Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on January 6, 2010 by Allahpundit
“2) What he said was offensive to Buddhists and other non-Christians. Really? If non-Christians are really offended that many Christians believe that Christianity is true and wish that other people would adopt it, well, they need to get out more. If the argument is that they’re offended because he openly stated his view, then the question is why we should maintain an informal rule of social etiquette that forbids people from proclaiming their faith superior in important respects to other faiths. And the main reason to do that would seem to be, again, to avoid giving offense. Maybe people should just grow thicker skins instead. A Buddhist who is confident in his beliefs would know why he rejects Hume’s counsel and slough it off.”
***
“Why should we maintain an informal social etiquette that discourages people from openly disparaging other people’s religions and touting their own as superior? Gee, that seems kind of obvious to me. I strongly doubt that Wehner and Ponnuru would be happy to see, say, Muslims going on television to blame Mark Sanford’s Christianity for his adultery and urge him to convert to Islam. Of course, I can’t prove this, because no major television network would ever allow it. But I’d at least like to hear them say that they’d be happy to see their rule applied to all religions. Otherwise, they need to admit that what they favor is not some wild theological free-for-all in our public discourse, with all religions touting their superiority and disparaging others, but rather a privileged place for Christianity.”
***
***
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
Please, don’t flatter yourself.
capitalist piglet on January 7, 2010 at 1:16 AM
I really admire him for not backing down.
capitalist piglet on January 7, 2010 at 1:17 AM
Tiger should just cut the act . He is one of the premier sportsman(not athlete , Golf ?) of all time . He is expected to be a thug .
borntoraisehogs on January 7, 2010 at 1:28 AM
The left is only comfortable with ‘Christians’ like Clinton and Obama. Functional Christians are universally hated by the left.
Ann Coulter has a doozy of an article on this topic that deserves its own thread.
She really breaks it down as only she can.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35103
Mojave Mark on January 7, 2010 at 1:30 AM
She has a firm grasp of the truth.
daesleeper on January 7, 2010 at 1:34 AM
Great line from Ann Coulter:
RBMN on January 7, 2010 at 1:37 AM
Of course, he could have just minded his own business. Live and let live.
OldEnglish on January 7, 2010 at 1:46 AM
Its Brits opinion,no big deal!!!
And,Ethan Nichtern,might be a Buddahist,but
probably more of an activist!
——————————–
http://www.theidproject.org/media/video/ethan-nichtern-2007-interview-alcove
canopfor on January 7, 2010 at 1:48 AM
The media in general could mind its own business, couldn’t it? Of all the things that have been said about Tiger Woods in the past month, I doubt he finds an appeal to his spirituality the most offensive.
capitalist piglet on January 7, 2010 at 1:59 AM
Heres another,
Where Politics and Buddhism Intersect!
————————————–
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=where_politics_and_buddhism_intersect
—————————————————–
Maybe next time CNN can get a Buddha,with no political agenda!
canopfor on January 7, 2010 at 2:12 AM
Can’t put the media feeding frenzy in the same pot. Woods has been the subject of much discussion because of his fame as a sportsman – not his religion.
His career is public, his religion, or lack thereof, is not.
OldEnglish on January 7, 2010 at 2:18 AM
They’re not talking about his career. They’re talking about his marriage.
capitalist piglet on January 7, 2010 at 2:25 AM
It’s just Christians that are forbidden to speak about their faith in news organizations.
Figure it out. It’s Leftwing PC anti Westernism, straight up.
EscapeVelocity on January 7, 2010 at 2:39 AM
I still don’t get this “controversy”. It’s not like Brit Hume started condemning Tiger. He offered his advice to Tiger for finding forgiveness. Big Deal. It’s like 2 sentences, why is everyone outraged?
