Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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.
The thing about hypocrisy is that the God hater spots it with ease”
Yeah, the GOD LOVERS are pretty good at spottin’ it in the God Haters, too. Maybe better.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Sure heaven will be full of hypocrites, so will hell. My point is that we are all hypocrites to some degree and pointing out that someone else is a hypocrite is, well, hypocritical.
Besides being a hypocrite does not make you right or wrong – It makes you a hypocrite.
I dont agree with a lot of Hucks polocies, but I personally think this stunt showed creativity and a bit of nerve. And yes, it was hypocritical – so what?
jman on January 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
This article and Ex-tex (and some others) implicate Allahpundit as a God hater and I don’t believe thats the case.
Yeah, I dunno that the term God-hater is fair. I would probably reserve that kind of thing for an aggro anti-theist, which would almost inevitably be met with a sneering “I can’t hate what doesn’t exist!” Whatever.
I have been a committed Republican since before I was old enough to vote. I strongly believe that the Republicans (generally) are the only party that can be trusted with National Defense and to Protect our Free Market economy.
However, when a charlatan whose only credential is a verbal adeptness at quoting the bible is elevated to the lead in the Republican primary, I question why I identify with this party. I will never vote Democrat, but perhaps it is time to find a third alternative.
America is not a theocracy and someone who is a moron on policy, a dishonest charlatan and thoroughly corrupt should not be elevated because he thumps the bible in time to his speeches.
The fact that this idiot can even poll this well shows that the Republican party is in big trouble.
I thought you might like to clarify that although there are those who quickly place anyone who disagrees with their religion in the God hater category.
Yeah, I dunno that the term God-hater is fair. I would probably reserve that kind of thing for an aggro anti-theist, which would almost inevitably be met with a sneering “I can’t hate what doesn’t exist!” Whatever.
God-Hater: Somebody who believes God exists, and hates him/her/it (peculiar, since if an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being does exist, he/she/it is the last thing I’d like to be on cross terms with).
I’m far from innocent as far as mischaracterising people is concerned, but let’s not get mired down with inflammatory generalizations here. A “God-Hater” is, by definition, a Satanist. I don’t see how Satanism is involved in the above article.
/pedantry revoked.
thejackal on January 1, 2008 at 2:16 PM
What is a “god hater”?
Shouldn’t everyone who believes in God be a “god hater”? Fear and love are closer to hate than indifference and scorn are closer to hate.
Contempt has a lot to do with it, too, but my contempt is for those who believe in God. Contempt with a little pity thrown in.
As far as hypocrisy is concerned, one thing I’ve learned from reading conservative blogs is that hypocrisy is a universal trait and we all have it to some degree. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that most conservatives are smart enough to recognize it in themselves. Most liberals, on the other hand, are so enamored of every one of their pure, good, noble, thoughts being the absolute only correct way to think that they can contradict themselves in the same sentence and then get offended when their contradictions are pointed out to them.
Maybe I’m thinking of cognitive dissociation.
Jaynie59 on January 1, 2008 at 2:32 PM
cognitive dissociation.
Jaynie59 on January 1, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I thought it was “cognitive dissonance.”
OOPS! More pedantry.
thejackal on January 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that most conservatives are smart enough to recognize it in themselves. Most liberals, on the other hand, are so enamored of every one of their pure, good, noble, thoughts being the absolute only correct way to think that they can contradict themselves in the same sentence and then get offended when their contradictions are pointed out to them.
Like I’ve said before, all humans try to control their emotions with logic, some are successful, others are liberals.
Hold on there son, my comment had NOTHIN’ to do with Allah. I don’t consider Allah a God Hater at all, just a misguided atheist(kiddin’).
MY comment was directed at the DemLib God Haters who are SO QUICK to point out hypocrisy in anyone with a moral compass at all.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I am glad there is more of us Christians who are opposed to Huck.
Ex-tec, Interesting site.
Have you thought of using your HA user name as a way to drive more people to take a look at your site?
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM
However, when a charlatan whose only credential is a verbal adeptness at quoting the bible is elevated to the lead in the Republican primary, I question why I identify with this party. I will never vote Democrat, but perhaps it is time to find a third alternative.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I agree with ya, big time. And I am an evangelical Christian.
