|
Paladinus posted:I personally blame Schopenhauer for introducing the Upanishads as the best philosophical writing from the ~Exotic Orient~. He literally thought that every Indian farmer was so enlightened, they weren't even afraid to die, whereas filthy peasants of the West were just grasping at life like idiots all the time with their stupid Christianity that is just depressing. Eh, to be fair quite a few aspects of Christianity as it was taught, and still is unfortunately in many places, are depressing.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Okay then, just as a quick thing, but how do you deal with people who do not have Faith. Capitialised here to mean faith in any sort of direct divinity. A personal God/salvation thingamajig. 1) Not sure what you mean exactly by these Faith-less people. If you mean how do I interact with such people in my personal life, I don't really treat someone differently if I find out they don't have beliefs in the categories you list here. 2) Lewis is, in some ways, kind of a jerk. I enjoyed the Narnia books when I was a kid, but if I ever have kids I'm not sure if I would try to push those books on them. He wrote some fun fantasy and sci-fi stories, for sure. But he also appealed to and endorsed a lot of really gross ideas. His views on women, for example, are very gross. 3) Many stories in the Bible have allegorical and symbolic elements to them. The point is often not to ascribe superficial things to the text itself, but instead to look for the deeper meanings. You are also making a questionable argument here: the book of Job does not literally say "God is partially malevolent". That claim is an assertion you are putting forward, that the story absolutely 100% objectively proves that the God worshipped by Christians must be ascribed the human-invented label of "partially malevolent", and that this (i.e. your) conception must therefore be a "problem" Christians have to explain in order to justify their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:1) Not sure what you mean exactly by these Faith-less people. If you mean how do I interact with such people in my personal life, I don't really treat someone differently if I find out they don't have beliefs in the categories you list here. Oh no I more meant if someone was born without the capacity for Faith, in a divine entity etc, would that be a philosophically difficult thing? That and, if someone didn't have Faith would you attempt to talk them into it? (Not in terms of shouting on street corners etc, just wondering in general) Agreed on that. I mean I don't expect much from mid 20th Century Oxford, but I can't help but think a rather worrying amount of modern Christians I have dealt with take a lot more out of his play book than I would assume is healthy. No, but His actions do seem remarkable (as in requiring remarks). I don't say that they need to explain it. Faith is Faith and all that . But the "problem of evil" has always been a sticking block for myself when it comes to divinity of a personal sort. It doesn't objectively prove anything to put a label on it, of course, but saying that we simply "can't understand it" raises further questions. As a quick question, but would you ascribe most of the Old Testament as allegory and most of the New (bar the.. is it Psalms the one where Jesus talks in metaphor?) none allegory? Just as a personal thing I mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Okay then, just as a quick thing, but how do you deal with people who do not have Faith. Capitialised here to mean faith in any sort of direct divinity. A personal God/salvation thingamajig. I like Deteriorata's and Lutha Mahtin's replies to 1 & 3. I'd just like to add that according to some literary research, the Book of Job has lot of markings of a... err, legend, for the lack of a better word (the concepts of historicity and even truth were different back then). Regardless of it "actually happening" or not, it has trappings of a dramatically enhanced story. I'd file it among the other wisdom literature in the Bible and approach it that way. About C.S. Lewis, apparently many people in this thread have dim views of different degrees of him and his writings so before any more people line up to tell them, let me just say that there's at least one person who likes his writing a lot. While he was clearly a man of his time, regarding his values, he doesn't pretend to be anything else and in my opinion it is unfair to read malice or the like into his writings.Screwtape Letters is one of the best books I've ever read. Do note that besides Narnia, I've read only four (translated) books of his.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:43
|
|
" without getting other peoples ideas.
|
Josef bugman posted:Oh no I more meant if someone was born without the capacity for Faith, in a divine entity etc, would that be a philosophically difficult thing? That and, if someone didn't have Faith would you attempt to talk them into it? (Not in terms of shouting on street corners etc, just wondering in general) If someone is born without the capacity for religious belief, or if they choose not to adopt it, this is not a big issue for me. Personally, I am wandering in the desert right now in my journey of what I ultimately believe, but I find it hard to accept a worldview in which I assert that I know completely how a higher power works. What I mean by this, and I'll make an example in the Christian context here because I'm most familiar with it, is that I am skeptical that I or any other mortal human has the capacity to fully understand God. It then follows from this that I am skeptical that I can fully understand the entirety of how God works in terms of salvation. So, while I can say what I believe to be true about salvation, this does not say that I know the whole story. Even in the case where I come around to believe (for example) that a specific Christian conception of salvation is the only one that is correct, or that it is the one I believe to be closest to being correct, and that all other belief systems are either flawed or outright incorrect, it is still possible that even a person who has never heard of Christianity can achieve salvation; this is because perhaps God has some other way of doing things in cases where the person doesn't believe the same thing I do. I'll note that the one idea I just outlined, that of "my very specific set of beliefs is correct, all others are incorrect" is a concept that people who study religion call "exclusivism". And the answer to it, of "my God has some other way to deal with people who didn't come to the faith during their life" is one of the common ways that exclusivist Christian theologians explain how the idea of "a just a loving God" can be squared with "lots of people believe the wrong thing". quote:No, but His actions do seem remarkable (as in requiring remarks). I don't say that they need to explain it. Faith is Faith and all that . But the "problem of evil" has always been a sticking block for myself when it comes to divinity of a personal sort. It doesn't objectively prove anything to put a label on it, of course, but saying that we simply "can't understand it" raises further questions. I didn't say that we can't understand anything, nor do I agree with the idea that people don't need to explain something because "faith is faith". What I was trying to say is that your reading of the text is not in line with how most Christians approach it, and even for those who would approach it the way that you do, they would do so within a larger framework of other texts and beliefs built upon those texts. I can't say I have any words of wisdom for you on the Problem of Evil, though. It's a big issue and I'm not super well-read in it. Job is certainly a humdinger of a story, that's for sure. As for how I, personally, approach the Bible, I don't put things into categories like "this totally happened" or "this is obviously a legend". It's not a math textbook or a collection of scientific journal articles. Rather, it is a collection of writings that, for thousands of years, people have seen as holy and inspirational. I find that when I approach these texts with questions like "why was this written down?" and "why did people find this useful?" it is often very helpful and illuminating. p.s. i still like some of lewis's writing! i loved narnia when i was a kid 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
Read the Man Who Was Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:If someone is born without the capacity for religious belief, or if they choose not to adopt it, this is not a big issue for me. Personally, I am wandering in the desert right now in my journey of what I ultimately believe, but I find it hard to accept a worldview in which I assert that I know completely how a higher power works. What I mean by this, and I'll make an example in the Christian context here because I'm most familiar with it, is that I am skeptical that I or any other mortal human has the capacity to fully understand God. It then follows from this that I am skeptical that I can fully understand the entirety of how God works in terms of salvation. So, while I can say what I believe to be true about salvation, this does not say that I know the whole story. Even in the case where I come around to believe (for example) that a specific Christian conception of salvation is the only one that is correct, or that it is the one I believe to be closest to being correct, and that all other belief systems are either flawed or outright incorrect, it is still possible that even a person who has never heard of Christianity can achieve salvation; this is because perhaps God has some other way of doing things in cases where the person doesn't believe the same thing I do. That is an interesting point of view. Does this mean that God may be working off of a kind of divine utilitarianism? The idea of a God that is beyond approach is something that seems very interesting, but one who is beyond reproach always seemed a little strange to me. "Exclusivism" sounds like an interesting idea, I don't suppose you know any good articles or books on the subject? Lutha Mahtin posted:I didn't say that we can't understand anything, nor do I agree with the idea that people don't need to explain something because "faith is faith". What I was trying to say is that your reading of the text is not in line with how most Christians approach it, and even for those who would approach it the way that you do, they would do so within a larger framework of other texts and beliefs built upon those texts. I can't say I have any words of wisdom for you on the Problem of Evil, though. It's a big issue and I'm not super well-read in it. Job is certainly a humdinger of a story, that's for sure. Oh I more meant that convincing people Faith is "incorrect" is impossible through trying to argue the toss because, at the end of it all Faith does not require evidence. Or it does not require it necessarily, I imagine that it helps an individuals Faith if they perceive or experience evidence for it. It's a good story, I think the old testement has a large collection of them in my opinion, but I never understood how it didn't go in the apocrypha once the council of Nicea came along. And approaching it more as tales/helpful holiness is interesting, I'll have a look in to that. Thank you! CountFosco posted:Read the Man Who Was Thursday. I'd rather not, I may spend an inordinate amount of time on S.A. But I'd sooner not have to put up with the proto-goon G.K Chesterton if I can really help it. I read his "defence of Job" thing a while back and I just could not see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Yes, I agree, disagreeing with an author on one particular book is reason enough to dismiss his entire oeuvre.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Yes, I agree, disagreeing with an author on one particular book is reason enough to dismiss his entire oeuvre. Yes? If you don't like an authors writing you are unlikely to like the rest of his writing. It's not impossible, and I may well give it a try, but from what I have read of the man G.K. seems very much like the sort of person I might like in person, but despise written down. It wasn't the disagreement, though I won't be so arrogant as to say that my disagreement didn't affect my enjoyment, but just the style of argument and the writing style. I also didn't especially like what little I read of "Orthodoxy" either. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Oh I more meant that convincing people Faith is "incorrect" is impossible through trying to argue the toss because, at the end of it all Faith does not require evidence. Or it does not require it necessarily, This, I don't get. I came to faith through empirical evidence that God saved me personally. It is metaphysical evidence of metaphysical facts, but I would call it evidence still. Others I know had their faith confirmed by experiencing miracles. I guess it's sad that we need proof( Jesus said something to this effect), but I am fervently grateful it happened because the alternatives are too grim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Oh I more meant that convincing people Faith is "incorrect" is impossible through trying to argue the toss because, at the end of it all Faith does not require evidence. Or it does not require it necessarily, I imagine that it helps an individuals Faith if they perceive or experience evidence for it. If that was the case, people would never convert from one religion to another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:If that was the case, people would never convert from one religion to another. I always assumed people did that based on the belief that the Faith they felt did not fit as well with the physical aspect of worship/the community to which they were part of. That or to, take a rather crass tone, it doesn't matter what I worship as long as I worship something and the current overlord of the local area believes this and I can get my family ahead/not murdered if I convert. Tias posted:This, I don't get. I came to faith through empirical evidence that God saved me personally. It is metaphysical evidence of metaphysical facts, but I would call it evidence still. Others I know had their faith confirmed by experiencing miracles. I guess it's sad that we need proof( Jesus said something to this effect), but I am fervently grateful it happened because the alternatives are too grim. I need to read up on these concepts more before commenting fully but from a brief reading I didn't think you could get empirical evidence of metaphysical things? And the alternatives being "too grim" is an interesting idea, could I ask you more about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I always assumed people did that based on the belief that the Faith they felt did not fit as well with the physical aspect of worship/the community to which they were part of. I don't think you can get scientific evidence for metaphysics, or at least that's a common claim. But you can certainly get evidence of God in your personal life. Imagine you start believing and your life improves substantially. Of course there are atheistic explanations for that, ranging from "coincidence" to psychological explanations, but a person's experience can lead them to the conclusion that their faith is right. There are compelling arguments for atheism, and there are compelling arguments for Christianity. Which ones you choose to allow to persuade you, or whether you look for a third alternative, mostly depends on your individual preferences, values and needs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
You don't need an argument for atheism. This doesn't stop folks trying, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Personally, I see the intellectual appeal of atheism. I generally agree with the sentiment that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what I and many people see as extraordinary evidence of God is not persuasive to many people. For me personally, though, religion is such an important part of my life that I can't help but see an atheist view of the universe as innately bleak and pointless, something that does not help my recurring struggles with depression. I choose to believe in God partially because atheism is too depressing for me to seriously contemplate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You don't need an argument for atheism. This doesn't stop folks trying, of course. I can only assume what you mean by this based on similar sentiments/arguments so I have to go by those. If they are inaccurate to your views you have my apologies. I think this position is intellectually arrogant or maybe just shortsighted. That "I don't have to prove God exists, you do because there is no evidence for God." assumes a lot about knowledge and how we gain knowledge. It assumes that atheism as a worldview is somehow default because the way we gather and understand knowledge means that's the starting point. But many many different peoples and cultures do not operate on this kind of thinking. I will give you that this train of thought, that atheism is the default, does make sense especially in a modern Western perspective these assumptions and systems are not necessarily universal, I think you'd have to say "yes, I do have to have an argument for atheism that makes an account for it in ways of thinking which do not match mine." I do not mean you have to convince a Asian Buddhist that atheism is right. I mean you have to recognize that the a priori belief/argument that atheism is default stems from a way of thinking and viewing the world that is not universal and should respect other streams of thought and recognize in those systems atheism does need an argument. I'm not saying you can't believe you're right, or that another's worldview is wrong, what I'm saying is the Western intellectual tradition and its hang ups aren't available to all peoples nor do they even have to accept it should it be available. And so to confront a person and their ideas solely on your own paradigm fails to recognize that their paradigm deserves to be taken seriously. You may be right, given how you understand epistemology there is no need to argue against God because God has to be demonstrated not undemonstrated. But we need to make accounts for those systems which are not the Western scientific/philosophical norm. So no, Athiesm from your (and many of our culture's) paradigmatic perspective doesn't need an argument, but from others the base epistemological assumptions are different, and then you need to have an argument for that way of thinking to respect that those systems of thought, even if they are wrong, are important and have lots of work put into them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
I did mean that, but I also meant: why would you have that confrontation in the first place? It's like formulating an argument for solipsism; if you're right, it makes no difference who you convince.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
Arguably the Bible offers multiple models for theodicy (i.e., how can there be evil if there is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God?). I basically got this idea from Bart Ehrman's lecture on the topic and am paraphrasing his analysis here: 1. The Job model. God's justice is beyond mortal understanding. 2. The prophetic model (the prophets and so on). Bad things happening is God's punishment for man's faithlessness. 3. The apocalyptic model (Daniel, some New Testament, etc). In this world the forces of evil reign. At some point it will all be set right in a cataclysm. 4. The Ecclesiastes model, which is, I don't know, almost Buddhist in its appreciation of the impermanence of any sort of joy or pain. There's a longer essay here: https://ehrmanblog.org/biblical-views-of-suffering/ Ultimately it's kind of up to you to find what parts of the Bible resonate most with you but I think it's worth being aware of the multiplicity of voices. RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I did mean that, but I also meant: why would you have that confrontation in the first place? It's like formulating an argument for solipsism; if you're right, it makes no difference who you convince. Nah, there certainly is an argument for the argument for atheism: - Christian politicians are trying to restrict our freedoms, their arguments make sense inside their ideology, ultimately to fight their political opinions you have to promote atheism - Modern science is the pinnacle of human achievement, we need to channel all human endeavors into this project, religion is a useless distraction, if only all those plebes understood that there is no god - I don't want to go to church mom, don't you know God is just a fairy tale? - If you let people believe in religion next they'll believe in any silly thing without evidence, better cut that tree off by the root - Religion causes, like, all the wars
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I always assumed people did that based on the belief that the Faith they felt did not fit as well with the physical aspect of worship/the community to which they were part of. I may be on thin ice here since I'm not an academic, but my dictionary says empirical means "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.". Observation, perhaps, but it is definitely my experience that God exists and has miraculously healed me from self-destructive behaviour I thought I was going to have for life. (I don't know if you were around for my introduction in the last thread, but I found faith through the auspices of the 12-step program in AA) The alternative is me not having faith, which for me probably would have meant I would be dead today. Also, I do in general consider a world without God to be a sad place, because there would be no faith, that's mostly what there is to it. I will be happy to elaborate if you need it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Atheism as 'lack of any particular religious belief' is a very different beast from atheism as 'anti-theism', the rejection of any sort of religious or metaphysical thinking as being ipso facto bad and wrong. The former sort is the sort that I would argue doesn't necessarily need 'an argument' as it is simply the absence of any noteworthy feelings of faith. The latter sort is almost its own religion and invites a great deal more argument, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
