tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6501229593437882925..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: There. Somebody said it!Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger261125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49737663065269567132013-05-09T21:13:05.332-07:002013-05-09T21:13:05.332-07:00Zach
Re: "'Papa, with morality the proble...Zach<br />Re: <i>"'Papa, with morality the problem is you will always get hung up on some kind of cultural/biological relativism."</i><br /><br />Do you mean me specifically or morality generally? That's all.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31584645840017912392013-05-09T08:09:30.822-07:002013-05-09T08:09:30.822-07:00Papa those were two separate thoughts. One to you,...Papa those were two separate thoughts. One to you, one trying to discourage people from following Crude's dirty tactics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50967490001217756752013-05-09T07:07:46.809-07:002013-05-09T07:07:46.809-07:00Bob
Here are some statistics on religion in Japan....Bob<br />Here are some statistics on religion in Japan.<br /><br />"About 70% of Japanese profess no religious membership,[9][10] according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000.[11] And according to Demerath (2001:138), 65% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[12] According to Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, some 70–80% of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion. " Wiki<br /><br />Elsewhere:<br /><br /><i>"East Asian cultures define religion differently from those in the West, making classification of certain adherents of Buddhism and Taoism particularly difficult, as belief in gods is generally absent in principle in these schools of thought except in syncretic outliers to the mainstreams of the belief system."</i><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36931966782188819062013-05-09T06:49:20.537-07:002013-05-09T06:49:20.537-07:00Zach
'Papa, with morality the problem is you w...Zach<br /><i>'Papa, with morality the problem is you will always get hung up on some kind of cultural/biological relativism. <br />Crude's fallacy-peddling notwithstanding, I prefer to engage with what people are presently saying rather than attack their character."</i><br /><br />Sorry, I'm not with you there. Talk to me.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47698199254110124252013-05-09T06:45:03.586-07:002013-05-09T06:45:03.586-07:00Sojourner
"If, as you say, one is free to exe...Sojourner<br /><i>"If, as you say, one is free to exercise their "judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law", what of rules of law shaped within a different socio-cultural context than your own?"</i><br /><br />That's the $64 question. Therein lies the commonality we all share beyond the different socio-cultural contexts. With continuing globalisation precipitated by mass communication and rapid transportation very few significantly sizable groups of people are more than a few hours away from each other, perhaps less than a day anywhere in the world. And with the speed, depth and breadth of personal communications unbounded by geography, something must give. If humanity is to mix freely and safely, we must look to more universal models of relationships. Nations states are binding into regional geo-political co-operative alliances with common goals of free trade, free exchange of education, goods etc through free trade agreements and a myriad of other interwoven bilateral, multilaterally and mutually agreed terms of human engagement be it economic, trade, social, sporting etc. The days of sovereign nation states are reaching their use-by date as larger conglomerations of countries merge to take advantage of the economies of scale. Picture NAFTA, or the EEC or APEC as fore-runners of conglomerate states of different peoples sharing common interests.<br /><br />In place of these changed social and economic relationships, interdependence becomes the new operant paradigm between peoples of varied groups. Along with that immanent change, comes the pressure[?], for want of a better word, for a much more inclusive and wider participatory social order. In the interim, to overlay the existing country-specific, socio-cultural differences, it seems a supervening humanist secular approach is the framework is best placed to establish a social and economic structure that plugs into this increasingly important concept of interdependence. This means picking up the best of the ethical and moral practices that in the main share one common feature and fundamental principle, that of human flourishing. See <a href="http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198238045.001.0001/acprof-9780198238041-chapter-9?rskey=ypltvN&result=5&q=flourishing" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. <br /><br />And <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/Virtue.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> is a most interesting little article written by Gilbert Harman of Princeton University that lends some support to encouraging our seeking a wider, perhaps global supervening moral and ethical code based on a model [I suggest a humanist secular model] that circumvents misplaced character traits, be they personal, social, religious or cultural in nature, which we [falsely as it turns out] think are irreconcilable characteristics of the 'different socio-cultural contexts'. This article seems to suggest that no such traits exist and that it is possible that different people in different groups can share a common vision of human flourishing. The task of course is to disparate groups to the table. No done deal by any stretch, but we need to continue on that journey. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63807208735301423252013-05-09T06:15:40.136-07:002013-05-09T06:15:40.136-07:00"if we take an example, the Japanese are high..."<i>if we take an example, the Japanese are highly moral and ethical people</i>"<br /><br />I've only been to Japan once, but I am a <b>huge</b> fan of Japanese cinema (just last night I watched Koreeda's <i>I Wish</i>, and Ozu is my all-time favorite director), and their movies are absolutely <i>soaked</i> in Shintoism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I imagine this must be at least some small reflection of actual societal attitudes. I don't think Linton can claim Japan as an atheistic culture.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31697219122657554732013-05-09T05:42:49.058-07:002013-05-09T05:42:49.058-07:00Papa, with morality the problem is you will always...Papa, with morality the problem is you will always get hung up on some kind of cultural/biological relativism. <br /><br />Crude's fallacy-peddling notwithstanding, I prefer to engage with what people are presently saying rather than attack their character.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44089925475074591732013-05-09T05:17:57.460-07:002013-05-09T05:17:57.460-07:00@Papalinton,
The reason being, if we take an exam...@Papalinton,<br /><br /><i>The reason being, if we take an example, the Japanese are highly moral and ethical people.</i><br /><br />Read a little about Japanese imperialism, and then read a little about how that still impacts relations in East Asia today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6474608831256826532013-05-09T03:31:22.390-07:002013-05-09T03:31:22.390-07:00Papalinton,
Interesting points. Unless I have mis...Papalinton,<br /><br />Interesting points. Unless I have misread you, commonly accepted community standards represent the well of positive value judgements from which we should drink.<br /><br />If, as you say, one is free to exercise their <i>"judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law"</i>, what of rules of law shaped within a different socio-cultural context than your own? Moreover, if one's judgemental threshold is bounded by <i>"moral judgements as a community"</i>, does this mean that one is never freely justified in exercising a contrary judgement? If not free, then it would seem that the moral enterprise is held hostage to mobocracy. Yet if they are in fact free, how can it be said that we are free to exercise <i>"judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law"</i>?<br /><br />SojournerAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11418459170147652432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62950077546288745142013-05-09T02:48:05.002-07:002013-05-09T02:48:05.002-07:00Corrigendum
"The rule of law as we know it, i...Corrigendum<br /><i>"The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry into the legislative framework the defines the rule of law."</i><br /><br />should read:<br /><br /><i>"The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry, into the very legislative framework that defines the rule of law."</i><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70196574588557348192013-05-09T00:34:05.262-07:002013-05-09T00:34:05.262-07:00Sojourner
"[H]ow do you or I escape relativiz...Sojourner<br /><i>"[H]ow do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's? For instance, if each citizen's own values purportedly justify their own judgements, how do we judge the values of someone else without also being justifiably judged by the other? "</i><br /><br />We are free to exercise our judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law. For example, if a couple for whatever reason in privacy of consultation with their physician conclude that they are to have an abortion, they are free to exercise their judgement within the rule of law. That does not impinge one iota on you and your wife exercising your free judgement not to have an abortion. A resort to blowing up family clinics and shooting doctors in church is not a judgement that should be encouraged, by anyone. If Roe v Wade is to be amended or repealed it must be through the democratic argie-bargie of the ballot box. The rule of law, together with democracy, however open to compromise it is, is still the best forum in which justification of our judgements are held up to on-going public scrutiny. As Winston Churchill once remarked, <i>"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."</i><br /><br />The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry into the legislative framework the defines the rule of law.<br /><br />Sojourner, you say, <i>"[H]ow do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's?"</i><br /><br />Why would you want to escape relativizing? In and of itself it is not a bad thing. But having asked that, the extent to which one can relativize is right up to, but not across, the boundary that defines the rule of law.<br /><br />There is so much more than can be added. A blog is not an appropriate forum.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66540304535633477012013-05-08T23:40:04.295-07:002013-05-08T23:40:04.295-07:00Zach
"Much of current debate seems largely to...Zach<br /><i>"Much of current debate seems largely to be conducted at the periphery."</i><br /><br />I do hanker for an edit button. The above sentence refers to, and I shall edit it thus:<br /><br /><i>"Much of current debate between naturalism and supernaturalism seems largely to be conducted at the periphery of philosophy, in blogs like Feser's. One need only read of his despair and discomfort with modern philosophy. A good place to review this relationship would be his book, TLS. A-T philosophy and the pining for Medieval Scholasticism are two philosophical positions with little traction outside theological circles."</i>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9714062158682350672013-05-08T23:22:30.286-07:002013-05-08T23:22:30.286-07:00Papalinton,
Thank you for completing your thought...Papalinton,<br /><br />Thank you for completing your thoughts.<br /><br />I can't help but notice what seems to be an existential conundrum in your response, though. For if your justification is <i>"only as much as any other citizen in the public square"</i>, how do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's? For instance, if each citizen's own values purportedly justify their own judgements, how do we judge the values of someone else without also being justifiably judged by the other? <br /><br />It would seem that this view better lends itself to moral pluralism, in which case value judgements would lack any corporate extension. Or is the best we can hope to achieve just personal satisfaction through finger pointing? Tough questions...<br /><br />Sojourner<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11418459170147652432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7956731390142160592013-05-08T21:57:57.660-07:002013-05-08T21:57:57.660-07:00Sojourner
Yes, my previous response is incomplete....Sojourner<br />Yes, my previous response is incomplete.<br />Justification? Only as much as any other citizen in the public square. Whether anyone wishes to acknowledge or abide the ethical system I subscribe to, is up to the individual and a matter for their personal consideration together with how well I practice the art of persuasion. One thing I do try to do is ground it in the reality of our natural existence in this world. I do not subscribe to relinquishing the origins of our morality to a [putative] supernatural agent not forfeit the responsibility and conduct of our behaviour to the primitive notion of congenital 'original sin'. This is folklore gone feral. And until someone comes up with substantiating the existence of gods, and confirmation of the causal effects of original sin, I will pass at this stage.<br /><br />God doesn't have any rights because he is not a registered voter. As far as anyone else is concerned, their rights, your rights, have not been compromised by my advocacy for a more reasonable empirically-based moral code. <br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34638915008507059772013-05-08T20:41:17.908-07:002013-05-08T20:41:17.908-07:00Crikey mate!
You still didn't answer the que...Crikey mate! <br /><br />You still didn't answer the question, Papalinton.<br /><br />SojournerAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11418459170147652432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67345379815800608512013-05-08T20:11:15.884-07:002013-05-08T20:11:15.884-07:00"Using the expression "omnipotent father...<i>"Using the expression "omnipotent father figure" was simply a way of proffering a filial relation to God, for the sake of argument."</i><br /><br />Sorry, Sojourner, I don't buy it. The OFF analogy is more than just an expression. That is what Christians predicate their whole personal relationship with God around. To suggest otherwise, for the sake of argument, is not a good look to what actually occurs in ritual in any church in the land and in prayer at home.<br /><br />As Dr David Eller, foremost anthropologist aphorizes:<br /><i>'Theists sometimes say that their God is possible.<br />But no one goes to church to worship a possibility."</i><br /><br />It is not for me to substitute. I reiterate Dr John Shelby Spong what he believes, as a devout and committed christian, is necessary for followers of Jesus to grapple with, otherwise fade into irrelevancy:<br />Dr Spong's Twelve Points<br />1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.<br />2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.<br />3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.<br />4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.<br />5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.<br />6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.<br />7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.<br />8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.<br />9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.<br />10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.<br />11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.<br />12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination. <br /><br />I might add he is certainly not the lone voice among Christians calling for a change albeit not a sweeping as he proposes, but change nonetheless.<br /><br />It really isn't about supposing this or that, for the sake of argument. It is about to go forward from here.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62419081738254960662013-05-08T19:52:35.995-07:002013-05-08T19:52:35.995-07:00Zach
'Papalinton just stick with my blog I wil...Zach<br /><i>'Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff."</i><br /><br />I look forward to it. Give it your best shot. For me, metaphysical naturalism seems most likely to be ground zero around which all other philosophical permutations supervene. Much of current debate seems largely to be conducted at the periphery. Naturalism has a long and and illustrious pedigree, from the earliest of presocratic philosophers Anaxagoras, Thales along with the atomist Democritus. Epicurus, in no small measure characterised the reality of naturalism, labelled by his contemporaries [IIRC] as a 'physico' [ ;o) ]. <br /><br />Following humanity's overlong and soul-draining hiatus dabbling in the curiosity of Christian supernaturalism, metaphysical naturalism has again emerged the stronger contender grounding our understanding of ourselves, our environment, the world, the universe, the cosmos and even, dare I say it, about gods of all shapes, flavours and persuasions. From the time the Enlightenment period witnessed the natural cleaving of science from theology as a philosophical pursuit in its own right, underpinned as it were by methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism has taken us into the 21stC, in even healthier shape despite the overhang of religious supernatural superstition [exemplified in the Fesers and the Plantingas]. Much if not most of contemporary philosophy is underpinned by metaphysical naturalism.<br /><br />But I await the non-materialist 'shock and awe' you are about to deliver. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14939398004803239782013-05-08T19:35:52.468-07:002013-05-08T19:35:52.468-07:00Papalinton,
I think you might be focusing too muc...Papalinton,<br /><br />I think you might be focusing too much on one specific detail instead of the substance of my previous comment – the proverbial tree instead of the forest. Using the expression "omnipotent father figure" was simply a way of proffering a filial relation to God, for the sake of argument. If you don't like those terms then substitute it for any authoritative figure you like. But the question still remains. If you believe you have justification when persuading others to your ethical system, why would God (if he exists), or anyone else, not have the same rights that you have accorded to yourself? Is this really a "claim too far" as you stated earlier?<br /><br />SojournerAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11418459170147652432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57111026623789050232013-05-08T18:56:19.674-07:002013-05-08T18:56:19.674-07:00hey i have a good exercise for everyone
how does ...hey i have a good exercise for everyone<br /><br />how does one define "thinking" without using the word (or a synonym) in the definition :o<br /><br />*hides*ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71708253503277109682013-05-08T18:43:15.968-07:002013-05-08T18:43:15.968-07:00Zach,
As usual, Crude misses the elementary logic...Zach,<br /><br /><i>As usual, Crude misses the elementary logical points. Papalinton is making argment X here, but Crude seeks to defuse it by saying that Papalinton is a known liar. That is about as textbook bad counterargument as you can get.</i><br /><br />Poor reading comprehension as usual, Zachary?<br /><br />I nowhere - not anywhere - engaged Linton's arguments, because I do not engage Linton, period. I endorsed Cale's debate request, justified my endorsement (I love the whole 'You're just making a rhetorical point!' move - no duh, Zach), and explained why I don't bother taking Linton seriously: he's a known liar and a plagiarist, and this is a pattern with him. At no point did I say his arguments were wrong because of who he is - you really need to <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-ad-hominem-fallacy.html" rel="nofollow">learn what ad hominem is</a>.<br /><br />He is ignorant, Zach, and a liar to boot. So hey, you two have a lot in common.<br /><br /><i>Logic fists not even needed here, don't flatter yourself I've got 9/10 of my intellect tied behind my back</i><br /><br />While I agree you argue like an intellectual cripple, this isn't you at 1/10th capacity. This is you, giving it your all. Paraphrasing Bart Simpson, you try your damndest, you do the best you can do - and you still fail.<br /><br /><i>Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff.</i><br /><br />Yeah. Zach's been around here for months now, possibly years, but he'll bring an argument to the table someday.<br /><br />Annnny minute now.<br /><br />(Maybe next year.)<br /><br />Priceless, Zach. Thanks for the laughs as ever. At this point, there's one real question that is tough for me to decide: should you be more embarrassed at your association with Linton? Or should Linton be more embarrassed at his association with yourself?<br /><br />Tough call!<br /><br />I'll leave you with the last word for now, Zach - God knows, you need it. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30266600414332524522013-05-08T18:32:29.492-07:002013-05-08T18:32:29.492-07:00Dan,
Nicely put.
I'm wanting to explore the...Dan,<br /><br />Nicely put. <br /><br />I'm wanting to explore the notion of whether the tree exists at all; and later, it if indeed exists, what we can know about its fruit. Do they have to be sweet for all? Or can they be bitter too?<br /><br />As I see it, this is fundamentally an ontic consideration but others have tried hard to resolve it outside of that philosophical milieu. Can we ground our values in our passions, ala Kierkegaard, in mutually constrained contracts like Kagan, or in our inalienable rights and duties akin to Kant? Then again, can the shroud of this KKK of moral vim be defrocked? In my opinion, these are important but difficult considerations, and they can make us look like knights or knaves. But if these questions really are so difficult to resolve, then what hope is there for the knight or for the knave?<br /><br />SojournerAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11418459170147652432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3257011562817425812013-05-08T18:08:07.293-07:002013-05-08T18:08:07.293-07:00As usual, Crude misses the elementary logical poin...As usual, Crude misses the elementary logical points. Papalinton is making argment X here, but Crude seeks to defuse it by saying that Papalinton is a known liar. That is about as textbook bad counterargument as you can get. lmao. Stepping deep into the Crud. Logic fists not even needed here, don't flatter yourself I've got 9/10 of my intellect tied behind my back...u make it 2 easy, oh black knight. You are not a gadfly, you are a stinkbug.<br /><br />Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67998304640328904582013-05-08T14:56:17.131-07:002013-05-08T14:56:17.131-07:00Crude says: "Zach,
And now we've reached ...Crude says: <i>"Zach,<br />And now we've reached the usual part of our interactions - where, disarmed and dispatched, all you can do is swing at the air."</i><br /><br />Hardly. Crude: 0 Zach: 1Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42189273736807189202013-05-08T14:15:05.133-07:002013-05-08T14:15:05.133-07:00I omitted to add:
That same sentiment I hold is a...I omitted to add:<br /><br />That same sentiment I hold is also reflective of my thoughts and understanding of the Christian claim to sole ownership and propriety of morality.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25923917862900453272013-05-08T14:07:07.028-07:002013-05-08T14:07:07.028-07:00Zach
I refer to your, "This is a valid concer...Zach<br />I refer to your, <i>"This is a valid concern that a reflective Christian needs to grapple with. That said, if we already had the truth, then we were already close to it but you didn't see it. That is a possibility. You had the right theory, but didn't even know it. Like early dismissals of plate tectonic theory because people didn't realize just how powerful it was."</i><br /><br />Did I not see the truth when 'we were already close to it' in the same sense that 5 or 6 billion other people on this earth do not see or cannot see the christian truth although its been on this planet for some 2,000 years? Or is it that when I was a Christian I did not shut my eyes tightly enough and crossed my fingers behind my back to intellectively spot the Christian truth? If the former is the case, then what is the explanation for this universal Christian truth not pervading every living human today? If the latter case, then why such diverse and contradictory opinion within the Christian tent alone, let alone an atheist's perspective, and why are people rejecting it as they eschew the very institutions that trade in this 'truth'? The trends in Europe, Canada, indeed most of the Western world speaks of a search for a different model of morality than the theistic one. <br /><br />I'm not a dealer in possibilities. Probability is the more robust of the two concepts. If you are a dealer in possibilities it is highly likely that you will believe, as fact, that a putrescent 3-day old corpse physically revivified and floated, as if a helium-filled balloon, into the blue beyond to heaven knows where. :o) That to me is not an explanation.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com