It’s on: D’Souza vs. Hitchens on whether Christianity is “the problem”
posted at 6:15 pm on October 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
A little dinner theater for you provided out of obligation since I teased this in headlines on Monday night. You’ll find the entire debate online here. I haven’t watched yet but I’m told that the opening statements delivered in the first three clips are especially can’t-miss. What follows below is a snippet posted by another user that’ll give you a feel for the dynamic. There’s a lot more give and take than I expected.
Via Weasel Zippers, you’ll be pleased to know that the attendees at the Atheist Alliance International conference (the one that hosted Hitch and Hirsi Ali) have selected an official symbol for “freethought.” Feast your eyes. It looks like one of the runes on Led Zep IV reimagined as a hood ornament. And with that, the movement, such as it is, has formally jumped the shark.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
The Pope doesn’t speak for Christianity. And I really don’t care how many Catholics I anger by saying that, either.
2Brave2Bscared on October 25, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Intelligence and Wisdom are not synonyms.
BKennedy on October 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Yes, as one put it:
When I dwelt in the ground, in the bottom, in the stream, and in the source of the Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing. Back in the womb from which I came, I had no God and merely was myself. –Eckhart
For before ‘was’ and ‘will’ there was only ‘is’ and this is the essence of Godliness, and after ‘was’ and ‘will’ there will only be ‘is’.
True religion is a state of syzygy, that is, joining of entities without loss of identities. Without the joining all you are left with is a big guy in the sky or a universal principle – which from that standpoint, religion seems pretty silly.
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Nor synonymous, even.
BKennedy on October 25, 2007 at 11:32 PM
BKennedy
Yes, Einstein could reason as well as any, but only the wise man grasps that his materials are faulty before he uses them.
Alas for that soul, he had a mind like a fine diamond. But no drill-bit is sharp enough to pierce the infinite…
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
- Mark Twain
I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious — unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by force.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Heinlein, ‘atheist’ as he was, grasped the concept which separates the logical, reasonable or factual understanding of God from the actual ‘Knowing’, as in the Biblical sense.
He called it ‘grokking’, If I recall properly. And maybe this kind of grokking goes deeper; it is To grok fully even as I am fully grokked.
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:36 PM
If Dinesh D. thinks that “morality” did not “evolve”, why do we no longer expose deformed infants on rocks, keep household slaves, scapegoat citizens out of the community for superstitious breaches of local taboos, kill people who cut down ‘sacred’ trees, strangle sacrificial bog victims to appease the seasonal demigods, slice the throats of bulls to feed the incorporeal hunger of the deity, or throw virgins into wells to guarantee that the Sun will rise tomorrrow?
Why do we no longer consider these acts “moral”?
Consciousness evolves, and morality follows.
Even our God(s) become(s) more decent as we do.
Just because we are not “perfect” (and not yet at the level where we do not need of laws) does not mean that we are not far better -morally- than our brutal, witch-slaughtering, heretic flaying ancestors.
Islam, excepted.
profitsbeard on October 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Do you want to know what goes on in the core of the Trinity? I will tell you. In the core of the Trinity, the Father laughs and gives birth to the Son. The Son laughs back at the Father and gives birth to the Spirit. The whole Trinity laughs and gives birth to us. –Eckhart
Faith is knowing what you believe ain’t so. -RiverCocytus
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM
But this is not true given that the theist does not do what Mark Twain says he does.
The Christian theist moves from the known existence of rationality and the immaterial laws of logic, and argues ***transcendently*** to the Christian God.
The Mark Twain quote may be interesting, but it is a very weak caricature for the Christian position.
And weak caricatures have no place in rational discussion.
ColtsFan on October 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM
A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell — mouths mercy, and invented hell — mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 11:39 PM
profitsbeard: He makes a common mistake. God does not ever change. But the world does. That’s kind of what makes it the world.
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
- Issac Asimov
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 11:40 PM
God is Light, and in Him is No Shadow.
