Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:33 pm (Regarding Kierkegaard) It's vile psychological manipulation: "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith" - I was stressed and depressed enough at the time. What it led me to was deeper understanding of how religion exploits people at their most vulnerable: birth, death, marriage.
Well, I think you've really missed Kierkegaard's point. But I understand the misreading. Kierkegaard was actually on your side in some important respects. One was that he deplored the institutional Lutheran Church of his day even more than you excorate the Catholics. So you both despise institutionalized religion as inauthentic. Indeed, the three of us are all on board on that.

But I get why you don't understand his take on faith. In order to understand that Rubicon, you have to have crossed it.
Again, I ask you - how is it that philosophers have been seeking a definitive moral system applicable in all circumstances for thousands of years, and haven't managed to create one?
Oh, that's a good question, but one with a very good answer. But before I respond, I think I'd better get clear exactly what you mean. And the best way to do that is to ask you how it is you've decided there's no "definitive moral system applicable in all circumstances." What observation, thought, idea or bit of history has convinced you that that is so?
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:09 amI asked you first, and I've asked you twice, and I still haven't got an answer. Why not just give me this great answer?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:18 pmWell, because I don't yet understand the question. I hesitate to answer by missing your point completely.
That's not true. You're quite happy to misunderstand almost everything else I say. [/quote]
I'm not happy to miss your point at all. That's why I'm asking for clarification. I'm surprised by your rather thin-skinned response to a genuine appeal for you simply to say what you are asking.
What you want to say is "Christianity is the definitive moral system - whether people know it or not!"
Well, if I didn't believe that, why would I be a Christian? So that's as surprising as an elephant in an alleyway.

But that's not actually where I was going at the moment. Rather, I was pointing out the moral bankruptcy of a Godless universe...in company with people like Nietzsche, Hume and Dawkins, actually. And when you find a convinced Christian agreeing with three noteworthies of such opposite inclinations, you do well to ask yourself how that's possible.

And it's possible because, regardless of one's ideological preferences, it's the truth that all four of us can see right in front of us. I imagine that Nietzsche, Hume and Dawkins could have good reasons for wishing that secular worldviews could rationalize morality; after all, if they could, it would be one more reason to dispense with metaphysics altogether, wouldn't it? So they have reason to want to: but they can't. And to their credit, they're honest enough to say that.

Back to your argument, though. Thank you for finally explaining what you meant. Your summary was thus:
There's no definitive moral system because it's not possible,
Why is it "not possible"?
... innate moral sense.

Well, if I may say, that's a terrible argument for your case. Because there is surely no "innate" impulse of comparable antiquity and duration to mankind's religious impulse. So if something being old and instinctive is reason to believe it's also true, then you'd have to give the same cachet to religion that you want to claim for morality.

But I have offered the contrary point: something being old and instinctive actually gives us no reason at all to believe it's true. There are things which are old and instinctive -- like, say, the impulse toward prostitution, or the instinct go to war on other human beings -- that we should all want to see gone. Those, too, are old, august and well-established among human beings.
I hate how you leave your argument in full, reduce mine to one line
I've explained that on the other thread, the one on transitions without parental consent. I'll refer you to that, if I may.
...a universe that allows for, even requires morality - is a moral universe, and one might argue, perhaps that implies the existence of God. I don't close the door on it. It's an interesting speculation, but no more than that.
There's a whole systematic argument to that effect, actually. And if one believes in any objectivity to morality, it's actually an extremely powerful and compelling one. But it starts with the assumption that morality exists, which, as I've pointed out, the Atheists tend to deny, if only to avoid the conclusion they don't want to be compelled to.
You're pitching at windmills in several senses here.
Tilting? Tilting at windmills, perhaps?
Second, you refuse to address the idea of the moral sense,

Actually, I've shown repeatedly why it is not a good argument. But you don't want to hear it. You can't call that "refusing to address." I could probably accuse you of simply "refusing to hear."
In short, you're addressing the wrong question - because you think I'm a parrot.
So I'm not understanding your REAL arguments, you say. And yet, when I ask you to clarify what are your real arguments, you accuse me of refusing to answer.

