tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post798287372077566065..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: David Marshall on why Christianity passes the OTF, and Secular Humanism may failVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger196125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52281100553011229292013-11-11T01:02:17.489-07:002013-11-11T01:02:17.489-07:00I really like this blog. Thanks for sharing with u...I really like this blog. Thanks for sharing with us great blog.<br /><a href="http://www.menseffects.com/Out-Of-The-Front-Opening-Switchblades-s/31.htm" rel="nofollow">otf knife </a>Menseffectshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08227857912279508559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52000906139393660992011-02-25T22:49:45.583-07:002011-02-25T22:49:45.583-07:00Hi Jason
Yes. Just as you said. there have been q...Hi Jason<br />Yes. Just as you said. there have been quite a number of blips. And one particular {Cont. 2] part of my comments has repeatedly been posted by me, only to then disappear.<br /><br />There is a strain on the system somewhere.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45833421342385212882011-02-25T17:49:42.035-07:002011-02-25T17:49:42.035-07:00Note to any readers who got this far: Papa thought...Note to any readers who got this far: Papa thought he was reposting an entry he had thought he posted earlier, but which the system swallowed. I can verify that he did post that entry earlier, several times, including just recently (as I replied to him in my previous comment), because they came through as email posts via Blogger. The system has been acting very weird this week; it isn't PapaL's fault (or Victor's, for that matter--he would have told me if he was deleting Papa's posts, and my own posts have been occasionally having similar troubles.)<br /><br />Google sent me a message tonight that strange things had been happening on my account; Blogger is always being hacked by spammers, and this is probably a side effect of it.<br /><br />It does make for an interesting (and sympathetic but also realistically nuanced) analogy on the question of whether person A should believe that person B is talking to person C when person A cannot perceive communication by person C... {g}<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86826790853942442252011-02-25T06:09:41.262-07:002011-02-25T06:09:41.262-07:00Well I had hoped you deleted it because you had re...Well I had hoped you deleted it because you had realized I wasn't a fideist, had never once claimed anything even remotely like fideism, and had constantly said things counting against me being a fideist. {wry g}<br /><br />But I'm sorry Blogger has been messing up on you, too. I think the system has trouble now dealing with threads this long. (It used to be better about that, but that was back when fewer people were using it.)<br /><br />Anyway, have a good weekend!<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16678738427029341342011-02-24T14:18:45.143-07:002011-02-24T14:18:45.143-07:00Part 2 of 3
PapaL (and hereafter): {{What are the...Part 2 of 3<br /><br />PapaL (and hereafter): {{What are these [strong logical corollaries to the existence of something that isn’t only a teleological illusion]?}}<br /><br />Discussed, though rather briefly, in my earlier two-part reply from Feb 21. Which you completely ignored, preferring instead to hare off on talking about things I wasn’t saying or doing. When you want to actually discuss what I wrote, you’re welcome to do so any time.<br /><br />{{You conflate 'faith' of theism with that of, in this case, science, Jason.}}<br /><br />Or, you aren’t willing to consider the testimony of a theist about what he considers faith, to be what he considers to be his faith. Of which, by the way, I am quite capable of distinguishing several senses of the word in application to my beliefs (one such sense being that of ‘belief’.)<br /><br />{{The word 'faith' is overblown, overused, misconstrued, misused to the degree of rendering it meaningless in everyday use.}}<br /><br />And yet, you are the one who not only brought up the term, but have been leaning heavily on it, including for purposes of applying the OTF. When I discuss my actual application of the term in religious practice, though, my testimony is only to be rejected. Out of inconvenience?<br /><br />{{[The word ‘faith’ is now meaningless in everyday use] simply because it has accreted much mystical, mythical, and religious baggage as to make it difficult to use without invoking these conceptions.}}<br /><br />Yet, which one of us is insisting on attaching mystical, mythical and religious baggage to the term? Because I clearly recall using the term without that baggage, in regard to myself, which you then complained about me not doing in regard to myself.<br /><br />{{'Faith' on the other hand relies on a metaphysical conception for which there is no basis in fact, or proofs or elements that are testable.}}<br /><br />You seem to be going far out of your way to lecture a theist on what he, the theist, is supposed to mean by ‘faith’, up to and including rejecting evidence of what the theist himself means by it. I don’t attach any more meaning to it than ‘belief’ or ‘trust’ (whether trust in a person or not), neither of which necessarily requires testability even on secular topics (though that’s certainly helpful where applicable and available), but both of which involve bases in facts and inferences from facts (including proofs where applicable and available. I don’t prefer to call inductive or abductive inferences proofs, though they have their own qualified versions of the term.)<br /><br />(Part 3 of 3 already posted through the system first by accident, and can be found above.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71507403953610870582011-02-24T14:16:31.080-07:002011-02-24T14:16:31.080-07:00I appreciate the opening compliments, by the way.
