The Idiocy of Evolution
It seems that public school teachers who teach nothing but Darwin's much debated theory of Evolution, are starting to feel a backdraft.
"About half of all Americans dismiss as preposterous the scientific consensus that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Some hold to a literal reading of Genesis: God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Others accept an ancient cosmos but take the variety, complexity and beauty of Earth's creatures as proof that life was crafted by an intelligent designer."
Churches and pro-IT groups are helping kids think critically about supposed 'truth claims.'
"If a teacher is making a claim that land animals evolved into whales, students should ask: 'What precisely is involved? How does the fur turn into blubber, how do the nostrils move, how does the tiny tail turn into a great big fluke?' " said John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research near San Diego. "Evolution is so unsupportable, if you insist on more information, the teacher will quickly run out of credibility," he said."
One viewing of the National Geographic Channel's special, In the Womb, showcases evolution's flaws. The miracle of life is not an accident. To believe in evolution simply takes more faith then to believe in a sovereign creator. Personally, I do not have enough faith be an evolutionist.
"About half of all Americans dismiss as preposterous the scientific consensus that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Some hold to a literal reading of Genesis: God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Others accept an ancient cosmos but take the variety, complexity and beauty of Earth's creatures as proof that life was crafted by an intelligent designer."
Churches and pro-IT groups are helping kids think critically about supposed 'truth claims.'
"If a teacher is making a claim that land animals evolved into whales, students should ask: 'What precisely is involved? How does the fur turn into blubber, how do the nostrils move, how does the tiny tail turn into a great big fluke?' " said John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research near San Diego. "Evolution is so unsupportable, if you insist on more information, the teacher will quickly run out of credibility," he said."
One viewing of the National Geographic Channel's special, In the Womb, showcases evolution's flaws. The miracle of life is not an accident. To believe in evolution simply takes more faith then to believe in a sovereign creator. Personally, I do not have enough faith be an evolutionist.
posted by Charlie Wallace at
11:32 AM
99 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lets start from the beginning, pun intended. Your title "The Idiocy of Evolution." Idiocy is defined as, "1. Extreme folly or stupidity.
2. A foolish or stupid utterance or deed." The following material in your post does nothing to make a case for belief in evolution being stupid or foolish, you just state that you do not have enough faith to be an evolutionist. So the idiocy of your title is that you haven't give any proof, or opinions for that matter, on why Evolution is idiotic.
Lets move on to the actual post, shall we? You begin your post with an excellent quote. I'll post it here so you don't have to look back.
"About half of all Americans dismiss as preposterous the scientific consensus that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Some hold to a literal reading of Genesis: God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Others accept an ancient cosmos but take the variety, complexity and beauty of Earth's creatures as proof that life was crafted by an intelligent designer."
The first thing you should have learned in English 101 is to always cite your sources. Ask your wife about it. There is no way Dr. Brown or Mrs. Cobb would have let her turn in a paper with no sources. Anyway, the fact that you have not cited your source immideatly discredits the entire quote. Who said this? Steven Hawkings? Billy Graham? One of the children you teach in Sunday School? You see, it's kind of hard to know what to make from the words without knowing who spoke them.
Now lets look through the hole in Mr. Rogers wall and take a trip to the Neighborhood of Make Believe land. Choo Choo!!!
"Churches and pro-IT groups are helping kids think critically about supposed 'truth claims.'"
You, who I ill now refer to as King Friday, must be out of your mind. If there is one truth in the entire universe, it is that churches want their members staying as far away from critical thinking as you from a strip club. Do you really believe that churches encourage critical thinking? What about the whole blind faith thing? How many people would show up next Sunday if you told every one to go home and spend the week critically analyzing the Holy Trinity? So, King Friday, I'm assuming you just wrote this part for humor or as we say back in the real world, to bring the funny.
And on to the bulk of your argument.
"f a teacher is making a claim that land animals evolved into whales, students should ask: 'What precisely is involved? How does the fur turn into blubber, how do the nostrils move, how does the tiny tail turn into a great big fluke?' " said John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research near San Diego. "Evolution is so unsupportable, if you insist on more information, the teacher will quickly run out of credibility," he said."
*note, this was taken directly from you blog, grammar errors and all
The first thing that a reader sees is a misspelling. I'm assuming you just copied and pasted this into your blog instead of actually typing your on original ideas. I believe that the reader would then think, "Is that all this guy is doing? Just copying other peoples ideas? What about the whole critical thinking thing he was just talking about... wait he wasn't talking about that either!!! He just copied and pasted that too!!!" I am proud of you though. It seems you have matured a lot from your last paragraph, you listed your source. Well not so much listed it, as left it in when because it was in the middle of the quite and it would be too much work to edit it out. You obviously don't have that kind of time in today's copy and paste world.
At this point I will address John Morris. So you, King Friday, can go get some popcorn or take a bathroom break.
John. Johnny. John-Boy. You must not have children or have ever been around them. You say that student should ask "What is involved? How does fur turn into blubber? etc." All young children do is ask how and why. "Why is the sky blue? Why do dogs bark? Why, why, why. And to get those answers we turn to the world of rocks. You see John, along time ago magma spewed out of a volcano. Once is landed on the ground we called it magma, and it began to cool. Over long periods of time this rock was squeezed together with other rocks forming sedimentary rocks. Sometimes, when an animal died it would fall on top of a rock and get buried by other sediments. The bones of this animal would be preserved as what we call a fossil. When we look at the fossil record we see examples of animals that were "missing links" between fish and mammals, non-flying animals and birds. all that neat stuff. This is exactly the evidence a teacher would point to, if he or she is was a good teacher, when a child ask the question you tell them to.
Okay King Friday, we need you back over here.
Here's how you end your post, I'm sure you remember it's the only thing you actually wrote.
"One viewing of the National Geographic Channel's special, In the Womb, showcases evolution's flaws. The miracle of life is not an accident. To believe in evolution simply takes more faith then to believe in a sovereign creator. Personally, I do not have enough faith be an evolutionist."
Now I have not seen this program. Nor do I discount that it poses some problems correlating how a fetus grows with the theory of evolution. I do like how you say the miracle of life is not an accident, apparently you haven't talked to your parents about that. Just kidding with you there King. The way you wrote you last, well only, paragraph leads the reader to believe that after watching a show on the National Geographic Channel, you decided that the miracle of life is not an accident. To believe in evolution does not take more faith than to believe in a sovereign creator. It takes more work. A quality you are apparently lacking.
Keep on posting your truly inspirational messages there King Friday. Why don't you act like a man and not immideatly delete this comment. Allow your readers the joys of this crital thinking stuff you Christians are so big on. And always remember; Control + C (copy), Control + V (paste)
-Mr. McFeely
Well, alright. Where to begin?
1) I did not delete the comments. Actually, the poster who posted the comments deleted them himself because he realized he was angry. All posts are e-mailed to me so I know who writes what, especially if one decides to delete it.
2)As maintainer of this site, I do not feel that it is necessary for me to explain all of my actions. I am not making people read my site.
3)It is Stephen Hawking, not Steven Hawkings. Also, I was commenting on an article which I read and you can click the word "backdraft" which will take you to the link. Every quote comes from that article. And, I know how to cite, thank you very much.
4)Yes, I do cut and paste. Is that allowed?
5)Your post is full of grammatical erros. Guess what, I used to be an editor at a university newspaper. So, if you come on this site, you may want to sharpen your writing skills - especially if you bash mine.
6)Thank you for the science class explanation.
7)This was not a true commentary. This post was just a 'blog' about something I read on-line.
Thanks for respondinng, Mr. McFeely, you brought some life to a rather dull post.
I'm glad I could help
and you didn't answer my questions, but that's okay.
I'm assuming you are referring to this:
"You, who I ill now refer to as King Friday, must be out of your mind. If there is one truth in the entire universe, it is that churches want their members staying as far away from critical thinking as you from a strip club. Do you really believe that churches encourage critical thinking? What about the whole blind faith thing? How many people would show up next Sunday if you told every one to go home and spend the week critically analyzing the Holy Trinity? So, King Friday, I'm assuming you just wrote this part for humor or as we say back in the real world, to bring the funny."
Believe it or not, there are some Christians who think critically and encourage the pracice. If you were to set foot on a conservative, Evangelical seminary campus, you would find many Christians who 'think critically.' A Christian who says he has "blind faith" is not thinking critically, but there are many out there that do. Your ignorance in this area proves that you have not done research in the world of Evangelical academia. Read some of what scholarly Christans have to say and then I will take your barbs more seriously. Take a lesson from your high school/college buddy on how to properly engage in debate. Choo-choo!
"What about the whole blind faith thing?"
Let us begin like you began. Faith is defined by Webster as unquestioning belief. Therefore, you assume we have absolutely no truth on which to stand. I feel I have more than enough warrant for my belief. I'll be happy to explain more of it for you.
First, we have a universe that came from somewhere. We either exist or we don't. The reality of the situation says that we exist. I can logically explain where everything came from and I don't believe you have a reasonable explanation of the universe.
Second, we have the issue of conscience. From where does it arise? Why hasn't any other being developed one? I realize I exist and I realize that I ought to do one thing or another, why?? Evolution doesn't explain the conscience.
Third, we have the issue of truth. In your belief system, I can't really know anything. There are no absolutes; therefore, the particulars are unable to be measured in any meaningful way.
Fourth, Christ was a real, historical person. There is no denying that. So, you have two choices. Either, he was a maniacal, deceitful teacher of insane doctrine. Or, he was exactly who he said he was. He was the Son of God. He did live and die. He did rise from the dead. If he didn't, then where is his body? Why is there still an empty tomb? Why did the disciples die for something they knew was a lie? Because if they took his body then they would have known that he didn't rise from the dead. What kind of person dies for something he KNOWS is a lie? Either a crazy person or a person who has really seen the truth.
To believe in evolution does not take more faith than to believe in a sovereign creator. It takes more work. A quality you are apparently lacking.
I would have laughed if it wasn't such a sad statement. You said let's begin at the beginning. Ok, let us do that. How did we get here? What exactly happened at the beginning of the universe? Is the universe eternal? If it isn't, where did the first bit of matter come from? Is it possible to really live in your system of belief? Do you live in accordance with your beliefs? Prove to me why I should have faith in your god of evolution. I'm waiting. You have an awful lot of work before you, O brillant one. Dazzle me with your amazing knowledge. All you did in your last post is attack a person and a belief system. You didn't really address his post at all. You were more interested in grammatical error than truth. Prove to me your truth. Quit being a jerk and start acting like a teacher. That is what you attempted to come across as.
Ahhh King Friday. I'm really starting to like you. Can we play a game? I swear it will be fun. Do you remember MadLibs. Ahh yes, "the boob ate green snot." You remember.
Lets Play
"Believe it or not, there are some Christians who think critically and encourage the pracice. If you were to set foot on a conservative, Evangelical seminary campus, you would find many Christians who 'think critically.' A Christian who says he has "blind faith" is not thinking critically, but there are many out there that do. Your ignorance in this area proves that you have not done research in the world of Evangelical academia. Read some of what scholarly Christans have to say and then I will take your barbs more seriously. Take a lesson from your high school/college buddy on how to properly engage in debate. Choo-choo!"
Since there are most likely as many Christians who think critically as there are Christians who molest little boys in the, we'll switch the two.
Believe it or not, there are some Christians who molest little boys and encourage the pracice. If you were to set foot on a conservative, Evangelical seminary campus, you would find many Christians who molest little boys. A Christian who says he has "blind faith" is not molesting little boys, but there are many out there that do. Your ignorance in this area proves that you have not done research in the world of Evangelical academia. Read some of what scholarly Christans have to say and then I will take your barbs more seriously. Take a lesson from your high school/college buddy on how to properly engage in debate. Choo-choo!
I think both statements have the same level of validity. Oohhh, King Friday. You make me so happy.
P.S. I appreciate the "Choo-choo!" at the end, that really did make my day.
Sorry King, I think you might have just been replaced as my favorite person. Michael, evolution is not my god, you are. Your post is the best thing I have ever read. I feel like Jay Leno would if George Bush walked in the press room with no pants on. I'll get back to you later, but just know this. Michael, I love you.
Sounds like a red-herring, McFeely...tisk tisk.
It's not a red herring, it's a joke. The problem with this discourse is that you are trying to prove a point, and I know that I cannot. Aside from God himself coming down from the sky above, there is absolutly nothing that will make you say, "Hmm, good point." Thats why the only reason I responded is because it's funny to me.
That being said, Michael, seriously now. You have to be kidding. I'll respond solely because I'm bored.
"Let us begin like you began. Faith is defined by Webster as unquestioning belief. Therefore, you assume we have absolutely no truth on which to stand. I feel I have more than enough warrant for my belief. I'll be happy to explain more of it for you."
Okay, to start with unquestioning does not equal unwarranted. I have an unquestioning belief that 2 + 2 = 4, that belief is not unwarranted.
"First, we have a universe that came from somewhere. We either exist or we don't. The reality of the situation says that we exist. I can logically explain where everything came from and I don't believe you have a reasonable explanation of the universe."
First three sentences, can't agree with you more. As for the fourth, let's go to the trusty dictionary.
Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
You see, your principals are diffrent from those of the scientific community. We see a pregnant woman and say she is not a virgin, you see one and say there is a possibilty that she is.
"Second, we have the issue of conscience. From where does it arise? Why hasn't any other being developed one? I realize I exist and I realize that I ought to do one thing or another, why?? Evolution doesn't explain the conscience."
I expected more, I know it's a lot to expect, but come on man. Why hasn't any other being developed one? Did you ask your dog before you typed that? How do you know that no other being has developed one? To say that humans are the only creatures is as unfounded as saying the members of N'Sync are musicians.
"Third, we have the issue of truth. In your belief system, I can't really know anything. There are no absolutes; therefore, the particulars are unable to be measured in any meaningful way."
That is not true. The speed of light is an absolute. I would argue that there are no absolutes in your belief system. Is it okay to kill another human? Most of the Christian I know would say "It depends."
