How To Tell Right From Wrong

[Immanuel Can]

I have too much self-respect to get entangled in an argument with any disciple of a charlatan like Craig. Furthermore I don't give a fuck what people choose to believe because I'm a philosopher and beliefs are not a legitimate subject for philosophical enquiry.

Given your definition of a "belief," maybe yours aren't...but Christians recognize that belief is a continuum. It's true that people can have wildly irrational beliefs...like belief in unicorns and astrology, for example, but also that belief happens for every scientist, when he takes for granted that the results of an experiment he's performed 100 times will continue on try 101...which he no longer feels he has to make in order to "know" he's right. The truth is he "believes" his results...he doesn't "know" absolutely unless he does test 101, 102, 103...and so on, until the complete set of possible tests has been done.

Obviously, no science at all would get done if every scientist had to do the complete set of tests possible for every conclusion. So at some point, he/she just decides, "It's enough for a reasonable person," and quits testing. After that, he/she simply believes his/her results.

That's what Dr. Craig is talking about. And that's a kind of "belief" that every human being does every day.

But you can insist on your false dichotomy between "believe" and "know" if you want, I can't stop you.

[artisticsolution]

Not material. He can "think" all kinds of things. He can "think" whatever he/she wants. It won't change the basic law of logic known as "The Law of Non-Contradiction." Or to put it in common terms, two genuinely opposite statements cannot simultaneously be true -- they can both be false, if a third alternative is available, or two only "seeming" contradictory statements can be reconciled: but two genuinely opposite affirmations cannot both be true. It's literally impossible for that to happen.

But don't you see, you are applying LNC to 2 statements simultaneously. You can't

The paradigm case of this LNC is statements of being: as in, "I AM a woman," and "I AM a man." Not possible at the same time and in the same sense. And that doesn't even remotely depend on knowing the mind-state of the claimant in question. Whether they believe what they say or not doesn't affect the application of the LNC.

So it's not necessary for either you or me to know what Jenner thinks: It's enough that he/she/whatever has made two contradictory statements. Then the LNC takes over. We know, as certainly as we know 2+2=4, that he/she/whatever was lying at one point or the other.

But don't you see, you are applying LNC to 2 entirely different scenarios simultaneously. You can't get to a rational thought by doing that.

Here we see you using the LNC to describe the physical body of Jenner and his mind both, You are not being honest, whether you know it or not is another matter that according to God, I am not supposed to judge. “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged, since you will be judged in the same judgment that you make, and you will be measured by the same standard you apply.”

You are applying the LNC to the fact that Jenner's physical body was a man (i.e. I am man because I was in the men's Olympics".) VS. wrongly, applying the same LNC premise to an entirely new statement which is having to do with jenner's mind ( i.e. I always felt like a woman, in my mind). This is where your logic breaks down...as you have no way to know if Jenner is lying so you cannot use the LNC in this application.

And that's important, since you attribute a lot of negative stuff to what you call "Christians." So I'm asking how your sort out the real ones from the phonies, since both are certain to be included in such a broad, undefined category.

You and I both attribute negative stuff to Christians. The only difference is, you then make the judgement "they are not true christians." But you can't so this since you have no idea what is in their hearts. They might simply be emotionally or mentally handicapped and not fully aware of what they say...isn't Charity and kindness the Christian thing to do, in that case? Do you see why now I say Christians need a moral compass. If you truly knew how to tell right from wrong, your salvation would not feel threatened and you would not have the need to shun so many as "non Christians" as the non Christians you shun may not "know what they do."

Surely, in that case, God would be forgiving of them. Surely God would not be as cruel as to make them mentally handicapped and then punish them for it in a fiery hell? Common sense should tell you that he would not. Did Jesus not save the two murderous men hanging next to him on the cross? Did he not protect the adulteress by saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

They whole problem with not knowing right from wrong is it makes you vulnerable to following whatever nonsense is out there. If you truly knew right from wrong, there would be no need to be leary of anyone, as there is no danger of their misguided thoughts rubbing off on you. Don't you see? Jesus knew right from wrong. He was confident enough to lay with sinners...not only that, he went went above and beyond and extended great kindnesses. Don't you get it? Now that I have told you, you have no excuse to think otherwise. Now that you know what you do when you apply LNC as a general blanket over all as if all statements are equal, you can clearly see how misguided you have allowed your thoughts to become.