...I appreciate the opening compliments, by the way.<br /><br />PapaL (and hereafter): {{we are as one on this perspective [about each other not being only teleological illusions]}}<br /><br />That’s good to know, although strictly speaking we don’t have to have physical contact with one another to acknowledge this, no more than we acknowledge this about ourselves through some necessity of physical contact with ourselves. Admittedly, physical contact does help!--and among other things it helps us distinguish conceptually between actions and reactions as real events.<br /><br />{{It is the next bit [where we do not agree], extending into that envelope [of what we do agree about], the 'real' and substantial' existence of an extra-natural, a supernatural entity.}}<br /><br />You call this belief an “extension”, but I did not and do not treat it that way, even in my very brief comments about the implications of the real existence of entities such as ourselves. It is at least no more of an extension in principle, than any belief in a reality that is objectively more than ourselves. We do not seem to be in disagreement that some kind of reality objectively exists beyond our mental assertions or impressions: for example you and I exist, with characteristics that can be somewhat discovered and reasoned about to inferences about facts beyond what we can directly perceive; and also some mutually shared system of reality exists, also with characteristics that can be at least partially discovered.<br /><br />If I draw inferences about the characteristics of that larger reality, even when I cannot directly perceive those characteristics, I am not doing any special extentioning. I am only learning more detail about reality’s characteristics (or not, if my inferences are faulty.)<br /><br />PapaL: {{Does it not occur to you, Jason, why it is that 5+ billion people in the world, including me, will either not have a bar of this proposition, or don't care, or consider it nonsense or false, or simply have never heard of it, despite it being claimed as the 'one and only true religion'?}}<br /><br />Certainly it occurs to me; I think about such things in depth. Goes with the topical territory! {g}<br /><br />{{This is where it becomes so sticky and your 'supporting' evidence, as simply too incredulous, Jason.}}<br /><br />Well, the evidence I was talking about was you and me, not about 66 booklets. But apparently we aren’t going to talk about the evidence I was actually talking about (or not yet anyway), and instead talk about evidence I have never once brought up to you as evidence for you to believe on.<br /><br />Nor am I going to appeal now to that other evidence you prefer to talk about; I never appeal to that material as evidence for unbelievers to start believing in God on, and I see no reason to begin doing so now. (I do discuss that material with unbelievers sometimes, but not for purpose of helping them accept various religious propositions as true.)<br /><br />I will however point out that you ought to be interested in why you thought you had to bring up evidence I haven’t brought up, calling it my “only evidence”, instead of discussing evidence I did bring up.<br /><br />I will also point out that you are rather falsely falling into rhetorical fluff, when you talk about the canonical texts as being “the sum total of christian scholarship” (with a little “c” for some unknown reason), seeing as they are not scholarship on the one hand, and far from the last things Christians (and/or Jews for that matter) have ever written on the principles involved. Why bother to write such things when you could be discussing evidence I did bring up which we actually have some important agreement on?<br /><br />I won’t bother replying in detail about your narrative of the history of Christian scholarship and apologetics, since I don’t see there is anything to be gained from correcting various details, and since if you were actually interested in such things you could just as easily (and more profitably) read sober studies on the topics you mention.<br /><br />(Part 2 of 3 next)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11518650067125944962011-02-24T14:16:11.867-07:002011-02-24T14:16:11.867-07:00Well, "Booger" is acting very screwy thi...Well, "Booger" is acting very screwy this afternoon--my email says my first two parts posted, but only my third part has shown up yet. Maybe we broke the thread engine...<br /><br />I'll try posting the first two parts again. (They aren't full length, I just thought the reply worked better topically in three parts.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89431608744626301302011-02-24T14:12:36.936-07:002011-02-24T14:12:36.936-07:00Part 3 of 3:
PapaL (and hereafter): {{Indeed, the...Part 3 of 3:<br /><br />PapaL (and hereafter): {{Indeed, theists are adamant that their god is UNKNOWABLE}}<br /><br />Not this theist. When have I ever once said this? Maybe, if I’m such a nice guy, you should try talking <i>with</i> me instead of <i>at</i> me?<br /><br />There are theists who go this route; and I routinely repudiate them. You might have noticed this when I wrote what I did about typical habits of the Eastern Orthodox, but I could add Protestant fideists to that list as well.<br /><br />{{But the unknowable and the non-existence are indistinguishable.}}<br /><br />I agree and have said as much myself, at length, though not in this thread.<br /><br />{{If anything, ironically, it will be science that will uncover god's footprint, if there be such a beast.}}<br /><br />Science may indeed do so, as a result of what amounts to a forensic investigation, among other things.<br /><br />JRP: {{" .. instead of ignoring everything I wrote and pretending I was doing, saying and believing something else--while basically preaching a sermon at me."}}<br /><br />PapaL: {{You[r] comment is funny. It made me smile. And of course, you would know when subjected to a sermon, wouldn't you?}}<br /><br />Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. I don’t appreciate it when Christians do it to me instead of discussing the actual issues with me, so I don’t know why I would appreciate the same procedure any more when other people do it.<br /><br />Since you quoted me a few times, I suppose strictly speaking I can’t say you outright ignored everything I wrote this time; but you didn’t discuss what I actually wrote about, went off on tangents I never wrote about (as if I had), dismissed out of hand testimony from myself about how I actually think (substituting your own insistence about how I must actually think instead), and ended by attributing notions to me that I not only never once claimed but which also happen to be completely different from what I actually say and do. And apparently you did this so you could be tired of my serving you a proverbial white cracker and wine meal; when at most all I asked was that you look more closely at the logic of what various people you’re reading are telling you.<br /><br />Well, perhaps you noticed that I have never once claimed, and have actually shown opposite evidence against believing, the sorts of things you directly attributed to all theists (and thus to me)--seeing as how you deleted the previous sermon and have now replaced it with a new one. But the new one still doesn’t bother to even quote what I wrote, much less address it; and still treats me as offering only the 66 books of the canon as evidence (when I have never offered any such material as evidence for unbelievers to believe religious propositions, including to you in this thread). It’s still talking <i>at</i> me, and not even at <i>me</i> but at some imaginary gestalt.<br /><br />Do you really think Christians (or other theists) are doing right if they treat <i>you</i> this way? Do you think they are treating you unfairly, but that you are treating them fairly and properly, when both of you do this? Have I treated in you in such a way once yet in this thread? (Or anywhere else, since I don’t know who you are under your pseudonym?)<br /><br />{{Jason we can do much better. We can do good for goodness sake alone.}}<br /><br />If I spelled out the many technical details involved in doing goodness (or anything else) for goodness’ sake alone, I am pretty sure you would immediately reject the result.<br /><br />But whether or not that's true, I have not the slightest problem (for various reasons) with you doing good “for goodness’ sake alone”.<br /><br />I might suggest beginning by treating my discussion with you as a <i>discussion</i> instead of as an opportunity to preach some things off your chest in my vague direction; but perhaps that would be considered selfish on my part. Go treat someone else instead as you would prefer them to treat you, acting in fair-togetherness with them, with my blessing.<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66976213348047877772011-02-23T02:46:33.758-07:002011-02-23T02:46:33.758-07:00Hi Jason
I too, smile at the finality of my previo...Hi Jason<br />I too, smile at the finality of my previous comment. but as they say, "Never say never".<br /><br />Apropos to my previous post, all that you profess, offer is circumscribed in one tome, comprising 66 booklets, of dubious origin and a checkered historical background, and which found at only one source, theology.<br />Human society has moved an enormous distance since this tome was first promulgated, Jason.<br /><br />In contrast, the discourse in science, and allied disciplines, at multitudinous nodes, cosmology, biology, anthropology, sociology, psychology, neuroscience, medical science, are convergent in presenting a common and consistent narrative of the origins of the human species, and the kind and manner of being that constitutes the homo sapiens. This narrative also shows the deepest levels of this relationship to all other sentient and living creatures on this planet. This story is a work-in-progress, one that really only started in earnest in the past couple hundred years. Many of the fundamental theories, laws, propositions, facts, proofs seem to be transferable to one discipline to another. Each discipline from their own specialty seem able to contribute to the commonwealth of knowledge that seeks to improve the outcomes of the human condition. <br /><br />Theism, and in this case the plethora of christianities, has had a commanding 2000+ years to put its claim forward. The significant catch-up of all other fields of human endeavour are now challenging the place of theism