"Fourth, Christ was a real, historical person. There is no denying that. So, you have two choices. Either, he was a maniacal, deceitful teacher of insane doctrine. Or, he was exactly who he said he was. He was the Son of God. He did live and die. He did rise from the dead. If he didn't, then where is his body? Why is there still an empty tomb? Why did the disciples die for something they knew was a lie? Because if they took his body then they would have known that he didn't rise from the dead. What kind of person dies for something he KNOWS is a lie? Either a crazy person or a person who has really seen the truth."
I agree that there was a person named Jesus Christ. The part where you offer two extremes and force me to pick one as the truth is where you lose me. Why do either have to be true? What about Jesus was a man. A regular man who had some great ideas. Where is his body? Where are the bodies of all the other people that died that year? I know you'll tell me that the Bible says the tomb was opened by angels and his body was gone, and since the Bible is the absolute truth it must be exactly that. Thsi is where I apply that critical thinking thing we were talking about earlier. What seems more likely, an angel from heaven opened his tomb without anyone seeing and took the "dead" body of God to heaven, or his band of merry men made up the story? This is where your "logic" will differ from mine.
"To believe in evolution does not take more faith than to believe in a sovereign creator. It takes more work. A quality you are apparently lacking.
I would have laughed if it wasn't such a sad statement. You said let's begin at the beginning. Ok, let us do that. How did we get here? What exactly happened at the beginning of the universe? Is the universe eternal? If it isn't, where did the first bit of matter come from? Is it possible to really live in your system of belief? Do you live in accordance with your beliefs? Prove to me why I should have faith in your god of evolution. I'm waiting. You have an awful lot of work before you, O brillant one. Dazzle me with your amazing knowledge. All you did in your last post is attack a person and a belief system. You didn't really address his post at all. You were more interested in grammatical error than truth. Prove to me your truth. Quit being a jerk and start acting like a teacher. That is what you attempted to come across as."
This isn't a sad statement. It was a joke because King Friday said he didnt have enough faith to believe in evolution and I equated faith with work, saying he didn't put forth the appropriate amount of work. Apparently you didn't get it. Is the universe eternal? Your guess is as good as mine. Where did the first bit of matter (singularity) come from, I don't know that either. What I do know is that Science has tracked the history of the universe up to abot 2 trillionths of a second after the big bang. "Do you live in accordance with your beliefs?" Well I have presented no beliefs that I could live in accordance with while I have been talking with you fine people, so I don't know what you are questioning. Do I leave it to people to make their own decisions about things as long as they don't harm others? Yes. Which is why I have never said you two were stupid or wrong. When something that has merit, such as evolution, is called an "Idiocy" I do find that to be stupid and wrong. "Prove to me why I should have faith in your god of evolution?" You see, that's the diffrence between you and me. I'm not trying to prove anything, or convert anyone, and make them follow my system of beliefs. You go right on ahead believing what ever you want. I don't expect evolution to be taught in Sunday School, just like I don't expect intelligent design to be taught in science class. "All you did in your last post is attack a person and a belief system." I did neither. I was attacking the manner in which he said what he said. If you are going to try to convince me that something as largly accepted a evolution is not true, you will have to do it in a much more effective manner that ole King did. But he is right, he didn't force me to read his blog. I did it on my own free will and commented accordingly.
You keep commanding me to prove to you why you should believe what I do. That's the problem with you christians. You think that everyone has to believe the same thing. It's like the two childern on the playground going back and forth saying "Is not, Is too..." Why can't you guys just stop trying to prove to everyone that you are right? Let people believe whatever it is that they want to. You are like that fat lady at McDonalds that tells how bad smoking is for me while she sits eating her two Big Mac's, super size fries, and two gallon soda.
That's about all I have for now.
-Mr McFeely
Oh and King Friday, I have never met you but tell Emily I said hello. This conversation would have been much better had it been over an art table during study hall.
McFeely,
One thing I see as problematic is your statement about morality. You say (and I'm paraphrasing) let everyone believe as they want as long as they don't harm anyone. You also say that you don't have a belief system. First, I would argue that your first statement is at the very least the beginning of a belief system. If this is indeed the case, it is called conditioned nihilism. Why should I act a certain way in this belief system? It lacks any absolute. Is there any punishment for harming people? You will probably argue that prison is enough. What about societies who value bloodshed, like Nazi Germany? What about abortion? Does the lack of harm extend to them? What about the elderly who have "lost their value" to society? Does this one moral maxim extend to them?
You keep commanding me to prove to you why you should believe what I do. That's the problem with you christians. You think that everyone has to believe the same thing. It's like the two childern on the playground going back and forth saying "Is not, Is too..." Why can't you guys just stop trying to prove to everyone that you are right? Let people believe whatever it is that they want to. You are like that fat lady at McDonalds that tells how bad smoking is for me while she sits eating her two Big Mac's, super size fries, and two gallon soda.
A couple things quickly. First, I will end this little debate here because you have made it very clear that God himself would have to appear to you for your beliefs to be changed. Second, the reason we, as Christians, try to convince others about the validity of our cause is because we believe that there are grave consequences for not believing. We are exclusivist. There is only one way to the Father. With that being said, we are not to coerce others to believe as we do. Third, you assume that all Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. This is simply not the case. My guess is that you probably grew up in some church and while in this church you met many people who claimed to be Christians who asked a completely different way. This is not an unusual experience since probably a majority of the people sitting in the pews of the church don't have a clue what they belief or why they believe it.
On Christ being God or a lunatic. McFeely, what kind of person makes claims like these: "I and the Father (God) are one. No man comes to the Father, except by Me."
or
"I who speak to you am He" - meaning God
but most importantly, Jesus' purpose:
"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16-17
I don't know about you, McFeely, but whenever I see someone on TV claiming to be God, I pretty much right them off as a lunatic. Either Christ was a lunatic, or He was the Savior of mankind. The problem with our modern (or postmodern depending on your view of where the world is) world is that it does not need a Savior. That fact is what this is all about. I recognize that I an do no good apart from Christ living in me (the Holy Spirit) because of my selfish lifestyle, which is called sin. Therefore, I thank God for what He has done. Sending his Son to die - true love.
Ok, first of all, I took my own posts off. I read this post and immediately posted something that turned out to be more incendiary than logical. I took it off because I didn’t want to be mean, and because I feared that my post would devolve away from public discourse (hbo version of bill maher) and toward a shouting match (comedy central version of bill maher). Having said that, my original position on the post remains the same and, if you look in between ‘the funny’, mr m. makes some lucid points. So the following is my assessment of the serious rational arguments that have sprung up in this post.
1) this guy you quote in the post has a tragic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Firstly, since it argues that animals arose from the sea the question should be, ‘how does blubber turn into fur?’ But even if you grant that mr m’s proposed response for the teacher dealing with sedimentary evidence and natural selection would answer this question. Or they could take a field trip to a museum. John morris also appears to think that if a scientific theory cannot be explained by an 8th grade science teacher, then it is not valid. My mom is an 8th grad science teacher and she can’t explain superstring theory or really most of what stephen hawkings says, but I don’t think she believes that her lack of understanding entails that these theories are wrong. Furthermore, mr m. only mentioned sedimentary evidence for evolution, there is also anthropological and genetic evidence for it. Included in these fields is the explanations of consciousness, which, again is complicated and I don’t fully understand it. But I’ll address this in my next point.
2) you contend that many christians think critically. And surely that is true. Something like 80% of americans are christians and I’ve met more than 2 out 10 people that were able to think critically. But I think the point mr m was getting at was that while christians think critically, they do so within a particular paradigm. For instance, when protestants say man is saved through faith alone they are basing that critical though on certain premises. Catholics however do not accept all those premises and claim that good works must accompany faith, and this critical piece of thought is based on premises of its own. And both of these are based on the larger premise of believing in the version of god depicted in the bible. The problem I find with this is that those premises are never going to be challenged within that paradigm of thought. The provisionally assumed assumptions of the existence of god and the infallibility of the bible are simply accepted by sheer faith, which michael said is an “unquestioning belief”. However, a critical theory is one that serves to questions beliefs. So while christians certainly practice critical thinking within their paradigm, they are not critical of the paradigm itself. I, and like galileo galilei, believe that this is limiting our use of conscious and reason. Such a worry led galileo to say something to the effect of, ‘I don’t believe that the same god that gave us reason and intellect intended for us to forgo their use.’ This brings me to #3.
3) christians can be critical outside of paradigm. What?!?! am I going back on what I said? No, see christians can participate in public discourse, like the one we are having now, but to do so they must base their arguments upon rational thought. Why rational thought? Well because rational thought is universalizable (that’s not a word but just go with me). That means that instead of limiting our critical thoughts to a particular culture or group, every living rational and conscious being is being appealed too. This, then, would be the fullest exercise of our rational faculties. Science is a practice of reason that adheres the principle of universalization. Science is reason based on observable facts as well as fact that logically follow from premises. But, unlike religion, these premises are free to be argued against. Superstring theory is widely accepted, but there are those that argue against it, and rather than just say to these detractors ‘we take it on faith’, scientists are obliged to offer evidence for their claims, no matter how rudimentary they are. thus, evolution is not idiocy because it is a theory that, while cannot be tested due to the lack of a time machine, it is a conclusion drawn from premises that have be thoroughly backed up by evidence and logic.
4) even still, because it cant be tested, I don’t mind people claiming that god set the whole event in motion. My problem is when people inject this faith-based claim into a field that is devoted to reason and evidence. Hence we reach an impasse when I point to various evidence that argues that man evolved from apes, with whom we share 98% of our genetic code, and your response to that is no, man was created in the garden of eden (I’ll save the numerous problems I have with genesis for another time). Our problem is that you are speaking on faith and I am speaking on science. And these two cannot be in dialogue with one another to a large extent. Again, if you want to believe that god was the original creator of the laws of physics that fine, but once we pass through the doors into reason, faith has to be left behind. Hence, I don’t think that a science class ought to teach children about a theory that has nothing to do with science. Religion is a moral doctrine, and science does not deal with morality. That brings me to my last point.
5) I imagine that the response to my argument will be similar to that of the one given to mr m. The response was from micheal saying, more or less, that under the system I just outlined there are no moral truths. My argument for science rested upon reason, likewise, I think that public discourse ought to rest on reason. Mill versus the intuitionists, kant versus mill, nietzsche versus kant, and so on and so on. Each of these people created their own moral theory and despite their differences each wanted their theory to be universalizable. Hence, again these moral theories avoid the parochialism that religious doctrines have. Your argument against this position seems to be that since there are so many unanswered questions in the world one must turn to religion, which has the answers. To that I’d say, isaiah 40:22, ezekiel 7:2 and revolations 7:1 each make reference to the earth being flat and having four corners. Moreover, I appealed to galileo earlier, and he was condemned by the church for discovering that our solar system was heliocentric, which it is. So even though god may have all the answers, the people acting on his behalf (church figures, people that actually wrote the bible, people that decided which books to include in the bible, etc) often get things wrong. So I personally don’t think the church is offering any answers better than secular rational thought. And at least with rational thought I can question the moral doctrines that exists.
dantzler smith,
First, faith and reason are not separate entities. They ought to act and function together. Faith, without reason, is idoicy, insanity, whatever. I would appeal to Aquinas who basically stated that he was one with faith seeking understanding. My point earlier was to explain that faith is not something completely unfounded.
Second, the reason I brought up morality is because your belief system shapes your view of how and why I ought to act a certain way. You and McFeely see man as simply another machine. If this is true, then to act accordingly I would eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow I die. Most of your reasoning is based solely on your experiences. If this is the case, then my experiences could tell me that I am completely justified in raping and murdering a six-year-old girl. You could not rightfully argue against my reasoning because you have made the conscience your moral absolute. Your evolutionary worldview cannot be lived out epistemologically because it would lead to moral and social anarchy.
Third, your reference several Scripture passages that state the world is flat and has four corners. Let us look at each passage. Remember context is key. Isaiah 40:22 says, It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing,
and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. Now, Isaiah speaking the Word of God doesn't seem to imply that the world is flat or has four corners, does he? Ezekiel 7:2 says, the prophet here is speaking directly to the nation of Israel. This nation, as all nations do, had distinct boundaries. Therefore, it would not be unusual for someone to say that this land has four corners. The United States, for instance, could use Florida in the Southeast, Maine in the Northeast, Alaska in the Northwest, and southern California in the Southwest. Those are four corners, are they not? Finally Revelation 7:1, this is a tricky one I admit. In fact, much of Revelation is difficult to interpret. However, I will give it a shot. Look at the statement directly following the statement in question. What are the four winds of the earth? Is it not possible that the four winds of the earth refer to North, South, East, and West. Wouldn't that probably encompass the entire globe of planet earth. Just some considerations. Please don't pick and choose a verse here and there and misstate Scripture. If you are going to examine the Scripture, look carefully at the surrounding verses and chapters and at the whole book.
Well, I don't have time to comment on that whole post, and I suggest that we take one issue a time. I feel we are talking over each other.
As for instances of the Bible stating that the earth has four corners or that is is flat, that is easily explained. Yhe writers were just writing what they were seeing. Before satellites and the advent of science people assumed the world was flat, because if you stand in a desert and look out - guess what, it looks flat. That does not mean that the Biblical writers were wrong. We often say that Japan is the land of the rising sun because of what the effect looks like but we both know that the sun does no technically rise. However, from their perspective, it does.
God has given us our minds to reason, however, Scripture, which is my foundation of moral authority, states quite clearly that even our reason may be wrong, and we've been down this road before when I mentioned that Hitler, Napolean, and Hussein all reasoned they were doing the 'right thing.' We can trust our reason somewhat, but to make reason, "God", is problematic since our reason is all tainted with sin.
This seems to a recurring theme: if you don’t base yourself in god, then you fall in relativity. I getting this from objections to me along the lines of, ‘if reason is based on experience someone’s experience might be such that they thought it was just to rape someone’ (from michael’s post) and ‘hitler reasoned that he was doing the right thing.’