A Huckabee nomination would be very scary.
America is not a theocracy and someone who is a moron on policy, a dishonest charlatan and thoroughly corrupt should not be elevated because he thumps the bible in time to his speeches.
The fact that this idiot can even poll this well shows that the Republican party is in big trouble.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Again, I agree with ya. The Huckabee movement does not bode well for the GOP. As a Christian, I am not impressed with somebody who throws a few Bible verses at me.
As a Christian, I do not want a theocracy at all. The Bible clearly speaks of 2 Kingdoms, and any professing Christian who tries to conflate both Kingdoms into one is really scary.
I had previously thought Ex-tex, and not Al was the author of the article.
My bad.
I have got to stop keeping multiple IE tabs open on the top.
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM
If there was an omniscient and omnipotent god I don’t think anyone would hate it.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I disagree completely. Suppose God is all knowing and all powerful. Does that mean you’ll understand what God understands? Much of mankind is involved with the desire to know everything that others know.
Theologically speaking it’s how sin entered the world. These days it’s the New York Times printing classified information that could damage our chances at fighting terrorism. It’s the idea that the government is evil because it has secrets.
Our government isn’t all powerful or all knowing, but it is hated for being too powerful and too knowing.
Even if you include the prerequisite that God is omniscient, omnipotent and absolutely Good, people with limited cognitive abilities will still judge God and will be unable to rationalize that God is ultimately Good and will find some complaint.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Even if you include the prerequisite that God is omniscient, omnipotent and absolutely Good,
What you just describe is a paradox. If God is OMNIPOTENT, then he is all powerful and by definition is the cause of everything. EVERYTHING, that means good evil and neutral.
Your mythical God may be Omnipotent or he may be “Good” but it is absolutely paradoxical that both could occur. In fact, if your God is OMNIPOTENT, then EVIL can’t exist unless your god created it.
Of course it is all irrelevent, because God was created by man, primarily due to our all too pervasive fear of death.
Of course it is all irrelevent, because God was created by man, primarily due to our all too pervasive fear of death.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Yes, I know you believe this, but if nothing happens after death then how is that frightening?
What you just describe is a paradox. If God is OMNIPOTENT, then he is all powerful and by definition is the cause of everything. EVERYTHING, that means good evil and neutral.
Not exactly, though I will try to keep from having an argument about semantics. I was sick of those back in high school.
Omnipotent literally means all powerful. This means that an omnipotent god CAN do everything. God CAN be evil. This doesn’t mean that God will be evil.
Christians answer the question of evil with free will, and I’ve never heard a convincing argument that would strike that one down.
Besides, the word paradox means: something that appears contradictory but could be true, which just goes back to my point that humans are not as intelligent as an omnipotent god.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM
That is a meaning of paradox, however, this is the definition that applies for the context I used:
b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
In order to be all powerful or OMNIPOTENT, God has to be the cause of all effects. If God is the only cause, then there is no Free Will. If we have Free Will, then God can’t be the cause for every effect, ergo, he is not Omnipotent.
I want to test more smiles, ignore below this line:
That is a meaning of paradox, however, this is the definition that applies for the context I used:
I understand that you were using the less commonly used definition of the word, but I like how all of the others relate to my point.
In order to be all powerful or OMNIPOTENT, God has to be the cause of all effects
That simply isn’t true.
Just because a person has power over everything, it doesn’t mean that person will necessarily exert that power over everything.
For instance, I have a cat, and I’m must bigger than she is. Though she has teeth and claws, I can easily physically overpower her. Just because I choose not harm her doesn’t mean I can’t. I haven’t lost that power just because I choose not to use it.
The argument isn’t that God is Good and thus cannot cause people to lose free will. The argument is that God can take away free will but chooses not to do so, something that has nothing to do with being Good.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:56 PM
It’s even more dangerous to have multiple IM windows open and active conversations occuring simultaneously.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Haha hehe.
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Omnipotent literally means all powerful. This means that an omnipotent god CAN do everything. God CAN be evil. This doesn’t mean that God will be evil.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM
You are correct in understanding that the main issue is defining key terms.
