seebs

It's the virtue which is characterized by opposition to pride. How useful!

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an entry on it:

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07543b.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07543b.htm</a>

This doesn't entirely help, because it's still tied up inextricably with various other concepts.

Basically, though, "humility" is the thing that you show when you say "I will do my best to act as God directs me to, rather than following my own whims". To take it away from the theological context is difficult, but imagine someone who will do what he believes to be right, even if it makes him look bad; this is the "virtue" of humility.

Of particular interest is the observation that practicing humility in a way which induces the sin of pride in others is very destructive, and that false humility is not a virtue.

Philosophies often require special terms. I don't think any approach to understanding Buddhism will succeed if it doesn't begin by recognizing that "suffering" in the sense in which Buddhists talk about it is not the same thing as physical pain, and may not even be implied by physical pain.

Ahh, but one of the tenets I am pretty much unable to escape is that some value systems are closer to an external truth than others. I can't make my brain not think that way, so I don't bother trying anymore. (I do admit that I can't always tell *which* value systems are closer to the "real" value system.)

philechat

Seebs and Katellagen:

Thanks. I read the term humility as a whole. I think humility as a "virtue" does not fit well with my temperament and value system. I do not value humility as a virtue to be higher than pride, and I do not think there is a "one size fit all" value system, me being a moral subjectivist.

I think systems of value necessarily comes from a person's temperament, abilities, and experiences, and I would not be surprised if someone holds certain values of which I completely could not agree with. This would tie also to Katellagen's point about whether humility/pride should apply to all people. I would say no, for each person should make up their own value system using their available abilities and experiences. And therefore there's nothing inherently virtuous in humility, or anything inherently evil in pride.

No, pride does not lead to fascism. I am just saying that the leader, by virtue of his/her experience and abilities, is exercising power over the followers, and since the leader is asserting his/her power over the followers (in decisions and such), the leader and the followers are not equal. To pretend they are equal in power is a gross distortion of reality, and I would never say a leader is "humble" no matter how they act.

And followers, let them be as humble as they want!

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

seebs

It is wrong to say that they are "interchangeable" - but a good leader is one who does not mistake "I am making the decisions" for "this is all about me and my goals". A good leader is willing to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of the "lesser" people - the followers. That's humility.

philechat

Alright, if you really want to define "making personal sacrifices" as humility, then go ahead (semantics game? )

Actually, great power comes great responsibility. For the sake of desired results on the leader's side the leader must accept the responsibility coming with the power.

And I usually define it as pride or honor, depending on context, since power difference is unavoidable between the leader and the follower, and the leader in no ways would consider him/herself as having equal or less power than the followers.

Christopher Lord

Sorry, I just have to go puke somewhere over this quote from Tercel...

"That is to say, they seem to think that their [Atheists] understanding is capable of pentrating the deepest mysteries of the universe."

!!?!?!??!?!?!?!!!!?!

I'm dumbfounded beyond the most distant projections of imagination!

I feel like we should just build a giant dish to signal the man-eating aliens from zorthoradama to just come and finish us poor creatures off!

Ok, I'm calm now. How exactly is claiming knowledge of a GOD not "[claiming to have an] understanding [which is] capable of pentrating the deepest mysteries of the universe"??????

I have to go lie down and hope I read that particular line while in a frenzy of drug use and imagined it among other strange and unusual visions of the END TIMES!

Tercel

Hmm, a few people seem to have serious issues with my post.
Perhaps my point got lost somewhere. All I'm complaining about is a lack of humility demonstrated when it comes to the idea that God just might be somewhat beyond the limits of human reasoning... you know - the "God's ways are higher than our ways" kinda thing.

But no... of course NOTHING could possibly ever be beyond the reasoning power of the great skeptical giants here... those who have no qualms about making great proclaimations of "Contradictory" and "Incoherent"... those who, upon finding a concept they cannot understand fully declare the concept "Stupid" and "Absurd" rather than recognise that it is entirely possible the problem lies in their own inability to understanding everything. Instead of admiting this standard human shortcoming in all humility, they would rather wreck havoc upon all concepts of God and pretend everything must be black or white to be believed with no shades of grey or subtlety allowed.

Anyway, some responses to my fanclub:

<strong>Ex-Preacher</strong> writes:
I'm summarising some of my observations from over a years experience of posting. I don't keep of a list of threads in which I see arrogance displayed, you know. So, no: You won't be the judge. It's my opinion at anyrate and it doesn't need you judging it.
No they don't need to be.

<strong>Arrowman</strong> and <strong>DMB</strong> complained to the effect that I am attacking a position they and most other atheists do not hold. I didn't accuse them of holding it and I didn't accuse most atheists of being arrogant in this manner. I said I have observed "many" posters here acting in this manner. By "many" I did not mean to imply that everyone did it, but I did mean to imply that I felt the number who did so was not insignificant. Considering that I don't recall ever reading any of Arrowman's or DMB's posts before, they can be assured that I was not accusing them of such.