God is Love. Paul says,
(1 Corinthians 13)
If this is God, then what does it say about Mark Twain’s god?
Like I said, Faith is knowing what you believe ain’t so.
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:44 PM
The impossibility of morality evolving over time was already discussed earlier.
To be brief:
torturing young babies for the fun of it is always wrong at time 1540 or at time 2200. It is wrong NOT because of human convention, or because “society says so.” Rather, it is wrong because “torturing young babies for the fun of it” is intrinsically wrong because we live in a reality that possess universal moral absolutes.
ColtsFan on October 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Asimov is also right! You guys are good.
For what other way is proper to an Atheist, than the way which promotes Atheism?
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Coltsfan: Right. Just because we didn’t realize it wasn’t wrong didn’t make it right. And it is more evidence of the mercy of God, if anything.
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
And I have Isaac Asimov’s Guide to the Bible here on my shelf, and he shows that he misunderstood the Bible on several accounts.
ColtsFan on October 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Those who believe in moral relativism and deny moral absolutes, paradoxically, still complain if someone attempts to steal their car.
Moral absolutism is a viable ethical theory in part because its competing alternatives (subjectivism, ethical relativism, conventionalism, normative relativism) are already widely known to be bankrupt.
Atheism and naturalism logically entail moral relativism. But we already know that moral relativism is false. Therefore, atheism and naturalism should be rejected.
ColtsFan on October 25, 2007 at 11:50 PM
That’s an ad hominem attack. I’m not desperate at all to prove he exists. And what would it prove if there were theists who were?
RiverCocytus on October 25, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Mark Twain was very rational.
Ascribing logic and rationality to a belief in some imaginary vengeful irresponsible big guy in the sky who blames others for his mistakes does not in any way make it logical or rational.
Sorry.
It is most absurd.
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 11:53 PM
RiverCocytus-
But “God” (at least in the Judeo-Christian worldview) does “change”, since the Old Testament Tyrant of Job is not the God of Love of Jesus.
The “God” of Leviticus (“Kill the adulturess“) is not the “God” of the Beautitudes (“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone“).
As humanity became more self-aware and more generously loving, so did “God”.
Personally, I think that “God” is the endpoint of our and our Universe’s struggles, not the origin.
As we gain compassion and consciousness, God comes into Being and becomes Aware, as well.
We are the locus of Its possibility of Manifesting.
The Cephalization of the Cosmos over eons, and not a detached Mind, at the start, creating and “testing” us for its incomprehensible Needs.
Either way, let’s hope the next step is as intriguing as this one.
profitsbeard on October 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
It is amazing how the atheists seem to come out of the woodwork and get offended at the faith of others. It is literally offensive to atheists on this thread that people could possibly be intelligent and have faith. Hitchens got crushed in this debate.
Atheists argue that the absence of faith makes them intelligent. Quite the opposite is true though. The understanding that there is so much that you CAN NOT KNOW is what makes faith NECESSARY.
Atheists choose what they put their faith in. It doesn’t happen to be religion, they put their faith in their intellect. But a true intellect will always say that the more they know, the more they realize that they don’t know. Every answer will always lead to more questions.
Lack of faith in any particular religion does not mean that one does not have faith in anything. Your religion is your own intellect. You are essentially your own ‘god’.
In a world where survival of the fittest rules (as is the requisite for pure evolutionary theory), there would be no law.
People who believe in God do not insist that you believe. I personally have no intention of being defensive. I am merely pointing out the flaws in your arguments that are only developed out of reason – and your faith in your own reason. If there are holes in that ‘reasonable argument’ you would have no reason to maintain your faith. Whether or not you turn to faith in God is your own personal journey.
Heaven and Hell are abstract concepts. Hell is generally defined as a ‘separation from God’. What that means is up to the individual and his or her faith. Jesus never condemned anyone to hell. Jesus only told people the way to heaven – without actually defining what exactly heaven was other than life after death or the ‘Kingdom’.
