Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Christian · 02-15-2003, 12:35 AM

Stephen,

Quote:

� I respectfully suggest,� you wrote, �that the problem is not a lack of evidence but rather the set of presuppositions you bring to the table which blinds you to those things you do not wish to see.�
A fair accusation. But can it be countered by the suggestion that you might bring to the table presuppositions which encourage you to see things which you very much wish to see?

(This is what I meant about our discussion here �sliding around.�)

Agreed, the accusation swings both ways. That's one reason I usually try to avoid the ad hominum approach to debating. I'm just as capable of questioning your motives as you are of questioning mine, but it doesn't really get us anyway. Truth is not dependant on what either of our motives are.

Quote:

Your skepticism relating to present-day visions of the Virgin Mary tells me you are more rational than some of your co-religionists. But since the logic which makes you doubt the claims is consistent with your reasons for believing First Century visions to be true, it doesn�t amount to a serious breach of your gullibility. (That sounds rude and I�m sorry, but �gullibility� is the only word I can think of. )

LOL. I understand the point you are trying to make. Your response to my question about witnessing a resurrection enhancing the idea that you have an anti-supernatural bias. I'm still don't understand what possible basis there is for such a bias. Science is out, since it doesn't deal with the supernatural by definition. Occams Razor cuts both ways ... from what I am seeing on this board naturalists are willing to believe in some highly improbable things to avoid the supernatural conclusion. Maybe there is a philosophical basis of some kind. Philosophically, what reason is there for ruling out the supernatural from the get go? Wouldn't the objective thing be to simply go wherever the evidence leads us, wherever that may be?

Quote:

I suppose I was embarked upon a futile quest in attempting to establish the boundary in your mind where the �believable� becomes the �unbelievable� Of course you believe what you consider to be reasonable to believe, and don�t believe what you consider to be unreasonable to believe. Just like me. So that doesn�t really tell us anything about our respective positions.

Quote:

A good research project, I think, would be to study credulity thresholds, and how and why they differ from one person to another. I know you dislike my suggesting your threshold is lower than mine - but it is certainly very different or we would not now be having this discussion.

An comment that reflects your own bias. You are assuming that our different conclusions derive from either a lack of evidence or from my gullibility. You are ruling out the possibility that your own personal bias against anything supernatural blinds you to the evidence that exists.

Perfect objectivity would be nice, of course. No doubt we both shoot for that. But the accusation "you found exactly what you were trying to find, what a coincidence!" is equally applicable to Christians and athiests.

Quote:

(Huxley�s statement that being a Darwinist permitted sexual immorality was crass. I am confident that Darwin was on the right tracks, I have been married 36 years and have remained faithful to my wife throughout. My sense of morality derives from my sense of responsibility towards other people, and the desire to treat them in a manner in which I would like them to treat me. To blame bad behaviour on Darwin is the same as blaming bad behaviour on god.)

Glad to hear that.

Off topic - what do you think that your sense of responsibility to other people derives from??

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 02-15-2003, 12:43 AM

Helen,

Based on that web page I'm very dubious of the filling thing. What is described there is essentially demanding that God do parlor tricks for us so that our faith in Him is confirmed and in order to motivate us to serve Him. That goes against several scriptural principles.

I wouldn't rule out that those are legitimate miracles, but it seems very unlikely to me.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 02-15-2003, 01:06 AM

lpetrich,

Quote:

... In the "parable" of Lazarus God said "even if someone were to raise from the dead they would not believe." ...

Where?

Luke 16:19-31. Specifically vs. 31.

Quote:

And if I told you that I'm right now conversing with the deities of Mt. Olympus, would you then convert to Hellenic Paganism?

Hmmmm ... No.

But that is hardly comparable to the evidence that supports Christianity.

Quote:

Someone who moans and groans about skeptics then turns around and becomes one himself.

Um ... precisely when have I moaned and groaned about skeptics? Skepticism is quite healthy, IMHO. The apostle Thomas and the apostle James were skeptics, and they played key roles in the very early church.

Quote:

Ummm ... maybe it's the evidence???

Whatever it allegedly is.

Are you saying that you discount the evidence a priori?

Quote:

Like when Huxley stated that the reason he was a Darwinist was that it made sexual immorality premissable. ...

Where???

And which Huxley?

I was referring to Aldous Huxley. The guy who wrote "Brave New World." In his book "Ends and Means" he says:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantegous to themselves."

And also in the same book:

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotical revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever."

He made even more explicit references to his personal motives of sexual inhibition in radio interviews, but I can't find the reference off hand. Those two quotes should be enough to illustrate my point, though.

Respectfully,

Christian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-15-2003, 12:43 AM	#42
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Helen, Based on that web page I'm very dubious of the filling thing. What is described there is essentially demanding that God do parlor tricks for us so that our faith in Him is confirmed and in order to motivate us to serve Him. That goes against several scriptural principles. I wouldn't rule out that those are legitimate miracles, but it seems very unlikely to me. Respectfully, Christian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.