On to another complaint of mine! It annoys me when I argue against a specific position, and no one who actually holds that position responds, while others chime in to note that they don't hold the position being argued against. Imagine there was someone standing in the street preaching against Islam, and I went up to them and told them their arguments against Islam didn't work on me because I wasn't a Muslem. A waste of everyone's time, yes? So why do people seem to feel the desperate need to inform me that my arguments aren't relevant to their position?

<strong>hezekiahjones</strong>
Your ability not to be able to understand a perfectly legitimate sentence was well demonstrated. Allow me:
"I see many posters here who think their intellect sufficient to discern even the depths of God, and finding they cannot then conclude that he does not exist."
=&gt;
Poster: I believe my intellect capable of fully understanding anything. -Even God, if he exists.
Poster: I can't fully understand the God of Christianity.
Poster: The fault can't possibly lie with me: Anything that I can't understand must be wrong and stupid.
Poster: The Chrstian concept of God is stupid and the Christian God doesn't exist.

It's always possible that there might be such a person somewhere... I'll keep looking...

<strong>Christopher Lord</strong> seems to have serious problems which I'm not sure I can help him with... but he does get around eventually to asking:
How exactly is it so? Or more precisely: How exactly is a claim of belief a claim of knowledge of God? To say "I believe that which, for want of a better name, we might call the 'Christian God' exists" does not seem to me to be making any deep claim to knowledge. I would go further though: and say I believe that I understand with tolerable accuracy some of the attributes of God and that I suspect I have some not too unreasonable ideas of what some of the motives of God might be with regard to some of the events that have come under my limited scope of study. I'm not sure I quite stressed the limits of my understanding of God in the previous sentence sufficiently, but the original wording (which had several more qualifications in) was quite confusing to read. Anyway: I would never claim any sort of remotely complete or comprehensive knowledge of God!!
But if your statement is focused at Christians in general, then I suppose I probably agree. Although, I would allow that for their part they generally tend to accept the idea that God's ways are greater than our ways... (even if they do occasionally turn it in to a doctrine and then pretend that it's one more thing they can know absolutely about the nature of God!)

Tercel

katellagen

Laera,

I'd like to try to correct some points of misunderstanding that were apparent in your reply to me.

They're not. I probably should not use technical theological terms without explaining them. Sorry. In Christian theology "Special Revelation" (sing.) is used along with "General Revelation" to refer to means through which God has made himself known to us.

Briefly, General Revelation is so called because it is available to all people in general, and because from it we can understand some general things about God and the attributes he possesses and discern the corollaries thereof. This revelation is mediated through that which God has created.

Romans 1:20 puts it this way:

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


Special Revelation on the other hand basically refers to the Bible and the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ.

Heb. 1:1-3 states:

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.


Through Special Revelation we can gain knowledge not attainable through common or general means, e.g. certain attributes of God, some of His specific purposes for His creation, the record of certain specific actions He's undertaken in the course of history, the plan and means by which humans can be reconciled to Him.

The reason S.R. is required for this knowledge is grounded in the nature of God - including especially His Holiness and Infinite nature, and in the finite nature of man, and especially man as he is, in sinful rebellion against God. S.R. does not mean that the recipients are "special" as you say, or that the revelation is made personally to the recipient in some private way as you seem to have taken it to mean.

No, Christians are not "special". The word special in the phrase has no reference to the one who recieves it. This revelation is widely available. It was available to me when I was not a Christian. I had heard it and had access to it whan I was in ongoing conscious and willful rebellion against God. This is true of millions today.

The theological term for this would be "Common Grace". Abilities, talents, gifts and benefits are available to be uesd and enjoyed by all. Vast amounts of knowledge can be gained about what God has made, through what God has made, by those whom God has made. Why is it that you think Christians think that God only blesses them? God is benevelent to all in innumerable ways. I believe you are the recipient of much goodness, and benefit, and enjoyment from God. (I know you don't like the sound of that, but you did ask.)

No that wouldn't make much sense. That's why I didn't, and wouldn't, do that.

I think the above clarifies this misunderstanding. So this would not be arrogance.

Misunderstanding. See above.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"&gt;quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: katellagen ]</p>

Christopher Lord

Sorry if that was a bit biting, btw. I was just astounded at the hypocracy at the time.

Your basic point is that holding belief is not claiming to hold knowledge. Could you extrapolate on the distinction? Surely SOMETHING must prompt belief?

If something is unknowable, it also is to some degree unbelievable.

I still think that believing in a supreme god is far more arogant than simply saying 'I dont know, but jesus and crew certainly are obvious fabrications' And so I have a great respect for the deist position, but theists in general really bug me.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>

seebs

I'm not convinced of that at all. This turns into pure epistomology, but consider, for a moment, the distinction between "strong atheism" (clearly a belief) and "weak atheism" (which I don't think is a belief).

Most of the things I believe are, in my opinion, unknowable. However, they produce a consistent worldview, so I am content to accept them, until I get some good reason not to.

Christopher Lord

But then any set of unknowable beliefs could be held if only they produce 'a consistant worldview'

This would put God on the same level as, say, believing in Zeus. In order to draw a distinction, one must have KNOWLEDGE that one is more correct than the other!

Or is the choice only determined by what your parents believe?