Opinions are like a**holes; everyone’s got one. Apply this to Hume’s statement and let it go MSM creeps.
vai2112 on January 7, 2010 at 3:01 AM
But if these gentlemen suggested that Muslims were responsible for many deaths based on their interpretation of their religion Mr. Chait would have a fit. It is so hard to keep up with what people are allowed to say. Why not just realize that along with the Freedom of Speech is the freedom to be offended.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2010 at 3:48 AM
By the way I am sure by what Hume meant by redemption not being in Buddhism but he is wrong. Buddhism has redemption just not the way Christianity has. Now I am not a Buddhist but from what I understand Woods has deviated from his Dharma (righteous path) in three ways first succumbing to sensual desires, second failing to uphold his social obligation and third causing emotional pain to his wife and children, as a result he is further apart from Nirvana. In order to “redeem” himself he must exercise control over his desires, eschew his pride (which led him astray) and seek forgiveness from his family.
Gaurav on January 7, 2010 at 4:16 AM
All Paths lead to the Mountain Top which is the ultimate Goal for all Religions. Everything else is convention or politics. Aum.
Dandapani on January 7, 2010 at 4:16 AM
I’m still hung up over Sanchez being all sanctimonious…..
di butler on January 7, 2010 at 4:36 AM
I think that people should have more faith in their faith. When they do not, they tend to impose their personal values on other people. Why? I do not know, but can only surmise that they aren’t particularly swayed altogether and must muster up some kind of shield to convince themselves that their beliefs are substantial and hold water. And to do so, have to, in many instances this means to convince the “non-believers” in one way or another. If it means knocking on doors or blowing themselves up, they will do so.
betsyz on January 7, 2010 at 4:59 AM
To be fair getting blown away for being a heathen is much more inconvenient than having to deal with earnest people trying to save one’s soul
Gaurav on January 7, 2010 at 5:22 AM
Now that you mention it, it would be nice to have some kind of acknowledgment that the Christian faith is an integral part of American history and greatness.
Or were the Founding Fathers, the pioneering men and women who settled the West, the men who fought our battles, the inventors and industrialists all a bunch of latte sipping secular multiculturalists? Or Buddhists? Muslims?
CarolynM on January 7, 2010 at 5:40 AM
Amen…oops or should that be oooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmm
Time to move on AP.
wepeople on January 7, 2010 at 6:33 AM
Brit can only get redemption and forgiveness for his comments if he renouces the idolotry of jesus worship and converts to be an Orthodox Jew. He could really turn around his life if he did this, you know, rebuild his character and integrity
georgealbert on January 7, 2010 at 6:37 AM
What is it with Rick Sanchez asking a question that goes on and on and on and when the question is answered he asks the same thing using different words again he goes on and on? He is digging for something that isn’t there in the context that Brit was speaking. I guess it’s called investigating journalism.
mixplix on January 7, 2010 at 6:45 AM
Which, because he is a public figure, falls into the public domain – according to the MSM, at least.
Did Woods ask for advice regarding his marriage? If not, we should all mind our own business, and let him seek advice if he so chooses.
OldEnglish on January 7, 2010 at 7:02 AM
I guess it depends what type of Buddhist somebody is, as some consider it an education or philosophy that can coexist with someone’s faith, as it’s a way of looking at the world, not a set of things to worship.
CPL 310 on January 7, 2010 at 7:19 AM
If Tiger Woods were struck by lightning on the back nine at Augusta, would we have to wait for him to ask for medical attention before we acted?
Woods should be getting all the advice he can handle since whatever he’s done by his own counsel resulted in the destruction of his marriage.
highhopes on January 7, 2010 at 7:24 AM
I take it AP has never heard or read Christopher Hitchens.
Lets see……Hitchens is an opinion journalist who regularly espouses the superiority of Atheism (AP’s preferred faith) to Christianity and its perfectly OK.
Hume on the other hand is a journalist asked to give his opinion and is promptly annoyed by AP.
Ahhh…got it.
.
GT on January 7, 2010 at 7:25 AM
There is a huge difference betweem a message of “enlightenment” as espoused by Buddhists and the concept of redemption and grace as practiced by Christians.
highhopes on January 7, 2010 at 7:26 AM
Ahh….dang it….That should read….