That doesn't leave me many alternatives: I can jump to conclusions, and thus irritate you, or I can ask for clarification, and irritate you again.
Yes there is. It's just not a direct relation. Between is and ought - there's 5 million years of evolution in which morality proved an advantage to the individual within the tribe, and the tribe composed of such individuals.
5 million years is a lot shorter than current Evolutionary Theory claims, of course. But that's really irrelevant, because time is simply not the issue. Something being old doesn't make it right...or even more right...it just makes it old.
One commonly held implication of Hume's observation is that no list of facts necessitates a moral value. I agree. I accept that entirely.
Really?

Well, if so, you've just killed off any chance of you proving that any particular morality is more legitimate than any other, and, in fact, that any morality is in any way obligatory at all.
However, when presented with a list of facts, people tend to draw the same moral conclusions.
They don't, actually.

What's interesting to me about that claim is that on the one hand, you tend to assume a kind of cultural Determinism for me, (that is, I can't be a free-thinking Christian, because my parents were Christian) but a moral universalism for others (that is, that all people end up with the same moral basics). That second one is empirically disprovable, by the way. But the first one actually undermines it as well; for if morality is merely the product of one's acculturation, then it's bound not to be universal at all.
That's because they're imbued with a moral sense. Hume was wrong.

Hume did not say people have no moral sense. He said that sense was not legitimizable on the basis of any facts. And you agreed with him about that.

What remains for both you and Hume to come to grips with is why human beings have ANY moral sense at all, since, according to a secular worldview, it's not legitimizable, and not universal, and not derivable on the basis of any facts. :shock:
Do you think it's right to murder? No? There you are then!
Tie that to Evolutionism. Do a syllogism, to show your logic.

Premise 1: Evolutionism is true.
Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore, "Thou shalt not murder/steal/fornicate/etc. "(you pick it) is morally obligatory.


What's your connecting premise?
I know I don't know if God exists or not.
That's what agnosticim entails.
I'm saying religion is a social contract
And I prove to you that "social contract" is not that.
I'm kicking your arse up and down; and if you're weren't so full yourself you'd see that.
You're right...I'm not feeling it.
Similarly, with all due respect, you're kidding yourself. Overwhelmingly, children adopt the faith of their parents
Ah, there it is again: the cultural Determinism argument. :D

But you don't believe it. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing. Because it would be impossible for me, anyone else, or you to change opinions.

But empirically, people do that all the time. So you're just wrong about that, and aren't being consistent even with your own claim.
...is it not reasonable to suggest you got it from them?

To "suggest"? Sure: you can "suggest" anything, I guess. Since you don't know me, that would be a possible explanation, if not an automatic one. If you were merely "suggesting," I think you might be a bit more "agnostic" about that, and realize that you actually don't know. You don't, obviously.

What might speak to you is that I haven't based a single argument so far on tradition, my upbringing, or authority. I've given you reasons and evidence for everything I'm saying; and so whether or not I'm a helpless victim of domineering parents or an indoctrinated zombie has actually no impact on the argument at all.

I think you hover back to it because you actually suspect it's not true.
...if there's something that's true, I'll accept it no matter what.
Then there's no way you should be plugging for Evolutionary legitimation of morality at this point. You've got nothing but the complete non-sequitur that goes, "Well, people THINK morality's a thing, so it must be." :shock:

How strong an argument that is, any genuinely open-minded person can probably see. Evolution has no warrant for morality, and belief in it is a mere factoid, a mere contingency that could as easily signal an error as a truth -- unless something much more than you've offered so far can be said in favour of it...

But I haven't heard it yet.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:33 pm (Regarding Kierkegaard) It's vile psychological manipulation: "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith" - I was stressed and depressed enough at the time. What it led me to was deeper understanding of how religion exploits people at their most vulnerable: birth, death, marriage.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:33 pmWell, I think you've really missed Kierkegaard's point. But I understand the misreading. Kierkegaard was actually on your side in some important respects. One was that he deplored the institutional Lutheran Church of his day even more than you excorate the Catholics. So you both despise institutionalized religion as inauthentic. Indeed, the three of us are all on board on that.
That's not my argument at all. The Church made a mistake in relation to science, but otherwise, it's been the central coordinating mechanism of Western civilisation for two thousand years. The Church should have embraced science as the means to establish the word of God made manifest in Creation, and science would not have occurred as an amoral tool. Rather, science and technology would have occurred as proof of God's favour. Technology would have been applied - Hume style, because it is scientifically true, and morally, ought to be applied.

