of all the atheists I've argued with over the past 2 years or whatever, 99% of them tend to be reductionistic and deterministic types that don't appreiciate the liberal arts or philosphy. Obviously that doesn't apply to you. It doesnt' apply to my freind Socrates or several others I can name. But it sure does to scades of people over on the existence of God board. But there is more to it than that which I will go into shortly.


In the absence of God I am burdened with freedom and with freedom comes responsibility. I believe that each and every one of us must create meaning in our own lives and also to seek ways to improve the lives of those around us.


Meta =&gt;Sounds to me like you are a hold over form the old Sartre thing. Is that your speicialty in professional career? NOt that I'm putting it down. I used to be a Sartian existenialist myself. I still have a sneaking admiration for him, even if he did rip off Being and Time.

Do you know Nick Otani? He's an atheist with a board who posts on my boards. He's a Sartian existentialist and he's pretty good in philosophy. I condier him a friend and I don't consider him one-dimensional so i really was kidding, about the robot thing.


One of my major concerns is Marcuse. Now I now he was an atheist, and I would never say he is one-dimensional (holy paradox riht?). But even Marcuse says we need transcendence. He doesn't mean trasncendence from the natural realm but from the realm of discourse in a closed capitalist society.

But I think the two work together. The atheist love of reductionism and materialism feeds into the hegeomony of the one-dimensionalizing forces. So I think belief in God, while it can be very one-dimesional too (witness 700 club for example) is the only real hope for us to over come liniar logic and pursue real dialectical thinking. which is, according to Marcuse, the curx of overcoming one-dimensional society.

That doesn't prove the existence of God of course, but I'm trying to explain why I associate reductionism and one-dimensional thinking with atheism. I think atheism, while most atheists might tend to be leftist, really bolsters these totalizing forces of capitalist hegemony. The power structure is secular and atheistic in its thinking. It may be stock with chruch goers, I don't know, but in the practical applications of its thought it's value system and so on it acts as though there is no God.

So this is the basis of my associations there.

And also dont' forget the aspect of denying the soul, reducing humanity to organisms, and so forth. The deterministic aspects of the Dennett view of consciousness, I don't have time to go into all this. But that is further reason why I think atheists are feeding the one-dimensionalizing forces. They don't realize that they are, but than that's why it is one-dimeinsionalizing.

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited June 21, 2001).]
 
Old 06-21-2001, 10:33 PM   #46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by Metacrock:

Hey whatever floats your boat man. But I know you haven't read SK and doubt that you would understand him.
</font>
1. What specifically is this a response to?

Meta -&gt; Um, your words?


2. Can you demonstrate the validity of SK's philosophy with anything other than faith?

Meta =&gt;Yes. With experince.


3. I don't think you are in any position to tell me or anyone else what they would or would not understand.

Meta =&gt;O yea I am. I really am on the doorstep of by doctorate.I don't care if you believe that or not. I know I'm good, you dont' understand, wait and read my book. I'll send you a copy if you are still around when it comes out.

Metacrock: Not to worry, I'm not just trolling you, I'm moving the thread to the Philosophy board. I'll be over soon, need to formulate my attack.

Good. You have admitted the Creed cannot be rationally supported. That is all I asked for.

Meta =&gt;O did I? I thoght I was saying that your critique of it was misplaced and naive.

 
Old 06-22-2001, 06:00 AM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Regular posted June 21, 2001 11:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
[b]
Hey whatever floats your boat man. But I know you haven't read SK and doubt that you would understand him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rodahi: 1. What specifically is this a response to?

Metacrock: Um, your words?

Um, which words? If you don't provide the specific quote, how am I to know which "words" you are alluding to?

rodahi

 
Old 06-22-2001, 06:17 AM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

rodahi: 2. Can you demonstrate the validity of SK's philosophy with anything other than faith?

Metacrock: Yes. With experince.

In other words, you cannot demonstrate the validity of SK's philosophy with anything other than faith in your own experience.

rodahi: 3. I don't think you are in any position to tell me or anyone else what they would or would not understand.

Metacrock: O yea I am.

Oh, no, you are not. You have demonstrated on numerous occasions that what you believe has little or nothing to do with reality.

Metacrock: I really am on the doorstep of by doctorate.I don't care if you believe that or not.

I don't particularly care if you are "on the doorstep of by doctorate" or not. As a matter of fact, I don't care if you have fifty doctorates. For the most part, you spew nonsense and support your faith in said nonsense with scholars who also spew nonsense.

Metacrock: I know I'm good, you dont' understand, wait and read my book. I'll send you a copy if you are still around when it comes out.

1. I suppose some feel the need to make such statements about themselves. I am very sorry that you feel that need.
2. I have plenty of doorstops; keep the book.

Metacrock: Not to worry, I'm not just trolling you, I'm moving the thread to the Philosophy board. I'll be over soon, need to formulate my attack.

Good. You have admitted the Creed cannot be rationally supported. That is all I asked for.

Metacrock: O did I?

Yes, you did. You admitted that it is based on faith, not evidence.

Metacrock: I thoght I was saying that your critique of it was misplaced and naive.

Sometimes what you think and what you say are two different things.

Anyway, you seem to have changed your mind and now, apparently, mean you have a rational explanation (as in solid evidence) for why you believe that Jesus was conceived by the imaginary Holy Spirit for which the imaginary Virgin Mary was the conduit.

Please present the evidence, Metacrock, or admit your belief system is founded on nothing more than a "confession of faith."

rodahi

 
Old 06-22-2001, 02:29 PM   #49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Don't pick on rodahi, he's a good guy.....
 
Old 06-22-2001, 08:07 PM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Regular posted June 21, 2001 11:33 PM </font>
The whatever floats your boat comment was made in response to several things you said. But especially to the idea of propsoing a coutner creed. You don't seem to get the drift. Creeds do not have to be proven, they are not apologetical statements aimed at proving things to outsiders. that other groups have their creeds is fine by me. I don't believe them so I dont join them.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:34 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.