Believe whatever you want. You were created by God and given FREE WILL to choose whether or not to believe. It is not mankind’s domain to judge.
ThackerAgency on October 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
“I cannot argue against the Lord as a peer, so I shall quote my mightiest idols and see if they fared any better ~MB4.”
Answer:
Eistein and Asimov are dead. Jesus still lives.
BKennedy on October 25, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I only stated that Mark Twain is making a weak caricature of Christianity, and weak caricatures have no place in rational discussion.
1.) The Christian theist moves from the **known** (immaterial laws of logic, nature of rationality) to what is **not as well known**. The Christian theist does not move from the unknown to the unknown.
2.) Remember, the atheist or naturalist position is to outright deny these very same immaterial laws of logic. The Christian argues, **transcendentally** for the impossibility of the contrary.
a.) Christianity affirms the nature of rationality.
b.) Atheism, being the contrary or opposite, denies rationality and the known immaterial laws of logic.
c.) Christian apologetists, in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15, argue for the impossibility of the contrary (referring to Atheism).
d.) Therefore, atheism is false, and Christianity is true.
Look, MB4, you are cool in my book.
You state your atheist position well, and you are honest.
I really respect that.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:00 AM
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 12:00 AM
That’s actually a good place to be, as far as those things are concerned, SiteRep. For that is an honest place at least.
Faith is, I believe, a gift given to all who accept it. Knowing how to accept it might require ritual or belief; or more often then not, great trouble. But then again, we pray the Psalms, which contain a great deal of descriptions of the trouble that befalls man which leads him to God. Before I knew him, I thought of things which I had experienced as ‘epicycles’ in my terran system. But when the earthly became centered instead around the sun, the epicycles disappeared and one by one they clicked into place.
Thanks for that one, Galileo. Sucks what happened with the Roman Catholics, though.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Your OK too! For a theist anyway! Don’t tell anyone else I said that though or I will pray to God to have you turned into a mute!
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM
I was trying to “cut to the chase” and be brief.
Yes, atheism and naturalism logically entails moral relativism.
Do you want me to prove that?
To be honest with you, I did not think that point of mine was a debateable topic simply because it is so widely accepted in the world of philosophy.
Do you understand that my chain of reasoning above was in a logical pattern called “Modus Tonens?”
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:04 AM
But friend, he says of himself, I Am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end. So you have it half right.
Even if the Hebrews of the time, being pagan at heart as we all are, thought of Yahweh as a tribal God, we can know through a esoteric understanding of the Old Testament that Yah was indeed the One. Paul, Jesus and the rest all taught from (we forget this) the Old Testament. So where did they get their teaching? From what source? What justifies Paul saying of the God of the Jews, that he is Love?
Even the Rabbis understand this; though they do not believe that Jesus was Messiah.
Do not confuse God with the veil that obscures his face.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
I will not tell anyone at all if you can please give a SHOUT out for my boys!!
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
I look forward to the Patriots-Colts game coming up in a few weeks. I so so hope Brady will crush Manning by 17 points, and put to rest the sports talking heads who question Brady’s position relative to Manning.
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 12:08 AM
I don’t believe you. please have him give me a call.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 26, 2007 at 12:09 AM
By the way, about the Locus of manifestation, you ought to read the lives of the saints – as told by the Orthodox. There is a little bit of it here: http://deathtotheworld.com/
Profitsbeard, you might benefit from http://onecosmos.blogspot.com … if you desire to approach God from the rear, you’ll eventually find your way to the Door.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Speaking of New England and winning, Red Sox take game 2! BAHAHAHAHAHA!
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 12:10 AM
He tells me he is ringing, but you’re not picking up. It must be your Provider.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:10 AM
He’s been knocking at your door, but you’ve never shown the willingness to open it.
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Are you a follower of Manichaeism?
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Trite, but non responsive. He can’t knock, he can’t call, because he is a fictional character and fictional characters are not alive,
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 26, 2007 at 12:13 AM
It will be a great game.