To these let me refer you back to my post in which I mention the test of universality. Lets say someone wants to argue that its ok to rape people. Can that be universalized? Is the reason its premised upon viable? The answer is no. same for the case of hitler. Is racial supremacy just? No. For one its based on culturally specific point of view. So by appealing to reason, we have not fallen into relativism. I don’t think this is a controversial claim since secular rational arguments have be put forth by socrates, plato, aristotle on to js mill, kant, john rawls and many many others (by the way I don’t think any of the guys I named would endorse rape or hitler). While there is a tradition of relativism, there are an abundance of other philosophical traditions that use reason to come to objective conclusions. So in keeping with your contention that reason is fatally flawed without religion, is it the case that the whole of philosophy is impotent until it appeals to religion (and by the way, I suppose you don’t mean religion, but a very specific religion).
And as for the quotes, my point is that the bible has to be interpreted both in the context of the actual text and in the context of time period, which charlie pointed out. That’s interesting bc it gets back to the point about critical thinking. The bible as we know it today was compiled in the 4th century. Some texts were kept in, some were left out. And the gospel of thomas was discovered in 1945. I mention this in an attempt to demystify the book. Jesus was a historical figure, but he didnt actually write the bible. Others did, and in many cases they did so years after jesus died. Could they be putting words in jesus’ mouth? Could it be that church leaders altered the content? Could it be that many of the things they said pertained to a particular culture and time? I suppose these are possibilities. Moreover, since it was written in a particular time, religion must deal with the things that science discovers, like a heliocentric universe. Deal with them or cope with this influx of fact. However, you are arguing against science by using religion, not unlike the pope that excommunicated galileo.
So my point is that your argument against me is that reason is sinful, but this is based upon the bible which are choosing to exclude from your powers of critical thought. Therefore, how exactly are reason and faith in dialogue? I am using reason and you are using faith, but I am not going to accept that the bible is infallible and you are not going to accept that it is. Dialogue can only occur if we begin on the same ground, and my arguement has been that reason maintains objectivity but allows for diversity, so if start from there we can have dialogue between theories as far apart as communism and capitalism.
Ps, if we are going to talk about relativity, mr m made the good point about saying that religion is often relativistic. You mentioned hitler, who’s racial supremacy was based on religion. The apartheid was based on a couple of passages from genesis. So how are you to explain these instances? Don’t you need an objective interpretation of the bible?
Again, a lot of questions have been raised, so Mr. Smith, or Mr. McFeeley, let's start with one specific question/objection and go from there. It is hard to gather all of the bullets and spread of a shotgun blast. Let's talk pinpoint accuracy and when we are done, see how it fits into your worldview.
first of all, i am not the one posting under the name mr mcfeeley. secondly i am not sure what you are asking me to do with your shotgun blast analogy and how it would affect my worldview, so feel free to ask me a quesiton based on the argument i've presented.
Your argument is too complex. Please simpify us for us simple-minded people. Please post a question/arguement that is not multi-faceted (i.e. one premise at a time)
Also, I was not accusing of you double-posting, the invitation was to Mr. M as well.
Mr. Smith,
If you want to discuss the reliability of the Bible, then we can. But, let's stay for the moment with the moral argument. I'll address it when I have more time.
Let's discuss the depravity of man. Hilter was basing his claims in religion. He was using and abusing religion to "justify" himself. Hilter was obviously not a Christian. Sure, there have been many who have misused religion as a justification for wrong. This fact speaks right to Charlie's point that reason or the intellect is stained by sin. The unbeliever is completely consumed by his sinfulness. Conversely, believers are simul et peccator, both justified and sinner. Your statement that religion is often relativistic. This is true in its application because we don't cease to be sinners when we submit to Christ. However, upon deeper study, Christianity, at its very, is far from relative. In fact, it is universal and complete. Revelation is sufficient for every need. Our interpretation of that Revelation is flawed for now. That is the point of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 13, which says that now we see dimly but then we will see clearly. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, as I have been fully known. So, your assertion that people make bad decisions in the name of religion is true, but it is exactly what we, unfortunately, expect.
Your use of Plato, Socrates, and Kant to defend the universality of ethical norms is dangerous. Remember the context of their historical situation. Plato and Socrates were working within the framework of a universal, controlling absolute of some kind. Kant was a theist, at the very least, and most likely a Christian. Therefore, he created his deontological system with God in mind.
I guess the question I have for you is: in your worldview, why am I compelled to do the right thing? What is my motivation? Is there any reward for behaving properly? Is there any real, eternal punishment for misbehaving?
Dang, this looks like it has the potential to be a good conversation! But Charlie's right, it seems we have a whole bunch of topics out here and there could be a tendency for us to talk past each other. Another thing that would be important to establish is whether we’re actually willing to listen to each other here in this dialogue, or if we’re just waiting out turn to destroy our opponents position by making our points.
I’ll say this to Mr. M and Dantzler – I’m a Christian, and I’m willing to dialogue from the “universeizable” tenant of rational thought. I believe that, as Christian philosopher Dallas Willard says, “If you found something better to believe than Jesus and the Christian way, then Jesus himself would say to you to follow it.” I know that my Christian pals may think that’s a little over the top, but Jesus did say to His students that “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Anyway, before I jump into a deep conversation about this topic, I want to make sure that we’re all willing to dialogue, learn from each other, and really examine the issues… Otherwise we’re just wasting our time.
Looking forward to continued discussion,
Ross Parker
Thanks for joining the fray, Ross. I'm waiting for Mr. Smith and/or Mr. M's rebuttal or theory on the universality of rational thought.
The question posed to me at this point was, ‘why should one be motivated to act in accordance with these rational moral principles?’ Well there are three things to say to that. 1) whether or not moral dictums have to motivational is a topic of debate among philosophers (ie can’t something be right even though I am not compelled to do it, like giving money to a homeless person [kant uses that example]). Also each philosopher has their own explanation for why we ought to accept their theories, but I am too lazy to go through the entirety of philosophical history. Wikipedia them or something. 2) it was put to mr m that his views relegated humanity to simple machines. You then asked me, ‘is there any reward for acting righteously or eternal punishment for misbehaving.’ Well if your only motivation to do something is fear of eternal damnation or desire for salvation, then aren’t you just reducing humanity into machines too? Or if not machines maybe just pavlov’s dog. I think you probably want something deeper than just a commitment to religion based on conditioning that arises out of fear of satan, so you may want to rethink that question. but that really isnt the larger issue, which is.......
3) you mentioned that kant was actually religious. True, in fact pretty much every notable philosopher up to hegel with the exception of hume, was religious to some extent. And yet their theories were premised on rationality and not their particular religion. Why? Well lets take kant as an example. Kant comes up with a moral theory in this three critiques, then he comes up with how he feels this moral theory should be implemented in the real world in the philosophy of the right (right= recht in german, which translates to law, so its actually the philosophy of the law. Something to file away in case you are ever on jeopardy). Now remember we are talking about public discourse. If one is going to come up with a moral theory or system of laws or political order, then the reasons for these arguments must be something everyone could agree too. So kant doesn’t appeal to religion bc he wants his argument to be persuasive to everyone, protestants like himself, catholics, jews, agnostics, and atheists. Personally I remain unconvinced of much of kant’s theory, but I respect its right to exists as an alternative within the public sphere. Why? Well that gets us back to evolution.
When you say that evolution is wrong and that creationism should be taught in science class too, like the guy in the article, you are basing that on things in the bible. But not every believes in the bible. And that one should believe in it are dependant on faith. That makes it parochial. But even that is fine. Remember, kant was a christian. But he realized that religion is a private doctrine, and doesnt work in the realm of public discourse. Thus, his theories are premised on reason, which everyone has access too. So when someone says, teach creationism bc its in the bible, that is a private belief being forced onto the public. At the risk of being accused of equating religion and hitler, which I assure you I am not, lets talk about nazism. There are nazis in america and various other countries. So long as that remains a private doctrine that does not get forced into the public realm, they have a right to freely think what they do. I strongly disagree with it, but I also strongly agree with the freedom of thought. Likewise, if someone wants to believe that adam and eve populated the earth, that’s fine, but they cannot then extrapolate that out into the public realm, where objectivity is exerted through rationality, which is accessible to everyone. So I am not telling you what to think, I am just saying that in the real world, we have to justify things to each other, (how to govern, how to act, etc) and the only way to do this in a non culturally specific way is to appeal to the universal faculty of reason.
Lastly let me tell you that as I write this I am laughing to myself. I am laughing for probably the same reason that mr m. is angry. I read the news everyday. And I know that when I read it tommorow and the day after that I will have to resign myself to the fact that things like gay marriage, stem cell research, contraceptives, the subjugation of women and many other things will be instilled in our society on the behest of people that are religious. Their arguments will not focus on reason, which everyone has; instead,they will focus on faith. A faith that many people do not share. A faith premised on the circular argument of ‘the bible is absolutely true. How do we know? Bc the bible says it is true'
Dantzler,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It seems like you’re all about having rational discourse, and for that I’m thankful. Since you’ve taken the time to reply, I want to interact with what you wrote in the best way that I can. Hopefully through all of this we can all come to a better understanding. As a cursory thought, I don’t think that moral absolutes is the foundational point of this debate – I see the misunderstandings arising out of a misconception from the side of our evolutionist friends on the nature of the relationship of faith and reason. But I’ll stay on topic for now…
So to begin, in response to Michael’s question of why should one be moral, you’re first point (#1) seems to simply assert that different philosophers have different theories how they rationally justify moral principles. But this leaves us still asking the question, why do YOU think that we should be moral? I don’t think that we’re really that interested in the history of philosophical ethics as we are about coming to the truth. Michael has laid out some basic arguments as to why, on a naturalistic explication of the universe, moral value and moral obligation do not have rational support. You haven’t really given a logic-based argument as to where moral obligation comes from, you’ve just cited some philosophers. I would argue that philosophers who attempt to work out ethical theories from an atheistic viewpoint, despite there best efforts, are wrong.
Regarding your second point, I personally would not build my ethical theory on eternal reward and punishment, and I’m sure that Michael would give a fuller explanation of the meta-ethical foundations in a theistic worldview that was not simply “rewards based.” I would agree that the Christian God (the God who is really there) doesn’t want obedience simply out of fear of punishment… However, as any parent will tell you (just ask mine), often the only way to shepherd children in to being virtuous people is through threat of punishment and the promise of reward. These are the tools that God uses in order to a) keep humanity from degrading into a brutish existence and b) help people to become virtuous. So I don’t think that God wants any Pavlovian dogs for sons and daughters.
Now on to your third point (#3). I think that your point here can be summed by this quote,
“If one is going to come up with a moral theory or system of laws or political order, then the reasons for these arguments must be something everyone could agree too.”
Now, on the face of it, this seems like a pretty good point. I do agree that morality is something that can be argued for rationally in the public square. But IF IT IS TRUE that there is a God, and IF IT IS TRUE that he is the source of morality, then in order to rationally understand reality, Theism must be taken into the discussion. The rights guaranteed to citizens under the American Constitution were argued for by referencing the fact that they were endowed on humanity by the creator.
Another thing; just because everyone doesn’t believe that something is right doesn’t make it irrational. So a position can be right without the reasons given being “something everyone can agree on.”
Also, I can’t remember right off hand where I read this, but if I remember correctly Kant says that GOD is a necessary postulate of practical reason in order to ground his system of morality. So I don’t think that he kept religion out of the debate. And if we look back at other ethical theories pre-Hegel (and several after that), most ethicists base their ethical systems out of their ontological framework, which was Theistic -as you’ve already pointed out. It seems that you continue to assert a bifurcation between someone’s religious beliefs and their reason. But religious beliefs have philosophic content – ontological, epistemological, anthropological, theological, and ethical components that are either held rationally or irrationally.
In response to your paragraph on “evolution and creationism”, I certainly would not argue for biblical creationism to be taught in schools, but I don’t think that is what the current debate is all about. So if someone said “teach creationism cause its in that there bible”, I too would say that oversteps the bounds of what a public school should teach. BUT if there are members of the scientific community who make rational arguments that naturalistic evolution is untenable, and that their reasonable scientific conclusion is that the cosmos shows evidence of intelligent design, then why can’t that position be taught? I’m thinking here of people like Michael Behe, who doesn’t exactly base his arguments on texts of scripture…
Lastly, I’m sorry that you find yourself laughing at the end of this discussion, because I think that you’ve equated all Christians with a branch of anti-intellectualism that is not (in my opinion) faithful to the biblical injunctions that we “should be ready to give a defense” for our beliefs. BTW, I don’t think that Peter guy was against reason, neither was Paul, and certainly neither was Jesus, the Divine Reason (scriptural citations will be provided if needed). In response to the issues you raise,
“gay marriage, stem cell research, contraceptives, the subjugation of women and many other things will be instilled in our society on the behest of people that are religious”
I think that there are rational arguments to be made against gay marriage and stem cell research from a Theistic framework, and I wouldn’t defend the position that all contraceptives are wrong, and I certainly would not say that I defend the subjugation of women. Finally, I’m not a big fan of circular arguments either, so I have no problem with your aversion to them.
It seems in the end that the problem is that you have never heard rational arguments for a Christian worldview, either because no one was willing to give them to you, or because you were unwilling to hear them. If the former, Charlie, Michael or I will be glad to give you rational arguments; if the latter, then you’re saying that you don’t want to hear rational discourse (which doesn’t sound like something you’d say)
Seeking the truth,
Ross
I agree with the statement that Ross said about "God" being taught in school. The issue is not teaching that God created Adam and Eve vs. evolution. The issue is teaching a scientific alternative to evolution. Evidently, there are plenty of scientists that believe that Intelligent Design (be it a God, aliens, or what have you) has formed the earth and the matter of which we exist in. Since outside of mathematics, nothing can be truly proven, and good scientists will never say they have 'proved' something, then why can't evidence be used to also teach ID?
1- "I would argue that philosophers who attempt to work out ethical theories from an atheistic viewpoint, despite there best efforts, are wrong"
2- "Since outside of mathematics, nothing can be truly proven"
quote #1,That is quite a statement. You are saying that without a conception of god, no philosophical moral doctrine is possible. Lets say that an atheist, lets call him jurgen, said exactly what the categorical imperative says; act only in accordance with those actions that can become universal laws. There is no mention of god. Is joe wrong bc in the back of his mind he wasnt thinking about god, whereas kant was right bc he was a christian? This gets to quote number 2. This sounds a lot like david hume’s skepticism. if that quote makes sense to you, then I’ve got some good news and some bad news. Good news is its regarded as a viable theory by a number of people. Bad news, david hume was an atheist. Oh and remember jurgen the atheist? Jurgen habermas is a contemporary philosopher who expounds upon kantian theory and is also an atheist. So even though he is using rational elements as his premises is he wrong until he conceives of god being behind everything?