as the sole arbiter of interpretation of the human condition, and is continually found wanting, but continues to buck against many issues it sees as being the natural territory of theology. There is an inexorable shift in right-sizing the influence and standing of religion in the community. Yes there are pockets of growth, as in Africa. But alas, wherever there is poverty, no education, abysmal prospects for improved living and health conditions, there will be a captive audience onto which the believers will impose and proselytize their particular brand of theism, and always done with people who are at their weakest, most vulnerable and defenseless to whom are told, 'this food, this shelter, this medicine is yours and has been given by this particular god'. To me there is the stench of immorality and a loss of ethics to link aid with proselytizing. Jason we can do much better. We can do good for goodness sake alone.<br /><br />As John Spong suggests, christianity better change to be more focussed on meeting contemporary needs if it is to survive and contribute to future generations.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11523559034110291162011-02-22T19:41:04.607-07:002011-02-22T19:41:04.607-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44463079970175164252011-02-22T19:34:13.620-07:002011-02-22T19:34:13.620-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48245501841545870172011-02-22T15:48:53.297-07:002011-02-22T15:48:53.297-07:00Hi Jason
You seem a very nice person. Articulate,...Hi Jason<br />You seem a very nice person. Articulate, level-headed, smart, kind and indeed, respectful of others. I certainly do not envisage you as teleological illusion. if I came over to your place, i could touch you, talk with you, and even have a game of touch-footie with you in the back garden. And deep in me, I wish that I could [mindful of our geographic distance separation]. This is the world we live in, real, wonderful, substantial, natural. And your noting: <br />"Once again, my position hinges on respecting other people (including you) as being more than only teleological illusions. You don't consider yourself to be only a teleological illusion; and the authors you reference don't consider themselves to be only teleological illusions (and treat at least some of their readers the same way)" indicates we are as one on this perspective. It is the next bit, extending into that envelope, the 'real' and substantial' existence of an extra-natural, a supernatural entity. Not only do you extend that teleological reality to a metaphysic contrivance, but this contrivance can actually perform physical act, over-ride natural laws, at will, indiscriminately. Not only do you extend that numen into the reality tent, you teach others that this fictive is an actual entity. [Does it not occur to you, Jason, why it is that 5+ billion people in the world, including me, will either not have a bar of this proposition, or don't care, or consider it nonsense or false, or simply have never heard of it, despite it being claimed as the 'one and only true religion'?]<br /><br />This is where it becomes so sticky and your 'supporting' evidence, as simply too incredulous, Jason. The only 'evidence' for your claim is cast within the words of 66 booklets written at the dawn of recorded human history. Beside incalculable litres of ink spilt, and that which constitutes all forms of Apologetics and the countless hours of philosophising, not one jot of supporting evidence has been added to the quantum of theological argument. The principle reason for this is that the 66 booklets of judeo-christian writings, that embody the total sum of christian scholarship, can never by 'divine edict', repeat, can never be replaced or improved upon by anything remotely considered 'contemporary', something fit and more relevant for a modern setting of humanity sociality. The golden age of christian research and development, the creative and imaginative surge of human ingenuity of the christian persuasion began and ended in the period 800BCE-100CE. From 325BCE at the convention of Nicea, this scholarship was chiseled in stone, at the canonising of the texts accepted for inclusion. Which I might add was decided upon by fallible creatures. <br /><br />This period marked the start of the next stage of christian scholarship. But this period was not about improving, or building on the knowledge extant. [That had already reached its pinnacle in the 66 booklets, never to be tampered with ever again.] It was the period of Apologetics, a period of fitting a square peg into a round hole, a period of attempting to make sense of the innumerable contradictions, inconsistencies, dichotomous doctrines, forgeries, pseudepigrapha, polemics, interpolations, all of which contributed to enormous cognitive dissonance, the amelioration of which is euphemistically termed in Apologetics as 'harmonisation', or 'syncretism'.<br /><br />By contrast, a scientist would no more refer to Galileo, to put a spacecraft in orbit around the moons of Jupiter, although, after all, he discovered them. <br />[cont.]Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31223835744619294102011-02-22T07:34:08.321-07:002011-02-22T07:34:08.321-07:00Part 2 of 2