Hume on the other hand is a journalist asked to give his opinion and promptly annoys AP.
GT on January 7, 2010 at 7:27 AM
Don’t confuse medical attention with counsel. As for counsel – only if he asks, and only from whom he asks.
OldEnglish on January 7, 2010 at 7:36 AM
When people say that all religions are equal, they don’t really mean it. First, how many thousands of beliefs are there in the world, or have there been throughout history? Is each and everyone of them equal as well? People use to believe in Zeus! Some religions demand human sacrifice. Are they really all equal? Or are we just talking about the big 3 or 4?
Sorry, if I am to believe they are all the same, then they are all worthless! They are all meaningless! That in itself is a form of religion! It’s called humanism!
The people who want us to believe that Christianity is no different than any other religion, will be the first to tell you Obama is the closest thing to God there is!
Yeah, just ask them, “Are all Presidents equal? Are they all the same? Are any better than others?”
mmm mmm mmm
JellyToast on January 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM
Agreed.
It also depends greatly on the Buddhist. Note the face chosen to represent Buddhism by CNN.
CPL 310 on January 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM
Actually, in context, Hume was a commentator giving his opinion. He was on a panel of commentators giving their opinions about a wide range of issues. What amuses me is how the same people who claim to be tolerant and inclusive will sit (to be fair) in rapt wonder as somebody quotes the entire GBLT talking points but get into a giant snit the second Christ is mentioned. It’s this kind of soft bigotry that is killing this nation.
highhopes on January 7, 2010 at 7:38 AM
So does Elin Nordegren.
CPL 310 on January 7, 2010 at 7:39 AM
Spiritual counsel is just as important as medical attention. I get your point that public figures have the right to privacy but that doesn’t preclude others from offering free and unsolicited advice. It can be taken or not.
Personally, Tiger Woods infidelity ranks right up there with gate-crashing grifters, balloon boy’s family, and anything featured on the E channel as worthless tabloid sensationalism (for the complete list, tune into Greta Van Sustren’s show).
highhopes on January 7, 2010 at 7:44 AM
LOL!
Elin is attractive and about to be newly divorced and fabulously wealthy. I think she’ll do okay for herself in the long run.
On the other hand, Tiger Woods is at a personal and professional crossroads. Does he seek to repair the image he had prior to the scandal or does he become the bad boy player of the PGA? It was to that situation where Hume was offering advice.
highhopes on January 7, 2010 at 7:47 AM
Being “fabulously wealthy” does not provide happiness or redemption. She needs Christ in her life every bit as much as Tiger.
LonelyMassRepublican on January 7, 2010 at 8:09 AM
“When a person stands before other people and says he believes in me, then I will say that person belongs to me. I will say this before my Father in heaven. But when a person stands before people and says he does not believe in me, then I will say that person does not belong to me. I will say this before my Father in heaven.”
–Matthew 10:32-33
TheBigOldDog on January 7, 2010 at 8:14 AM
I have way less of a problem with this than with what the Muslim would follow up with:
1. That Elin Woods should have sat there in her burka and shut-up, while all the other women were stoned to death.
2. That if Tiger Woods didn’t convert to Islam, his alternatives are slavery or death (complete with suras from the Koran).
3. That it was the duty of all righteous Muslims to enforce option #2 by the sword through jihad (also with Koranic justification).
Get back to me when you can quote the New Testament (especially the red-letter quotes from Jesus) enjoining Christians to do those things, as opposed to preaching against it while leaving final judgment strictly to God.
SDN on January 7, 2010 at 8:35 AM
Christianity upsets the secular humanist(atheist)crowd because they see it as a threat to their own religion. (Allah wants to be Pope of his religion and never misses an opportunity to proselytize.) The creator is constantly calling all souls to himself and the adherants to the secular humanist/atheist religion dislike being reminded of that pull. Their anger is evidence of their discomfort–deep down they know they are wrong and strike out whenever they are reminded of this nagging doubt. They particularly hate the people that they haven’t been able to intimidate into silence: Palin, Beck, Hume.