Christians answer the question of evil with free will, and I’ve never heard a convincing argument that would strike that one down.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Besides, the word paradox means: some
thing that appears contradictory but could be true, which just goes back to my point that humans are not as intelligent as an omnipotent god.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM
The philosophical issue should be:
are there any contradictions present in any given system?
If so, then the system itself should be rejected. But I believe you are correct in pointing out that paradox is different from contradiction.
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Me personally? I myself do not use this free will defense.
I was going to ask what your philosophy is, but since your link is to a book and I know you’re well educated and intelligent, I can’t imagine the answer would be simple enough to fit into this headline thread.
Plus, I’m sure you’ve answered the question before. I try to read your posts, but they’re often too complex to digest when I’m at work. And though I’m on today, I rarely get online when I’m home.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Plus, I’m sure you’ve answered the question before. I try to read your posts, but they’re often too complex to digest when I’m at work.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Thanks.
I have benefitted from reading your posts as well.
I am trying to work on the “complexity” angle. I believe that the best thinkers are also the best writers. That is why I read a lot of Gordon Haddon Clark and Carl F. Henry.
They are great Christian thinkers, but they also write extremely well.
Unfortunately, I do not share their qualities…
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I was going to ask what your philosophy is,
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 6:34 PM
I think one’s view of metaphysics should influence one’s view of human nature, doctrine of man, and whether or not man has libertarian free will or not.
I think Arminians, emergant church crowd, Catholics, etc would argue in favor of man possessing “free will” of the full-blown libertarian sort.
There are different, competing accounts or versions of “free will.” My conviction that man is totally depraved causes me to disagree with the above viewpoints. Like Allahpundit, I possess a cynical, negative view of human nature. I do believe in some sort of determinism as pertaining to metaphysics.
But it is crucial to realize that determinism is compatible with free will. However, determinism (of the variety that I am advocating) is not compatible with full-blown libertarian free will. I strongly disagree with the determinism advocated by the naturalist camp. I disagree with full-blown libertarian free will (not to be confused with “economics libertarianism” which is a totally different subject) simply because it causes a lot of theological problems.
In short, I believe that compatibilistist free will is the best explanation of human nature.
The following book is recommended because it provides a helpful, brief, easy to understand overview of the free will vs determinism debate, even though it also touches on predestination which is not the subject here.
Of course it is all irrelevent, because God was created by man, primarily due to our all too pervasive fear of death.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Yes, I know believe you believe think this, but if nothing happens after death then how is that frightening?
You see ColtsFan,
Non-believers do not believe. ( I know that sounds obvious) They know what they know and then they have may have theories on matters which they have yet to know the answer.
Believers on the other hand do indeed believe, this requires a thing called faith, the definition of which is to believe in something that you have no evidence to support.
There is a fundamental difference between the mind that can believe in sorcery, astrology, alchemy, and the supernatural and the mind that uses the scientific method.
In his Introduction to G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, Philip Yancey wrote:
When the London Times asked a number of writers for essays on the topic “What’s Wrong with the World?” Chesterton sent in the reply shortest and most to the point:
Dear Sirs:
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton
I think the most fundamental thing the Bible states about the beginning of evil is that it had its origin in the desire of creatures, whether angel or man, to no longer be a creature, but instead to be the Creator.
Evil is not a “thing” or an abstract idea. Evil came from the destruction of a relationship; specifically, a relationship with God.
Another Englishman, C. S. Lewis, called this pride and labeled it The Great Sin.
According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.
Lewis goes on to say:
Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity – it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.
To get back to hypocrisy: hypocrisy is not just saying one thing and doing another, because we all may have ideals we aspire to and we realize we fall short. Hypocrisy also implies that I have ideals and standards and I achieve them, when everyone knows full well this is not true. Hypocrisy is another facet of pride.
INC on January 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM
TheSitRep, that is an old doctrinally liberal definition of faith. Unfortunately, it has been repeated so often in the last 100 years that it is believed to be the definition by both believers and non-believers as well.
While I haven’t read his works (only about him), I think your understanding of Christian faith may actually be closer to Kirkegaard’s idea of faith—that of making a “leap” of faith without basis in the rational world–rather than the Christian idea of faith–that of trusting in God who has made Himself known and given us reason to believe in Him.