I don't need to know who is a Christian and who is a non Christian. It doesn't matter who is phony and who is not...because I know right from wrong (I have a moral compass) I can walk among all men and not lose my way. If someone says, "hey, I think it's a good idea that we shoot illegals at the border" I can say, "No, that's not a good idea and here's why." I don't have to follow them blindly...even if I happen to love them.

AS:All I know is, I can't believe anyone would lie about such a thing when it is a common held knowledge that in Christianity, lying is a sin.

IC: I'm sorry...you've lost me. "Such a thing" as what?

Here is what I mean:

"If they profess a knowledge of Jesus, that is their thing. All I know is, I can't believe anyone would lie about such a thing when it is a common held knowledge that in Christianity, lying is a sin."

I haven't seen an actual Jesus ever. God has never shown himself to me. Most Christians will tell you that without a doubt, 100% they know there is a God. And yet, Jesus said, "You don't have enough faith," Jesus told them. "I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it would move. Nothing would be impossible."

How come then, can no Christian, move a mountain? If he professes to 'know' 100% there is a God, then he should be able to move a mountain. The fact that he can't, proves he is lying, according to God.

The more honest alternative is to say, "I feel there is a God but I don't know 100%."

Now do you see why I say most Christians have a weak moral compass? Read the line above again. It is what honesty is all about.

[Immanuel Can]

Here we see you using the LNC to describe the physical body of Jenner and his mind both,

No. Not at all. In fact, I assert the opposite. Jenner could say,

a) "I am a male in my mind and a female in my mind,
or
b) I am a female in body and a male in my body...

And in either case, he would be afoul of the Law of Non-Contradiction. And that in no way is something I have to judge: the laws of logic do that work entirely apart from my opinion or yours.

...according to God, I am not supposed to judge. "Do not judge, so that you will not be judged, since you will be judged in the same judgment that you make, and you will be measured by the same standard you apply.”

Yeah, this seems to be the only verse skeptics actually know, since they quote it so often. But they don't know things like to whom Christ was speaking, or about what, or whether there was any context to his remark. They treat it as if it's some categorical imperative. Meanwhile, they completely ignore verses like Luke 12:57 -- "And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?" or John 7:24, " Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment," or John 3:18, "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Here's a more balanced view, and one that shows better reading of the passage: there are things people have no right to judge, and there are things they are positively commanded to judge. And there are things in which the "judgment" is already made by God, as in John 3. We are supposed to know the difference.

You are applying the LNC to the fact that Jenner's physical body was a man (i.e. I am man because I was in the men's Olympics".) VS. wrongly, applying the same LNC premise to an entirely new statement which is having to do with jenner's mind ( i.e. I always felt like a woman, in my mind). This is where your logic breaks down...as you have no way to know if Jenner is lying so you cannot use the LNC in this application.

You would be right if I were contrasting his MIND with his BODY. For then the terms "male" and "female" would not be being used as genuine opposites. And, of course, his mind could be deranged, and his body might be male while he's labouring under a delusion he's female. That's would be true, of course. But see my two examples above. The LNC still applies.

Either way, the point carries: namely, that a person calling himself X doesn't make him an X. And that was the only important issue there. Because what we were talking about what whether when a man or woman calls himself/herself a "Christian" we ought to take that at face value, and never question it.

You and I both attribute negative stuff to Christians. The only difference is, you then make the judgement "they are not true christians."

No, I don't. I simply apply the exact test specified by Christ Himself, namely to "know them by their fruits." And I don't force you to your conclusion: I just point out that if someone says "I'm Christian" but behaves in wildly unchristian ways, there's no compulsion on your part to believe he's telling the truth. And that seems perfectly fair, but the standard given us by Christ Himself.

Did Jesus not save the two murderous men hanging next to him on the cross?

No: read it, and you'll see he saved only the one who expressed faith in Him.

Did he not protect the adulteress by saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Apparently not: modern scholarship shows that particular incident was not part of the original manuscript tradition, but was rather a late addition. Again, any good scholar will tell you that immediately. Hey, even a good study Bible would tell you that in the margin. Check it out, if you don't believe me.

