tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8787250079676273423..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Denying the catVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37276650375206159252016-10-03T14:24:55.451-07:002016-10-03T14:24:55.451-07:00bmiller: "If Cal thinks that facts exist, the...bmiller: "If Cal thinks that facts exist, then that proposition must be a fact for Cal. Let's see if he can produce a photograph before we judge. / It's easy. Either all facts can be "photographed" or not. If you believe the proposition is a fact, then it can be "photographed". So can you produce a photograph of this fact?"<br /><br />Okay, this is pretty vapid stuff. The thinking process above seems pretty horrible, and it's certainly not what I've said or argued here, so I leave you to defend what you wrote.<br /><br />If you can understand and meaningfully react to what I've written, and respond to my questions when I ask them, I would probably bother to respond. But I'm starting to think you just can't do that. <br /><br />Were you ever going to respond to my question to you, the one that I asked when I thought you were starting to get confused about what I was saying? I asked you, "Do you think that accepting that evidence determines what we know about reality means that one must not accept any necessary axioms? If so, why would you think that?"<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69376741571479117022016-10-03T13:27:57.038-07:002016-10-03T13:27:57.038-07:00@Cal,
Cal believes that only things you can touch...@Cal,<br /><br /><i>Cal believes that only things you can touch, measure, photograph, etc., are "facts". Things like debts are immaterial, and therefore do not really exist.</i><br /><br />Just so we remember the main topic, here was the starting point:<br />bmiller:"If Cal thinks that facts exist, then that proposition must be a fact for Cal. <br />Let's see if he can produce a photograph before we judge."<br /><br />It's easy. Either all facts can be "photographed" or not.<br />If you believe the proposition is a fact, then it can be "photographed".<br /><br />So can you produce a photograph of this fact?<br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66498664882326823032016-10-03T13:07:06.704-07:002016-10-03T13:07:06.704-07:00bmiller: "Hurry with that photo Cal, I think ...bmiller: "Hurry with that photo Cal, I think we're losing Ilíon!"<br /><br />Honestly, I seldom read Ilion's posts. <br /><br />Do you think I'm missing something, and if so, what? <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28401554086069894322016-10-03T12:46:39.583-07:002016-10-03T12:46:39.583-07:00@Cal,
Hurry with that photo Cal, I think we'r...@Cal,<br /><br />Hurry with that photo Cal, I think we're losing Ilíon!bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13312440333308535222016-10-03T05:39:51.501-07:002016-10-03T05:39:51.501-07:00@Ilíon,
You are going look pretty silly when Cal ...@Ilíon,<br /><br />You are going look pretty silly when Cal posts the photo :-)bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86268509573875056742016-10-03T05:31:39.269-07:002016-10-03T05:31:39.269-07:00Legion: "However, the child/parent analogy do...Legion: "However, the child/parent analogy doesn't work in context simply because both parent and child are guilty (for different things) within Christian theology. All have sinned. That's why I used the money analogy instead, because God working in Christ as a sinless sacrifice is a singular event - there is nothing one of us can do to truly atone for our own moral failings, let alone others'. We can't impute righteousness...but we can pay others' debts."<br /><br />Okay. I don't mean to argue Christian theology with you. It shouldn't surprise you that (adjacent to the atonement) the whole original sin thing, with infants being guilty of moral depravity, etc., doesn't make intuitive or rational moral sense to me either. <br /><br />But I am also coming to understand that part of the appeal of religious concepts is the combining of existing templates (our innate sense of moral fairness, reciprocity, etc.) with something that violates that template. In this case, I think the atonement serves that purpose. Which just means that I think it works, on a religious level, but not on a rational or intuitive one. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1387762201054449192016-10-03T05:24:54.823-07:002016-10-03T05:24:54.823-07:00Thanks to bmiller for the link. Under the heading...Thanks to bmiller for the link. Under the heading 'The Nature of Sin' Campbell says,<br /><br /><i>But when theologians talk of the wrath of God against sin, and the wrong which sin has inflicted upon God, they employ figures of speech which are distinctly misleading. In fact, they do not seem to have a clear idea as to what sin really is. They use vague language about it as though it were some kind of corporate offence against God of which the whole race has been guilty without being able to help it, and which no individual can escape although he is as much to blame as if he could. But sin has never injured God except through man. It is the God within who is injured by it rather than the God without. It is time we had done with the unreal language about the Judge on the great white throne, whose justice must be satisfied before His mercy can operate. The figure contains a truth which everyone knows well enough, but it is not easy to recognise it under this form.</i><br /><br />So he is denying the 'disobedience of God' component of the Catholic definition. He goes on to deny the Fall,<br /><br /><i>What I now wish to insist upon is that it is absolutely impossible for any intelligent man to continue to believe in the Fall as it is literally understood and taught.</i><br /><br />More than enough to arouse GKC's ire. And then there's the Socialism.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31810529595493299472016-10-03T05:18:14.335-07:002016-10-03T05:18:14.335-07:00Me: "And I said "not quite" because...Me: "And I said "not quite" because you said that I can know my axioms to be true"<br />bmiller: "Can you please show me the quote where you understood me to say that?"<br /><br />Sure. You wrote:<br /><br />bmiller: "You seem to be saying that one of your axioms is that axiom:there are things we can KNOW TO BE TRUE [emphasis mine] without physical evidence? Is that correct? / If so, I can't argue with you."<br /><br />And that is where I responded, by clarifying, using the "Not quite...", for reasons I have since explained.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60579020587231783502016-10-02T22:39:48.364-07:002016-10-02T22:39:48.364-07:00part 2 of my illusion of moral landscapes, against...<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/10/ethical-naturalism-and-value-systems.html" rel="nofollow"><b>part 2 of my illusion of moral landscapes,</b></a> against ethical naturalism,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8583217244373308222016-10-02T22:33:27.963-07:002016-10-02T22:33:27.963-07:00Cal,
If you are saying that the entire concept of...Cal,<br /><br />If you are saying that the entire concept of atonement via Christ makes no sense to you, then fair enough.<br /><br />However, the child/parent analogy doesn't work in context simply because both parent and child are guilty (for different things) within Christian theology. All have sinned. That's why I used the money analogy instead, because God working in Christ as a sinless sacrifice is a singular event - there is nothing one of us can do to truly atone for our own moral failings, let alone others'. We can't impute righteousness...but we can pay others' debts.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80123443291561171442016-10-02T20:22:15.370-07:002016-10-02T20:22:15.370-07:00@bmiller, you can expect Cat to keep dancing.@bmiller, you can expect Cat to keep dancing.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13957662315727385002016-10-02T20:20:46.936-07:002016-10-02T20:20:46.936-07:00Cat Metzger: "Imagine a truly terrible crime ...<b>Cat Metzger:</b> "<i>Imagine a truly terrible crime committed against someone you love; imagine the parent of the one who committed the crime coming forward, and accepting death in place of their child (who committed the crime). Now imagine hearing that both parent and child are living on an island, having the time of their lives.</i>"<br /><br />Imagine a truly terrible crime committed against someone you love. Imagine that a coven of "liberal"/leftist judges decrees that the criminal may not be punished, since to do so would be "retribution" and "we're better than that".<br /><br />Now, imagine the what the response of this intellectually dishonest fool would be: I'm thinking it would be, "<i>Right on!</i>" especially if the criminal were in one of leftism's "protected classes".<br /><br /><b>Cat Metzger:</b> "<i>This is kind of what Christian morality boils down to, if one is to accept the atonement, etc. And it's shockingly inadequate.</i>"<br /><br />So says the intellectually dishonest fool who denies that *anything* is immoral.<br /><br />========<br /><b>Cat Metzger:</b> "<i>Imagine a truly terrible crime committed against someone you love; imagine the parent of the one who committed the crime coming forward, and accepting death in place of their child (who committed the crime). Now imagine hearing that both parent and child are living on an island, having the time of their lives.</i>"<br /><br />The simple rationale: God's world, his rules.