Hume said that Christianity offered redemption and that Buddism does not. That’s just a fact. Sorry Pope Allah.
Haunches on January 7, 2010 at 9:01 AM
All around me I see cautions about how I am not to offend the sensitive masses with my faith, my sex, my race, my associations, etc. But, I do not see others being cautioned not to offend me. It seems only Christians, men, whites, gun-owners, etc., are obliged to bury under an altar of diversity the essential components of our existence.
Even those who take our pulpits in the pretense of being “men(and sometimes women)of God,” lack the courage of their convictions. I look at these people building mega-churches to lead people to Christ, but they’re in reality only trying to recapture unobservant Christians. I don’t see them evangilizing to Jews, Muslims, Buddists, et al (God bless them). And they sure don’t go where they might lose their head – or their britches – over their faith. In a sense, they are not men of God, but simply congregational salesmen.
I do not eschew other faiths the right to evangelize their beliefs, provided they do so without igniters in their undies. I only ask to be shown the same tolerance. We’re not evil. No Christian alive is responsible for bringing down the Mayans and none of us are strapping on bombs to vaporize the innocent.
Brit Hume puts our ministers and priests to shame. Would that all Christians defend our faith and God with such confidence, ease and courage.
Cricket624 on January 7, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Christianity upsets the secular humanist(atheist)crowd because they see it as a threat to their own religion. (Allah wants to be Pope of his religion and never misses an opportunity to proselytize.) The creator is constantly calling all souls to himself and the adherants to the secular humanist/atheist religion dislike being reminded of that pull. Their anger is evidence of their discomfort–deep down they know they are wrong and strike out whenever they are reminded of this nagging doubt. They particularly hate the people that they haven’t been able to intimidate into silence: Palin, Beck, Hume.
Hume said that Christianity offered redemption and that Buddism does not. That’s just a fact. Sorry Pope Allah.
Haunches on January 7, 2010 at 9:01 AM
=======================================================
The problem with this statement is that the PRIMARY secular humanists represent themselves as Christians. Left wing Catholic Bishops, Lutherans, Methodists, National Council of Churches, etc etc etc are the worst of the left wing fanatics; furthermore since these Christian do run this country –See Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid..all Christians– the idea that somehow Christians are outside the mainstream media and politicians has no comportment with the facts….
georgealbert on January 7, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Christ forgave adultery, and that’s Gospel.
Hening on January 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM
Wow, all of this because one man who is entitled to his opinion mentioned Christianity. Seriously I think we are doomed. I mean really, how soon until people begin resorting to violence on either side due to frustration? I can really see it coming. I guess this country will get what it deserves. As a Christian I always wondered why no great country from the west was mentioned in revelations. I think it’s because by the time Christ returns we will have turned ourselves into a pathetic shell of our former selves and will have become irrelevant to the rest of the world. The geatest country this planet has ever known will tear itself apart fromt the inside out.
gator70 on January 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Jesus said invoking His name would bring this type of reaction. Why are Christians surprised.
Kissmygrits on January 7, 2010 at 9:42 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I am surprised how Brit Hume mentioning Christianity on a Sunday talk show is more viral than many of the acts being committed by Muslims these days. A muslim commits and act of terrorism and everyone is worried about offending the Muslims. Someone even mentions Christianity and many will go out of their way to offend me on purpose. Doesn’t make sense, but you are right, Jesus said this would happen.
gator70 on January 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM
Hmmmm.
Humanity, as in Homo Sapiens, has been around for about 100,000 years or so. Yet in all that time only in the past 2,000 years has humanity actually become more than a flea-bitten lice-ridden fur-wearing hunter-gatherer.
Why?
*shrug* I’m not a Christian but I’d have to suggest perhaps it’s the moral, ethical and social principles behind Christianity.