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:33 pmBut I get why you don't understand his take on faith. In order to understand that Rubicon, you have to have crossed it.
Ditto.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:59 pm That's not my argument at all. The Church made a mistake in relation to science, but otherwise, it's been the central coordinating mechanism of Western civilisation for two thousand years.
I beg your pardon. It seemed to me you were saying that the Catholic Church pilloried Galileo and prevented science. Now you're saying they're just fine with you, even an asset?

I'm a little perplexed, I must confess. You could maybe clear that up.
The Church should have embraced science as the means to establish the word of God made manifest in Creation
But earlier, you were arguing, contrary to both me and Dawkins, that Creation does not "establish" or "manifest" the Creator.

Again, I'm perplexed by the sudden switch.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:33 pmBut I get why you don't understand his take on faith. In order to understand that Rubicon, you have to have crossed it.
Ditto.
Yet I've seen your side of the Rubicon, remember? I was once an admirer of Hardy, the agnostic.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:59 pm That's not my argument at all. The Church made a mistake in relation to science, but otherwise, it's been the central coordinating mechanism of Western civilisation for two thousand years. The Church should have embraced science as the means to establish the word of God made manifest in Creation, and science would not have occurred as an amoral tool. Rather, science and technology would have occurred as proof of God's favour. Technology would have been applied - Hume style, because it is scientifically true, and morally, ought to be applied.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:20 pmI beg your pardon. It seemed to me you were saying that the Catholic Church pilloried Galileo and prevented science. Now you're saying they're just fine with you, even an asset? I'm a little perplexed, I must confess. You could maybe clear that up. But earlier, you were arguing, contrary to both me and Dawkins, that Creation does not "establish" or "manifest" the Creator. Again, I'm perplexed by the sudden switch. Yet I've seen your side of the Rubicon, remember? I was once an admirer of Hardy, the agnostic.
You call that begging? I tore down my received beliefs right to the ground, and rebuilt them from scratch over more than 20 years. Your two years of college 'unchristinaity' are not on my side of Rubicon. I'm a philosopher, and place religion in an evolutionary context. It occurred to unite hunter gather tribes in multi tribal societies. The Catholic Church has served in that function for two thousand years, and is legitimate in that sense - as the central coordinating mechanism of Western civilisation. They made a mistake in relation to science. When it occurred they should have embraced and incorporated it; and we would not now have nuclear weapons, fossil fuel addiction and climate change. Nonetheless, despite that mistake, I recognise the Church serves an important function.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:18 pm You call that begging?
"Begging"? I missed the reference. It's not in what you quoted, and I don't think it's a verb I used for anything.
I'm a philosopher, and place religion in an evolutionary context.
Well, it makes sense that since your basic assumption is Evolutionism, you have to. There's really no choice, in view of any sort of rational consistency. But that first move smacks more of being dogmatic, not philosophical. Still, let's work forward from there.

We all start somewhere. And I don't deny you a right to start with Evolutionism as your assumption, if you want. But once you do, don't cop out. Don't go half-way with it and then drop it -- what philosophers call "taxicabbing" your beliefs. If you believe Evolution is true, then think it through thoroughly, and take all the implications it implies.

One of them is that morality is nothing but an evolutionary artifact of dubious provenance and no objective truth. And if you don't know that, then it's actually not Evolutionism you're believing, but a sort of half-baked version of it, in which the parts you like and find palatable you keep, but the parts that test your mettle, you avoid.

Now, in that connection, I noticed you avoided the syllogism I proposed you should give me. I'm not surprised you did "forget" it. There is no middle premise that can take us logically from Evolutionism to even one moral precept, no matter what it is. So I quite confident you couldn't provide one, if you even tried your best.

Well, well...I think that's checkmate on that.
They made a mistake in relation to science.
Now, that's an interesting comment.