Personally, I think Pats have not played anybody except for Dallas.
But the Pats linebacker Adalias Thomas (the free agent pickup from Baltimore) will be the key to the game. If he plays good, and stops Dallas Clark, then the Pats will win.
But then again the Colts have been running the ball very, very well lately.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Uh, define what you mean by that? To my knowledge that refers to the belief in two equal forces; darkness and light, and the world is a mixture of the two. The fact that God is Himself (I AM THAT I AM) – or rather, the only thing that truly is – shows this to be a lie. Manicheanism is a projection onto the universe of the interplay between the forces of light and dark in the mind of the ordinary man.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Or did you have something else in mind? I tend to be very ‘if’ centric in debates, taking on people’s positions only for the sake of argument rather than because I believe them.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:16 AM
I was wondering if you deny the authority of the Old Testament, as many Manichaeieans do.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Also, no. I am, for all intents and purposes, a Christian. It is a truth that found me even as I was searching for it. For I was always searching for it and it always finding me…
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Okay.
Just curious.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Yet MB4 seems to think creators of actual fictional characters have something of great merit to say about beings which created those creators. It’s like Huckleberry Finn saying Mark Twain doesn’t exist.
Moreover, I’m sure you’re aware of details regarding doubting Thomas. Better are those who have not seen but believe.
It is quite amusing that you believe God would contact you in such a mundane way as a collect call from Heaven in the cliche Booming God Voice. He’d more than likely speak to you through the voice of a friend who cares about you.
It always astounds me how atheists consistently knock the intelligence of theists, yet cannot imagine any being more creative than themselves.
Take note: It is difficult to hear God speaking to you when you never stop exalting yourself in your own mind.
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 12:20 AM
No, the Old Testament is true. But we have to know how to look at it, otherwise we may use it to abrogate the new, or as Paul says, “If I rebuild that which I tore down, am I not a trangressor?”
If Paul says God is Love, if Christ says God is Love, and the Old Testament gives descriptions of him hating? What do we say? Christ is himself the fulfillment of the Old Testament. But he fulfills – this means, well, it means a lot of things. A whole lot of things. Like, no need for sacrifices of animals any more, for instance. It goes on from there. Because we now may see God’s face we need no longer fear to approach him. The Old Testament description of God’s punishments perhaps misappropriates that which is God in the sense that God is all for being God in the sense that God is not of the World.
If you touch a hot stove, you get burned. Not because the stove hates, but because it’s just, you know, on.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Anyway, it is unlikely that Phrenzie or MB4 will hear him speaking, in the literal sense. They would think themselves crazy immediately and check themselves into a hospital. What good would that do?
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:26 AM
They do not need to hear God audibly speak.
Non-audible revelation is more LOUDER and more PROFOUND. Just read Romans chapter 1 and 2 in the New Testament.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Interesting article here, just noticed it:
http://www.deathtotheworld.com/seraphimrose/index.html
… touches on the subject a ‘lil.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:35 AM
So RiverCoctus,
are you an Eastern Orthodox?
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Not yet, perhaps, or already. Words are so vague.
We disagree on some things. But we’re rather in agreement on others.
I do realize I’m not saying much of anything. Because what I’m trying to say is ‘beyond words’ – a paradox.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 12:39 AM
They convey the absence of a sound argument, not error necessarily. They are rhetorical tools, meant to sway the mob, which is precisely what a debate is these days.
We have more reason to believe that Jesus existed than we do Socrates. Or Plato. Or Aristotle. Or Pliny. Or . Of course, the only reason why we know any of those men exist is because of the efforts of Christian monks that saved and copied their works.
Besides, Jesus’ existence and presence before the Judge of the Universe remains true regardless of your choice to deny it. Choose whatever myth you wish, but as for me, I will serve the Lord.
As Puddleglum put it:
spmat on October 26, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Eh, not “logical fallacies” but “informal fallacies.” Bleh.
spmat on October 26, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I embrace “labels” when they are helpful and meaningful, and I reject them when they are not.