Now quite a bit of that comes from Judaism but Christianity is a religion that seeks out converts while Judaism doesn’t. If Judaism were more evangelizing then perhaps all this would be from that point of view.
memomachine on January 7, 2010 at 9:54 AM
This is garbage. Why would you want to keep people from talking about the ghosts and spirits that each one of them believe in? For me it is so deliciously rich to hear someone talk about the message of his favorite spirit while firmly standing on solid ground, looking both ways before crossing the street and eating a meal they had to actually dig a ditch for in order to eat. It’s just too much fun!
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 9:55 AM
In the New Testament, Matthew 20:16 to 20:20.
It’s called the Great Commission. It urges the Disciples, and by inference, all Christians to spread the word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are commissioned as Christians to spread the word. Do not do so, is not consistent with being a Christian.
In other words, if we have faith in our faith, we will spread the word of our faith. I don’t take that as imposing our personal values on anyone.
donh525 on January 7, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Britt doesnt need to explain anything. What will they do next? Nail him to a cross? goodness sakes.
johnnyU on January 7, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Is it as “deliciously rich” as reading an immaterial argument appealing to materialism?
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Huh?!!!
What better time to tell people about the forgiveness offered through Christ than when they are desperately confronted with their own sin and need of forgiveness and redemption or when the trivialities of life have faded into the background due to crisis? Exactly when is it appropriate to share the good news, when they are playing xbox?
Renae on January 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Is this the new Obowmaspeak?
When is it a problem for a commentator to state his opinion?
Ironic, you claim your opinion of Hume as “inappropiate” as Brit has a right to state his as he is paid to give his opinion, what republicans call “his job”.
It is known as freedom of speech.
dthorny on January 7, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Your screen name is appropriate. Life after all is just one great big party isn’t it? If it feels good do it and all that stuff.
Party on, fool.
donh525 on January 7, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Excellent. Fulfill The Great Commission, not the great suggestion.
The non-Christians don’t have a problem with freedom of speech as much as they do with Christ’s message of truth, redemption and victory….coming soon.
dthorny on January 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Oh, right. a ditch digger is such a repulisive baron of materialism. You missed the point, Socrates.
I don’t blame the christian for his desire to acquire wealth or “materials”. I simply laugh at how he honestly trys to grasp and master the relevant aspects of reality needed to achieve what christians say are his relatively minor needs like wealth and “materials” while he speaks of his most fundamental values like honesty, fidelity, compassion, etc. as based in faith (which by definition is unexplainable) in ghosts and spirits.
I don’t fault Brit for speaking out just for the fundamentally conflicting message he chooses to speak out about.
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM
The ad-hominem is such an eloquette defense of ones point, isn’t it. Another Socrates wannabe misses the point. What part of my post even remotely references hedonism? Feel free to try again.
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 10:51 AM
…”and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
”
Jesus
royzer on January 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM
I’m not sure if you’re intentionally trying to misrepresent my question or not, but I can’t really make sense of this response.
I probably wasn’t clear. When I said materialism, I didn’t mean a pursuit of wealth or material possessions, but rather a view that esteems tangible, or material over immaterial in regards to reality.
As an aside, do you believe your ad-hominems are more eloquent defenses than other people’s?
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Your screen name was my frame of reference. Sorry if you didn’t catch that.
Socrates wannabe?? WTH!
donh525 on January 7, 2010 at 11:33 AM
calling you Socrates is hardly egregious or disparaging. a bit sarcastic, maybe :o)
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 11:43 AM
ah, right, satisfying one’s own best interest and focusing on achieving one’s happiness and fulfillment is necessarily hedonistic. right. Definitely a Socrates wannabe.
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Dude, you crack me up! You spoke in a complete circle just then. LOL! nice.
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 11:48 AM
So that’s a “yes” then? :)
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM
In what way?
You seemed to imply an irony in a Christian praying to God while still digging a ditch. I took that to mean, you thought a spiritual belief system was incompatible with an interaction in a material world. (In my own round-about way, I contended that hopes for rational discourse then would be just as incompatible)
You, yourself seemed to scoff at the notion, that a ditch digger is a “materialist” (in the sense of wealth or material possessions) in response to my unclear labeling of him as a materialist.
Did you not intend him, though to be be representative of the “materialist” (behaviorily pragmatic, at least) in terms of interacting with the material world? If he’s not, then how is he the “deliciously rich” foil to a theist that you seem to imply?
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 12:00 PM
no. they’re not more eloquent just more poiniant, fun and, well, sarcastic.
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM
poignant
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM
You are Socrates. Cool. So, if you “contended that hopes for rational discourse then would be just as incompatible”,
do you, also laugh and scoff, as I do, at the faithfuls’ doublethink?
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I’m not sure that I can agree that calling me (and others) Socrates is very poignant, but I can agree to disagree on that.
I wish I could edit my previous response, because I want to take a step back.
When I refer to materialism, I meant (per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Materialism) “a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter,” not economic materialism which esteems possessions and wealth.
I detected a support of materialism in your original post. (the emphasis on the solid ground, the digging of ditches, and the danger of cars on the highway) as a contrast against the spiritual. Did I misread you?
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 12:21 PM
I can’t really answer the question. You’ve yet to establish this alleged doublethink (other than through simply your own assertions).
I would hope, though, that I wouldn’t laugh and scoff at anyone’s confusion, but would rather seek to work through the inconsistencies I saw with gracious discourse, and I would hope for the same courtesy from others.
Of course, I have my own inconsistencies there :)
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 12:28 PM
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 12:21 PM
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 12:37 PM
The first quote is exactly correct. The argument in the second depends on a strawman that simply doesn’t apply. Hume did not blame Tiger’s problems on his Buddhism.
We’re praying for you to figure this all out, AP.
applebutter on January 7, 2010 at 12:45 PM
I know I’m biased when it comes to self-evaluation, and probably way too stubborn, but I think I was closer to addressing your point than you realized. Or else, we’re probably just talking past each other.
You mention the “fundamentals” like going to work and crossing the street, and you mention that we need to “acknowledge simple facts in reality and grasp them with our faculty of reason,” but I would contend you’re appealing to something more fundamental than you realized by bringing up reason (I was trying to allude to this, though rather clumsily, with my initial post)…and, for that matter, reality.
I believe the Christian theology accounts for reason and the human capacity for it quite well, whereas a more materialistic worldview does not.
I think your initial point mis-characterizes Christianity by pitting its epistemology (I think that’s right) against (what I’m reading you to be describing) a view of empiricism. Christians don’t ignore the “fundamentals” you mention, but I would contend actually look to even more fundamental things.
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM
what could be more fundamental than reality and man’s capacity to grasp it (reason)? In the sense that christianity’s primary virtue is faith (i.e. accept without reason) I say christians impede and have contempt for our ability to grasp the fundamentals.
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 1:33 PM
This is where we reach a bit of an impasse, I think. This is the point I thought we were debating, but you seem to keep begging the question of the “fundamentals”. If this is an honest question, then I’ve already given my answer above. (at the risk of sounding Socratic, I’ve alluded to the questions of what is “reality” and what is “reason”).
If you say reality includes cars, ditches, and employment, then you’ll get no argument from the Christian. If you say the “fundamentals” end there, then you will.
You say that faith is to accept without reason, but I’d say that’s a bad definition. What you’re defining is “blind faith”…I’d say faith is to believe without seeing.
There is such a thing as well-reasoned faith, and I would contend we all rely on that on a continual basis….and many of us rely on a blind faith, habitually, as well. It’s important, though, that we don’t categorically confuse the two.
You keep appealing to reason, but so do I. I contend that Christians have a basis for appealing to reason, whereas a more materialistic worldview does not. IOW, What reason have you for esteeming reason (esp. in light of arguing for the “fundamentals” like “solid ground”)
My answer to that is that God is an eternal God who set established rules for a working cosmos. He decrees a systematic and orderly framework (logic) upon which we can take knowledge and run with it so to speak. Fortunately, He’s also a relational God who reveals truth to us so that we have solid premises from which to work reasonably.
If a transcendent framework of logic is not in place, then I would contend that version of reason is form of blind faith. If the framework is in place, however, (and I would contend it’s immaterial if it is), then it’s either eternal and self-sufficient, or it’s a created system enforced by a higher authority (or it’s not enforced, so it’s, therefore, negligible…but I’m considering that option negligible as well).
The Christian appeals to the ultimate authority of God and believes His creation adheres to the laws of logic per His design.
You may not like that answer (many people do not), but at least it is an objective, debatable answer, which (at the risk of sounding haughty) is more than many people, it seems, can articulate. You might not like my presuppositions, but I believe I at least have a reason to hold to them.
…Which is more than I could have said not too long ago. Until fairly recently, I hadn’t thought through this much, so a lot of it probably was blind faith on my part. I think that’s a common condition: it seem we presume too much in the name of “common sense,” and when other view points don’t jive with that we get frustrated easily. I got frustrated a lot, and still do, but increasingly at my own inability to articulate ideas.
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM
This is not a free speech issue; Hume can obviously express any opinion he likes. I personally thought the venue was inappropriate for an exhortation to abandon Buddhism for Christianity, and, however well-meaning, pretty arrogant of Hume to be handing out incredibly personal advice to someone he presumably doesn’t even know.
There’s a lot of irony in here too. I can just imagine the reaction if Hume had asserted that the idea of Christian forgiveness and redemption were just comforting illusions for people seeking to assuage their guilt, and told Tiger should seek tranquility elsewhere. Most of this board would frame it as a full blown attack Christianity and describe it as part of a larger effort to exile God from public life.
JM Hanes on January 7, 2010 at 2:51 PM
What if I believe without hearing? Am I excercising faith or is it my capacity to understand that pressure waves are created when that tree falls in the woods therefore irrefutably making a sound even though I did not hear it? My point is, do you mean that to believe without only your sense of sight being impinged upon is faith or do you mean a more general and figurative sense of term “seeing”.
My question is rhetorical. You can’t possibly mean the former, that would be trivial. One can obviously acquire knowledge without literally seeing what he is talking about. So, you must mean the latter which is no different than what you say is blind faith and I say is simply faith.
I love this. You seem to be very intelligent and technical yet you don’t appear to see that the question answers itself. The question itself aknowledges the need for a basis to a claim. The approach of one who values reason.
As to your answer to that question, it’s further proof that the question itself is a primary since you can’t seem to answer it with nothing other than a claim of your own. Which, by the way, is the central claim of Brits prosletyzing and our discussion- the validity of faith and therefore the validity of christianity and God.
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 3:30 PM
I’m not sure what to call your awesome sounding passages but I love to respond to them. They’re, well, rich with epistemelogical red meat.
If reality is all gods creation, then it is a consciousness that molds reality in which case reality is not objective. And without an objective reality it would be impossible to be objective. Therefore your answer is not objective. It is therefore illogical and it is therefore invalid.
How ’bout that?
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 3:52 PM
How ’bout what?
As far as I can tell, you’ve yet to really answer any of my fairly direct questions. You’ve just offered bald assertions and self-satisfied little “gotchas” built on straw men and arbitrary equivocation. If that is what you’re asking about, then I think it’s tiresome.
If you’re not looking to engage in conversation, then I think I’ve wasted my time.
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Baffling
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Part of what I think is missing in all of this talk of “free speech” and being “forbidden” to speak on certain subjects is the simple notion of appropriate venue.
There are any number of things that we are technically “free” to say, and have a “right” to say, yet this does not tell us that they should be said in every/any possible venue.
There are circumstances and contexts where it is simply inadvisable to offer certain thoughts that might leap into our head, even if those thoughts are true or justifiable.
Proper exercise of the choices to hold one’s tongue within such situations is what is often referred to as discretion.
I think the primary objection that those who are discomfited by Hume’s commentary are not questions of whether he should be forbidden from saying something of this nature, or even that he simply shouldn’t ever make such a comment (even though he is legally permitted)… it think it is instead about whether it was an appropriate venue for such a commentary.
Or at least, I know it is for me. It’s not that it’s a bizarre thought or scandalous assertion, but rather whether this was the appropriate approach to offering such personal advice in an unsolicited fashion.
VekTor on January 7, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Truly, or are you being smug?
If you are truly baffled, then I will elaborate:
I’ve tried to think through your posts, and I’ve spent time working through careful articulations of the rationale for my beliefs. I don’t think you’ve afforded me the same courtesy, and I am weary. You haven’t been engaging with me, you’ve been condescendingly dismissive of me with nearly every post.
This is a good example of a self-satisfied equivocation:
You go to great lengths to poke holes in the literal interpretation of “seeing” only to then concede that you knew all along I was being figurative. (that’s not engaging in conversation, that’s an attempt at clever showboating) You then seem to flip back to the literal translation again as it suits you to somehow prove that “faith without seeing” is the same as “blind faith.” As clever as that was, though you really seem to have tripped yourself up, because you still never really established that there’s no difference between a faith built on reasonable expectations (classic example is sitting in your trusty old chair) and a blind faith. In the end, you’re still simply asserting that it’s the case, but you’re either too clever by half, or you’re being a bit disingenuous.
That’s not engaging in conversation…it’s an attempt at a “gotcha” gained through slippy rhetoric.
You’ve yet to really answer my question about what is reality (other than what I’ve gathered to be a working definition which seems to be that which you perceive) and what it reason (similarly, I’ve gathered that’s what you think makes sense). Those aren’t objective answers, they’re an appeal to your own brand of “common sense,” and as long as that’s as far as you’re willing to go, they don’t really leave room for conversation. We all have our own flavor of common sense, but when we engage in conversation, we sometimes need to be able to peer beyond that.
You’ve responded to my question as to why you esteem reason only with a question-begging equivalent to : we esteem reason because reason is worthy of esteem. That’s not engaging in conversation…that’s a stubborn dodge, and I think a sign that you haven’t given that much thought either.
You went off on a nonsensical tangent about how a reality maintained by God cannot be objective. If that’s not equivocation proper, it’s at least a change of reference points midstream. I meant objective as in external to myself and my perceptions…contra subjective. (maybe I should be more gracious and assume you didn’t know that’s what I meant?) Ironically, in “proving” your “point” you offer no good alternative to God as the objective starting point, and so end up basically conceding that reality has no objective frame of reference. You didn’t really engage in my argument, and you’re not really allowing for discussion as there’s nowhere to go from there.
Until you’re willing to try to really think through some of the questions I’ve asked — and not just chalk them up to “common sense” or self-answering — then we’re just talking past each other here, and I though that was a waste of both our times and Hot Air’s bandwidth.
Does that take some of the bafflement away?
BlueCollarAstronaut on January 7, 2010 at 7:46 PM
thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt- yes I was truly baffled. I realize i didn’t answer all of your points specifically but I thought I was at least being engaging even if a bit flippant at times. I’m willing to stand corrected on how engaging I’ve been.
now, I would appreciate continuing this so I may show how engaging I truly can be. drop me an email at beselfish@yahoo.com
beselfish on January 7, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Just in case you decide to check back here, BCA, I’d like to offer a more engaging response to your last.
I think I may have misunderstood you way back at the beginning when you responded to my first post with,
I thought you were being a bit flippant there but looking back at our discussion I suspect you may have been honestly pointing to some irony in my post. I’m curious to know how you saw that post as being an immaterial argument and at once appealing to materialism.
In any event, within a following post you did see the general sense of what I was talking about when you wrote,
You nailed it. Yes, I was referring to that incompatibility. And since they cannot interact in the material world due to this incompatibility, to the extent that they do interact they must discard all notions of the spiritual belief system. Yet they tout the values of the system even though it is incompatible with their material world interactions (i.e. living their life). This is akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it too. It is dishonest, it’s my point of contention with Christianity (and the religious in general) and it is why I originally said it was all so deliciously rich.
beselfish on January 8, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2