Let me ask you this: what is "science," and when did it actually appear? You must think the answer is "prior to Galileo," at the least, I suppose; but exactly when and how?

The answer will help me to understand what you understand by the term.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

I'm a philosopher, and place religion in an evolutionary context.
Immanuel Can wrote:Well, it makes sense that since your basic assumption is Evolutionism, you have to. There's really no choice, in view of any sort of rational consistency. But that first move smacks more of being dogmatic, not philosophical. Still, let's work forward from there. We all start somewhere. And I don't deny you a right to start with Evolutionism as your assumption, if you want. But once you do, don't cop out. Don't go half-way with it and then drop it -- what philosophers call "taxicabbing" your beliefs. If you believe Evolution is true, then think it through thoroughly, and take all the implications it implies. One of them is that morality is nothing but an evolutionary artefact of dubious provenance and no objective truth. And if you don't know that, then it's actually not Evolutionism you're believing, but a sort of half-baked version of it, in which the parts you like and find palatable you keep, but the parts that test your mettle, you avoid.
"Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily) to denote the theory of evolution."

That more describes your dogmatic beliefs than mine. Tell me, what brand of Bible thumping mooncalf are you? Science places no obligation on me to accept the orthodoxy. I don't accept that evolution implies moral nihilism - just because Nietzsche thinks so. Nietzsche was wrong, and I've explained why. His idea of evolution was shallow at best; reduced to the adage 'survival of the fittest.' There's way more to evolution than that; not least that it occurs in relation to a causal reality. One can consider this a selection pressure - such that the organism must be physiologically and behaviourally correct to a causal reality, or be rendered extinct. Morality is behaviourally intelligent for social organisms. Organisms that owe something to eachother, survive.
Immanuel Can wrote:Now, in that connection, I noticed you avoided the syllogism I proposed you should give me. I'm not surprised you did "forget" it. There is no middle premise that can take us logically from Evolutionism to even one moral precept, no matter what it is. So I quite confident you couldn't provide one, if you even tried your best. Well, well...I think that's checkmate on that.
Precept, no! After behavioural intelligence comes intellectual intelligence - a uniquely human trait. With intellectual intelligence came the expression of morality that exists, ingrained into the organism as a moral sense. So man asks himself 'Why is it wrong to murder?' and rationalises what is ingrained into him at the behaviourally intelligent level. He creates moral precepts that articulate his feelings, and is puzzled by the fact they don't apply in all circumstances. Not disheartened, he keeps trying for that perfect moral system - even after thousands of years being unable to define morality - any more than he can define humour or aesthetics. He can identify moral regularities - like one might point to the reversal of expectation or the golden ratio. But ultimately, it's funny, it's pretty, or it's moral because that's how it feels to you in relation to others.
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:18 pmThey made a mistake in relation to science.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:35 pmNow, that's an interesting comment. Let me ask you this: what is "science," and when did it actually appear? You must think the answer is "prior to Galileo," at the least, I suppose; but exactly when and how? The answer will help me to understand what you understand by the term.
Science is basically three things: a method of investigation, the facts established by scientific method, and the body of knowledge built up from those facts. Galileo's 'Dialogue' was a significant milestone in establishing the method, but it draws on many traditions, going back thousands of years. A lot of knowledge was lost with the fall of Rome 400ad, and returned by the Crusades from 1100 ad. Math, or rather the numeral zero, is from India. And so on, so there's no real answer.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:24 pm I don't accept that evolution implies moral nihilism
It does.

The "not-accepting" merely bespeaks a deficiency in understanding the inevitable implications. It does not change those implications. Nietzsche, Hume and Dawkins...and, in fact, all the major moral philosophers since Hume, including the Moderns and Postmoderns...have seen that. But somehow, it doesn't make a dent in your denial. I can't account for that, unless it's just a refusal to think through the theory to its implications.
Immanuel Can wrote:Now, in that connection, I noticed you avoided the syllogism I proposed you should give me. I'm not surprised you did "forget" it. There is no middle premise that can take us logically from Evolutionism to even one moral precept, no matter what it is. So I quite confident you couldn't provide one, if you even tried your best. Well, well...I think that's checkmate on that.
With intellectual intelligence came the expression of morality that exists, ingrained into the organism as a moral sense.
Is the real problem that you don't know what a "syllogism" is?

I have to ask, because this is the third message in which you've delivered none. Either you're evading, or I used a term you don't recognize. If it's the latter, I'm fine with explaining it. If it's the former, I can't prevent it, of course.
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:18 pmScience is basically three things: a method of investigation, the facts established by scientific method, and the body of knowledge built up from those facts.
If that's the case, then "science," by your definition, didn't exist at the time of Galileo. The Scientific Method was invented by Francis Bacon. Galileo never read Novum Organum, and his discoveries were all made before that book was even written.
...there's no real answer.
You gave one. It rules out Galileo.

You would have to now see him as a sort of pre-scientific investigator, in the order of an Aristotle; or a Copernicus, or a Kepler, perhaps. But since he had no access to the actual Scientific Method, your own definition makes him that.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Christianity

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:05 pmThe Scientific Method was invented by Francis Bacon.
That's a massive overstatement, Mr Can. The method in the New Organon is described as the Baconian method, and while Bacon was very influential, it is a stretch to say he invented even that. A key feature of Bacon's method is systematic observation, which he details at some length; followed by inductive reasoning to arrive generalised principles. Those principles should not reach beyond what the evidence can support. In short: observational and experimental rigour, logical inference and Ockham's razor. Or Aristotelian parsimony. Either way, Bacon didn't invent it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:05 pmGalileo never read Novum Organum, and his discoveries were all made before that book was even written.
...there's no real answer.
You gave one. It rules out Galileo.

You would have to now see him as a sort of pre-scientific investigator, in the order of an Aristotle; or a Copernicus, or a Kepler, perhaps. But since he had no access to the actual Scientific Method, your own definition makes him that.
Well, Bacon arrived at the Baconian method by the Baconian method. He carefully observed what 'scientists' were already doing and arrived at the generalised principles of his method by induction. He didn't invent the scientific method so much as describe (some of) what made people like Galileo scientists in the first place.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:24 pm I don't accept that evolution implies moral nihilism
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:05 pmIt does. The "not-accepting" merely bespeaks a deficiency in understanding the inevitable implications. It does not change those implications. Nietzsche, Hume and Dawkins...and, in fact, all the major moral philosophers since Hume, including the Moderns and Postmoderns...have seen that. But somehow, it doesn't make a dent in your denial. I can't account for that, unless it's just a refusal to think through the theory to its implications.
If it were down to you there would be no philosophy at all after Jesus! Every philosopher would be dismissed for "deficiency of understanding" that they don't accept the gospel as gospel. I've explained, I contend that causality, in particular - is absent from evolutionary theory. When you consider physical reality as a selection pressure; as in the example of the bird that builds a nest before it lays eggs, it follows that it's not survival of the fittest so much as the fitting. The organism has to be right to reality to survive. The reality of social animals requires moral obligation toward each other to survive, and it's no more extraordinary than a bird building a nest before it lays eggs. It can't know and plan ahead. And similarly, I suggest that morality does not require intellectual intelligence, and those who have observed chimps in the wild would agree, that chimp societies have moral structure; hierarchy, mutual defence, resource sharing, childcare, and so forth.

It's a perfectly reasonable argument, you've failed or refused to acknowledge, because it serves your purposes to maintain the Church's monopoly on morality. Indeed, this explains why Nietzsche is wrong. Not only was his understanding of evolution superficial at best, but he was indoctrinated from infancy with religion by his Lutheran upbringing.

I suffered the consequences of challenging my beliefs. It's not an easy thing to do. I identify with Nietzsche's agonized philosophy, but I've moved beyond it, and can assure you that, accepting a scientific understanding of reality, morality and contentment are possible. It's because Nietzsche looked to the authority of God to justify morality, that the science of evolution seemed to undermine, he inferred nihilism. 'God is dead' he declared; but he flushed the moral baby with the religious bathwater. In my view, religion occurs as an expression of that ingrained moral sense, and so it doesn't follow that when the religion is emptied out there's nothing left. The moral sense remains.
Immanuel Can wrote:Now, in that connection, I noticed you avoided the syllogism I proposed you should give me. I'm not surprised you did "forget" it. There is no middle premise that can take us logically from Evolutionism to even one moral precept, no matter what it is. So I quite confident you couldn't provide one, if you even tried your best. Well, well...I think that's checkmate on that. Is the real problem that you don't know what a "syllogism" is? I have to ask, because this is the third message in which you've delivered none. Either you're evading, or I used a term you don't recognize. If it's the latter, I'm fine with explaining it. If it's the former, I can't prevent it, of course.
Propositional logic. I played with it for a while. It's fun. But it's not apt. I didn't ignore it. I seem to recall writing that there's no direct relation. Instead, between 'is' and 'ought' there's 5 million years of evolution. Perhaps if you started reading my posts that would help! Maybe it's that you can't understand them?
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:18 pmScience is basically three things: a method of investigation, the facts established by scientific method, and the body of knowledge built up from those facts.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:05 pmIf that's the case, then "science," by your definition, didn't exist at the time of Galileo. The Scientific Method was invented by Francis Bacon. Galileo never read Novum Organum, and his discoveries were all made before that book was even written. You would have to now see him as a sort of pre-scientific investigator, in the order of an Aristotle; or a Copernicus, or a Kepler, perhaps. But since he had no access to the actual Scientific Method, your own definition makes him that.
That's not a valid implication of what I said, and I notice you trimmed the quote to suit your agenda. What I actually said is:

"Science is basically three things: a method of investigation, the facts established by scientific method, and the body of knowledge built up from those facts. Galileo's 'Dialogue' was a significant milestone in establishing the method, but it draws on many traditions, going back thousands of years. A lot of knowledge was lost with the fall of Rome 400ad, and returned by the Crusades from 1100 ad. Math, or rather the numeral zero, is from India. And so on, so there's no real answer."

Your intellectual dishonesty is palpable. Is it something you're aware of?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Christianity

Post by uwot »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:29 amYour (Mr Can's) intellectual dishonesty is palpable. Is it something you're aware of?
You're not the first to point it out.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:29 amYour (Mr Can's) intellectual dishonesty is palpable. Is it something you're aware of?
uwot wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:39 am You're not the first to point it out.
I imagine not. What puzzles me is, why start a thread entitled "Christianity" he's so desperate to defend, he's incapable of addressing it honestly? Wouldn't it be better if he started a thread entitled: 'What's you favourite movie?'
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:52 am Basically the primary reason effective for all Christians is out of their duty and obligation to comply with the terms of the contract...
You keep saying the same wrong things, and no evidence, not even the words of Jesus Christ HImself, seem to change your mind even an iota. I find that suggestive of blind compulsion, rather than of thoughtful consideration. It seems evident you have trouble letting go of an idea once you've committed to it. Maybe you fear to be seen as having made a mistake, or maybe you just don't recognize mistakes, or maybe you're actually just compulsive. I can't tell.

But either way, the evidence is before you. I can't make you consider it. So I guess we're at an impasse: you are committed to the idea of "contract," and that idea is at least largely deceptive. However, I can't undeceive you, it seems. You're going to believe what you want to, I guess.

So there it stands.
Despite that God is not real, the term 'contract' in this case is conceptually and theoretically true based on the evidences.
That you and some cannot agree to the above [despite its 'nothing to lose' pros] is purely due psychologically and emotional insecurity [which is the ground that theists cling to a God in the first place].

Btw, I have discussed the above with other Christians [more secured ones] and they are agreeable to the concept of 'contract' as equivalent to 'covenant' in the case of Christianity provided if used in the right context.
Btw, I have not insisted that the term covenant be replaced with 'contract' but only when used in the relevant context, especially when comparing with the terrible evil and violence from Islam.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote:
I've explained, I contend that causality, in particular - is absent from evolutionary theory. When you consider physical reality as a selection pressure; as in the example of the bird that builds a nest before it lays eggs, it follows that I've explained, I contend that causality, in particular - is absent from evolutionary theory. When you consider physical reality as a selection pressure; as in the example of the bird that builds a nest before it lays eggs, it follows that it's not survival of the fittest so much as the fitting. The organism has to be right to reality to survive. The reality of social animals requires moral obligation toward each other to survive, and it's no more extraordinary than a bird building a nest before it lays eggs. It can't know and plan ahead. And similarly, I suggest that morality does not require intellectual intelligence, and those who have observed chimps in the wild would agree, that chimp societies have moral structure; hierarchy, mutual defence, resource sharing, childcare, and so forth.eality to survive. The reality of social animals requires moral obligation toward each other to survive, and it's no more extraordinary than a bird building a nest before it lays eggs. It can't know and plan ahead. And similarly, I suggest that morality does not require intellectual intelligence, and those who have observed chimps in the wild would agree, that chimp societies have moral structure; hierarchy, mutual defence, resource sharing, childcare, and so forth.
I have followed the discussion between yourself and Immanuel Can, and have supported your view that religion is man- made for social control(if I may) and I hope you won't mind if I abstract the above.

You may remember that I want examples of nomic connection i.e. acausal correlation. The above is just what I wanted! I see that evolution by natural selection is acausal correlation.
I contend that causality, in particular - is absent from evolutionary theory. When you consider physical reality as a selection pressure; as in the example of the bird that builds a nest before it lays eggs, it follows that it's not survival of the fittest so much as the fitting.
Evolution by natural selection is design but natural selection is not intentionally designed by some Authority Who intends, as IC would have it.

I do believe that order(design if you will) becomes absolute, but absolute does not imply deity.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:37 am Vitruvius wrote:
I contend that causality, in particular - is absent from evolutionary theory. When you consider physical reality as a selection pressure; as in the example of the bird that builds a nest before it lays eggs, it follows that it's not survival of the fittest so much as the fitting. The organism has to be right to reality to survive. The reality of social animals requires moral obligation toward each other to survive, and it's no more extraordinary than a bird building a nest before it lays eggs. It can't know and plan ahead. And similarly, I suggest that morality does not require intellectual intelligence, and those who have observed chimps in the wild would agree, that chimp societies have moral structure; hierarchy, mutual defence, resource sharing, childcare, and so forth. The reality of social animals requires moral obligation toward each other to survive, and it's no more extraordinary than a bird building a nest before it lays eggs. It can't know and plan ahead. And similarly, I suggest that morality does not require intellectual intelligence, and those who have observed chimps in the wild would agree, that chimp societies have moral structure; hierarchy, mutual defence, resource sharing, childcare, and so forth.
I have followed the discussion between yourself and Immanuel Can, and have supported your view that religion is man- made for social control(if I may) and I hope you won't mind if I abstract the above.
Did you understand it? Because you mischaracterise my arguments by saying: "religion is for social control, and "evolution is an example of acausal nomic connection." That's precisely what I'm not saying. Also you mangled the quote, and furthermore, I got no notification - because you didn't put my quote in a quote box. If you were trying to be a dick - great post dude. Otherwise, how on earth did you get everything this wrong?
You may remember that I want examples of nomic connection i.e. acausal correlation. The above is just what I wanted! I see that evolution by natural selection is acausal correlation. Evolution by natural selection is design but natural selection is not intentionally designed by some Authority Who intends, as IC would have it. I do believe that order(design if you will) becomes absolute, but absolute does not imply deity.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:37 am Evolution by natural selection is design but natural selection is not intentionally designed by some Authority Who intends, as IC would have it.

I do believe that order(design if you will) becomes absolute, but absolute does not imply deity.
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?

What makes survival an "objective." All natural merely physical processes are inimical to life and all life must struggle against the physical constantly. I believe life is a perfectly natural attribute of reality, like any of the physical attributes, but everything evolutionists argue as the reason for evolution is based on some superstitious notion that nature favors survival which is as teleological as any absurd creationist theory.

As soon as you think seriously about the so-called natural selection nonsense it becomes obvious its just made up, like any of Rudyard Kipling's Just So stories: Dinosaurs grew wings and became birds and developed flight because flight gave them a survival advantage and were naturally selected over those without flight. So exactly why did natural selection change its mind and decide birds without flight, like penguins, emus, and ostriches had a survival advantage. Sure!

Would you like to know How the Camel Got His Hump? Lots of evolutionary fairy tales there.
Post Reply