Concepts are not reducible to linguistic expressions or human language. That is why they are concepts or propositions. But concepts (every concept) themselves are capable of being expressed through human language.
Personally, I just see way too much emphasis on “mystery,” “paradox”, “hiddenness” as theological themes in Eastern Orthodox (EOT) theology. My fear is that EOT uses them as heuristic devices to introduce sacramental sorcery.
Just my two cents
I would welcome learning from you in the future, if you desire to convince me otherwise, friend.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Informal fallacies or formal fallacies are fallacies in that they have the appearance of trying to transmit error as “truth.”
They are not just “rhetorical tools,” because logic is an ontological feature of our world.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Symbols are for the symbol-minded. (George Carlin)
shirgall on October 26, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Oh they hear him alright, thats why they spend so much time and energy screaming that he doesn’t exist, to drown out his voice. As D’Souza so eloquently pointed out, a man who truly doesn’t believe in unicorns doesn’t bother telling anyone that unicorns don’t exist.
Why? Because having dismissed the idea that unicorns exist, he doesn’t waste his time thinking of reasons why unicorns don’t exist. Nor does he waste his or anyone else’s time trying to convince anyone else either that unicorns don’t exist or why unicorns don’t exist.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I hope you and your family are doing OK in San Diego.
Any updates?
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:51 AM
When I was many years younger than I am today I knew a young man. This young man of whom I had the most profound respect was a seminary student, you sound so much like him I must ask. are you sir a seminarian?
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Just a quarterback.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Ah yes, and good one at that, the mandatory evacuation of my town (Ramona California) has been lifted and my fellow Ramonans are returning even as I type this.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 12:57 AM
I am very sorry about that.
The Diet Mountain Dew has not kicked in yet.
To answer your question:
Yes.
I was at one time, and then I was planning on getting a Ph.D in philosophy later. But I kinda had a change of plans.
By the way, I have enjoyed reading some of your comments in the past at HA.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Professional or amateur?
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Likewise I find your comment so often utterly fascinating.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 12:59 AM
I am a native Hoosier. I have never lived in California,
though I do not rule it out in the future. This cold weather gets very old after awhile, here in Chicago: 9 months of winter and 3 months of road construction.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Nor does he demand that the school system be forcibly taken over and students be indoctrinated just to make sure that no one ever even THINKS that unicorns may exist. Everyone must be forced to acknnowledge a unicorn-devoid existence in order to make progress for all mankind through Aunicornism! (Read D’Souza’s latest townhall.com column)
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 1:00 AM
ColtsFan: My fear is that EOT uses them as heuristic devices to introduce sacramental sorcery.
I can understand the trouble there – and it is especially difficult with the ikons. Needless to say, mysticism does not get in the way of God working. If you appreciate C.S. Lewis then you might be familiar with a touchstone part of the theology, Theosis.
Good theology is like good theory; it adequately explains phenomenon that occurred and is able to ‘reconstruct’ truly new but otherwise correct forms. If things that happened were mysterious, then perhaps mystery has a part. I’ve found that there are few things truly mysterious but the essence of God himself; which is the void (as Musashi might say) all else is simply my ignorance (which might be categorical, even.)
Then again, many things are ‘devices’ not in the sense of being contrived and false, but rather used as witnesses the way that the 12 stones were placed beside the Jordan river. Orthodoxy takes well account of the fact that the Sons of Earth all forgetful, selfish pagans, that we needs be reminded of God much. But the ultimate goal is really to worship him wordlessly and continuously.
For that, nearly any tradition that orients itself towards God will suffice as long as the person doesn’t willfully reject him.
But then, I am free to my opinions about these things.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Unfortunately, a lot of the experience of God is subjective – kind of like an endless jazz piece. Being that I’m a man of music and words, this tends to turn my speaking towards a kind of musical evasion of the point – like how music evades first the dominant and then the tonic – always hinting at something because you can’t quite say it fully yet.
I think some people find it positively irritating.