INC on January 1, 2008 at 11:27 PM
You see ColtsFan,
Non-believers do not believe. ( I know that sounds obvious) They know what they know and then they have may have theories on matters which they have yet to know the answer.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM
The SiteRep,
I think Esthier, not me, was the one who made the quote.
Yes, I know you believe this, but if nothing happens after death then how is that frightening?
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Yeah, the GOD LOVERS are pretty good at spottin’ it in the God Haters, too. Maybe better.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM
With the Huckster’s hypocrisy, anybody that’s paying attention spots it with ease.
ReubenJCogburn on January 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Sure heaven will be full of hypocrites, so will hell. My point is that we are all hypocrites to some degree and pointing out that someone else is a hypocrite is, well, hypocritical.
Besides being a hypocrite does not make you right or wrong – It makes you a hypocrite.
I dont agree with a lot of Hucks polocies, but I personally think this stunt showed creativity and a bit of nerve. And yes, it was hypocritical – so what?
jman on January 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
This article and Ex-tex (and some others) implicate Allahpundit as a God hater and I don’t believe thats the case.
Speakup on January 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Yeah, I dunno that the term God-hater is fair. I would probably reserve that kind of thing for an aggro anti-theist, which would almost inevitably be met with a sneering “I can’t hate what doesn’t exist!” Whatever.
Bad Candy on January 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Hold on there son, my comment had NOTHIN’ to do with Allah. I don’t consider Allah a God Hater at all, just a misguided atheist(kiddin’).
MY comment was directed at the DemLib God Haters who are SO QUICK to point out hypocrisy in anyone with a moral compass at all.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
All are quick to pull the splinter out of the eye of his “brother”–the writer of that post and me too.
baldilocks on January 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I have been a committed Republican since before I was old enough to vote. I strongly believe that the Republicans (generally) are the only party that can be trusted with National Defense and to Protect our Free Market economy.
However, when a charlatan whose only credential is a verbal adeptness at quoting the bible is elevated to the lead in the Republican primary, I question why I identify with this party. I will never vote Democrat, but perhaps it is time to find a third alternative.
America is not a theocracy and someone who is a moron on policy, a dishonest charlatan and thoroughly corrupt should not be elevated because he thumps the bible in time to his speeches.
The fact that this idiot can even poll this well shows that the Republican party is in big trouble.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I thought you might like to clarify that although there are those who quickly place anyone who disagrees with their religion in the God hater category.
Yeah, I agree.
Speakup on January 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM
WARNING: PEDANTRY AHEAD
Huck, clearly, is a hypocrite.
God-Hater: Somebody who believes God exists, and hates him/her/it (peculiar, since if an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being does exist, he/she/it is the last thing I’d like to be on cross terms with).
I’m far from innocent as far as mischaracterising people is concerned, but let’s not get mired down with inflammatory generalizations here. A “God-Hater” is, by definition, a Satanist. I don’t see how Satanism is involved in the above article.
/pedantry revoked.
thejackal on January 1, 2008 at 2:16 PM
What is a “god hater”?
Shouldn’t everyone who believes in God be a “god hater”? Fear and love are closer to hate than indifference and scorn are closer to hate.
Contempt has a lot to do with it, too, but my contempt is for those who believe in God. Contempt with a little pity thrown in.
As far as hypocrisy is concerned, one thing I’ve learned from reading conservative blogs is that hypocrisy is a universal trait and we all have it to some degree. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that most conservatives are smart enough to recognize it in themselves. Most liberals, on the other hand, are so enamored of every one of their pure, good, noble, thoughts being the absolute only correct way to think that they can contradict themselves in the same sentence and then get offended when their contradictions are pointed out to them.
Maybe I’m thinking of cognitive dissociation.
Jaynie59 on January 1, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I thought it was “cognitive dissonance.”
OOPS! More pedantry.
thejackal on January 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Like I’ve said before, all humans try to control their emotions with logic, some are successful, others are liberals.
Speakup on January 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Unfortunately Iowans aren’t in the category of those paying attention.
davenp35 on January 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM
If there was an omniscient and omnipotent god I don’t think anyone would hate it.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I am glad there is more of us Christians who are opposed to Huck.
Ex-tec, Interesting site.
Have you thought of using your HA user name as a way to drive more people to take a look at your site?
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I agree with ya, big time. And I am an evangelical Christian.
A Huckabee nomination would be very scary.
Again, I agree with ya. The Huckabee movement does not bode well for the GOP. As a Christian, I am not impressed with somebody who throws a few Bible verses at me.
As a Christian, I do not want a theocracy at all. The Bible clearly speaks of 2 Kingdoms, and any professing Christian who tries to conflate both Kingdoms into one is really scary.
As a Christian, I want a GOP candidate who is strongly opposed to eliminating the God-ordained, Biblical distinctions between the city of man and the city of God. Huck confuses the two and quotes the Bible when he makes left-wing comments by appealing to unbiblical notions of “compassion.”
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM
How’d ya find it?
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I’m interested now – Is it this one?
nailinmyeye on January 1, 2008 at 4:22 PM
How’d You find it???
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Google: “Ex-Tex”
nailinmyeye on January 1, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I mean, um, magick…
nailinmyeye on January 1, 2008 at 4:32 PM
No Sh*t. Well. it’s all ‘magick’ to me.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I apologize for the confusion.
I had previously thought Ex-tex, and not Al was the author of the article.
My bad.
I have got to stop keeping multiple IE tabs open on the top.
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM
I disagree completely. Suppose God is all knowing and all powerful. Does that mean you’ll understand what God understands? Much of mankind is involved with the desire to know everything that others know.
Theologically speaking it’s how sin entered the world. These days it’s the New York Times printing classified information that could damage our chances at fighting terrorism. It’s the idea that the government is evil because it has secrets.
Our government isn’t all powerful or all knowing, but it is hated for being too powerful and too knowing.
Even if you include the prerequisite that God is omniscient, omnipotent and absolutely Good, people with limited cognitive abilities will still judge God and will be unable to rationalize that God is ultimately Good and will find some complaint.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM
What you just describe is a paradox. If God is OMNIPOTENT, then he is all powerful and by definition is the cause of everything. EVERYTHING, that means good evil and neutral.
Your mythical God may be Omnipotent or he may be “Good” but it is absolutely paradoxical that both could occur. In fact, if your God is OMNIPOTENT, then EVIL can’t exist unless your god created it.
Of course it is all irrelevent, because God was created by man, primarily due to our all too pervasive fear of death.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 5:11 PM
It’s even more dangerous to have multiple IM windows open and active conversations occuring simultaneously.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Hot Air has smilies?
hehe!!!
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Yes, I know you believe this, but if nothing happens after death then how is that frightening?
Not exactly, though I will try to keep from having an argument about semantics. I was sick of those back in high school.
Omnipotent literally means all powerful. This means that an omnipotent god CAN do everything. God CAN be evil. This doesn’t mean that God will be evil.
Christians answer the question of evil with free will, and I’ve never heard a convincing argument that would strike that one down.
Besides, the word paradox means: something that appears contradictory but could be true, which just goes back to my point that humans are not as intelligent as an omnipotent god.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM
That is a meaning of paradox, however, this is the definition that applies for the context I used:
b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Paradox
Paradox #2:
In order to be all powerful or OMNIPOTENT, God has to be the cause of all effects. If God is the only cause, then there is no Free Will. If we have Free Will, then God can’t be the cause for every effect, ergo, he is not Omnipotent.
I want to test more smiles, ignore below this line:
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 1, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I understand that you were using the less commonly used definition of the word, but I like how all of the others relate to my point.
That simply isn’t true.
Just because a person has power over everything, it doesn’t mean that person will necessarily exert that power over everything.
For instance, I have a cat, and I’m must bigger than she is. Though she has teeth and claws, I can easily physically overpower her. Just because I choose not harm her doesn’t mean I can’t. I haven’t lost that power just because I choose not to use it.
The argument isn’t that God is Good and thus cannot cause people to lose free will. The argument is that God can take away free will but chooses not to do so, something that has nothing to do with being Good.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Haha hehe.
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM
You are correct in understanding that the main issue is defining key terms.
You are also correct that many Christians (not all) do utilize effectively the “free will defense.”
The free will defense is used effectively by many Christians, notably free will “theists” or Catholics.
Me personally? I myself do not use this free will defense.
There are other philosophical avenues that solve the “problem of evil” without having to embrace the metaphysics that lies behind the Christian free will argument.
The philosophical issue should be:
are there any contradictions present in any given system?
If so, then the system itself should be rejected. But I believe you are correct in pointing out that paradox is different from contradiction.
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I was going to ask what your philosophy is, but since your link is to a book and I know you’re well educated and intelligent, I can’t imagine the answer would be simple enough to fit into this headline thread.
Plus, I’m sure you’ve answered the question before. I try to read your posts, but they’re often too complex to digest when I’m at work. And though I’m on today, I rarely get online when I’m home.
Esthier on January 1, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Thanks.
I have benefitted from reading your posts as well.
I am trying to work on the “complexity” angle. I believe that the best thinkers are also the best writers. That is why I read a lot of Gordon Haddon Clark and Carl F. Henry.
They are great Christian thinkers, but they also write extremely well.
Unfortunately, I do not share their qualities…
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I think one’s view of metaphysics should influence one’s view of human nature, doctrine of man, and whether or not man has libertarian free will or not.
I think Arminians, emergant church crowd, Catholics, etc would argue in favor of man possessing “free will” of the full-blown libertarian sort.
There are different, competing accounts or versions of “free will.” My conviction that man is totally depraved causes me to disagree with the above viewpoints. Like Allahpundit, I possess a cynical, negative view of human nature. I do believe in some sort of determinism as pertaining to metaphysics.
But it is crucial to realize that determinism is compatible with free will. However, determinism (of the variety that I am advocating) is not compatible with full-blown libertarian free will. I strongly disagree with the determinism advocated by the naturalist camp. I disagree with full-blown libertarian free will (not to be confused with “economics libertarianism” which is a totally different subject) simply because it causes a lot of theological problems.
In short, I believe that compatibilistist free will is the best explanation of human nature.
The following book is recommended because it provides a helpful, brief, easy to understand overview of the free will vs determinism debate, even though it also touches on predestination which is not the subject here.
http://www.amazon.com/Predestination-Free-Will-Sovereignty-Freedom/dp/0877845670
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 9:59 PM
You see ColtsFan,
Non-believers do not believe. ( I know that sounds obvious) They know what they know and then they have may have theories on matters which they have yet to know the answer.
Believers on the other hand do indeed believe, this requires a thing called faith, the definition of which is to believe in something that you have no evidence to support.
There is a fundamental difference between the mind that can believe in sorcery, astrology, alchemy, and the supernatural and the mind that uses the scientific method.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM
In his Introduction to G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, Philip Yancey wrote:
I think the most fundamental thing the Bible states about the beginning of evil is that it had its origin in the desire of creatures, whether angel or man, to no longer be a creature, but instead to be the Creator.
Evil is not a “thing” or an abstract idea. Evil came from the destruction of a relationship; specifically, a relationship with God.
Another Englishman, C. S. Lewis, called this pride and labeled it The Great Sin.
Lewis goes on to say:
To get back to hypocrisy: hypocrisy is not just saying one thing and doing another, because we all may have ideals we aspire to and we realize we fall short. Hypocrisy also implies that I have ideals and standards and I achieve them, when everyone knows full well this is not true. Hypocrisy is another facet of pride.
INC on January 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM
TheSitRep, that is an old doctrinally liberal definition of faith. Unfortunately, it has been repeated so often in the last 100 years that it is believed to be the definition by both believers and non-believers as well.
While I haven’t read his works (only about him), I think your understanding of Christian faith may actually be closer to Kirkegaard’s idea of faith—that of making a “leap” of faith without basis in the rational world–rather than the Christian idea of faith–that of trusting in God who has made Himself known and given us reason to believe in Him.
INC on January 1, 2008 at 11:27 PM
The SiteRep,
I think Esthier, not me, was the one who made the quote.
But I appreciate your comment anyway.
ColtsFan on January 1, 2008 at 11:28 PM