To charlie’s point. What evidence is there of intelligent design?
Moving on. True einstein and hawkings believed in god, but not in a way that relates to science (just like how philosophers appeal to reason instead of relgion). Could god have set in motion the big bang? or is god responsible for hawking radiation? Sure, why not. Is there evidence of this?. Fraid not. Now there isnt evidence against it either, but the problem of infinite regress doesn’t constitute evidence. Plus, to use the phrasing the guy in the article uses, a child could always ask, so if god created everything, who created god? And by his logic if the teacher cant answer the question the whole theory falls apart. But that a tangent, lets get back to you.
When you learned gravity, did you have to have it explained to you that gravity was made possible by god? No. Maybe it was, but once you start asking that you’ve left the realm of science. So we teach kids what science has made available to us, then if they want they can go to church or read a book and see what, if anything, is behind it all. So what is so wrong with teaching science in science class and teach god in church or some other house of worship? Why do we have to conflate the two?
Just some immediate thoughts I had. I’ll get back to you on the question you posed to me about reason.
In defense of #2 since I wrote it: It makes no difference to me if I sound like Hume or not. I'm sure he had some good reason despite being an atheist. But what or who I sound like is not the issue.
I appeal to faith AND reason. I can look at the world and see the entire universe by the instruments that science has given me and reason to myself that something created it and have faith that it did. Likewise, you look at the universe and reason to yourself that it had to have evolved and started from some singularity. Consequently, you place your faith in that belief. Your belief is that the solar system was created by some singularity and my belief is that singularity is the God of the Bible. Based on my reason, I put my faith in that outcome. You put your faith in yours. Again, i stand by my claim that one cannot divorce reason and faith.
As far as evidence, I observe the world and that obesrvation enough is evidence to me that God has created it. The solar system is too complex to be an accident, in my opinion. I can observe as much evidence in creation as you can in your belief system. The difference between our belief systems is that yours is closed and that mine is open, meaning I leave room for a higher purpose then to just exist. That purpose is to glorify the God that created me, and not glorify myself.
Again, you say there is no place for faith in the public school systems, but it is there already. The faith that is present in school states that man evolved from some form of sludge after some big explosion. That faith is buttressed by evidence that cannot be proven. Why can't it be proven? Because one cannot go back in time to prove it. Thus, FAITH is in place and being taught in schools.
i dont think i'm being close minded. i dont know what the singularity was or wasnt. no one does for sure. so just teach that the theory says there was this singularity. why do we have to attach god to it.
no one has ever traveled the speed of light. but if you did, einstein's theory of relativity states that as you traveled away from a clock the hands of the clock would slow down and eventually stand still. that is unprovable, but based on things that are provable. hence, we teach it in science class. we have fossil records, genetic evidence, etc etc, supercolliding super conductors that recreate the particles in existance in the first nano seconds after the big bang. from these factual claims, we make the un provable claim that evolution is true.
how does that logical argument constitute faith? i am not getting that?
oh and i just used your quote to prove that an a atheist could come up with a viable theory by appealling to pure reason.
"oh and i just used your quote to prove that an a atheist could come up with a viable theory by appealling to pure reason."
Sorry, I don't see how you 'proved' it. Also, I never said you were close-minded. I stand by my claim that you cannot seperate faith from reason since faith is inherent in your belief system...just not faith in God.
Dantzler,
Like Ross said thank you for responding in way that encourages dialogue. Here are just a few things. I might be working backwards, so sorry if this is confusing.
"how does that logical argument constitute faith? i am not getting that?"
I believe his argument was to point out to you that at some point the logical argument reaches a conclusion. At that point, you have to move from reason to faith. Does your evolutionary worldview completely answer the metaphysical question of the origin of the universe? Honestly, you have to answer, no. At some point, you have to believe in something that you lack complete proof for.
With reagrd to your last post, I think what Charlie, Ross, and I have been trying to tell you is we too have looked at the evidence and made an evaluation of it. You said that it is possible and logical to deduce certain things with regard to reality. We say YES. We look at reality and say that Christian theism makes sense of it. We can be coherent epistemologically, ethically, theologically, and anthropologically. We have looked at the evidence and said that it is reasonable to believe. We can through our reason coupled with our faith look at and determine certain things about the universe. You seem to be claiming that it is impossible to do so in our worldview because of your assertion that reason and faith ought to remain separate.
Let's flesh this out in a concrete way. There are two types of revelation, special and general. Special revelation is simply put God directly acting and speaking in order to reveal himself to human beings. At the moment, we are not at a place where we can speak clearly about this.
However, we can converse regarding general revelation. I would argue that God has revealed to man (I use the generally) certain characteristics about himself in his created order. This revelation is implicit in the created order of the universe.
Since we have been discussing morality, one concept we see clearly is the law of nature, as C.S. Lewis called it in Mere Christianity. Across the board, man has been compelled to act in certain ways. He has almost universally agreed that things like murder, rape, lying, and stealing are wrong. And, those who act outside the norm are vilified and shunned. Why? Where does this moral impetus come from? Does it arise from man naturally? If it does, how does it become universal in nature? Doesn't seem more likely that if it arose naturally there would be some minor, if not major, distinctives? Wouldn't the environment of one place shape the moral norms of the humans there while a different environment would encourage a different, more suitable set of norms? Or, is it more likely that, since the law of nature appears to be universal, it is the cause of something that transcends creation? Since things like murder and rape and lying and cheating and stealing tend to be shunned throughout diverse civilizations, doesn't it seem to be fair to say that the law of nature comes from something above and beyond those diverse civilizations? That something, therefore, obviously has the ability to reason and understand objectively, in a universal way.
This is exactly what allows Paul to say in Romans 2:14 and 15 about civilizations without special revelation: "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law (special revelation), by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness..." Through God's general revelation of universal moral law or the law of nature, I can make a reasonable assumption about the universe. I see the witnesses of my conscience and the conscience of those around me and all over the world, and they tell me something of reality. I can logically assume that one of two things are true. One, we all were able through reason to come to a consensus about what we ought to do. We were able to do this in completely different contexts without the abiltity to communicate with one another. Or, two, we have received through general revelation that there is a moral impetus, which compels us to act in a certain way. I can also assume that this moral impetus is merciful and kind because it have restrained me from killing, raping, stealing, and lying. I would argue that the second option is more than reasonable. In fact, it is the only option that make good, common sense.
You see, It is not necessary to divorce faith from reason.
PS - I would agree with Ross' statement addressing my reason for ethical living. While divine punishment is a definite aspect of my ethic, it is not primary.
Knock Knock Knock... Oh my, who could that be? It's Mr McFeely. YAY!!!
Okay where to begin? Let's start with my second favorit person, King Friday.
"Sorry, I don't see how you 'proved' it. Also, I never said you were close-minded. I stand by my claim that you cannot seperate faith from reason since faith is inherent in your belief system...just not faith in God."
Let's turn to tle Librarian's Bible... the dictionary. Faith is defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." So what is logical and what is not. Scientific evidence = logical, phrases that can be interpreted 10 diffrent ways in a book that was written thousands of years ago = not so much. So it seems that to believe in evolution does not require faith, it requires logic. I look at the universe before the big bang and accept th efact that what ever was there is unknown to me. I don't have to have faith in this, I just accept the fact that it is an unknown. You are using the word faith as belief. And a soon as someone says they believe something, you say ahh ha you have faith just like I do. And then you go put on your pink shirt and listen to hootie and the blowfish as a little celebration party.
"Again, you say there is no place for faith in the public school systems, but it is there already. The faith that is present in school states that man evolved from some form of sludge after some big explosion. That faith is buttressed by evidence that cannot be proven. Why can't it be proven? Because one cannot go back in time to prove it. Thus, FAITH is in place and being taught in schools."
If this is really your form of logic for teaching ID in public school you should just give up now. The reason evolution is taught because it can be proved to the best of our knowledge at this time. There are scientific and mathematical principals that go into this. The evidence for ID is in one book. If i were to write a psychology book that says dementia can be set on by wearing effiminate shirts, would you suggest that this should be taught in public schools?
Now lets move to Ross.
"I think that there are rational arguments to be made against gay marriage and stem cell research from a Theistic framework, and I wouldn’t defend the position that all contraceptives are wrong, and I certainly would not say that I defend the subjugation of women. Finally, I’m not a big fan of circular arguments either, so I have no problem with your aversion to them."
Give me a rational argument against gay marriage.
Dantzler,
Looking forward to hearing more from you. I'd be happy to flesh out my argument for the necessary theistic base of morality, but it's already been done by several folks before me. Here's a succinct summary of the argument made by Bill Craig.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html
I'd be happy to discuss this further as time allows.
Now... to Mr. M. I know that you couch your comments behind the guise of "humor", but most of what you say is so vitriolic that I don't really want to listen to you. Frankly it sounds like you're talking down to Charlie and Michael (you haven't done the same to me yet) which doesn't make for good conversation.
Another thing that I'm sure you realize is that words can denote different ideas. So your definition of faith is in my dictionary as well, but it is listed as the second definition. HERE is the first definition of faith in my dictionary.
"A CONFIDENT BELIEF IN THE TRUTH, VLAUE, OR TRUSTWORTHINESS OF A PERSON, IDEA, OR THING."
Now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps some sort of definition along those lines was not in your dictionary and you simply wrote in haste, because if you purposively overlooked a definition for faith that does line up with the concept that Charlie, Michael, and me are defending, then that would seem like you're not interested in honest discussion.
As far as a rational argument against gay marriage, I think that moves past the topics we're discussing right now. But 1) if the God of the Bible exists and 2) if his purpose (telos) for sex and marriage was for a husband and wife and 3) he gave us guidelines for our good and told us proposition #2, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that gay marriage is not right.
I'll be glad to reference actual article and book length defenses of the problems of gay marriage from a rational point of view if you like.
Ross
p.s. vlaue = value
I don't want anyone getting confused :-)
Thanks, Ross
lets say my name is elron chubbard. when i look at the world it makes sense to me through dianetics. so i think scientology should be taught in schools bc, for me science can only be understood in terms of sceintology.
look i am happy for you that the world makes sense through religion, but your argument is fundamentally different from that of science. natural science operates on the principles of mathmatics, which you have admitted are true on purely logical grounding. so to use propositional logic, one could say: if you are a rational being (A), then you must accept arguments that follow rational logically (B), and if you do both those(A&B), then you can accept evolution(C) so long as evolution is the result of a logical chain of thought (which i wont go over again for time sake).
A->B, A&B->C
now my provisional assumption is different from yours and this is where i think you are saying i have faith in something. you say i have faith in reason bc i say "if" we are rational beings. the thing is, we know for a fact that we are. you could argue against this, but then your be employing your ability to reason and proving that such an argument is folly. so if we know that we are rational, then we must accept rational principles and arguments. and if thats true, then, evolution, which is based on logical principles counts as science.
you argument on the other hand, rests on the presumed assumption that god exists. and your argument against gay marriage rest on if god exists and if the bible is actually his words, and so long as there is only one god and so long as its the judeo christain god. prove any of those things and i will gladly put it in a science book.
and i'm not saying faith and reason are mutually exclusive. but you cant conflate the two. hence, science teaches what mr m said, there was a singularity. what was it? we dont know for sure. feel very free to think it was god or even lord veenu or that it was just chance. but those are just conjecture and not based on emperical evidence or logical arguments. the world makes sense once you read the bible doesnt count as a logical argument, since the world makes sense to elron chubbard through the lens of scientology.
science is explaining the world, not understanding it. where did we come from? we have this theory of evolution, it goes this far, if you want to tack on a notion of an invisible force go ahead, but that doesnt constitute science. so teach it in school.
and as for my point about david hume. it was said that no philosopher can come up with a moral theory without a conception of god. david hume does not have a conception of god. yet, his skepticism forms the bases of his morality, and your quote indicated that you agreed with it, as many people do. so if you, and other find this to be a good idea, then isnt it true that philospher can come up with good ideas, which lead to their moral system, without appealing to god?
"isnt it true that philospher can come up with good ideas, which lead to their moral system, without appealing to god?"
No. The definition of skepticism is: "questioning the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual; a doubting attitude; even doubting the possibility of real knowledge of any kind" also
"in general, skepticism is a doubting or questioning attitude, often associated with a doubting or questioning attitude toward religion" also
"a philosophical position in which people choose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge"
Someone with Hume's position is still formulating his philosophy, not in a vaccum, but as part of society and culture, and in his case, deliberately against something. In our case, Christianity. Therefore, Hume is in fact appealing to God because He is trying to disprove His existence because he is arguing from an athiestic viewpoint.
In other words, God is still part of Hume's framework, because he is staing "there is no God." Definition of atheism: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God; a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" also
"The belief that God does not exist" also
"belief that there is no god and that religion should be suppressed"
One cannot escape the idea of God.
hume is appealing not to god, but the notion that god exists. and then disproving it. i think that is an important difference.
but let me get to this: so there is nothing that can ever be said that isnt related to god. is that your point? i cant say dont kill people without appealing to god? why cant i be agnostic and just say, who cares if there is a god or not, lets just deal with things here on earth and call it a day? is it impossible to deny the existance of god? is that really your position?
of course he isnt in a vaccum, but does that mean that he cannot ever concieve of something without god?
and if this is your position, what would you say to me if i was elron chubbard? or ghandi? might they not agree with you about the inevibility of god, but then say that this entails radically different things than what you believe? and how would two people disagreeing at this level carry forward? they couldnt. you wouldnt accept that lord venuu sent alien souls to earth or that there are multiple gods, and they wouldnt accept the things you believe.
hence, my position all along has been to appeal to reason bc that is the only thing we all have in common. and as i've said, it preserves and fosters diversity. you can be a scientologist, hindu, or christian and still particapate on equal footing with everyone else when we appeal to reason.
so if nothing else cant we all just accept that the laws of this world, which are achieved through public discourse, ought to be based on reason not religion?
here, i'll answer my own question.
no we cant bc faith HAS to be infused in reason. so we are doomed to division. how can we talk to muslims? we cant. they are going to hell for worshiping a false idol. now no one can prove this to be true or untrue, so we should all just live isolated lives waiting for the next life when we are saved. or maybe not.
ok, that was half joking. but this all reminds me of those left behind books. you know the bad guy in the book is a romanian guy that becomes head of the united nations. he is the anti christ. and for what reason? well he was raised by a gay couple first of all. and then he tried to bring the world together in peace. what an evil villian! and the evil satanist group in teh book is call "the global community." a peaceful global community that accepts diversity while maintaining an objective rational stance. truly a horrific thought!
ok, you may not agree with this book, but i think that this mindset is somewhat indicative of a particular christian veiw. and perhaps it isnt too far off from what has been leveled against me.
but seriously, whats wrong with appealing to reason as a way to preserve diversity and yet still be objective in the hopes of created a better world? if that is satanic, then call me Beelzebub
lastly, there is no such thing as the boogeyman. does that mean that i cant escape the idea of a boogeyman?
"hume is appealing not to god, but the notion that god exists. and then disproving it. i think that is an important difference"
God is still the focal point. The idea of God is still most prominent.
"so there is nothing that can ever be said that isnt related to god. is that your point?"
Yes and no. The statement "I want breakfast" has nothing to do with God on the surface. However, since God created me and the materials needed for food, God is implicit in this statement as well...unless you don't believe in God, which gets us back to where we started.
"is it impossible to deny the existance of god?"
No. Anyone can deny His existence. That does not mean they are rational or correct.
I understand your theory behind appealing to reason. On the surface this sounds viable. However, what ethical norms are being envoked? For instance, we all agree (in Western society) that killing, rape, etc. is evil. However, there are some tribes that practice cannibalism and that sacrifice their children. In their community, they have used reason to agree with each other that their ethical norms are 'good' and normal. That is a dangerous place to be because ethical norms can shift like the wind if they are based on agreement among people.
I do not agree with the Left Behind series because is is all conjecture...it is fictional, much like The Da Vinci Code.
"whats wrong with appealing to reason as a way to preserve diversity and yet still be objective in the hopes of created a better world?"
Again, this goes back to my statement about cultures defining reason and ethical norms in different ways depending on their socities and points of agreement. Sometimes, like in Nazi Germany or African tribes, these agreements of ideas lead to atrocities that the Bible condemns...and much of the world that thinks within a Christain viewpoint about these issues.
"there is no such thing as the boogeyman. does that mean that i cant escape the idea of a boogeyman?"
Yes, you can escapae the idea of a boogeyman because as you stated, there is no such thing. Unless you are referring to Mr. M - he kind of scares me at times. However there is a God so you cannot escape Him.
"my position all along has been to appeal to reason bc that is the only thing we all have in common. and as i've said, it preserves and fosters diversity."
Ok, now you've said something valuable here. There is a commonality between men. As I stated before, this is something we can agree on. I think we can infer from this commonality that there is something that connects us all. It is unlikely, in your worldview based upon the randomness of chance, that this commonality would have arisen naturally. As you say, it in fact would foster diversity. How then is possible to be both diverse and universal at the same time? You're asking me to accept the law of nature based solely on reason, but you are failing to give me a sufficient basis to accept it. Either reason leads to diversity or it leads to universality. Which is it?
BOO!!
"Yes, you can escapae the idea of a boogeyman because as you stated, there is no such thing. Unless you are referring to Mr. M - he kind of scares me at times. However there is a God so you cannot escape Him."
This is not a rational argument because it relies on a belief in god.
"Again, this goes back to my statement about cultures defining reason and ethical norms in different ways depending on their socities and points of agreement. Sometimes, like in Nazi Germany or African tribes, these agreements of ideas lead to atrocities that the Bible condemns...and much of the world that thinks within a Christain viewpoint about these issues."
Ask an old man from Hiroshima or Nagasaki how he feels about this Christian viewpoint.
"I do not agree with the Left Behind series because is is all conjecture...it is fictional, much like The Da Vinci Code."
so is the bible
"I understand your theory behind appealing to reason. On the surface this sounds viable. However, what ethical norms are being envoked? For instance, we all agree (in Western society) that killing, rape, etc. is evil. However, there are some tribes that practice cannibalism and that sacrifice their children. In their community, they have used reason to agree with each other that their ethical norms are 'good' and normal. That is a dangerous place to be because ethical norms can shift like the wind if they are based on agreement among people."
interpritations of the bible can also shift like the wind. the way christians interptet the bible does result in absolutes. Is it okay to kill a man?
so the holy grail isnt under the pyramid in the louvre?
ok, i am repeating myself, but here goes. everyone has acess to reason. hence it is common to all. it is universal. from that groundwork, we can come up with various theories, like utilitarianism or kantian deontology. however, this is not to say that we are relativists. reason creates a 'human horizon', which excludes norms or beliefs that fail on rational grounds. norms like, rape, nazism, female genital mutilation. its not all about agreement, it also has to do with objective rationality. if you'd like to go over the particulars we can bc i am happy to argue against nazism. "nazis, i hate these guys"
anyway, so pluralism exists within the human horizon. thats how it is both unity through reason and diversity through pluralistic objectivity.
as to the other point. hume is an atheist but that doesnt mean he used his whole theory to disprove god. he just didnt talk about it. he felt it was irrelevent. what is so wrong with that?
as you said, some statements dont appeal to god, or do but only if you believe in god. ok, so why is that a basis for including god in science or public discourse. if i say "dont kill people" and i wrong until i tack on, "bc its in the bible"? y'all are pretty adament about the belief that once i apeal to reason, i am doomed to relativity. agian i repeat some older stuff. most philosophers feel that they are not relativists. most philosophers also do not appeal to god to validate their theories. kant said "treat others as ends in themselves". that is the golden rule, its in the bible. he could've said, that his statement was true bc its in the bible and therefore the word of god, but he didnt. he doesnt confirm or deny the existance of god in that statement, just argues on a rational level that it is true.
my point with teh boogeyman was, lets replace the idea that me and the cereal i eat are all created by god with the idea that they're all created by the boogeyman. there is no rational argument against this, its just a difference of faith. if you say the boogeyman is fake, i'll say no way jose. and then what? you cant base things on a conception of god, not bc god isnt real, but bc it isnt an idea that is accessible to all. reason is accessible to all. or would you go into a country and simply say to the people, look you crazies, you have to do these things bc god commands it. its not very convincing if they dont believe in god. but they will be rational. so and argument along rational lines has a far better chance of ensuring that their values remain indicative of their culture but within the human horizon.
where does reason come from. well i could go into the development of the brain over the eons, but lets go another way. what if i say, i dont know. and furthermore, i dont care. i know i have it, i know i have to live in a society, so i'll use my reason to create a society that accomodates everyone within reason. you cant kill people bc that is not reasonable.
so its like evolution. i can get as far back as a singularity, but whats behind that i dont know. but neither does anyone else know for sure. so lets as scientists just deal with what we know. and as individuals in society, lets do the same. how can i get along with a hindu and a jew and a republican and a democrat, create a society premised on reason.
since its long here's the cliff notes for what i wrote.
christian world view is not applicable to everyone. its says so right in the name. it only appeals to christians.
reason, everyone has it. it is universal. hence unity. it manifests itself in different ways. hence diversity. but not relativists bc it has to meet certain criteria (varies from philosopher to philosopher). this creates a human horizon, which is objective and agian, based on reason.
lastly, "these agreements of ideas lead to atrocities that the Bible condemns...and much of the world that thinks within a Christain viewpoint about these issues"
much of the world thinks within a christian viewpoint? what about in your other article when you said only about 6% of christians actually had a christian worldveiw? and lets say that god didnt exist. if thats the case would genocide then be ok?
lastly again, i just saw mr m's point about is it ok to kill. lets look at this. is it ok to kill in the name of god? bin laden say yes. (not too pick on islam, bc christians have a pretty bad track record too, in fact jerry fallwell was just on tv saying that we should wipe them off of the face of teh earth in the name of the lord. wwjd?). wouldnt i be better off arguing that he is wrong on rational grounds instaed of religious ones since he himself is using religion? again, if you argue against one religion with another religion you will never get anywhere.
"much of the world thinks within a christian viewpoint? what about in your other article when you said only about 6% of christians actually had a christian worldveiw"
6% adhere to a Biblical worldview. Which means interpreting the Bible in its context in a natural way. Also, letting Scripture interpret Scripture. Most people do not do this, however their morals are grounded in Christian concepts (i.e. Ten Commandments)
"you cant kill people bc that is not reasonable."
Who says? I say the Bible says. You say 'thats a circular argument." I say all arguements eventually become circular. You say "reason tells us we cannot kill people." How? You say, you don't know how, you just accept it.
Bingo. I don't know how God exists or how He exists but I just accept it and move on.
"i'll use my reason to create a society that accomodates everyone within reason."
What in the world does that mean? Taking that comment to its logical conclusion can lead to anarchiasm and a host of other sins. See the French Revolution.
how on earth (no pun intended) do all arguments become circular? here is a logical argument. if you are unmarried (A) and a man (B), then you are a bachelor(C). A&B->C
how is that circular?
i dont just accept that killing people is wrong. i use reason to figure it out. reason and not religion. i could use utlitarian reaons or other reasons, but i'll come to the same conclusion.
"with in reason". its not relativits. there are limits to reason. my premises must be founded on fact. my conclusions must relate to the real world and the fact of a pluralist society. hence i cant say kill all the (fill in minority). dont confuse pluralism with anarchy or relativism. we are currently living in a pluralist society, are people out in the street killing one another. let me look.......... nope.
out of curiousity. what would be your suggestion? make everyone conform to your particular world view?
dang,
I don't check this thing for a few hours and I'm left behind.
I don't want to overwhelm the conversation, so I'll hold my comments for a while.
When the conversation dies down I'll throw my $0.02 in about reason and faith.
Ross
"pluralistic objectivity"
This is the most contradictory statement I've ever read. Objectivity is something that is independent of the mind or real. It is also without bias or prejudice. (per the dictionary) Plurality is defined as numerous or a majority. With this in mind, we realize two things. First, with a plurality of people, someone will be the minority. In other words, not all people are able to participate in the crafting of moral norms. How is that fair? Second, objectivity is impossible for one individual to achieve much less the entire world. Please answer this question: How do people living and dying in particular contexts come to a moral, OBJECTIVE consensus with they lack the ability to communicate with one another? In your evolutionary system, things happen randomly. Therefore, it is logical to assume that different moral norms would arise in different contexts. However, we have universal maxims that we tend to live by. It has to be grounded in something, particularly in something permanent and objective. You are placing to much trust in reason, my friend. I may be able to convince a bunch of people to commit suicide because a comet is flying over the earth. Is that reasonable? Based upon your explanation of pluralistic objectivity it is. This group had come to a pluralistic, "objective," reasonable decision in their own minds.
I agree with Michael - "It has to be grounded in something, particularly in something permanent and objective"
"what would be your suggestion? make everyone conform to your particular world view?"
I don't have a suggestion on how to govern. That is not my job, nor is it my duty or founding purpose in my life. The purpose of my life is to do everything for the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 states, "so whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." Therefore I'm not concerned with how society is run. In the spirit of Romans 13 it is my duty to leave it up to the local authorities. However, since I live in a democracy (which is a wonderful political system because I will not be killed for my beliefs like many Christians were and have been), and am able to vote, I am going to vote along the lines of Biblcal principles. Why? Because God has given us these principles to live by. Why did He do that? Because, as our creator, He knows what is best for us and He knows what will make us content and fulfilled. Also, God's law is a reflection of His character. This is a whole 'nother discussion which relates to Christian ethical systems that I will not go into detail now.
However, God also knows that we will sin and have sinned. What is sin? Missing the mark of God's holiness. God desires all to be saved and have eternal life. He is love. However, He is also just. Sin cannot exist with a perfect, sinless God in eternity. Therefore, someone has to bear God's wrath for sin. It should be us, since we've sinned. However, in God's grace and mercy He has provided His son, Jesus, as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. (John 3:16) Therefore we accept this as truth and rely on the fact that we are to live our lives in thankfulness to God for creating us and letting us dwell with him for eternity. We've also been commanded to spread the message to all people because God desires all to dwell with Him since He loves us all.
However, Scripture states, "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1:23) And that is what you will say - our belief is foolish. However, I am commanded to speak this to all non-believers out of love for them and that is what I have just done.
Pluralistic objectivity is the most contradictory thing you’ve read huh. Did you read the thing about how all arguments are circular (bc the argument that arguments are circular would itself be circular)?
Ok, I don’t have a dictionary, so I’ll put you to work. Look up pluralism, not plurality. Or just read isaiah berlin. Or just look outside at america. Pluralism is the ability of a society to hold many different view points. It has nothing to do with majority favoritism. For example, there are rational arguments for and against the death penalty. Both opinions exists in our society and yet the union still stands. Cool huh. Ok, objectivity. It is opposed to subjective claims like, “chuck norris is cooler than everything.” objective claims would be like, the speed of light is 299,792,485 meters/second. So the goal is to make objective claims about the world. Lets try one. Rape is bad. Ah, but I cant just say it. I have to prove it. So I come up with an argument. Then I say to myself, “is this argument based on reason or just a result of my particular cultural biases?” if its just a result of my culture, I have to chuck it and come up with one that is rational. Why one that is rational? Well I could restate the stuff I’ve already written, but lets put it in the terms you are using (I’m just that kinda guy).
You both said arguments have to be grounded in something objective and permanent. Good point. But to be objectivity, you have to prove its objective otherwise I am just taking someone’s word. Right? You mentioned the haley bop people. They werent acting rationally were they? No, bc they ended up just taking it at face value that a spaceship was coming. That isnt using reason at all, its using..... faith. There was another guy that claimed to have the objective truth, and he told his followers to drink the kool-aid. Remember those christians at jonestown? Now if they used reason, they would’ve have said, ‘why should I believe that this guy’s got all the answers? Shouldn’t I ask for a reason?’ So none of that was acting in a rational way. Back to the search for something objective. Lets see..... boy this is hard, I’ll come back to it.
Lets go to the part where you say that by believing in evolution I must believe that everything is random. Hhhmmm. Thunder is low pressure air meeting high pressure air. That is a causal effect not a random event. Causal events are logical sequences. Evolution is an argument based on facts and the logical conclusions that we draw from them. Its explanatory, not random.
We cant communicate with each other? This whole, come up with an argument thing and then test it to see if its rational or biased isnt like an actual global even where we say ‘everyone that thinks rape is bad raise their hand.’ no no, it’s a hypothetical contract, but that doesnt mean its divorced from reality. Quite the opposite. We ask ourselves, COULD someone accept this along rational grounds, to which we all have access?
And then you said that objectivity is impossible for an individual much less the world. This left me confused bc like 3 posts ago you said that by using reason I was a relativist. But now you are denying objectivity, which would make you a relativist. Oh wait, I see your point now. God is the only thing that is objective, that’s why you said I put too much faith in reason. Oh ok. Now if only I could refute this..... eureka! I’ve got it!
I AM A RATIONAL AGENT. That is objective (and I even italicized it). Its not a matter of opinion, its fact. Everyone has reason. And happy day, I can even prove it. Why we’ve all used that reason to post various arguments. Super. Oh, but wait a minute. Where does that leave you? Ok, god is objective. Can you prove that? No. But I cant disprove it either. I suppose its just a matter of faith. And that is fine.
oh, well i italicized it in my word perfect.
since we seem to be at a head in the discussion, lets ask this:
what can we draw from all of this? I think it all has to do with public discourse.
It is a fact that we live in a pluralist society, one in which there are a variety of views. But if we just allow any ole view or belief then chaos would ensue. So what are we too do? Now charlie said politics wasnt his purpose, and that’s cool, but as one of you pointed out, we live in a society not a vacuum so you have to figure out a way to coexist with others even if it isnt your ultimate purpose. How do we do that, create laws and norms.
Now there are two ways to go from here. One, which seems like what y’all are close too, is to conform everyone to one view. I say this is what y’all are close to bc for you the only objective thing is god. So there can be no argument or discourse that doesnt ultimately hinge on god. So everyone has to concede that to be absolutely true before discourse can occur. Then you can have discourse about how to interpret the word of god and run our society accordingly.
The other way, my way, is to say lets appeal to the objectivity truth that we are all rational. Given that, lets create a public sphere in which our reasoned-out arguments can be put forth. Reason is limiting and objective in the sense that I cant say kill all jews, bc any reason for that is contrary to reason. Hence, that would fall outside of the human horizon. But within the human horizon there are a multitude of positions like utilitarianism, kantian deontology, pro-death penalty, anti-death penalty. All these diverse arguments are united by the fact that they are premised on reason. So you have unity in reason, but pluralism through the various expressions of it. Thus, public discourse can take place between various rational claims within the human horizon.
What is better about my way?
Well think about our discussion. My arguments appeal to reason. Yours appeal to god. The result is we are talking on wholly different levels. So as members of a society, how do we proceed? I could convert to christianity, but why should I do that? Appeal to me. Convince me of it. Prove god exists. But see, that’s not what religion is about, convincing and providing physical evidence. Its about faith. But not everyone shares that faith. And that’s fine.
The other way to proceed is for you to speak in terms of reason, which you may feel that god endowed you with. So lets say, don’t steal. Instead of saying, stealing is wrong bc the bible says so, you could come up with a reason for why it is true independent of that. Just ask yourself, why would the bible say that? You might say, well if we want our property to be protected, then we must respect the property of others. This is rational. And as an appeal to reason, it is accessible to everyone regardless of culture or background. So ok, lets make that a norm and a law. we managed to come to an objective claim, hooray. And see, no where in there did I tell you to renounce god. So see you and people of all backgrounds can come together and through an appeal to reason find unity without sacrificing diversity. There are still hindus and muslims and christians. Plus, there are different was to rationally validate the claim stealing is wrong, so there are also utilitarianism and deontologists and whatnot.
So isnt that more conducive to the fact that we live in a pluralist society? I’d say so.
"Its explanatory, not random."
My point here was not to say your belief system is random, but instead to say that the process of evolution is random. Therefore, the likehood that diverse beings in distinct environments would agree to universal maxims is most likely zero.
Also, I am denying the ability of people to be morally objective. Don't you have presuppositions that play a role in the development of the ethical norms you will conform to? I'll readily admit that I do as well. I call mine sin. I am, however, convicted through general revelation that law exists apart from me. I fail to conform to the law; therefore, I feel guilt. That's is why I asked the question earlier regarding moral impetus. Why should I feel guilty? How am I obligated to the rest of humanity? Am I? The only people I might feel obligated to in reality is my family. What if my family is the Manson family? I really would like you to explain moral impetus to me, a selfish being. I think you would be willing to admit that when it gets down to the "nitty gritty" or "life or death" or whatever clique you want to use that you are the only person that really matters. At that point, you feel morally obligated to one person, yourself. It is here we play "god" so to speak.
By the way, forgive my sarcasm in my earlier comment. I had just come home from work and was very tired. So, I'm sorry about that. I have really enjoyed the discourse.
Part 1= two for one on manson and motivative selfish people.
Part 2= objective morality
Part 3= poetic metaphor
part 1= well I’ve already explained why the jonestown people, hitler, rapists, and haley bop cult were not acting rationally. But lets give it another whirl. Manson said to himself, I am going to kill this chick (I forget the name of the actress he killed). Ok, he thought or claimed to have a good or valid reason to do this. But did he? No he did not. Now lets say manson is a selfish person and says I don’t want to do something just bc it’s the only way to get along in society. Ok, well then I’ll say lets turn to hobbes, who was both deeply religious (but didnt use it as his premise for morality or political thought) and was someone that thought all humanity was selfish. Ok, you are selfish and ask why should I be motivated not to kill someone? Well, you yourself don’t want to be killed. And in a society where people just went around kililing people there would be no protection for your own safety. So out of our own self preservation, we create laws like, don’t kill people. That law is just, bc its based on reason and it, in this case is derived from the desire to not be killed, which is pretty motivating. Plus it doesnt require that you have faith in society or any other grandiose ideas. So even if you are selfish, you still would agree to live in a society governed by laws based on reason.
Part 2= lets take this from john rawls. Imagine you are in a position where you don’t know anything about yourself, you don’t know what religion you’ll be or what gender or rich or poor (called the original position). Now with none of that knowledge I ask you to come up with a system of justice. You’d have to come up with something that wasnt biased towards anyone right? Bc if it were biased toward the rich, lets say, you might turn out to be poor and then you would have screwed yourself. So if you don’t know any of your biases you are forced to make universally applicable claims. Now, morality is not a zero sum game. Remember its objective bc there is a human horizon, but within the human horizon there are a number of moral claims competing with each other (pluralism remember, so its not like everyone has to think the same). So you could, in the original position, come up with a number of different moral claims and so long as they were rational that’s fine (in the original position you might say no death penalty, but you could conceivable say yes to the death penalty). The important thing is that we are all playing by the same rules, which leads too.............
Part 3= imagine you and I are playing battleship. I put my pieces on the board and then we call out spaces on the grid to try and hit the other’s ships. Ok, you eventually sink all my ships. And then I look at eachother’s boards and I see that you didnt actually put any ships down. So there was no way I could sink anything! And I say, ‘hey you didnt play by the rules’, to which you retort, ‘I have god’s rules so I don’t have to play by these rules.’ see that’s what’s going on here. I say lets talk about evolution on terms that are applicable to everyone, science. Lets talk about morals on the basis of reason since everyone has it. And then you say, no, I have god’s rules so I don’t have to play like that. Which would be fine except that you say you don’t have to play that like and then you proceed to play. So on something like gay marriage I would provide a rational argument in favor of it. Then you say, ‘yuck! Its wrong, look at levitius 18:22 (I think that’s the one)’, but you arent playing by everyone else’s rules. Which is, to reference another board game, claiming a monopoly on what is right. But you cant prove that you should have such a monopoly. So either don’t play, or play by rules that are available to everyone.
"So either don’t play, or play by rules that are available to everyone."
Why? It does not sound like you are being very tolerant of our views, Dantzler. Shouldn't you tolerate people's views - no matter how irrational you think they are? If not, then you are being closeminded and exclusivist.
I'm also waiting for you to answer my question from some posts ago.
you're kidding right? i mean i suppose you want me to say i tolerate all things that people sasy are results of reason. and then you'll say, ha! you are a relativist!
look, i can only explain this so many ways. reason is objective. manson can't provide an objective reason for his actions. hence, they are not tolerated.
as for religious folk, you are claiming moral superiority. i can tolerate that right up until you start injecting it into public discourse. example: you are an israeli, i am a palastinian. you are a jew, i am a muslim. we are on the same piece of land. you say god wants me here. i say allah wants me here. we are playing two seperate games. we are divided with no hope of reconsiliation until which ever god is real kills the nonbeliever i guess.
but both the jew and muslim have reason. so we appeal to that in order to find a solution. i dont force them to convert to anything or renounce anything or exclude them. they just have to play by the same rules that are factually accesible to everyone.
so you can have irrational views, you just cant use them in public discourse since not everyone can adhere to such views.
what other questions would you like me to answer so that you can tell me god says otherwise, which only proves my point that workable public discourse is only possible along lines of reason.
i'll leave you with this quote: "i do not have the nagging doubt of ever wondering whether perhaps i am wrong" hendrik verwoed said that bc he felt that god's laws served as his guidance and those laws were unquestionably objective.
with this monopoly on the moral universe, he then proceeded to establish the apartheid.
First, you have for some unknown reason assumed that God's rules are unreasonable. What person who believes that God created man in his image and for a purpose would argue that it is good to murder? So in your analogy of battleship, I would not have played unfairly because I see God's rules as fair; therefore, I ought to act in accordance with those rules, which would make me a fair person. This, in turn, would lead to play a fair game of battleship. These universal maxims we have frequently referred to are included in both God's rules and your rules (or the rule of reason).
Second, you keep switching categories on me. Are we discussing morality or toleration? You see I thought that we were discussing morality until you made the analogy of battleship in your last comment. However, that comment appears to be more interested in a discussion of toleration.
Third, in Rawls' original position, what if I end up becoming a murderer? Haven't I equally "screwed" myself? Also, is it really possible to be in this original position? Isn't this position very idealistic? What does reality tell us about human nature? It tells me that we are selfish and brutish, not optimistic and objective. I have presuppositions, you have pressupositions. What man or group of men has ever been in the original position???? No one has or ever will be. That is a nonsensical position. It is illogical to believe that anyone can be in the original position. It is an impossible hypothetical. You are asking a person to do something that is impossible. You are asking them to deal in non-reality. No one fails to realize that they are alive, male or female, white or black, Christian, Jew, or Muslim. You are asking people to transcend themselves. That position doesn't exist.
"with this monopoly on the moral universe, he then proceeded to establish the apartheid."
You keep making comments that on the surface would agree with the depravity of man, which I would whole-heartily affirm. Man is evil and has a bent toward it. But then you insist that man is equally good enough to make universal laws that are good and not evil. How is that possible?
"they just have to play by the same rules that are factually accesible to everyone."
That was the whole point of my comment on general revelation. Yes, I agree that there are rules accesible to eveyone. There is no doubt about that. You say reason, I say general revelation. One is limited and subjective, and the other is transcendent and objective.
"as for religious folk, you are claiming moral superiority. i can tolerate that right up until you start injecting it into public discourse."
Who says? The fact that we cannot bring out views into public discourse is exclusivity. Who made that rule? Oh...reason did. Who defines what is reasonable? Public discourse. That sounds circular to me.
our views, not 'out views'
i can only take so much and i cant takes no more. seriously, you're killin me smalls.
fact: not everyone believes in god. and many who do believe in a different god from you.
i dont know the nature of man, i just know that we have reason. thats the foundation from which to go forward. the original position is not an actual place. it is a hypothetical situation used to force us to think in universals. the murder thing, boy i'll tell ya i dont even know where to start. you dont know how you are. so why would you set up a society based on one particular type of person, like a murder? you wouldnt. if you turned out to be a murder, you'd be punished, but rightly so, since society was set up on just grounds.
"You say reason, I say general revelation. One is limited and subjective, and the other is transcendent and objective"
you are saying even though we all have reason, that isnt universal. interesting.
so the apartheid which was created from the basis of the revelation given to verweod, is ok bc its was a relevation. good to know.
see this is what scares me. no one has refuted the thing i said about how you want everyone to conform to your religion. how do we solve the conflict in isreal and palestine? make everyone have faith in the one true god. thats how. am i wrong? isnt that where you are going? or is it that everyone is evil so we should just sit quietly and worship god until the rapture or death?
reasonable = a rational argument that reasonable or rational argument can then proceed in public discourse.
exclusive? try objective.
not everyone is a christian, either you'd have to convert everyone or find a way to cope with diversity.
"so the apartheid which was created from the basis of the revelation given to verweod, is ok bc its was a relevation. good to know."
You are completely distorting everything I say. I DID NOT say that this fellow started apartheid based upon general revelation. I said that he started it because he was SINFUL. Thank you for taking my words out of context. I would argue that the man who started apartheid was not Christian nor did he conform to or follow the law of God in any way.
"you are saying even though we all have reason, that isnt universal."
No, I'm saying that reason is intimately connected to general revelation. God made us reasonable, rational being so that we could know him and know about him. By knowing about God, we can reasonablely infer from his character that there are certain universal maxims we should adhere to.
"i dont know the nature of man, i just know that we have reason."
Wait, can't you make reasonable inferences about the nature of man? Take a look at the 20th century. 30 MILLION people died violently in Europe. Two world wars. Numerous other conflicts. The Holocaust. Genocide in the Sudan. Sounds like to me that man ain't so good. Think back to the Enlightment, where men began trusting their reason over a transcendent creator. Things haven't been so great since then have they.
"no one has refuted the thing i said about how you want everyone to conform to your religion."
Because there is nothing to refute. You are exactly right. We do want everyone to know Christ. We want everyone to follow his law, his way. We don't want them to conform because we want to be right. Instead, we want them to know Christ because it is a matter of eternal significance. Do you think I would spend all this time on this blog if I didn't give a rip about you?
"how do we solve the conflict in isreal and palestine? make everyone have faith in the one true god. thats how. am i wrong? isnt that where you are going?"
I'm not going to make anyone believe anything. However, do I think belief of the God of the Bible would solve the problems of the world? YES, most definitely. One of the first propositions in Scripture is the idea of God creating us in his own image. We are his image-bearers. Ok, now if we all agreed to that (in other words, we all believe in the same God, let's say the Christian God), then do you think we would want to kill one of God's image-bearers? I think we would see all life as valuable because all life is created in God's image. Sounds reasonable to me. If in fact that were the case, all conflict would cease because all people would realize everyone's value.
Also, if reason and the universal maxims that arise from it are truly universal, then why do some choose not to adhere to it? In other words, why do some choose to act irrationally or unreasonably? I mean, if it is against the reasoning capability we all have, then why would I desire to act in a way that is unreasonable when all that is in me tells me that I am being irrational?
"i can only take so much and i cant takes no more. seriously, you're killin me smalls."
If this was directed to me, I assume that a) you can refute my claim about your arguement being circular and b) you have resorted to name-calling and are talking down to me. If that is the case, then I have nothing more to say because you are not being "reasonable." If you don't understand how your argument was circular, I can certainly outline it for you.
Also, I thought I asked you a question, but evidently I did not. I meant to ask you a while back this question:
I explained what I believed the point of my life was...to glorify God in whatever I do. My question to you is what is the point of your life? What are you living for? Do you know where you will when you die on earth?
sorry, that is a) you 'can't', not 'can'
I was quoting the sandlot, not insulting you. Unless you don’t like the movie the sandlot.
You would say that vorweod wasnt really getting a revelation. How can you prove that. Wouldnt he just say, that he was getting a revelation and that it was you who was wrong? He cant provide evidence of his divine revelation and you cant disprove him bc he is not speaking in terms of rational and is instead speaking in terms of faith. See that’s the impasse that I’ve been talking about. The only way to get along in THIS world is to appeal to reason, which everyone one has. Now you are correct in saying that things could be peaceful if everyone was the same, but that a) isnt the case and b) think about who you sound like when you say that. (We must cleanse the earth). But seriously, can any agreement between two different interpretations of god be solved? Isnt is just a case of he said she said?
How is it not circular. We are reasonable. We cant deny that bc to do so would be using reason to negate that you have reason (that would be circular). Why do people act irrationally? Many reasons, like an overwhelming desire or addiction or just carelessness. But the point is that since we live in a society we extrapolate out from our reason laws. So a law like, don’t steal. Now that’s not to say that no one will steal once we made the law. But when they do and we punish them, it will be just. So the argument is: 1-we are rational. 2-we use reason to create laws for society 3-we have achieved a just society so long as laws and norms accord with reason.
True, manson might say, ‘no. I don’t accept that.’ But its contrary to the very fact that he exists as a rational being. So again, we are starting with the most basic element that we can know to be true. I have reason. You have reason. We all scream from reason. Then build from there (human horizon stuff, philosophy, yada yada yada).
How do we know for sure that reason came from god? How do we know that it came from your god and not some other one?
I mean look. I’ll post one more thing on what I think or believe or whatever either later tonight or in the morning. But I’ve got to tell you, I am so unbelievably dumbfounded that you would say that there is no place for diversity and there is no way to correct things on this earth. And I’m not saying this to be mean, I am literally just awestruck. I mean you mention some terrible events, no denying those. But there is a lot of good too. And rather than appeal to that, you seem to pretty much write off the whole earth. Its really shocking to me. I mean wasnt jesus all about helping people and accepting those that were different and had been ostracized from society (maybe that just the hippie version of jesus that me and david crossan [the historical jesus, good book] like). Are you really convinced there is no hope unless everyone else gets rid of their heathen religion, even though you can’t prove their religion to be wrong or yours to be right? Are you really comfortable with saying that everyone but your religion is wrong? What about catholics that say good works must come with faith? What would you say to them, and wouldnt they just say your argument is fakhakta (except they wouldnt use a yiddish word)?
Ok, those are rhetorical questions I guess. Like I said, I am just dumbstruck. But here is my overall worry. Do you not see how by claiming you have a moral authority over everyone else, that resembles something like theocratic colonization? And what do you do when I say, I believe in something else and that give me a monopoly on morality?
I saw the Sandlot when I was a kid...don't remember much.
Now we are getting somewhere.
"u seem to pretty much write off the whole earth" - Yes. Scripture is filled with the depravity of man and clearly explains that without Jesus, we are destined to eternal seperation from God. Not just one passage, but the entirety of Scripture read in its full context clearly establishes this fact.
"its really shocking to me." - Me too...which is why I have accepted what God is and what He has done because He created us and obviously is a higher power then I am...I am dirt.
"wasnt jesus all about helping people and accepting those that were different and had been ostracized from society"
- Yes he was about helping people. And he did accept different people. The gospel is inclusive in that regard. The gospel is for all the peoples of the earth...every tribe, tongue, and nation. In fact, Christianity is a main reason that women have rights in Western society. Almost every other foundational religion treats women as inferior. Jesus talked to women when the Pharisees wouldn't even care what they thought.
"Are you really convinced there is no hope unless everyone else gets rid of their heathen religion, even though you can’t prove their religion to be wrong or yours to be right"
- Depends on what hope you are talking about. Without Christian values, the world would descend into total anarchy, I'm convinced in that and that has happend before and God destroyed the world (the flood). I can't prove it right...but then again, only simple mathematics and some logic can be proven. But, again, I feel there is more then enough evidence to 'prove' the existence and viability of YHWH and is promise to mankind...a Savior.
"What about catholics that say good works must come with faith? What would you say to them,"
- I would say that good works is a by-product of faith. The book of James explains this concept sufficiently.
"Do you not see how by claiming you have a moral authority over everyone else, that resembles something like theocratic colonization?" - I do not claim I have a moral authority over everyone else. I just claim that I know where my morals come from and what they are founded in. It may resemble theocratic colonization ideas, but Christianity's goal is not for that. Again, Scripture clearly explains this in Romans 13 and elsewhere. Manifest Destiny and the wedding of church and state is not good because mainly it does not allow one to profess a belief in Christ. The worst thing we can do for people is to allow them to think they are saved and believers just because they grew up in South Carolina or attended church every life. That does not get you to Heaven. Faith in Christ does...even if some think it is irrational. Indeed they do. Please read Romans 1:18-30 for some very enlightening Scripture on the depravity of mankind. Go to biblegateway.com and type it in real quick.
every day of their life...not every life...that is eastern religion.
"You would say that vorweod wasnt really getting a revelation. How can you prove that."
He wasn't acting like Jesus. There are these things called the fruit of the Spirit. They are love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control. Is the originator of apartheid someone who could be characterized in this way?
By the way, I would agree with everything Charlie said.
"I do not claim I have a moral authority over everyone else"
clearly this is false.
whether you mean to or not you are acting morally superior bc you say you know where your morals come from, which seems innocent enough, but you wont every accept that morals could come from anywhere else. not even something like reason. so there is only one way, and its your way (or your god's way)
no matter what you say to vorweod, he is going to say, 'no i got this from a relevation. so i am right.' thats my point, you can quote the bible until your blue in the face, but he's just gonnna quote the bible right back at you and say that it proves his position. you are fighting faith with faith. so who wins?
you write off the earth. ok why? bc of scripture. well we are back to the begining. you appeal to faith, not reason. what if i dont have that faith? tell me why i should write off the earth without appealling to faith. but you wont, which again asserts that your position is morally superior than everything else.
along your veiw there is no place for anything else and that is superiority.
Define what you mean by moral superiority. Is it a 'sin' in your system to be so? What is wrong with moral superiority if it is not used in an evil manner, whatever evil is in your sytem.
I knid of feel like ole King must have on the playground.
No one wants to talks to me anymore.
I get it though. Just because I said the bible is fiction you stop talking to me.
I have to go watch a John Edward marathon now.
you kind of defined it for yourself. see you ask me what 'sin' exists in my system. think about the conotations of the word sin. it is tied to religion.
see that says to me that you are stalwart in your refusal to even for one moment approach a situation from a stance of reason. you simply will never say, ok lets all participate on the same level. you cant, bc you will never questions that perhaps you are not morally superior. why should you accept an argument based on reason, when you have everything you need from god.
its superiority in the sense, that you believe that your religion gives you the right to impose arguments onto me eventhough you will never listen to an argument from the other side.
and you want to know why its wrong to be superior. well what gives you the right to enforce something onto me? you say god. i say i dont believe in that. but you wouldnt then say, 'well how bout we appeal to reason which we both have.' instead you just sit back and say, 'well enjoy hell.'
thats superiority. you and your group have the answers. and no one else does. and the only way, the ony way, to be moral is through your world veiw. thats superiority.
A few questions, you don't want to talk about sin let's talk about evil or wrong or anomalies of irrationality. What is evil? Explain it to me. Does evil exist?
"you write off the earth. ok why? bc of scripture. well we are back to the begining. you appeal to faith, not reason."
I thought I did that, but I'll do it again. Look at the whole of written history. Man desires war. We are bloodthristy. Look at the history of the Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Romans, Napoleanic France, Nazi Germany. The US is as guilty as everyone else. We conquered unfairly, unjustly. He killed and lied to and stole from Native Americans. There were "christians" who crusaded and inquired. I already mentioned the carnage of the 20th century. We have created weapons that could end the world with the push of a button. There are people who fly planes into buildings. Think about these words: suicide bombers, nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Holocaust, racial cleansing, Hilter, Mussolini, Caesar, Jefferson Davis, slavery. We simply want to dominate each other. I think it is reasonable to say that man isn't good at his core, no matter how optimistic he may be. I didn't have to appeal to Scripture for that, did I?
nice to see that 'can do' attitude. you do appeal to scripture bc you see an explaination of all this in your particular world view. even though you cant prove that that actually explains everything. as a result, you write off everything. and then i guess you wait to die.
again, no denying the potential for bad things to happen. evil things happen, it exists. evil can arise from the human enterprise, but is that the end of the story. is there not also the potential for good? the yoke of colonialism was thrown off. gandhi fought for peace through peaceful means. churchill inspired a nation to be resolute in the face of nazi bombing raids on england. kennedy encouraged us to reach for the moon and we did. slavery is gone. we did these things.
so i would say we have the potential for good. perhaps you would agree with that but only through your god, which is particularly problematic for gandhi, bc if thats true then he is in hell for being a heathen.
i suppose its typical of your religion to be focused on the doomsday scenario. but i am sorry, i do not see any reason to simply give up on earth reather than appeal to our potential for good. (like luke did for his dad, darth vader).
your world view has written a tragedy, and even if i point out to you a way to harness our potential for good, you superiority will cause you to say that my way is false. in essence, your particular world view has doomed us all regardless of whether or not we believe in it. and my quesiton woudl be, what gives you the right to doom us all.
we have the potential for both good and evil. niether are innately ingrained in us.
of course you disagree with this. and what's more is by refusing to even consider this possiblity bc it isnt written in some book that you worship. you will show your superiority.
"see that says to me that you are stalwart in your refusal to even for one moment approach a situation from a stance of reason."
The problem with appealing to reason is if you look at human history only a extremely small percentage of mankind denied belief in a God. Therefore, was that vast majority all acting unreasonable? Your philosophy has a seroius flaw in that hardly anyone actually lives it. It does not exist in the real world. People are religious and people do intertwine their faith with their God-given reasonal abilities. Your philosophy is simply not practical. Not until a few hundred years ago did anyone even seriously question the existence of God. So, therefore, you are claiming to have knowledge of the truth that no one in human history up until has had. That is problematic.
Also, let's look at the moral superior thing. We Southern Baptists have our interpretation of Scripture, which as you have pointed out, is only one interpretation. Well this seems silly. How can there be multiple interpretations about a book? If you, M ichael, Mr. M., and I all read Moby Dick and told you it as about whale and you told me it was about a whale who ate Ahab and Michael said that the whale did not exist and Mr. M said that the whale was an illusion, who is right? Well, according to the law of non-contradiction, we can't all be right. We can all be wrong, but only one can be right. Who is right? Whoever is closer to the authorial intent.
This is the problem with interpretation. Contrary to the new criticism that is being espoused on college campuses (my ENGL 102 class was designed around it), there is only one intended meaning for each text...unless the author was purposely ambigious, which would be pure idiocy. Therefore, the Bible has one intended authorial meaning throughout the text. I think my interpreation is right. Michael differs on certain minor issues with me I know for a fact. However, both of us cannot be right, according to the law of non-contradiction.
How does this relate to reason and evolution. Every religion has exclusive claims. Therfore Muslims, Mormons, Jews, Christians...we can all be wrong. But it is impossible for us all to be right because of the exclusivity of the religions.
Furthermore, you may be wrong about your philophy of reason and I may be wrong about mine, but we both cannot be right. You say I am claiming moral superiority. No, I'm just professing my belief, one that has a lot of credibility from history. I am not pushing it on anyone. I'm just stating your beliefs as you are yours.
Again, people do not live your philosophy. Hardly anyone, outside of a few scholarly types, even attempt to live 'reasonably' as you define it.
By the way, the faith I am talking about is synonymous with trusting in something. Obviously you trust in your system just like you would sitting in a chair. How do you know that the chair you sit in won't collapse? You trust it. I trust God.
The Bible is not some book. It is the Word of God, thank you very much. It is how God has chosen to communicate with us at this point in time.
reason is not a belief it is a fact. you cannot deny that you have reason. reason is not exclusive to god. using reason as i am does not deny god. it just says, 'hey i have to appeal to something that everyone has, and they dont all have my faith'
when any philosopher justified his cliam to another, it was typically on grounds other than religion. why? bc not everyone has the same religion.
you say i am not practical. i am appealing to something everyone has. you are appealling to something only some people have. disagrements between you and michael, how do you settle them? you cant, you just ahve to say we believe to things and at least one of us is damned for it.
you say pretty much everyone on earth are christians. well go to this link, http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
in which a christian groups says that studies show only 33% of the world is christian. and as you admit within that number there are various differences among faiths. so what about the other 2/3 of people? do you just ignore them? or no, you try to force them to comform your world view. which of course you cant prove.
see thats not practical. you cant come up with laws to govern anyone outside your world view. well tahts fine in you live on an island by yourself. but you dont. so how you do justify laws that come from your world view to those of us that dont share your world view? you cant. but you doit anyway. blue laws, gay marraige, abortion, and so on you use faith not reason to govern people's live without the slightest concern that they dont share your world view.
the bible is the word of god and has only one interpritation huh. well prove it. come on, lets hear it. convince me. convince me that a guy lived in a whale. and that the entire world flooded and that one dude and his wife managed to save all 3000 species of bees and all the other animals by loading them onto one boat (must have been crowded). convice me of that, justify why you feel that one book validates your dominance over the moral landscape.
but thats not how it works. i have to put my faith in it. and not everyone does that. yet you proport to dominate them anyway. one view that dominates all the rest. what does that sound like to you?
"Not until a few hundred years ago did anyone even seriously question the existence of God" -- there was a time when we thought the earth was flat. now we know that to be false. i think your friend ross said something like we must follow the truth no matter where it leads. clearly you do not intend to do that bc you would never accept any evidence i might provide that is contrary to the beliefs you hold.
All that is fine and dandy and i've heard all that before, but you still haven't answered my question about what your purpose in life is and what you think will happen when you die. Also, you did not attempt to refute my point about how you are trusting in your own 'God,' reason. Likewise, I trust in a God too. Therefore, we are really not that different.
reason is not a god. it is a fact. it can be proven. and god would require faith. i dont have faith in reason, i know that it exists. thats the difference.
Reason is an abstract idea. It is not concrete, it is not tangible. How can you prove it? You can't prove reason by talking and saying "i was reasoning." I could just as easily say "no you weren't. That's not reason. I think I'll call it discussion." Then you would day that my response was also reason. This exchange ends up becoming circular. Reason cannot be 'proved.' Effects of resaon may be showcased but reason itself cannot be proved. You are kidding yourself if you believe that.
Also, you still haven't answered my question.
"i am appealing to something everyone has."
Really? What about small children whose reason isn't fully developed? What about the elderly who have lost the ability to reason clearly? What about the mentally handicapped? What about the insane?
"you say pretty much everyone on earth are christians."
Actually, you are the only person here who has said that. General revelation does NOT make you a Christian. It simply makes you aware that there is a God. While it does reveal some aspects of his character, it does not fully reveal him and all his entailments.
"you cant come up with laws to govern anyone outside your world view."
Go hand anyone the last five laws in the Ten Commandments and see if they won't agree to them. Honor your parents. Don't murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't covet. Sounds universal to me. I think we could all agree to that.
honor your parents. i dont agree with that. what if your parents suck. respect and honor must be earned.
you are right, many of the precepts in the bible would be agreed too on the basis of reason. but that doesnt entail that there is a god. their reason for agrement doesnt have to be god does it. it could be: reason. oh and should adultry be against the law? so i hope you were talking about a norm there.
what about the insane and senile etc? well if they were rational they would agree to our laws right. you can be behave irrationally, but that doesn mean you dont have the faculty of reason. i've said all that before.
reason is abstract. so is god first of all, but then this whole circular thing. dude. here is a mathmatical proof. you have reason(B) if you can think(A). if your a person (C) then you can think(A).
A->B, C->A
ok i am a person. so C is true. if C is true, then A is true and if A is true then B is true.
to say you dont have reason is to say you dont exist. do you exist? its inescapable not circular. your rebuttle to it, however, is circular bc to prove you point you must rely on the very thing you are disproving. call it whatever you want, discussion chit chat whatever, the function remains the same.
not everyone experiences general revelation my main man. not everyone believes in it. how woudl you like it if i said chuck norris, my lord and savior, revels his infinate wisdome through his swift round house kicks? and bc of that i know the secret of the universe to which you must now conform. crazy right? now you know what its like to have someone force a belief on you.
by the way, gravity. also an abstract idea. i cant hold gravity in my hand, but i know it exists bc of proofs that show it to be a real force. like reason.
prove god, and i'll accept that to be real and not just a matter of personal faith.
The main problem with your analogy about Chuck Norris is it has never happened and if it did, it probably would not be universally accepted. However, Christianity has been freely accepted by many people. Also, as of now, no one is forcing Christianity on anyone that I can tell. And if you are talking about the laws that our nation have, get used to it, because those that are based on Christian values aren't changing, and if they do, then the society will most likely crumble. Look at most of Europe. Of course your idea of 'crumbling' is probably very different then mine.
God is not abstract. Jesus was God and He walked the earth. People saw him and touched Him and when the end of days comes everyone will see Him again. That is not abstract. However, if God showed His face to you (or me), we would not be able to look at it because of His power and transcendance. So, God was proven when Jesus came to earth. It is your choice to either accept Him or reject Him.
But then again, you reject anything supernatural I assume, so this discussion is pretty much pointless.
The main reason that Christianity is rejected is because people want to live their lives on their own terms because we are all selfish beings looking out for our own good. You are right, people do not want to accept Christ because they would have to change their lives and they are too selfish to do that. I am too selfish as well but the Holy Spirit convicted my heart and I thank God for His grace in that regard because like the hymn says, "I was blind, but now I see." When i accepted Christ it was a conscious decision...not one based on my family or my upbringing.
I guess at this point, you are not going to answer my other question, so this will most likely be my past post on this subject.
I hope the discussion doesn't die down here... Dantzler, I'd say that reason is a good tool for coming to the truth, but that reason never exists on its own. There has to be something for reason to work with, if you want to put it that way. We have experiences, traditions, and testimonies from others that claim that they have a Word from the divine.
If you want to continue the discussion, I think that we have to start at some basic level. We seem to be talking past each other. I believe that it is reasonable to put my trust in Jesus the Messiah, and I do so because I think that he was the incarnate Son of God.
You've said you don't believe that. I guess my question to you is what DO you believe about life? Does life have a telos, or goal? Is there a God? You haven't answered any of these questions in the discussion, and at some points you seem to indicate these are trivial questions.
But in your study of philsophy and history, surely you've seen that regardless of where folks come down on these issues, pretty much everyone realizes that these issues are IMPORTANT. I mean, if there is a God, and if He revealed Himself most fully by becoming man, dying on the cross, and being raised from the dead, then wouldn't it be important to follow what He said?
I really interested to hear what you think Dantzler, cos I think that everyone has to face these questions...
Ross
oh i'll answer, and then i'll leave you alone. but first let me say, the thing about our laws, is that they are accepted by people who are christians bc they are based on reason. thats why believe in god isnt law. bc there arent reasons for that. what part of europe is crumbling?
whatever dont answer that. but lets go back to what you said about moby dick. i say its about man v nature. you say no no its just a whale attacking a boat. those are mutually exclusive. cant both be true. we could each back up our point of view with arguments. rational arguments even
but you seem to think there can only be one answer to any problem. see thats why this discourse fails. if we talk about gay marriage, i go in willing to be swayed by a stronger argument. you dont. you will never relent that levitius 18:22 says 'no gays!' and you'll apparently refuse to engage me on a rational level. but then you'll make it a law that gays cant get married. thats forcing a view on people without playing by rules acceptible to everyone.
those arent mutually exclusive i meant, sorry.
seriously, cant you have to ideas about something?
Wow, i think we posted at the same time Dantzler.
but since i have to write a paper and you cant prove god but seem ok with pushing your religion on eveyone else anyway, we'll just end the discussion. and here i'll answer you question about what i believe in the next post. but first these two quotes: "there is no idea so uplifting as the idea of service to humanity" - woodrow wilson
"great men, great nations, have not be boasters and buffoons, but percievers of the terrors of life, adn have manned themselves to face it" - ralph waldo emerson
I have know men and women of deep faith. Men and women who are giants (jfk, gandhi, mandela, freinds and family) and accomplished great things. For this, they garner my utmost respect. However, these men and women knew that their faith was just that; theirs.
We cannot go around the country or the world trumpeting our own specific world view. We cannot ideologically colonize those that place faith in a god not our own. And yet here we are. On this one planet, joined by the inescapable fact that no man is an island and the acts that one person commits radiate outward so that it affects others. If we mean not to dogmatically enforce our own faith upon others, how then do we proceed to navigate the turbulent waters of our world?
We turn to reason. All of us, across the globe, have reason. All of us can be appealed too by rational arguments. This fact is universal. Our actions, as they relate to others, can be justified by reason. Furthermore it is objective in the sense that it disallows arguments that fail on the count of reason. Arguments for murder, for racial superiority, fail when put to the test of reason. Hence, in a just world, laws and norms are consistent with reason. And this reason, while maintaining its objectivity, allows for pluralism. Rational arguments for and against issues like the death penalty exist, and within the marketplace of ideas they can be debated upon with each side of equal footing. We can hold more than one opinion, we can be open to other ideas. Its is this idea of just laws that do not dogmatically impose one particular world view to which we ought to strive. For this is the only way in which we can coexist in world filled with diversity.
Perhaps you would say that the evil in us is too great. Perhaps you would say that no such coexistence is possible and we must therefore simply submit to god, for the problems that plague our world cannot be solved by anyone other than god. If this is your stance, then I must say I am saddened. Saddened at the fact that you believe that only hope may rest in god. Saddened that this leads you to assert your religions superiority over all others. Saddened that through this belief you would lead you to forsake your brethren here on earth by telling them that any hope to remedy their plight can only be found in the next world, and only if they are worshiping the proper deity. You have become so other-worldly that you are impotent in this world. You stalwartly assert that the problems of our world cannot be solved.
Moreover, I find the hazards of asserting your moral superiority over everyone else frightening. You mean not to live with diversity, but to establish conformity. Not to accept others for what they are, but to convert them. Not to tolerate, but dominate. Your moral superiority, while undoubtable well-intentioned, is just as menacing as other world views that have advocated their own superiority.
Let me conclude by saying that if when I die it is reveled to me that god exists and she says to me that I must be condemned to hell for pursue peace on this world through the means of reason, I promise you that I will respond by saying the following: “I unrepentantly and proudly accept this fate. For if it was your intention for me to approach humanity with hegemony instead of openness and respect or if I were meant to assert my superiority rather than equality, then I have served a higher cause than you. For no god worthy of praise would so callously condemn people for using having a different viewpoint.” And until I die, I promise you this, until god gets off her ass and starts to fix the problems humanity faces, I’m going to try to do it. Because someone has to do it.
the end.....
Well now we know where Dantzler stands. It only 7 comments to figure that out. Thanks, Dantzler, for your honesty. As much as you are saddened to learn our worldview, I am equally saddened to hear of yours. You seem to be mad at God if He exists. This is a common problem. Rabbi Kuschner, in his book, Why do Bad Things Happen to Good People, asserts that either a) God is in control or, b) God is good. He asserts that because bad things happen God cannot be both good and in control. Therefore, he chooses to believe that God is good and simply is not in control. I disagree with the Rabbi. I believe that God is both good and in control.
There were some people in the Bible who asked God "why" questions. Why do bad things happen to good people? Would you like to know God's response? When Jonah was angry at God for choosing to use him to save the people of Ninvevah, God asked Jonah: "Have you any right to be angry?" Jonah did not respond. However, the most famous response of God to this question was when God allowed Satan to tempt Job and Job lost all of his money, his entire family, and almost his life. But he was still alive. If anyone had a right to be mad at God, Job did. At first he was okay...but then he became angry with God. What was God's response? Well, God's response is long. In fact, it is the longest response by God in the entire Bible so God knows this is a question that his creation will have.
I'll spare you the chapters' worth of responses but here are a few:
"4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements--surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
and
"26"Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars
and spreads his wings toward the south?
27Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up
and makes his nest on high? "
God repeatedly asks Job question after question and then finally at the beginning of ch. 40:
"And the LORD said to Job:
2"Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
He who argues with God, let him answer it."
3Then Job answered the LORD and said:
4"Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
5I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further."
God is in control. Oh, what a wonderful truth this is! All of our troubles, all of our worries, all of our fears are kept at bay because we know that God is a loving and just (fair) God. He is in control. He is constantly governing and sustaining the earth. Bad things happen mainly because sin has infected the world. It is a disease with no cure. However, God in His infinite LOVE and mercy and wisdom, sent His Son to die for the sins of the world.
God is in control and I praise Him for it everyday of my life. And when I get to Heaven I am going to fall down at His feet and lay my rewards that He has promised me at His feet and say that I am not worthy. Then He will wipe away my tears and I, along with all other believers, will fellowship with our wonderful and majestic creator forever.
What a wonderful ending that will be. But it won't be the end...it will be just the beginning. Praise God!
"For no god worthy of praise would so callously condemn people for using having a different viewpoint."
Only one thing to say here. God didn't condemn us. We have condemned ourselves by not being obedience to Him.
Thank you for your time and honesty. I hope you are not bitter or angry with us. I'm glad and will continue to be so that we could share our views. With that said, I'm sorry that you misunderstand our views so badly. You seem very angry about the problem of evil in the world. Just remember that the problem lies not with God but with us.
Finally, God has done something. He sent his Son to live, die, and rise from the dead. He lived so that he could impute his perfectly, obedient life onto our sinful, dirty lives. He died to bear the wrath of a holy God. He died that God's justice may be fulfilled. He died to express God's love for his fallen creation. He rose to show God's victory over the results of sin, which is death. He rose to show that death has no dominion any longer. So, it appears to me that God that isn't sitting in Heaven doing nothing. He has fixed the problems of humanity in one great life, the life of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ
"I am the Alpha and Omega, who is and who was and who is to come."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home