Apologies.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Oh and unlike you my doltish and dull intellect leaves me inadequate to address those convinced of the superiority of their intellect.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Thank you for your response. Here are my feeble thoughts.
My problem with mysticism is that it opens up Pandora’s box to a whole host of epistemological problems.
To have knowledge, we must have propositions or concepts. We do have propositions—they are often called immaterial abstract entities.
Mysticism tries to by-pass the “epistemological need” for propositions by saying that there are non-rational ways of knowing God.
I like C.S. Lewis. But I believe he was not a EOT type of “mystic.”
But even these “devices” still convey truth through propositional revelation. When I speak of the 12 stones, I am using English language to convey propositional truth. Mysticism denies the need for propositional revelation.
That is why mysticism has, traditionally, been viewed as the door for theological liberalism.
That is fine. I desire and I expect to learn from other people who may harbor differing perspectives from mine. I have an interest in being challenged by other people.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:10 AM
And yet some of us also find it quite irresistible. :p
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Subjective, personal experiences of God do not negate the epistemological need for propositonal revelation.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:12 AM
This book is a helpful introduction to this topic of experience and propositional revelation.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Here is another helpful book. The point is: without propositions, there is no truth. If anyone claims to speak “by God” or “from God” in the absence of propositions, then how in the world can we epistemologically determine that it is not an evil demon speaking to us, or a false prophet, or maybe an inner subjective experience, or maybe it could come from a bad reaction to a horrible pizza I ate earlier in the day?
The point is:
One needs propositions to convey truth, and any religious system that denies that (i.e. “Mysticism”) is opening Pandora’s box to error.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Not every decision can be based on a clearly defined syllogism, and not every debate can be won by logical veracity. Humans are partially rational by nature, and the vast, vast majority of their decisions are based on heuristics. That’s why certain informal fallacies (ad hominem, especially) are not only effective in debates, but sometimes valuable. Guilt by association is not an inherently fallacious assumption, though its logical expression would many times be that of an ad hominem argument.
Similarly, inductive arguments can morph into informal fallacies depending on the strength of the induction involved (e.g. argument by analogy or slippery slope), and line between the two is exceedingly fuzzy.
Formal fallacies make you cock your head and say, “Huh? That doesn’t make sense.” Eventually, they crumble under their own weight. Informal fallacies feed into our natural heuristic tendencies and are not as easily rejected as untrue.
spmat on October 26, 2007 at 1:19 AM
The road to false theology and error is paved with “good intentions.” And one needs propositions to prevent Pandora’s box from opening up.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Okay. I am just trying to be clear on what the main issue was. At first, I thought you were attempting to “reduce logic to rhetorical devices”, but your clear, later comment eliminated my earlier, erroneous thought.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:23 AM
So true, so very true, were we able to reject our natural heuristic tendencies, we would be Vulcan’s and not humans.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 1:24 AM
How do you explain me then?
You can’t.
Not in my philosophy.
No. I never even heard of “Modus Tonens”. It sounds icky. Any chain of reasoning that leads to believing in an invisible hiding schizophrenic being that rules the Universe is not a logical chain of reasoning. It just isn’t.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Any chain of reasoning that leads to believing that man gets to decide what is real and what isn’t is a guaranteed path to insanity.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 1:51 AM
Don’t feel neglected. He doesn’t call me either. No phone calls, no emails, no letters, no birthday presents, no nothin.
He must be showering all his attention on all the believers. That must be it.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Like God, Huckleberry Finn is a fictional character who can’t say anything for himself.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 1:58 AM
I can imagine all manner of things. Starships going warp ten. Teleporting through worm holes. Time travel. All powerful Gods. All that is called science fiction. It can be interesting, but it is still imaginary.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 2:03 AM
I asked his to give you a call, he said you refused to answer the phone ever time he tried.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 2:11 AM
El Presidente hears him anyway. He guides his every move. That’s what is important.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 2:16 AM
It is impossible to ground a normative ethical principle in a descriptive fact.