<br /><br />A deeper rationale: <i>Everyone of us</i> deserves death; moreover, <i>everyone of us</i> is born already infected with that death. That God saves the life of that guilty party over there is of no concern to you, who clutch your sin -- <i>which is Death</i> -- to your breast like a treasure, when if you would simply <i>let go of it</i>, God would also save your life.<br /><br /><i>Hypocrite!</i> Rather that bitching that someone else gets the Life he does not deserve, let go your own sin and get the life *you* do not deserve.<br /><br />A yet deeper rationale: *All* immoral acts, all sins, are primarily offenses against God. <i>Only God</i> has the power to remove the sin, to remove the <i>Death</i>.<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6018498685019172792016-10-02T19:59:52.206-07:002016-10-02T19:59:52.206-07:00@Cal,
"And I said "not quite" beca...@Cal,<br /><br />"And I said "not quite" because you said that I can know my axioms to be true"<br /><br />Can you please show me the quote where you understood me to say that? Because I thought all I did was ask you questions regarding axioms after you brought them up.<br /><br />Just so we remember the main topic, here was the starting point:<br />bmiller:"If Cal thinks that facts exist, then that proposition must be a fact for Cal. <br />Let's see if he can produce a photograph before we judge."bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15000630026749680282016-10-02T18:43:33.463-07:002016-10-02T18:43:33.463-07:00Legion: "A couple thoughts on this, but prima...Legion: "A couple thoughts on this, but primarily I'd respond with this analogy:..."<br /><br />While I appreciate the response, I think you can see how this doesn't address the issue I raised. I'd also suggest that as far as morality goes, your analogy really doesn't make sense. Here's what I mean:<br /><br />Imagine a truly terrible crime committed against someone you love; imagine the parent of the one who committed the crime coming forward, and accepting death in place of their child (who committed the crime). Now imagine hearing that both parent and child are living on an island, having the time of their lives.<br /><br />This is kind of what Christian morality boils down to, if one is to accept the atonement, etc. And it's shockingly inadequate.<br /><br />Btw, I kind of agree with a point that Chesterton may have been making, that there is largely moral agreement about some fundamental things. I think this agreement is better understood by studying nature empirically, but I should make clear that I don't think that morality is completely arbitrary -- there are fundamental agreements that (necessarily) arrive as a consequence of social norms. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73514789085537473512016-10-02T18:31:41.437-07:002016-10-02T18:31:41.437-07:00"In other words, if a sin is identifiable (as..."In other words, if a sin is identifiable (as a cat is), then why is it that what was once a cat (the sin, punishable by death, of working on the seventh day) is no longer a cat?"<br /><br />A couple thoughts on this, but primarily I'd respond with this analogy: if I went to your bank and utility companies and told them that every cent of money you owed and would owe in the future was to be paid out of an account of mine, that would mean that A) you do not owe anything for your debts because I paid them, and B) your acts still result in the exact same penalties (money owed), it's just that someone else paid the bill so you could not be held responsible.<br /><br />Christ's death fulfilled the law for sins past and future. The debt is paid, which is why people are not held accountable for the sin penalty. That does not mean that particular actions are suddenly "no longer sins", it just means the slate has been wiped clean for us.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50633251001386225032016-10-02T18:10:56.782-07:002016-10-02T18:10:56.782-07:00"Confusing the idea that sin (morality as dic..."<i>Confusing the idea that sin (morality as dictated by Yawheh) remains both identifiable and static in the same way that cats remain cats.</i>"<br /><br />As I made crystal clear in my comment above, at September 30, 2016 4:20 PM, morality "as dictated by Yawheh" <i><b>does</b></i> remain static "in the same way that cats remain cats", all protestations to the contrary.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62891086639483674482016-10-02T16:07:25.463-07:002016-10-02T16:07:25.463-07:00bmiller: "I reviewed your list of axioms. It ...bmiller: "I reviewed your list of axioms. It doesn't seem to include the axiom I asked about. You said "not quite" so I wonder if that means you think one or more of your axioms addresses the question in some manner. If so, which one(s) and how? / Otherwise, I'd be interested in why you said "not quite". "<br /><br />I don't consider what you asked about ("there are things we can know to be true without physical evidence") to be an axiom. I don't claim, for instance, to know that I'm not a brain in a vat, so I admit that my understanding that I'm not a brain in a vat is axiomatic. That's what an axiom is -- a concession that there's no way to verify the thing being assumed. <br /><br />And I said "not quite" because you said that I can know my axioms to be true, and I think I've been very clear that that is not a claim I am making. It seems like you don't understand what an axiom is in relation to philosophy and epistemology, honestly. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12783539438193845422016-10-02T15:14:51.230-07:002016-10-02T15:14:51.230-07:00Brightly: "This may be what Cal meant. He has...Brightly: "This may be what Cal meant. He hasn't said anything to clarify his initial comment."<br /><br />I thought I clarified things above. I wrote: <br /><br />Me: :"So the fact of debts (like Chesterton's notion of sin) exists on one level. But both debts and sin depend on the existence of humans for their existence, and both are negotiable and open to interpretation -- they change depending on who, and when, they are being evaluated."<br /><br />Prior to that, I also wrote: "Do you demand that everyone that shall do any work on the seventh day shall NOT die? / If so, aren't you demanding that a cat is now a dog?" <br /><br />In other words, if a sin is identifiable (as a cat is), then why is it that what was once a cat (the sin, punishable by death, of working on the seventh day) is no longer a cat? <br /><br />So, to be clear, I had clarified my initial comment regarding a kind of equivocation in two ways: <br />1. Confusing the existence of moral systems, which are contingent, with the existence of moral facts;<br />2. Confusing the idea that sin (morality as dictated by Yawheh) remains both identifiable and static in the same way that cats remain cats. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74299745951475658992016-10-02T14:10:52.252-07:002016-10-02T14:10:52.252-07:00Found the section:
"Nature of sin." i...Found the section: <br />"Nature of sin." is the section I was referring to.<br /><br />http://readcentral.com/massappealnews//chapters/R-J-Campbell/The-New-Theology/005bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15406791240738122742016-10-02T13:50:29.598-07:002016-10-02T13:50:29.598-07:00@Victor,
I agree that at the end he changes terms...@Victor,<br /><br />I agree that at the end he changes terms from "sin" to "positive evil". At that point, I think he did so in order to emphasize that whether one was a Christian or an atheist, both agreed on the concept that particular acts were evil. <br /><br />He accuses the group of "Christians" in question of denying the concept of evil under both definitions (so they are neither atheists nor Christians). Chesterton finds this irrational.<br /><br />I found R J Campbell's "New Theology" online and his section on "What is Sin" he rebuts those who accuse him of the charge of the non-existence of sin, but can't find the link right now.<br /><br />I'm interested though. How do you interpet the "skinning the cat" argument?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16297375365752578642016-10-02T13:25:39.586-07:002016-10-02T13:25:39.586-07:00@Cal,
Cal:
"bmiller: "You seem to be sa...@Cal,<br /><br />Cal:<br />"bmiller: "You seem to be saying that one of your axioms is that axiom:there are things we can know to be true without physical evidence? Is that correct?"<br /><br />Not quite......"<br /><br />I reviewed your list of axioms. It doesn't seem to include the axiom I asked about. You said "not quite" so I wonder if that means you think one or more of your axioms addresses the question in some manner. If so, which one(s) and how?<br /><br />Otherwise, I'd be interested in why you said "not quite". bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18628320906010793192016-10-02T13:14:50.173-07:002016-10-02T13:14:50.173-07:00But in this context he is talking about a concept ...But in this context he is talking about a concept of sin that both "the strongest skeptics," and "strongest saints" agree on, and make the central point of their argument. Hence it is sin understood as moral evil, and does not require a God to be sinned against. <br /><br />James Freeman Clarke summarized the New Theology as follows: <br /><br />In 1885, Clarke outlined his “Five Points of the New Theology,” which summarized commonly held Unitarian beliefs of the late-nineteenth century: “the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the leadership of Jesus, salvation by character, and the continuity of human development in all worlds, or, the progress of mankind onward and upward forever.”<br />http://www.uuworld.org/articles/clarke-transformed-congregation<br /><br />It is true that very often atheism is combined with an unjustified confidence in human nature. If after all, humans and only humans can solve human problems, then it would be nice to think that we are not all so screwed up that if God can't save us, we can't save ourselves. A great example would be Karl Marx, who came up with the idea that come the revolution, since it was necessary to teach people to be productive without the profit motive, and vanguard of elite members of the proletariat would assume a dictatorial role in order to perform that teaching role. But once that job was complete (and it was not supposed to last long) the vanguard would voluntarily relinquish power. That, uh, didn't happen. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10697271041940229762016-10-02T13:07:17.038-07:002016-10-02T13:07:17.038-07:00bmiller: "You seem to be saying that one of y...bmiller: "You seem to be saying that one of your axioms is that axiom:there are things we can know to be true without physical evidence? Is that correct?"<br /><br />Not quite. It's more there are certain things we must assume in order to proceed toward describing reality. They are the same axioms you would agree to -- that you exist, that you are not a brain in a vat, that there is an external reality, and that there are other minds. <br /><br />Those are basically my axioms. I don't "know" them to be true, but I treat them as axioms in order to proceed. <br /><br />If you don't agree with my basic axioms, I agree there's no reason for us to argue about anything.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58542059424018586672016-10-02T12:20:26.175-07:002016-10-02T12:20:26.175-07:00@David Brightly,
Sometimes when you post, you don...@David Brightly,<br /><br />Sometimes when you post, you don't indicate to whom you are addressing your comments. It's more likely then, that people won't respond without that indication.<br /><br />My response to you was basically this:<br />Chesterton was addressing those who already believed in God, so even according to BV's definition, there would be no distinction between "moral evil" and "sin" since the participant in the dispute both agreed that God exists. The distinction that BV introduces would only be relevant if atheists were part of the dispute in question.<br /><br />It's clear from this passage near the end, that he is addressing those "Christians" whom he considers not part of "Orthodoxy":<br /><br />Chesterton:"He must either deny the existence of God, <b>as all atheists do</b>; or he must deny the present union between God and man, <b>as all Christians do.</b>".<br /><br />My humble interpretation is as follows regarding someone's "happiness in skinning the cat" (HISTC).<br />1) Atheists think that a person deriving HISTC is doing evil to the victim, and thus is no God.<br />2) Christians think that a person deriving HISTC is evil to the victim (sin), thus there is a separation between God and man.<br />3) New Theologians thought that a person deriving HISTC is somehow doing the will of God, and therefore there is no victim at all.<br /><br />Shortly thereafter, he says:<br />"But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think that they have denied the existence of a lunatic asylum."<br /><br />Which ties in with your mention of the asylum in that vicinity.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21698192001701354842016-10-02T11:35:19.429-07:002016-10-02T11:35:19.429-07:00Chesterton is a Catholic, knows the Catholic teach...Chesterton is a Catholic, knows the Catholic teachings as quoted by BV, and is writing a book called <i>Orthodoxy</i>. So I think we have to credit him with knowing the Catholic meaning of sin. On the point of 'seeing sin in the street' we might let him off by allowing that he equivocates on 'sin' between the technical sense and a looser sense meaning an act of evil without disobedience of God. This may be what Cal meant. He hasn't said anything to clarify his initial comment. But I don't buy it. For Chesterton sin means sin. My guess is that he is so saturated in religion that he has lost sight of the possibility that moral evil need not be disobedience of God, as we might see it today. This idea may be what he finds in Campbell. I'd be surprised if Campbell denies moral evil altogether. Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't let me see inside <i>The New Theology</i>. So it's hard to say. What I do find interesting is that Chesterton makes a rhetorical move from the sin of skinning the cat, which we can't see, pace some commenters here, to the cat itself, which we definitely can.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com