To My Reasonable? Christian Readers
I have been hosting a conversation on my blog between an atheist (Eric) and a loyal christian reader (Dave) recently that brings the forefront again just how warped the thinking of a seemingly liberal or reasonable christian can be . If you would like to read the entire conversation between Dave and Eric, the comments in the post can be found here. BTW, I have no problem with stepping out of conversations in my own blog when someone else is making my point better than I could. Thanks Eric.
The most disturbing thing in Dave's reply is this comment regarding the biblical references to the obvious cruelty and murderous nature of the christian god:
"In each case where God or Jesus pass judgment on the wicked (my emphasis), they are warned of punishment. While the SAB may consider this cruel, I believe it's only because they assume God's judgments to be unfair. Any system of order that attempts to maintain goodness and punish evil is going to have...punishments. Whether or not that is cruel is relative."So the clarify what Dave is saying, the wicked women and children murdered at god's command in the bible were warned by God and the fact that they didn't flee, repent, commit suicide etc. (which they wouldn't be allowed to do by their wicked husbands) justifies them being murdered. Is this correct? So what about the wicked virgin girls, Dave, who were spared so they could be raped by your god's holy warriors? They deserved this? When god murders, burns, rapes and destroys it is 'fair' punishment? For what? Not heeding his 'warnings'?
If you (christians) are going to post on this site under the guise of being a reasonable and decent human beings, then I would warn you that you are going to be held to your own words and thoughts regarding god and morality and anything that you post about here. Dave's reply demonstrates how a seemingly normal and decent human being under the influence of religious dogma can justify the most horrible and unspeakable and unjust acts.
Dave's reply also demonstrates the negative effect that religious dogma has on the morality of a human being. While Dave may well be a kind and loving human being (I don't really know him), he feels compelled to defend torture, murder, rape and brutality that is ordered or committed by his god. What compels a human being to defend these things with such a ridiculous argument (god warned them) rather than to simply say that those things are horrible and he does not defend them? Such is the mind and morality of a believer.
atheism
christianity
morality
28 Comments:
The war recorded in the book of Joshua is the only war in Biblical history that was specifically condoned by God. There are no others. Why would anyone be happy for bloodshed?
Yes, Judges does have a story where the Benjamites go and steal women to make their brides. 1) Let me repeat that, they made them their brides. This may seem like a subtle point, but you are making it sound like they just raped them and left them for dead. They incorporated them into their tribe. 2) Its up for grabs as to whether or not this action was even supposed to take place. There's no passage that attributes these actions to God. It's very clear by the end of the book of Judges that the reader is to be left with the sense of disobedience on the part of the Israelites throughout the whole book.
Look, I admit that my last post on the previous discussion was lazily communicated. That's why I made the disclaimer of it being a 'blanket statement'. And I was specifically referring to the acts of cruelty supposedly found in the New Testament, when you quickly jumped to the Old and began putting devil horns on my head.
Have you read Leviticus and Numbers? The amount of rules these people had to follow was unreal. They were supposed to be practically perfect. My guess is that you would claim the OT ethic was too violent and too strict. But you would fail to see how it also protected workers and families economically in ways during that era of history which freed them to progress in their humanity. It was right for that time period, for that group of people. Obviously, we live in a different age.
But a critical part of this two-way discussion (if it can be considered that), is the question of ethics, and why you feel the need to question Christianity's ethics. Once again, let me rephrase this. Let's say that the Israelite's god is just a fairy tale. The idea of a god gave them strength. Thus they were superior to their neighbors and destroyed them. Why should you be upset about this? It's survival of the fittest. Who cares about the philosophy or theology of it. The strongest always survive. Why does death matter to the naturalist? Please explain this to me. This is the question I keep coming back to with no answer...
I believe in a God large enough to be the inspiration for religious teachings throughout the globe, humanitarian efforts, scientific discovery and progress, and basically everything good in this world.
Dave,
If I may be so bold to ask...Do you believe God can change what is moral or immoral? You seem to allude to that position by saying, "It was right for that time period, for that group of people. Obviously, we live in a different age." If God is perfect, omniscient, etc. why the need to change the, (for want of a better phrase) "laws of morality"?
And I'll answer your question: "Why does death matter to the naturalist?" Because it matters to BOTH of us. (Hint: You keep refering to 'survival of the fittest". That has got to be one of the most ill-used phrases ever, It's no wonder Darwin resisted using it until I think the fifth or sixth reprinting of his 'Origin of the Species' after being pressured by his publishers. But I digress...sorry) Having the ability to understand that "the IDEA that killing others can be Okay can also come around to kill you", is the basis for that morality.
I'm flattered that Alan has highlighted the discussion and I feel that Dave waiting 13 days to post a response is silly.
Dave,
Bible quoting and semantics will not help distract the question at hand. Why is belief in a christian's god any more rational than belief in Zeus, santa clause, Allah, Buddah, or the tooth fairy.
I will humor you for now and continue to address the items that you bring up.
"Yes, Judges does have a story where the Benjamites go and steal women to make their brides. 1) Let me repeat that, they made them their brides."
So kidnapping is ok as long as it's followed by forced marriage and rape? Some "moral compass" the Bible provides.
"2) Its up for grabs as to whether or not this action was even supposed to take place. There's no passage that attributes these actions to God."
Then Numbers 31:1-54 god directs moses to slaughter tens of thousands. He directs his troops to kill all males including children, only saving unmarried virgins. Of the virgins saved this slaughter 32 were sacrificed directly to god.
"And I was specifically referring to the acts of cruelty supposedly found in the New Testament, when you quickly jumped to the Old and began putting devil horns on my head."
Is the old testament part of the bible? Did the new testament invalidate the old? How can you then say that it's not ok to pick from it. Is the bible not your holy text and the word of god?
You, like most other apologists, keep cherry picking your quotes from the bible to prove your point while glossing over the injustice, murder, rape, and bigotry that is carried out by god, with his blessings, or in his name.
"Why should you be upset about this? It's survival of the fittest. Who cares about the philosophy or theology of it. The strongest always survive. Why does death matter to the naturalist? Please explain this to me. This is the question I keep coming back to with no answer..."
So it's ok to believe in fairy tales as long as they are *good* fairy tales. The simple matter of sectarian violence around the globe should give any rational person pause when reading this statement. "My god is better because we will smite your ass" doesn't seem like a strong moral argument to be making.
Why does death matter to the Atheist? Because it's the end of a life, no afterlife to get a smoozy with a mythical figure in the sky. It's a dumb question that doesn't even deserve and answer.
"I believe in a God large enough to be the inspiration for religious teachings throughout the globe, humanitarian efforts, scientific discovery and progress, and basically everything good in this world."
Ah, once again with your personal belief that is in direct contradiction with the Christian teachings of the bible.
Dave, you want all the good shit of the bible, Jesus's teachings, the afterlife, an all knowing and loving god, but you can't take responsibility for the bad that comes as part and parcel with the religion that you have chosen.
You can continue to argue with yourself, but I will probably not respond unless you come up with something new to refute.
Thanks again Eric for such a good reply to Dave. You have already hit upon several points that I wanted to mention.
Dave, what you need to understand is that we don't believe any of the mythology of the bible, so to put a question to us about the Israelites defeating enemies doesn't make any sense. The Israelites didn't. There is no evidence they ever wandered the desert for 40 years. It didn't happen ... it is mythology!
I would be interested to hear your answers to the questions we have about YOUR morality since it seems to be very suspect. A woman being forced into marriage is OK with you? Rape is OK? Murder of children is OK? If you are going to give a mythological god credit for all that people do which is good and your specific god is the god of the bible, then you can't ignore all the biblical evidence of his evil and immoral tendencies.
I would really appreciate a simple yes or no to the moral questions I put to you above. What do you believe, Dave? Don't tell me what your bible says or try to explain what god was thinking. Just tell me what you, living here in 2006, believe.
Do we really need God to maintain a sense of morality? Christians say yes, and secularists say no.
As an atheist and a secularist, I say no because neither god belief nor the lack of it, is any guarantee of morality.
Beep,
Not only do we not need a god for morality, when your god commits obviously horrible acts in holy texts it actually encourages immoral behavior i the followers.
Hi severalspeciesof,
I do not think of moral/immoral in terms of binding laws that govern the universe. I think of them in terms of boundary actions that protect and defend the good. Thinking of the world as a classroom, an analogy might be such: the teacher makes the rules, but the end goal for the students isn't to follow the rules, but to graduate from the class. And rules, while protecting a principle, may be influx considering the students' wholistic ability to follow the rule, which may then resume to its previous state after the students have grown in their ability.
It might be helpful to point out that, fairy tale or not, the era of history of the passages you speak of were recorded in a time when much tribal warfare was being waged, and humanity was still in its earlier stages humanity. (By the way, Alan, you brought up the Bible, not me, so please don't complain that we are now talking about it).
What is good? Truth is good. Honesty is good. Family is good. Friendship is good. Love is good. Forgiveness is good. Sex is good. Food is good. There is obviously much more, but good has been in existence since the dawn of humanity. And good can be perverted. Any one of those things I mentioned can be twisted and used to bring pain into our lives. But the original intent of these items is for good.
Beep, you said, "I say no because neither god belief nor the lack of it, is any guarantee of morality."
I understand your sentiment, and agree with you, but I can't shake this suspicious that, at least for the educated world, our beliefs about the world strongly tie into our ability to act and behave within it. I've been reading Albert Schweitzer's "Philosophy of Civilization" and he keeps referring to a life-affirming nature-philosophy. He takes more of a universalist stance to Theism, and yet he affirms the supernatural sacredness of life. How are we to keep affirming life if it is devoid of sacredness? If it is/we are just a mess of atoms, and we are creating humanity together, than chaos should rule supreme, and war should be our fellowship.
So, with the philosophy of the naturalist, the way to gain ground in morality is to do....what?
The way to define morality is to say...what?
I understand that you feel and appreciate morality as much as the rest of humanity (I believe we are all knitted together with this sense), I just don't agree with your arguments as to why we should behave morally. I believe they are too fragile from the outset, too easily bulldozed, and too confusing for the common person.
Not everyone is so sophisticated as to read Nietchze's works and realize, aha, this is why I should behave x,y,z. Is it just a human tragedy that the majority of the world will remain ignorant to their own plight as evolutionary progressors that never reached the greatness of those in the educated realm?
severalspeciesof, your statement about the idea of what goes around comes around can be described as something akin to belief in karma.
Hi Dave,
I'm not sure I understand your analogy of the classroom. Maybe you're confusing rules with morality. They are not the same. for instance, the ten commandments are not morals, they are 'rules'. Morals are contextual, they only make sense in a context. For instance, 'Thou shall not kill', is a rule, not a moral. It doesn't speak to the rightness or wrongness of killing. (Is it wrong to kill in self defense? You now have context, and then this statement: 'it's okay to kill in self-defense', gets a bit closer to the idea of a moral)
With all this being said, are you saying then it's Gods' idea that it is okay to "steal women to make them their brides" if it's to see if the 'rules' are good? As an 'experiment'?
Also my statement: "Having the ability to understand that "the IDEA that killing others can be Okay can also come around to kill you" was poorly stated, so I can see were you thought I was thinking in terms of 'what comes around goes around'(karma). It's close but not quite what I meant. So again,...
You ask: "Why does death matter to the naturalist?"
Answer: Because it means that (humanity as a whole) EVERYONE has a better chance at living, INCLUDING the naturalist. If death doesn't matter to the naturalist, then EVERYONE has less chance of living, INCLUDING the naturalist. The odds for life are better when death matters.
I hope I haven't been too confusing. This is why I have a love/hate relationship to thinking things through. From a SNL actor parodying President Bush:"It's Hard. It's just too hard."
Dave,
Do you always dogde tough questions? When ever you have been posed one you change the subject.
I guess Dave's not home.
These are tough questions for someone who wants to pretend to be 'open-minded' and one of the faithful at the same time. I've never met a believer who will answer direct questions before so I am not surprised that Dave isn't eager.
Eric/Alan,
It's not that I don't want to answer your questions. Eric, I'm not sure what makes you suggest that I 'always dodge tough questions'. Up until this point I believe I've tried my best to represent my views to the both of you. It's that I can already sense that you don't want a discussion, you want a trap. In simple, straighforward answer to all of your questions. Murder is wrong, intrinsically. Rape is wrong, intrinsically. Forced marriage is wrong, intrinsically.
The Numbers incident against the Midianites was in response/retaliation to a previous evil acts the Midianite did against the Israelites (see earlier in Numbers). And to make another hasty observation, in that part of humanity's story, tribal warfare was common. Thus when the Israelites experienced God, and experienced victory, they accordingly thought that God was acting on their side. Is this true? I don't know. I still by my previous statement that the only incident when Israelite was commanded by God to attack (unprovoked) another nation was in the book of Joshua when the Israelites take over what they considered to be the promised land. Eric, I think you are right when you say that I want all of the good shit from the bible. I do. I want to iron out the rough edges. It's true. But I still approach the text with a certain reverence and desire to glean truths from it (and to have it at least be fairly represented before bashing it).
severalspeciesof, your point is also taken. The classroom analogy wasn't good. Also, your restatement of the short version of your ethical position makes sense. I still think my point about atheistic ethical systems and their fragility still stands. And I was meaning to rephrase my other question. I didn't mean, 'why does DEATH matter to the naturalist', but rather, 'why does MURDER matter to the naturalist?' I am specifically referring to several examples I gave earlier in my original conversation with Eric.
Dave,
Once again rehashing what we have already covered.
"Murder is wrong, intrinsically. Rape is wrong, intrinsically. Forced marriage is wrong, intrinsically. "
But between the two of us we have at least two passages where that is done in the Bible with god's blessing and/or help. I could probably come up with hundreds of other passages that condone or endorse murder, rape, and other atrocities. How is that morally acceptable. It's this reason alone that I walked away from the Bible. It allows people to justify anything.
You claim atheist morality if fragile while being blinded to the fragility and absurdity of religious morality.
You can't claim fragility or subjectivity of atheists moral frameworks while claiming religion gives a more objective view.
Premises
According to religion morality comes from god.
We can never know god's will
Conclusion
religious morality is arbitrary
"Up until this point I believe I've tried my best to represent my views to the both of you. It's that I can already sense that you don't want a discussion, you want a trap."
Yes, you do represent your views. It is a discussion, what it is not is a debate since you can't seem to follow the logic that has been presented. If simple logical arguments are a trap, that I am guilty.
"And I was meaning to rephrase my other question. I didn't mean, 'why does DEATH matter to the naturalist', but rather, 'why does MURDER matter to the naturalist?' I am specifically referring to several examples I gave earlier in my original conversation with Eric."
You have to be shitting me. Under every type of modern non-theistic moral frameworks murder is wrong. It's not just wrong because of some father figure who will deny my death benefits, it's wrong because we can prove that it's wrong rationally and logically based on a framework that we can prove. Your entire question reeks of religious moral superiority that is unearned. Your morality on a work of fiction written by men almost 2000 years ago that has been edited, translated, and abridged by the church to suits it's needs.
The problem is you are arguing X + 1 = 2 without first showing that X = 1. So while your arguments my be internally consistent since you assume X=1, they will never be sound. The arguments, and everything based on them, will also be unsound.
So while you continue to attempt to glean "truth" from the Bible, as long as your presumption is for a Christian god your truth with be unsound. Any rational and logical person is well within their rights to reject your truth because it's built upon a house of cards that comes down to a single, unsubstantiated claim.
The fact that you can 'see' the trap, Dave, indicates that you can 'see' the intrinsic hypocrisy and horror of the bible. You don't want to answer in defense of the bible and your god because you realize immediately your answer cannot meet the criteria of reason or the moral level of a decent human being. This should tell you something.
BTW, do you spend any time trying to gleam the 'truths' of the koran or other holy texts?
Dave, you don't discover 'truths' by reading documents that aren't meant to stimulate thinking.
You state that you don't know whether god was leading the Israelites in one of the mystical stories of the bible where atrocities are clearly ordered by god. How can you consider worshiping this god or gleaning truth from his holy book if you don't know whether he inspired the work? And if he did inspire it, what he inspired was, by atheist standards, evil.
It is your atheistic, humanistic sense of morality that makes you unsure of any divine guidance behind acts of terror. You should trust this instinct, which is much better than that of an unquestioning believer, and shelve this part of you that is conditioned to think that all good comes from a mythical or supernatural source.
"(Murder) is wrong because we can prove that it's wrong rationally and logically based on a framework that we can prove."
Okay, prove it. Prove that murder is wrong intrinsically from logic. Prove that rape is wrong. Objectively.
"You can't claim fragility or subjectivity of atheists moral frameworks while claiming religion gives a more objective view."
For the record, there was a time when I didn't believe in Christianity, and I STILL considered the atheistic moral framework to be fragile and subjective. I can critique a viewpoint, can't I? If you are an atheist evangelist, then I'm allowed to express my concerns and questions to you.
Alan, the truths I was talking about were wisdom truths. For instance, from the Tao Te Ching, 800 BC, chapter 8:
'In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.
When you are content to be simply yourself
and don't compare or compete,
everybody will respect you.'
It's passages like these that are entrenched in ancient wisdom.
I find it fascinating that you both keep appealing to science and logic to find the basis for which to construct your entire world view. As I understand it, science is a discipline which is strictly observational. Even the conclusions are based strictly on the observed outcome of a certain physical process. How can science speak to the moral realm?
The same goes with logic. You are talking about logic like it is a worldview in and of itself. Logic is a tool. You use it. But you come to the table with ideas and/or presuppositions which you process THROUGH logic.
Appealing to both of these disciplines is somewhat circular.
Look, like I've said many times, I hold many of my views loosely. You're right, at times it gives me the liberty to cast a blind eye towards passages in Scripture that I just don't know how to interpret. But at the basis of my worldview, God is the authority.
"Okay, prove it. Prove that murder is wrong intrinsically from logic. Prove that rape is wrong. Objectively."
Look, I'm giving you a vastly abridged version of rule based utilitarianism here. It took me a full semester just to understand the history of non-theistic morality and I doubt I will be able to get it across in a few lines.
Moral guidelines are those which...
1) Add to the common good
2) You would want happening to you
Notice how these premises are both simple enough to be proven as part of a society, but flexible enough to grow and change as we learn more about the world around us.
Murder is wrong, even when it would add to the common good. Slavery is bad no matter how much the slaves help the rest of society. ( both of these immoral acts are found and endorsed in the Bible )
I could go on and on, but I'm tired of proving my morals. You have time and time again assailed them without basis or reason, but ignorance of basic non-theistic morality.
Ok, Dave, let's see your proof of the "Objective" religious moral framework. I'm not evangelizing here, just asking the question. Based on my understanding religious morality is based on god's will, something to which we will never *ever* know anything about.
I'm trying to point out the absurdity of religious morality, morality that flows from a source from which we will never actually experience ( really they don't, it's all explained medically ), nor can we ever hope to prove. You end up codifying rules from people that have "claimed to talk to god" or are "god's son". Both of these are absurd sources for moral authority.
If moses was around today he would be institutionalized because we know why people hear voices. We understand it and treat it every day and generally return people to productive society.
Truth vs. Wisdom
You said truths, not wisdom. in the previous thread I had already talked about religious wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to make the correct moral choice in a complex situation and religions are generally good sources for fables. As much as "The lion in the mouse" might provide a bit of wisdom it does not make the story TRUE.
Teo Te Ching
I find it amusing since the passage you quoted is entirely different in the copy I found.
" The location makes the dwelling good.
Depth of understanding makes the mind good.
A kind heart makes the giving good.
Integrity makes the government good.
Accomplishments makes your labors good.
Proper timing makes a decision good.
Only when there is no competition
will we all live in peace. "
Notice the major difference in translation? This is one of the things that I continue to point out time and time again. The the Bible is a work of man, not god.
I would say that my copy is more wise, but neither is truth.
Science, Reason, and Philosophy
You keep seeing what you want to see in my remarks, I don't appeal to science for morality, I never have. I appeal to science for facts which can be used with logic to form a valid and sound argument. We can then use logic and philosophy to build a framework that is not based on "faith" but sound empirical evidence to produce the outcome we want.
"But at the basis of my worldview, God is the authority."
Why? It's a simple question, why does god retain such authority?
Assigning authority to a fictional character is irrational. If it makes you feel better, then so be it, but is is not and never will be the basis for a sound moral argument. To continue pushing that point as fact or truth is to continue to be ignorant to reason.
Just accept the fact that religious morality can only ever be shared with people who share all of the same irrational "points of faith" as you. Without those points of irrational belief your argument, as has been shown time and again, falls apart.
To point you own gun back at you the Bible even says that you "Can't build a house on sand" and that's exactly what happens when you try to rationalize religion or religious moral authority. A little biblical wisdom to think about Dave.
I think I understand a little more now.
I believe Dave is a "Cultural Christianity" or the Christian belief system that the population believes is Christian teachings. This is not Christianity, but pop-religion. They have turned away from faith and replaced it with comfort.
http://www.crossroad.to/charts/cultural-Christianity.html
The basis for their spirituality is based in a very simple "Argument to popularity". Hey, everyone else is doing it.
So you have abandoned Christianity and embraced what I call a granola crunchy Christian based spirituality that is not based on the Bible. You may reguard this as an insult, but it would explan all of your obvious contradictions in your posts.
But that does not change the fact that the Bible teaming with examples of God's wrath and immorality. You take what you want and discard the rest despite the fact that "The absolute, unchanging, Word of God. The Bible is inspired and guarded by God --- including its honest reports about evil acts among God's people." 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet 1:25.
Dave said
"But at the basis of my worldview, God is the authority."
Which god is that Dave?
Eric,
Utilitarianism is good, practically speaking. However, it relies heavily on what it perceives to be human instinct toward the good and toward will to live. It does get a bit tricky when you start trying to define exactly what 'good' is. Good intentions such as the guidelines you've provided can be taken to the extreme realm, logically, and result in anarchy, communism, and a whole list of other 'evils'.
And it doesn't speak to WHY we should be adding to the common good, or what to do with instincts (things we want to happen to us) that are self-destructive (eg drugs). How do we measure self-destructiveness?
You're partially right when you pointed out that I am not always a "Biblical Christian" as described in the website you found. If you perhaps do a search for the "Emergent Church" you will find information about a whole group of Christians who think differently than the Christians you've probably met.
For example, it doesn't threaten my faith if the Adam and Eve story turns out to have been a legend. My guess would be that the historical accounts become based in reality somewhere around the time of Abraham, and that from Abraham on the events that are recorded actually (or at least could have) took place.
Concerning the will of god being unknowable, there are many passages that talk about the will of god. At base, the will of god is that we become more like him. He is described as being "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, full in unfailing love and faithfulness" in Exodus. We are told not just "Do not murder", but "Do not hate".
But at the base of it all there is an authority, and I believe this is the underlying solidity (what you would consider manipulation) of persons of faith.
In a secular moral framework, there really is no authority. Logic sort of works as an authority, but since it can be taken in so many different ways it must be based on sentiment eventually. Even David Hume conceded to this. In the end, the authority becomes those who are strongest.
And, yes, I am aware of a section of the brain that releases chemicals which allow a person to 'feel' a religious experience.
Digging deeper into our friend Dave reveals that I may have hit a nerve.
from his blog.. April 6, 2006
"Also, I don't think that my struggle deals nearly so much with the abstract truths of Christianity as it does with being accepted into the larger church body."
"I believe in the unity of believers. However, I am paranoid of being constantly perceived as only partial believer. I am not fully welcomed into the fellowship, and conversely, I don't actually want to be fully part of the fellowship, because I still have issues with being associated entirely with this group of people."
"Which God am I talking to again? Were You upset with me for being interested in the Tao, or were You encouraging that? I don't know, I'm not sure that I ever did know. Is this the God who condemns people on a higher or lower standard? I can choose this based on the community I choose to join. In fact, I'm so moldable, I sometimes can't resist the influence that a certain group may have on me."
Sounds like Dave goes though a lot of trouble attempt to merge his beliefs about the supernatural with those of others.
Dave, on your path, you may want to look at non-theistic moral frameworks since I believe that you will find all the "good shit" that religion touts fits well within the structure of something like Utilinariasm without the grasping at straws that you seem to be doing now.
You don't need to be saved, you just need to clear you mind of this religious mumbo-jumbo.
Dave... we managed to x-post I guess.
"Utilitarianism is good, practically speaking. However, it relies heavily on what it perceives to be human instinct toward the good and toward will to live. It does get a bit tricky when you start trying to define exactly what 'good' is. Good intentions such as the guidelines you've provided can be taken to the extreme realm, logically, and result in anarchy, communism, and a whole list of other 'evils'."
Straw-man argument. Rule based utilitarianism does not have the problems that you state in reality. Communism? Give me a break! You are really stretching this argument pretty thin.
"Concerning the will of god being unknowable, there are many passages that talk about the will of god. At base, the will of god is that we become more like him. He is described as being "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, full in unfailing love and faithfulness" in Exodus. We are told not just "Do not murder", but "Do not hate"."
Once again you are using a man made, edited, and translated document to show god's will and that is a poor substitute for fact. You on one line admit that the stories are allegory, but then are once again insisting that it's the word of god. Make up your mind, the bible is true and you have to take all the bad crap that comes with it or it's an allegory and the will of god really can not be known. Or maybe you are just upset that all religions might be equality right and equally wrong about the god and the state and function of humans.
"In the end, the authority becomes those who are strongest."
Might makes right.... another fine moral precept from religion. Just because something is strong does not make it correct and you know that.
I said: 'For example, it doesn't threaten my faith if the Adam and Eve story turns out to have been a legend. My guess would be that the historical accounts become based in reality somewhere around the time of Abraham, and that from Abraham on the events that are recorded actually (or at least could have) took place.'
you said: 'You on one line admit that the stories are allegory, but then are once again insisting that it's the word of god. '
please read this again and note where your rebuttal does not match up
you said: 'Once again you are using a man made, edited, and translated document to show god's will and that is a poor substitute for fact.'
What you want me to believe is that we can never translate any old historical documents successfully?
you said: 'Straw-man argument. Rule based utilitarianism does not have the problems that you state in reality. Communism? Give me a break! You are really stretching this argument pretty thin.'
How is the problem of defining good not a problem. How is the reliance on an abstract understanding of instinct not a problem? Utilitarian thought led to the writing of Das Kapital, which led to the establishment of communism. It's a stretch, but worth noting, nonetheless.
Dave,
You seem confused... on one had you argue that you can pick and choose from the bible ( I can quote you if you wish ), on the other hand you pick and choose exact quote to prove that we can know god's will. This is a dilemma... either one or the other, not both.
So what is it Dave, word of god or collection of stories that make up the Jewish and Christian faith?
Either way, I believe, I have tried to show the error in your logic and thinking. Each time you keep switching back to the other way of thinking.
I'm done with line of arguments. Feel free to continue to bring up new lines of thinking if you must. I believe you have an unconscious bias against me, like most Atheists, that you are uncomfortable with. Not when they are being normal people, but when they make your rational side confront your irrational faith.
Looks like Dave has run away again.
If the Bible is the word of god, then it should be perfect since god is perfect in all the items that created If this is the case, you must accept all of the immorality of the Bible that we have pointed out as lock stock and barrel with God's plan. You can also use the scripture to know god's will since it it true.
But if you take the more reasoned approach you realize that the Bible is written by man, edited by man, translated by man, and can be interpreted by man then how can we presume that all of those layers have preserved the true will of god rather than the will of men. For example the quotation from the "Tao Te Ching"; both passages were obviously from a similar source, but your translation looks to have read into the text more than the other. Which is more accurate, who knows.
The point is still sound. Either the Bible is the word of god and should not be liberally re-interpreted ( as the Emergent Church does ), or you can't be sure of god's will since any or all passages could have been corrupted by the hand of man.
I don't know if you will continue to lurk or actually answer the question, these are the difficult questions and must be answered if you want to keep proclaiming your "faith" as moral guidance.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
If running away means that I've taken a few days to research rule utilitarianism, and visit with some old friends as well as get some much needed work done, then yes, I suppose I 'ran away' from your frightening questions.
I was wondering...are you a rule utilitarian? Or were you just presenting this as one of many wonderful ethical options to choose from?
Also, I'm still not certain why you claim to have the authority to deliver options on how to interpret faith documents. This either/or dilemma that you're trying to put me through is somewhat naive. You've become a fundamentalist, but on the other side. I'm not sure what to say to open your perspective.
Do you believe that all historical documents from dead languages can never be successfully interpreted? That all meaning is lost? To what extent can we recover at least the general meaning from these documents? From the Tao passage, couldn't we go to the original language and come to a closer agreement on the intended meaning of the passage? Or do you believe this to be impossible? The answer to these questions will help me assess your epistemic bias.
Dave,
"Also, I'm still not certain why you claim to have the authority to deliver options on how to interpret faith documents. This either/or dilemma that you're trying to put me through is somewhat naive. You've become a fundamentalist, but on the other side. I'm not sure what to say to open your perspective."
The either or question is designed to server as a reference point to further discussion. Just like all th previous ones, no alterior motive was involved. If you have a third option I would love to hear it.
"Do you believe that all historical documents from dead languages can never be successfully interpreted? That all meaning is lost? To what extent can we recover at least the general meaning from these documents?"
Yes, but we are not talking vauge items here. Let me quote you.
"Concerning the will of god being unknowable, there are many passages that talk about the will of god. At base, the will of god is that we become more like him. He is described as being "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, full in unfailing love and faithfulness" in Exodus. We are told not just "Do not murder", but "Do not hate"."
Leaving aside the point that those are generic virtues having nothing to with faith or religion. My point is that if you admit that understanding of the bible is inherent upon interpertation of passages in dead languages then how is it any more objective/arbatrary than a rational standard set down by man? A standard that is part of a living language and dialog that we are continuing to today?
You claim moral superiority upon one possible interpertation of the bible. An interpertation that we have shown can be easly faulted by exaimining your understanding of gods will versus his actions that have been taken and documented in those same pages.
This is just one of the quandaries that relgion give us.
Sorry last post went before I got a chance to preview.
Dave,
Let me make perfectly clear that I have an open mind when it comes to reason, but you have said nothing that would allow me to change my position on morality, Christianity, or the Bible.
Society need to move beyond the sectarian violence that has and will continue to destroy this planet one religion at a time. Faith, magical thinking, and illogical behavior is a threat to us all since it allows the justification of any action as "god's will" or "moral".
I am done with this discussion; if you wish to feel that anyone who questions your faith is evangelizing then so be it; it's you loss. From your blog and your website it appears to be your MO that anyone who questions your choice of religions suddenly becomes "a bit arrogant".
Alan,
I hope this whole discussion was as enlightening to you as was to me. I feel that I was a lenient on logical standards as I could get and still I could not create a good environment for further discussion. Without ground rules nothing else productive can happen.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home