It is also impossible to ground morality in a single individual. It can’t be done, for the reasons explained elsewhere.
“Modus Tollens” (sorry for the wrong spelling earlier) is not icky. It is just a deductively valid way of reasoning.
Thanks again for the earlier conversation.
Good night.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 2:25 AM
He told you that? He never called even once. I have always answered the phone, unless I am on the internet (that ties up the phone line), then he should have known that, being omnipotent and all, and just emailed me or commented here at HotAir.
I think that must have been an impostor that you were talking too. A real God wouldn’t fib like that.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Au contraire, mon ami, when man is not able to determine what is real and what is fiction that is were the wheels come off!
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 2:42 AM
When it comes down to it we are all individuals, so if it is not done at that level, be it by conscience or by “hearing God”, it will not be done.
Night, night!
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 2:45 AM
I prefer eclecticism.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 2:51 AM
If atheism isn’t a religion, why did it’s followers need a symbol? ;-)
Your statement allows for a bit of ambiguity. Are you saying that since it’s God’s decision what is and isn’t real, it can’t be man’s? Or are you saying that in spite of their being no God, man hasn’t the capacity to separate reality from fiction? At first blush I think I’d agree with your statement, but then a second glance left me unsure what your real meaning is.
God exists, whether a man believes it or not. The Earth was round prior to 1492. Ultraviolet radiation had a negative impact on living creatures before it was discovered to do so. (It is the most significant oxidizing radiation form which accelerates aging in organic material.) These are all facts. They were facts before they were proven, (or in the case of God, absent proof) whether they were accepted as facts or not.
One of the rhetorical mistakes of our age is the suggestion that a fact requires proof before it’s a fact. It simply isn’t so.
I venture to say that there are things to be proven as facts tomorrow that we don’t know are facts right now. Are they currently NOT facts, simply because we don’t know it? Absolutely not, such a line of reasoning ascribes far too much power to humanity. Those things yet to be proven are facts NOW, in spite of our ignorance, and to suggest otherwise, now THAT is insanity.
Freelancer on October 26, 2007 at 3:11 AM
Man exists (and women too, don’t forget them!), whether there is any god creature to believe it or not.
MB4 on October 26, 2007 at 3:54 AM
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html
Yeah, those Catholics LOVED the Nazis…
Damian G. on October 26, 2007 at 4:08 AM
Very large difference between “a man’s” choice and “man’s” choice. One is largly unworkable, and the other is virtually indistinguishable from the works of a “God.”
askheaves on October 26, 2007 at 4:29 AM
I love Twain. He had a great sense of humor, but he didn’t know it all, and rather frowned on those who pretended to.
Einstein had great insights, especially before WWI, but he wasn’t infallible. In fact, he rejected the next great revolution in physics, quantum mechanics, about which Bohr tried to convince him.
Einstein wrote, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.”
Irony… mmmm.
One of my daughters is severely developmentally disabled, or very retarded, in erstwhile labeling.
She can’t speak, and never will.
She can’t eat for herself, and never will.
She can’t walk and never will.
She has nothing, totally dependent on all of us for her very life.
But by God I swear, I have not known anyone- met, read or seen- who is happier, more joyous or more ebullient.
Sometimes her face is a picture of heartbreak, but depression is just not part of her equation.
She loves everyone, literally loves them, if they so much as give her “the time of day.”
This is not rational; it just makes no sense.
But with God revealed in the Bible, it makes perfect sense.
silverfox on October 26, 2007 at 6:04 AM
Anyone can posit a series of claims and use them to fashion deductively valid arguments. The trick is having true, or at least reasonable, relevant, and coherent premises. Appeals to ignorance, wishful thinking, etc, aren’t quite reasonable, though.
VerbumSap on October 26, 2007 at 6:09 AM
The thing I find so fascinating about militant atheism is that it asserts the most irrational claim of all: that you can measure the meaning of life with a bunson burner and a yardstick.