They whole problem with not knowing right from wrong is it makes you vulnerable to following whatever nonsense is out there....I know right from wrong (I have a moral compass) I can walk among all men and not lose my way. If someone says, "hey, I think it's a good idea that we shoot illegals at the border" I can say, "No, that's not a good idea and here's why."

I agree. That's why atheists are in such trouble. Intuitively, they often DO know right from wrong. And they feel upset by injustice and cruelty. But absent any account of objective morality, they simply can't explain to themselves or come to know WHY it's right or wrong. So they do right sometimes, but can't tell you why it's really "right"; and others have feelings of guilt, but no ready diagnosis of why they feel that way. So it's kind of a sad scenario, really.

I agree that atheists do have a "moral compass." But it has no objective "North" on it. After all, for them, all values are merely relative. Consequently, they can never be certain why they are obliged to follow that compass at all. I'm grateful that many of them follow it blindly anyway, but I worry that they have no objective way of knowing...or proving to themselves...that their moral compass is pointing them right. How durable can such unthinking commitments really be?

If they profess a knowledge of Jesus, that is their thing. All I know is, I can't believe anyone would lie about such a thing when it is a common held knowledge that in Christianity, lying is a sin.

So what evidence do you have that they are lying? You've already said above that you don't like Christ's test, namely "by their fruits you shall know them," and you have already decried "judgmental" people...so what do you have left, that will allow you to condemn them as liars?

How come then, can no Christian, move a mountain? If he professes to 'know' 100% there is a God, then he should be able to move a mountain. The fact that he can't, proves he is lying, according to God.

It's funny that skeptics become such literalists sometimes. Have you never heard of a hyperbole? Or a metaphor? Or a figure of speech? Would you also take literally Christ's statement that Pharisees can "swallow a camel"? Surely not: so why not consider the possibility that a figure of speech is being used there?

The more honest alternative is to say, "I feel there is a God but I don't know 100%."

That would be more honest IF they genuinely have no experience of God. Then, yes, you would be right. But you'd have to know that for sure in order to posit the problem. So do you know?

Yet who is judging people's hearts now? Not me, but you it would seem. You believe they are liars; and they can only be liars if they are not telling the truth. You must be assuming they have no such experience, and thus can have no certainty.

So do you want to be able to judge or not? If "judge not" is the only rule, you've just run afoul of it yourself, by judging Christians to be liars. May I gently suggest that perhaps that's because your view of that rule was never any good in the first place?

[artisticsolution]

Here we see you using the LNC to describe the physical body of Jenner and his mind both,

No. Not at all. In fact, I assert the opposite. Jenner could say,

a) "I am a male in my mind and a female in my mind,
or
b) I am a female in body and a male in my body...

There is no such thing as a 'female or male' mind. The LNC can't work on the mind as the mind is not a physical thing, there is no way to know if a person knows his own mind much less anothers.

So you can only use the LNC on scenerio B.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I have too much self-respect to get entangled in an argument with any disciple of a charlatan like Craig. Furthermore I don't give a fuck what people choose to believe because I'm a philosopher and beliefs are not a legitimate subject for philosophical enquiry.

Agreed, "Believe" is what desperate people do; it what happens when you can't know, and are incapable of accepting "don't know" as an answer.
Worse still, "believe" is what people do in response to meaningless questions. Philosophy enables us to unpack questions from their false assumptions, rendering stupid questions, like "why me" or "who created me" utterly useless.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as a 'female or male' mind. The LNC can't work on the mind as the mind is not a physical thing, there is no way to know if a person knows his own mind much less anothers.

So you can only use the LNC on scenerio B.

Untrue. We don't need to know his mind at all. Let's just accept everything he says.

His two statements -- taken at their own face value, and even if we believe him entirely -- are sufficient to show contradiction. He doesn't even stay faithful to himself in making them, and that is the clearest logical indicator anyone is ever going to give you of a fallacy in his thinking. We don't need to judge at all. He judges himself a liar either in his claim to be genuinely female or on his prior claim to be genuinely male.

We don't even have to question whether Jenner himself meant "physically" or "mentally" in each case, since presumably he took his claim to be genuine in both cases, if we give him the benefit of all doubts.

The fact is that the genuine Jenner (no matter what we understand that to be) can only be one of the two.

Let's put it in syllogism.

BJ designated himself male for athletics.
He is genuinely what he designated.
Therefore, he did not lie.

or

BJ designated himself male for athetics.
But BJ is genuinely female, not male.
Therefore, he lied.


But let us leave that aside; for it is only an illustration. Let us instead turn to the point in hand.

I have claimed that there are two types of "Christian": people who live up to the name, and people who merely claim it. Perhaps I can ask you: do you seriously doubt it? I don't think you do; and I'll tell you why. You claim some are "liars"...which is your assessment, not one I made for you. If some are "liars" then there must be some truth to be had, against which they are offending. And there is. So I think you are compelling yourself to the conclusion that it is quite possible for someone to be an inauthentic Christian (i.e. a "liar," if you prefer) and in this, it seems, you entirely agree with my suggestion.

The remaining question is merely this: is there such a thing as a "genuine" Christian? I think you would assert there is not, and I would insist there is. So perhaps you should spell out why you would have reason to think there is no such thing as a "genuine" Christian...if indeed, that is your position.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The remaining question is merely this: is there such a thing as a "genuine" Christian? I think you would assert there is not, and I would insist there is. So perhaps you should spell out why you would have reason to think there is no such thing as a "genuine" Christian...if indeed, that is your position.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

[artisticsolution]

Immanuel,

If someone says they are Christians I have no reason to doubt them. Just as if someone says they are Muslim I would not have a reason to doubt them.

My question is, why do you?

[Immanuel Can]

Easy.

If someone says, "I'm a ballerina," or "I'm a jockey," or "I'm a professional footballer," you have one reason to believe them -- their word. But you'd be silly to stop there, wouldn't you? For if, in the first case they were male, or in the second if they were tall, or in the third if they were clearly out of shape, you would have every reason to raise an eyebrow at their claim. In fact, you'd be silly not to.

People claim to be many things...but not all of them are true. In fact, that's so obvious that we might well have to ask ourselves why would it even be necessary to make that case. But in the case of Christians, we have the additional incentive from the Founder of the group positively inviting us to examine the validity of any claim of association between Him and particular people, and positively enjoining it as a duty upon all Christians to be skeptical of mere claims of association.

So a) it's common sense, b) it's something people are generally invited to do by the Founder, and c) it's an actual prescribed duty to do for all Christians.

Au contraire, we might well ask why, under those circumstances, anyone would even doubt the necessity of testing people's claims to be Christian.

[artisticsolution]

Easy.

If someone says, "I'm a ballerina," or "I'm a jockey," or "I'm a professional footballer," you have one reason to believe them -- their word. But you'd be silly to stop there, wouldn't you? For if, in the first case they were male, or in the second if they were tall, or in the third if they were clearly out of shape, you would have every reason to raise an eyebrow at their claim. In fact, you'd be silly not to.

People claim to be many things...but not all of them are true. In fact, that's so obvious that we might well have to ask ourselves why would it even be necessary to make that case. But in the case of Christians, we have the additional incentive from the Founder of the group positively inviting us to examine the validity of any claim of association between Him and particular people, and positively enjoining it as a duty upon all Christians to be skeptical of mere claims of association.

So a) it's common sense, b) it's something people are generally invited to do by the Founder, and c) it's an actual prescribed duty to do for all Christians.

Au contraire, we might well ask why, under those circumstances, anyone would even doubt the necessity of testing people's claims to be Christian.

I believe every human sins, including Christians. So by your criteria, no one is a ' genuine Christian'.

We have had this discussion many times under your other name...I forget what it is, at the moment. You're from Australia, right?

[Immanuel Can]

I believe every human sins, including Christians. So by your criteria, no one is a ' genuine Christian'.

Wow. Are you ever an all-or-nothing thinker.

No, not so. But you can look at each individual action done by a person and say, "Was that a Christian thing to do."

Not only that, but a habitual pattern of non-Christian behaviour is a Christ-approved indicator that their claim of association with Him is insincere. Aristotle says the same thing about "the good man": namely, that it should be judged on his habitual actions, not merely his occasional lapses.

And that seems fair. After all, we would judge a person's claim to be a pro-footballer or a jockey with relative degrees of certainty too, right? Some people might make the claim plausibly...some less plausibly...and some with no plausibility at all. And if we saw him/her playing pro-football or riding a racehorse, and knew that that was his/her actual profession or habitual activity, then the question would be nicely settled.

We have had this discussion many times under your other name...I forget what it is, at the moment. You're from Australia, right?

No, and nope. This is my first conversation with you...ever, so far as I can recall. But you've met someone with similar views, you say?

[uwot]

Wow. Are you ever an all-or-nothing thinker.

Tell me, Immanuel Can, does your brand of Christianity recognise irony?

And that seems fair. After all, we would judge a person's claim to be a pro-footballer or a jockey with relative degrees of certainty too, right? Some people might make the claim plausibly...some less plausibly...and some with no plausibility at all. And if we saw him/her playing pro-football or riding a racehorse, and knew that that was his/her actual profession or habitual activity, then the question would be nicely settled.

So what level of competence must one achieve to be considered your sort of Christian? Will those who try and fail be condemned to the same tortuous future as those of us who don't even try? Consider this, Immanuel Can: when you die, should you find yourself in a place populated by souls that never challenge you, will you believe you were in heaven?

[Obvious Leo]

It's true that people can have wildly irrational beliefs...like belief in unicorns and astrology, for example,

You reckon belief in a corporeal resurrection is more rational than a belief in unicorns or astrology? You might want to consider having your medication adjusted.

but also that belief happens for every scientist, when he takes for granted that the results of an experiment he's performed 100 times will continue on try 101...which he no longer feels he has to make in order to "know" he's right. The truth is he "believes" his results...he doesn't "know" absolutely

'"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"... Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Stay in your own sandbox, pal, because there isn't a scientist in the world who doesn't know that his own theories are nothing more than working hypotheses until something better comes along.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Immanuel, I am trying to keep this simple because you are all over the place . Sorry if you think I am all or nothing. My views are very complicated and it is hard for some people to follow along so I try to strive for clarity by keeping it simple.

I am trying to get a clear picture of what you are saying. Please read my first post...the theme of this thread again because I think you are getting confused.

No, not so. But you can look at each individual action done by a person and say, "Was that a Christian thing to do."

Ah....so now you agree with my theme of how to tell right from wrong if you are a Christian. Who better to know you than God? Would you not agree that he knows us better than we know ourselves? Would you agree that he knows EVERYTHING about us? So, when you think or say something, and you imagine yourself in front of God saying the same thing, would you tell him with pride or would you hesitate? I think for any Christian this test of their motives is a simple no brainer. Why are you fighting me so hard?

Not only that, but a habitual pattern of non-Christian behaviour is a Christ-approved indicator that their claim of association with Him is insincere. Aristotle says the same thing about "the good man": namely, that it should be judged on his habitual actions, not merely his occasional lapses.

So now you agree that, Christian's have occasional lapses. lol...So how can you tell if someone is 'good'then? You would have to know them a pretty long time to know their 'habitual actions.' Are you saying you have God's power to know EVERYTHING about them?

And that seems fair. After all, we would judge a person's claim to be a pro-footballer or a jockey with relative degrees of certainty too, right? Some people might make the claim plausibly...some less plausibly...and some with no plausibility at all. And if we saw him/her playing pro-football or riding a racehorse, and knew that that was his/her actual profession or habitual activity, then the question would be nicely settled.

What do I care if someone is a true Christian or not? To quote Jefferson "It neither pick my pockets nor breaks my legs." If they tell me they are Christian, I will take the at their word. Even you admit now that you can't know it they are 'good' until you watch their habitual actions. What are you so afraid of if a person is lying to you that they are not a true Christian? What business is that of yours?

[Arising_uk]

...

That's what Dr. Craig is talking about. And that's a kind of "belief" that every human being does every day.

But you can insist on your false dichotomy between "believe" and "know" if you want, I can't stop you.

So go ahead, tell me what experiment this Dr Craig proposes to demonstrate the existence of 'God' in the same way that your scientist's experiment works to demonstrate to me the phenomena he believes he's noted?