pidan posted:Nah, there certainly is an argument for the argument for atheism: All of these are taking issue with God's (perceived or presumed) values, with what God demands. They take atheism as a means, not an end. I guess I'm wrong to have said "no difference"; my excuse is that I've been up all night. More properly, though, you don't need atheism to get there and it may not even be the best way. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Tias posted:I may be on thin ice here since I'm not an academic, but my dictionary says empirical means "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.". Observation, perhaps, but it is definitely my experience that God exists and has miraculously healed me from self-destructive behaviour I thought I was going to have for life. (I don't know if you were around for my introduction in the last thread, but I found faith through the auspices of the 12-step program in AA) I agree with this view, but not everyone agrees with what you and I and others consider evidence of God's existence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I need to read up on these concepts more before commenting fully but from a brief reading I didn't think you could get empirical evidence of metaphysical things? And the alternatives being "too grim" is an interesting idea, could I ask you more about it? Yeah, but that doesn't stop people from basing their entire philosophical worldview on empiricism, which leads directly into nihilism as its logical conclusion. Divorcing Aristotle's Final Cause (i.e., the end or purpose of an object) from the rest of the three, seeing it as purely in the realm of speculation and therefore unworthy of consideration in the empiricist milieu, leads to thinking that there exists no objective truth for other unmeasurable things like morality and purpose. So, essentially nihilism. Empiricism is very useful for science (well, most sciences...it's not so useful for quantum mechanics or modern astronomy where indirect observation is needed) but is pretty awful as a philosophy. pidan posted:Nah, there certainly is an argument for the argument for atheism: It's kinda funny that atheists rail against evil fundamentalist Christians influencing society when the true danger to society, moral relativism, seems to have been a natural outgrowth of these atheistic philosophies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I agree with this view, but not everyone agrees with what you and I and others consider evidence of God's existence. That's why I attempted to explain it with the term "metaphysical evidence" - it clearly proves what it has to inside a mind that needs it, but I guess it was not exactly visible proof to anyone but me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Tias posted:That's why I attempted to explain it with the term "metaphysical evidence" - it clearly proves what it has to inside a mind that needs it, but I guess it was not exactly visible proof to anyone but me. Essentially, the evidence for the existence of God tends to be almost entirely personal, internal, and non-reproducible. It's enough to convince an individual, but not amenable to controlled studies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Essentially, the evidence for the existence of God tends to be almost entirely personal, internal, and non-reproducible. It's enough to convince an individual, but not amenable to controlled studies. Personally, I regard the wonder of the universe and all that science has learned and observed, and the knowledge that it's all barely scratched the surface, as compelling evidence of God. I do not find the arguments that there was no architect, no artist behind it all to be compelling ones. I see science as the greatest evidence there is of God's existence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
im fond of the idea that the big bang was god farting
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Personally, I regard the wonder of the universe and all that science has learned and observed, and the knowledge that it's all barely scratched the surface, as compelling evidence of God. I do not find the arguments that there was no architect, no artist behind it all to be compelling ones. IIRC, that's the basis of the teleological argument. Or the argument from design if you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I find the proposition that the universe was made like this on purpose immensely more depressing than the thought that it was an accident.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:im fond of the idea that the big bang was god farting 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Read the Man Who Was Thursday. I'm not ashamed that I read that book because it was in Deus Ex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'd rather not, I may spend an inordinate amount of time on S.A. But I'd sooner not have to put up with the proto-goon G.K Chesterton if I can really help it. I read his "defence of Job" thing a while back and I just could not see it. I always raise my hackles a bit at "a man of his time" arguments, because they so often ignore a person's contemporaries who didn't hold the same views. Lewis was, for instance, a contemporary and friend of Dorothy L. Sayers, a staunch feminist. Speaking as a woman, it is painful to read Mere Christianity and have Lewis assure me that I really want to be led by my husband, and that I despise husbands who are bossed around by their wives. Mere C also contains the logically shoddy "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord?" trilemma. However, I heartily recommend The Screwtape Letters, which I found insightful and still influences my prayer practices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:the enneagram system is a fun form of pseudoscience, and it's rome-approved! The enneagram of personality has been very influencial to me, and I'm glad you brought it up. What I most like about it over Meyers-Briggs and Big Five is that the enneagram deals specifically with levels of health. Like the Tolstoy quote about happy families, the enneagram supposes that healthy individuals resemble one another in being well-adjusted, productive, and conscientious. But people break down in their particular way. Some become murderous, others suicidal, and my type (the nines) become useless and inert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