Why should an atheist or a scientist ever bother with morals or ethics? The value of such things cannot be objectively measured without the use of some fairly arbitrary currencies (like hedons and dolors, for example.) Why is it that atheists do not fight ethical and moral absolutism, considering most of those premises are based on ideas of a self-evident moral truth that cannot be proven through science. Science can only tell you that murder stops a beating heart. It us silent as to whether that is good or bad. Hitler can justify all his crimes because no scientist would dare hold him to an ethical standard; they’d never be able to come up with one due to the inherent nature of science. Hitler could easily claim his gas chambers were experiments for testing the limitations of the human body. In fact, there was an entire ethical debate about whether such research should be used or put under lock and key.
Those in favor of science for the sake of science found ethics to be nothing more than a nuisance. Science is a soulless measuring tool. The only thing that limits how far science can go in it’s zeal to understand everything in the material world is the human conscience, and everyone with even a basic moral compass understands this.
Science is a tool, not a philosophy. Science is the means by which man derives the nature of the universe, not the meaning of it. I don’t remember who is quoted, but one good one I heard a while back was “you can explain music as wave resonance but it doesn’t have quite the same meaning as hearing it,” or some such similar statement.
The more science develops, the more we realize just how infathomably complex our universe is. However, no scientific quest to end any ideas about “sorcery” or “God” in the universe will ever succeed, because science is the process of supplying raw data, not a means to “prove” anything beyond the mundane.
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 7:43 AM
Indeed, but without experiencing him, we do not know him. The function of truth – certainly in this case – is to deduce whether or not we have experienced him genuinely, or just the workings of our mind (or something else.)
But the actual experience of him is to a large degree subjective, as it must be. I say ‘a large degree’ since it came to mind that there are certain things which tend to happen no matter what. Without the subjective experience of God, we will resort to particular rituals to ‘summon’ him, or use particular experiences to ‘prove we know him’, when in fact only he knows. There is, indeed, the test of ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’
Having experienced the speaking of tongues by no means proves that one has the Holy Spirit. It’s incorrect reasoning. The correct reasoning is, ‘If one has the Holy Spirit on may speak in tongues as a result.’
I know the Pentecostals will jump down my throat for that.
But that is, as you suggested, one use of the Revelation itself – never is it declared (and honestly makes little sense) that tongues is ‘the sign’ to prove indwelling. It was surmised from the book of Acts, but tradition does not seem to hold that it is true.
Mystical experiences are not required for salvation. They may occur along the path of ‘working out your salvation with fear and trembling’ but are no means irrefutable signs of salvation.
‘god creature’ is contradictory according to our definition. God is uncreated. God is not of this World. But then, in reference to ‘the gods’ you’d be quite correct. They are definitely ‘god creatures’.
Say something I disagree with….
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 8:07 AM
Correct mysticism does not bypass but aids. We are given reason because without it and the specific revelation the enemy – who can work false signs and wonders – will deceive us. We are like God in that we can reason.
Like I said above, there has to be a subjective element to all of it; otherwise it is not a relationship. To ‘grok’ is more than simply remembering facts or even understanding where they fit.
I think that perhaps, of the three – Goodness, Truth, Beauty; you might be missing the third. It is a property (if you will) of God.
Also:
Read ‘Mere Christianity’ more carefully. I know a devout Anglican who attends Vespers and thinks quite the same way.
Suffice it to say that like me, you may end up in their camp without believing exactly as they do. It simply is that they more fully incorporate the scripture in a non-contradictory way.
Theosis is the process by which we become more like God. The terms past this point are mostly already-saturated, but I’ll try to give them a whirl. Sanctification is not merely us continually sinning and falling short, but the process by which God literally changes us into his likeness. If it were not so, Christ would not have commanded us, “Be ye perfect as I am perfect.” It is because of the Spirit of God that this is possible – both knowledge – wisdom, and experience are required.
Like my old pastor used to say, “It would be a shame if you missed God by 18 inches.”
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »