On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time.
I present you with Georges Lemaître, astronomer, priest, and one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory.
Edit : oh and that's just a random example, don't get me wrong, there isn't just one brilliant christian scientist in contemporary history (just in case you're wondering).
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time.
The people I'm talking about are much smarter than the smartest christians you know.
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
No more so than hardcore fundies. They start off with this belief, and then give circular arguments to hold up their belief, even dismissing scientific evidence if it goes against their world view.
Yeah, you're right. Most religious people have put as little thought into their religion as atheists have put into their hard-line empiricism.
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
Nonsense.
First of all, you can't control for culture or weltanschauung. Theology is an integral part of both. It's definitionally impossible.
Never say "definitionally" or "by definition" in a philosophical argument (unless you have previously established rigorous definitions for your terms), it's a red flag for lack of rigor. What it really means is "I have already assumed my conclusion."
Also, why not? Would you say that your claim here is a truth which is independent of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung?
It's also important to distinguish between a particular theology and the object of theology in general.
There really no way to control for other factors either. The landscape is entirely too complex. The methods are too prone to misinterpretation, bias, and wishful thinking.
Says you. Have you studied much theory? People who study these things tend to agonize over these problems, so you're not saying anything particularly new.
Even the terminology you use, "historical moment," is entirely too vague. You've picked a really pretty way of saying "It's all arbitrary."
The term "historical moment" is a common one, and is precisely analogous to the way that a physicist would use the word "moment."
I find it hilarious that you think I'm saying "it's all arbitrary." I have spent, and will probably continue to spend, my entire academic career arguing against this sort of claim .
I'm also curious about what these questions of ultimate concern are.
How should we live our lives? Why is there something rather than nothing?
Those two should keep you going for quite some time. When you've figured those two out come back and I'll think of some more.
You're welcome to whatever spiritual thoughts or feelings you want. The world of the transcendental is your playground. Have at it. If you can construct an independent and internally consistent framework, no one can bother you. But once you start making specific claims of any kind, those claims are subject to rational scrutiny. That doesn't just mean conclusions you reach. It includes analysis of your underlying assumptions and premises, as well as scrutiny of any argument you make. If they even allude to questions of fact (i.e. the existance of god), it's fair game. There is no intellectual dishonesty here. We're applying the same criteria to your beliefs that we apply to everything else.
Ok, deal.
Believers are the group that want exceptions.
These people are what we call "bad philosophers."
Alternatively, you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful epistemology than rationalism/empiricism, but that seems unlikely.
I think it's funny you think empiricism is "complete and consistent" (whatever that means, because empiricism is not a formal symbolic system so it can't really be those things). Do you use those terms accidentally or are you aware of the problematic relationship between the two?
Empiricism is certainly useful, there's no denying that.
Admittedly, this is a little outside my comfort zone, but that's mostly because it's so interntionally vague. I think I have a decent response here.
People get mad when I'm vague, and get mad when I use technical terms in order to be precise. I just can't win TT
On June 13 2012 17:50 Mstring wrote: Here's how I see it; "proof" and "belief" are concepts of little value in this particular mind-map of mine. Use the bible as a tool for your own development in the experience you find yourself in. Test out the lessons in your own life. Test out new beliefs. Don't "believe" something because someone told you; figure it out yourself and make sure it makes sense to you!
Bingo!
"When 'everyone knows' beauty is beauty, this is not beautiful. When 'everyone knows' good is good, this is not good."
On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: What does this say? That we are using a set of beliefs as the foundation of our thought process, at all times, much like science requires axioms that are not proven and yet necessary for what we built on top of it. As there can not be evidence of evidence, there are fundamental things that can't be proven and that we must believe in
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.
On June 12 2012 03:32 Omnipresent wrote: More ad hominem, sigh...
"Hey, I'm the only one who's allowed to act as an aggressive figure of authority here!"
lol
On June 14 2012 06:03 Omnipresent wrote: 5. I don't believe for a minute that you're an atheist.
Everything that Kukaracha has said is compatible with atheism. Futhermore, he is a gentleman and a scholar, so pay attention to what he says and you might learn something.
On June 14 2012 06:27 superbarnie wrote: God created the universe.
Woah look! the universe just got explained.
This is far from an explanation. But you seem to be fairly young so I won't hold it against you.
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time.
I present you with Georges Lemaître, astronomer, priest, and one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory.
Edit : oh and that's just a random example, don't get me wrong, there isn't just one brilliant christian scientist in contemporary history (just in case you're wondering).
I could also be missing the point of Idea's response, but I don't think he was suggesting that there are no intelligent christians on the planet. I believe he was referring to the fact that no christian he knows has ultimately given an answer better than "because I just know." I would use myself, not as an example of someone smart, but someone having the same response. If I were asked why I don't believe in God/god, I could not possibly give an answer that doesn't assume something. It is what I believe because it is what I believe, and in the greater scheme of things my ability to judge is greatly impaired by a lack of any absolutely valid information. Therefore when pressed enough times, I have been forced to respond that it just is what I believe and I have no solid reason to believe it.
On June 14 2012 10:01 Multiplex wrote: Therefore when pressed enough times, I have been forced to respond that it just is what I believe and I have no solid reason to believe it.
This is an indication that you should think harder about it.
edit: Please understand that I'm not implying that you are wrong, that is just the conclusion you should draw from the situation you've described, and applies to anything, not just religion.
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time.
I present you with Georges Lemaître, astronomer, priest, and one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory.
Edit : oh and that's just a random example, don't get me wrong, there isn't just one brilliant christian scientist in contemporary history (just in case you're wondering).
A brilliant scientist indeed. It should be noted that he believed vehemently in the search for truth, particularly scientific truth. Lemaitre also believed that God cannot be scientifically proven, as God, and "creation" was before the Big Bang, and pre-dates the known physical universe, which I guess also includes the physical laws attached with it. He had come to terms with his secular and religious activities, which I feel many Christians are still insecure about. Thus you have "teach the controversy" and bullshit like it.
I was never a Christian. I went to church a few times with friends, but I ended up hating it because all I saw were two-faced people everywhere with only a handful of exceptions. What does that mean to me? They are just another hypocrite.
IMO, the mentally strongest person is a person doesn't require religion for guidance. People who are mentally weak tend to look towards religion for salvation.
Observe CAREFULLY at the majority of people inside church walls and compare their behaviour outside those walls. Critically analyse their actions and you shall see what I truly mean.
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
Nonsense.
First of all, you can't control for culture or weltanschauung. Theology is an integral part of both. It's definitionally impossible.
Never say "definitionally" or "by definition" in a philosophical argument (unless you have previously established rigorous definitions for your terms), it's a red flag for lack of rigor. What it really means is "I have already assumed my conclusion."
Also, why not? Would you say that your claim here is a truth which is independent of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung?
It's also important to distinguish between a particular theology and the object of theology in general.
There really no way to control for other factors either. The landscape is entirely too complex. The methods are too prone to misinterpretation, bias, and wishful thinking.
Says you. Have you studied much theory? People who study these things tend to agonize over these problems, so you're not saying anything particularly new.
Even the terminology you use, "historical moment," is entirely too vague. You've picked a really pretty way of saying "It's all arbitrary."
The term "historical moment" is a common one, and is precisely analogous to the way that a physicist would use the word "moment."
I find it hilarious that you think I'm saying "it's all arbitrary." I have spent, and will probably continue to spend, my entire academic career arguing against this sort of claim .
You're welcome to whatever spiritual thoughts or feelings you want. The world of the transcendental is your playground. Have at it. If you can construct an independent and internally consistent framework, no one can bother you. But once you start making specific claims of any kind, those claims are subject to rational scrutiny. That doesn't just mean conclusions you reach. It includes analysis of your underlying assumptions and premises, as well as scrutiny of any argument you make. If they even allude to questions of fact (i.e. the existance of god), it's fair game. There is no intellectual dishonesty here. We're applying the same criteria to your beliefs that we apply to everything else.
Alternatively, you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful epistemology than rationalism/empiricism, but that seems unlikely.
I think it's funny you think empiricism is "complete and consistent" (whatever that means, because empiricism is not a formal symbolic system so it can't really be those things). Do you use those terms accidentally or are you aware of the problematic relationship between the two?
Empiricism is certainly useful, there's no denying that.
Admittedly, this is a little outside my comfort zone, but that's mostly because it's so interntionally vague. I think I have a decent response here.
People get mad when I'm vague, and get mad when I use technical terms in order to be precise. I just can't win TT
As a favor, could you try to format with fewer breaks where possible? It's makes it a bit diffcult to format a response. Imagine If I put breaks in the middle of your breaks and then you put more breaks in my breaks in your next response etc. It just gets messy.
Your point about my use of "definitionally" is fair. If we really want to dig into this discussion (which I'm not particularly interested in), we should get concrete definitions and go from there. I'd be interested in a definition of either of those terms that would allow you to control them as to examine theology.
My training is in history. We deal with this sort of thing a lot, but not as often, and perhaps not as intensely or systematically, as an anthropologist or specialized philosopher might.
The trouble with historical moment isn't that it means nothing. It's that it means everything: language, geography, social structures, etc. You could spend an entire career focusing on any one of those for a specific location over a specific period of time and still not really understand it. "Vague" is probably the wrong word there.
It's conceivable that one could construct a comprehensive system that would allow this sort of analysis to work. It seems nearly impossible, but that's not a reason not to try. I think the issue of arbitrariness stems from a pragmatic concern about implimenting such a system, if you could somehow manage to construct it in the first place. The amount of information needed is incomprehensible, and the resources (esp. time) needed to process it equally incomprehensible. For any real application of these ideas, you will be forced to arbitrarily select the information you see as most significant. Other significant pieces of information would simply go unknown, lost to history. It's intersting to work on, but likely useless. That's probably why I didn't become a philosopher.
I'm aware of conflict between rationalism and empiricism. This is probably also a poor word choice, resulting this time from my admited lack of comfort with this material. The point is not that either is perfectly complete, consistent, or useful, but rather that you could propose a more complete, consistent, and useful system. I was making a joke about paradigm shift, and apparently a poorly executed one.
Finally, the my comment about vagueness wasn't about your language. I think you were precise about the kinds of ideas you're interested in and how you might hope understand. The vagueness here is in how you could possible hope to explore those ideas and what you could possibly hope to achieve once you knew how to do that.
If you're not interested in the discussion, let's not have it, especially because you're basically dismissing my entire field as fundamentally intractable. I have little interest in defending theory to a uninterested audience. It's hard enough to defend theory to other theorists.
The trouble with historical moment isn't that it means nothing. It's that it means everything: language, geography, social structures, etc. You could spend an entire career focusing on any one of those for a specific location over a specific period of time and still not really understand it.
On June 14 2012 12:01 sam!zdat wrote: If you're not interested in the discussion, let's not have it, especially because you're basically dismissing my entire field as fundamentally intractable. I have little interest in defending theory to a uninterested audience. It's hard enough to defend theory to other theorists.
The trouble with historical moment isn't that it means nothing. It's that it means everything: language, geography, social structures, etc. You could spend an entire career focusing on any one of those for a specific location over a specific period of time and still not really understand it.
The map is not the territory.
That's fine. We probably shouldn't have the discussion.
I'll say that I don't mean to be dismissive, though.
On June 12 2012 09:56 ZeaL. wrote: I realize I'm jumping in here late but I read this first paragraph and had to say something about this passage. I am currently a non-believer but I did spend about 3 years going to church while in high school for various reasons. My church was more of a liberal church and definitely had more of a love everyone and turn the other cheek type of place rather than fire and brimstone. Near the end of my stay there a friend asked my pastor why hell existed to which she responded, "I personally don't think Hell exists, I think that those who do not believe in our God do not get to spend an eternity with him." or something to that extent. Of course everyone who was listening was like wtf, how can you say that? It says so in the bible that you get damned to hell and all that good shit. Her explanation was that the KJV bible translated the Hebrew word for pit/grave into this word "hell" which implies eternal torment. It was still best to spread God's love as salvation and heaven are better than not salvation and heaven but an eternal punishment i.e. demons burning people and stuff did not exist in her view. I knew very little about the bible at the time and soon left after so I never really tried figuring this one out, but it seems that not all Christians believe in a hell?
A lot of pastors these days like to make stuff up. The is Bible states that there is such thing as Hell, so I think your pastor is probably one of those that try to soften up the hard to accept parts of Christianity so that they can get more converts. there are many passages that describe Hell as more than just "away from God" like
It's not made up. It's actually the exact definition of hell that john paul II gave in his catechism (hell is the state of being separated from god),so you could say it's the official stance of the catholic church.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
Such a bitter woman. Alas, to be expected from somebody that fears every step he or she takes because of the firm belief in a vengeful god, the god of the bible. Her going on about britain was hilarious however. Hell, her reasoning in general was hilarious. I just couldn't get mad, it was too rediculous.
On June 16 2012 06:02 nerak wrote: I don't think the most important thing about our religion is the afterlife. It is love here and now, towards God and other people.
This is basically where I'm at, except I don't really believe in any religion. If a religion is somehow true, though, I am pretty confident that by being a good person and helping others I will be rewarded. I really like the message of loving everyone in the Christian Bible, treating others as you want to be treated, and total equality. Those were some seriously liberal ideas at the time, and I think they are good points to live by.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
I'm a Christian, but honestly a lot of other Christians piss me off. I think the Bible like any book has a moral, in this case "Don't be a fucking dick and everyone will be a-ok." That's it. No hatred of gays (that's Moses's words, so the Jews should be even more guilty of this one if anything), no "go piss off everyone around you", just don't. be. a. dick.
"Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men." -- Voltaire
Also, concerning the fundamentalists who literally believe the Bible was written by God - doesn't the Bible start out with those little headings at the beginning of every book that says something like "the third book of Moses" or "the book of Matthew"? I thought it pointed out in a pretty obvious way that it was written by humans.
And Genesis (at least the early part from what I've been looking through) makes a lot more sense when combined with science, like evolution and Big Bang Theory. It's just basically saying that all these processes were catalyzed by someone... or something. God could just be another way of saying the Sun or the Universe.
On June 09 2012 03:14 Chocolate wrote: The whole belief that Scripture is written by God is silly too. There is no evidence for that, and if you can find evidence of that it better not be in Scripture itself. Also, the idiots that take Genesis literally do not understand that the book was written in 600 BC, thousands of years after the events couls have occurred. .
There are plenty of flaws in Christianity to point out, but you're hilariously misinformed on this one. Nobody thinks that a big magic dude with a white robe and a beard wrote the Bible and then mailed it to Earth. Christians believe that Scripture writers were inspired by God, not that God is actually responsible for any of the words (with the possible exception of the 10 commandments) they wrote down. There's a large body of scholarship that studies which (groups of) people most likely wrote which parts of the Bible, both Testaments. Almost all of those scholars are devout Christians or Jews.
Those idiots that take Genesis literally are their own very special breed of crazy, but there's no need to lump all of Christianity in with them.
You're the misinformed one here, it seems. There are plenty of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, written by man. Not "inspired" but actually the word of god. Same goes with muslims and the quran. It's essentially divine e-mail.. just look up Westboro Baptist Church for instance. There are a lot of religious nutjobs out there
He's actually a brilliant physicist/biologist but is just terrible at arguing with people that insufferable. You would know that if you watched ANY of his other videos.
will be great if some Christian can answer this for me: it's actually getting really difficult to believe in bible. If God could see the future, then why is he warning us about the coming end of the world stuff and "guide" us? Doesn't that mean he is binded by the future he sees? (as in he has to guide us or the future would be different from the one he foresee)
Another is that did he not foresee this future when he first created adam? Why would he be angry at adam and eve eating the fruit and lying then?
On June 17 2012 04:33 ETisME wrote: will be great if some Christian can answer this for me: it's actually getting really difficult to believe in bible. If God could see the future, then why is he warning us about the coming end of the world stuff and "guide" us? Doesn't that mean he is binded by the future he sees? (as in he has to guide us or the future would be different from the one he foresee)
Another is that did he not foresee this future when he first created adam? Why would he be angry at adam and eve eating the fruit and lying then?
Free will. Apparently the greatest gift given to man.
But really, many atheists take just as many leaps of faith in their own principled beliefs as Christians. Most atheists are just as blind about their own beliefs as Christians. Rejecting religion is just the first step for atheists (albeit the easiest step imo). Then you need to actually reflect on ethical/moral standards and the rationale behind upholding them. But far too many atheists just reject religion, then stop. Or maybe read something by Bentham, then stop. Or just say "fuck it nothing matters" then stop. Or something glib like "happiness is the key" then stop. It's the same leap of faith. It's hypocrisy at its finest. It's always more fun poking holes in someone else's belief than realizing that your own are just as fragile. :/
EPT
.