pidan posted:I don't think you can get scientific evidence for metaphysics, or at least that's a common claim. But you can certainly get evidence of God in your personal life. Imagine you start believing and your life improves substantially. Of course there are atheistic explanations for that, ranging from "coincidence" to psychological explanations, but a person's experience can lead them to the conclusion that their faith is right. I would say that it's by definition impossible to get scientific evidence for metaphysics. Yes, Aristotle's 'Metaphysics' just meant "the one that comes after the book Physics", but in common usage it means the study of first principles. For example: I could say that I can prove that sodium reacts explosively with water by throwing some pure sodium into pure water.* I would be able to prove this to you because you and I both accept that effects have causes. If instead one of us believed that every time any effect happened, God chose that specific effect, I couldn't prove that the sodium had caused fire to leap out of the water. If you believed that you were asleep, or in the Matrix, or that I were a hallucination, I couldn't convince you that a 'real' experiment would have the same results. Getting scientific evidence for anything requires believing that getting scientific evidence is possible. So if I explain to you that (part of) the reason I believe in God is because effects have causes, you can't (reasonably) ask me to scientifically prove that effects have causes. If I tell you that I think the New Testament is trustworthy as a historical document, you can't (reasonably) ask me to scientifically prove that papyrus can survive seventeen centuries. Sometimes scientific evidence can support a metaphysical argument; for example, if I said I had Mary's baby teeth preserved as a relic, it would be possible to prove that the relic was (or wasn't) actually human primary teeth, from a female human who lived sometime between 100 BCE and 100 CE. But it would be completely impossible to prove that the teeth were (or weren't) Mary's. If I said "this red thing used to be bread, but a scientist said it's now cardiac tissue"**, it would be possible to prove that the red thing is indeed now cardiac tissue, but not whether it used to be bread. * When I was a sophomore in high school, the AP Chemistry class came to our chemistry class to demonstrate this. The result scorched the ceiling, because our teacher neither asked nor checked how large the piece of sodium was after it was removed from the jar of mineral oil... ** http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/polish-eucharistic-miracle-approved-by-bishop-amid-nations-1050th-anniversa
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I find the proposition that the universe was made like this on purpose immensely more depressing than the thought that it was an accident. Agreed on that score. If everything is designed then there are some serious design issues. Arsenic Lupin posted:Chesterton annoys me a lot in other contexts, but The Man Who Was Thursday is just plain fun. Fair enough, I may well have a quick leaf through. I liked screwtape when I heard a bit of it on the radio, but I preferred Old Harrys Game myself (which was a bbc comedy that is really recent). Chesterton always struck me as one of these people who does seem like they genuinelly believed the middle ages was better. Which even I, someone who thinks that the Celtic tribes might be fun to live with for a little bit, would think is a tad ridiculous. You have all of the problems of the Late Classical era, liability of getting set on fire by raiders, constant diseases, and none of the advantages, "Church" gives away meat and you don't pay too many taxes! The Phlegmatist posted:It's kinda funny that atheists rail against evil fundamentalist Christians influencing society when the true danger to society, moral relativism, seems to have been a natural outgrowth of these atheistic philosophies. Also, lol what? I don't think going "Morality is not neccesarily universal" is a danger to society. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
what if god is a programmer and all the problems in the world are bugs god is trying to phase out with software and firmware updates periodically that's the something way to look at god, i forget what it is exactly because I'm sleeping in my chair atm but it is a thing that creation is imperfect and god is trying to fix it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:what if god is a programmer and all the problems in the world are bugs god is trying to phase out with software and firmware updates periodically In which case that takes care of the old "Omnipotence" question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
yeah that theology sees omnipotence as less "can do literally anything" and more "can do anything that is in god's nature" and apparently god can't properly compile code or something I'm tired
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
This seems like an interesting analysis of Chesterton to me. (at least) Two of his poems are wonderful: Lepanto and "The Rolling English Road". G. K. Chesterton posted:Before the Roman came to Rye or out to Severn strode,
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:27
|
|