PapaL: {{It is the emotive feeling of...Part 2 of 2<br /><br />PapaL: {{It is the emotive feeling of comfort and goodness and right, that fortifies a particular belief. But as we all know all, emotions can be so easily misguided and misdirected for any number of reasons.}}<br /><br />Which is why I don't put any more stock in such feelings than you do. I have no use I can think of for merely instinctive faith; nor do I deny such feelings exist (though I wouldn’t call it faith).<br /><br />On the other hand, you yourself agree that not <i>all</i> 'faith' is merely an instinctual feeling of no rational importance in itself--when you want to talk seriously about the faith of the people you believe (and have faith) in.<br /><br />But the fact that we both agree that people can act in such rational faith (the difference being that I don't restrict such rational faith to only my own side of the aisle, but also acknowledge it for my opponents), has huge logical ramifications about the reality you and I inhabit, if people do (or even can) overcome mere instinct to supply something qualitatively superior to mere instinct instead (even if perhaps also using instincts rationally, as also often happens.)<br /><br />If we can choose to do something other than react irrationally to the rustle in the grass, then the fact we can do so is itself major evidence that ought to be incorporated into our understanding of reality.<br /><br />But only one of us is really looking at the implications of that fact, so far: a fact intrinsically implied by John's "Outsider Test" itself.<br /><br />(Otherwise you’d be discussing what I actually wrote in my previous round of replies, instead of ignoring everything I wrote and pretending I was doing, saying and believing something else--while basically preaching a sermon at me.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88198634657389456642011-02-22T07:32:00.086-07:002011-02-22T07:32:00.086-07:00Papa: {{There is no arguing with one so infected w...Papa: {{There is no arguing with one so infected with the 'god virus' [Darrel Ray]}}<br /><br />I think it is interesting that my approach (leading to theism, and eventually to trinitarian theism by the way) involves having to grant the same assumptions of rational responsibility for my opponents that I find I have to grant about myself, and not dismissing them as being unworthy of discourse thanks to them clearly having a crippled God Module in their head (for example); yet your approach (defending if not leading to atheism) is that there is no arguing with someone "infected" with a "god virus".<br /><br />Does someone infected with a god virus, thus only instinctively reacting to threats in their environment in an irrational manner (as implied by the terminology, as well as your discussion of relative approaches afterward), not only carefully consider their opponents' strengths and weaknesses, but also acknowledge the rational personhood of the opponent?<br /><br />Or is there no use arguing with someone who, when threatened, retreats away from even trying to discuss the threat, launching assertive attacks against the basic rationality and even personhood of the opponent instead?<br /><br />And which of those did <i>you</i> just do in reply to me, after I briefly analyzed some implications of your (and my) rationality?<br /><br />{{'Faith' is the emotive element in a belief.}}<br /><br />Whereas, I treat faith as being a rational action by a responsible person consequent to their establishment of belief--and I still treat it that way when considering the faiths of other people, whether the religious (including among non-Christians) or the irreligious.<br /><br />Once again, my position hinges on respecting other people (including you) as being more than only teleological illusions. You don't consider yourself to be only a teleological illusion; and the authors you reference don't consider themselves to be only teleological illusions (and treat at least some of their readers the same way).<br /><br />But of course there are strong logical corollaries to the existence of something that isn't only a teleological illusion. The authors you're banking on are demonstrably not taking those corollaries into account. Instead they're training you to treat people who rationally respect other people as being deluded for doing so--if that respect for people somehow involves a consequential logical challenge to their rejection of theism.<br /><br />You're a human being like me; so I know that in principle you're capable of being self-critical about your position and the position of your current allies. I'm not asking you to throw away the serious strengths of such people. I'm only asking you to look harder at the logic of what they're saying.<br /><br />Running a bit over, so Part 2 of 2 next...Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15726300631790747122011-02-21T21:21:51.212-07:002011-02-21T21:21:51.212-07:00[Cont. 2]
Only education and training, disciplin...[Cont. 2]<br /><br />Only education and training, discipline, and greater knowledge and understanding of what makes us tick will gives us the strategies and strength to strongly resist this primitive urge to run away, to seek comfort against the great inexplicables of life. It will give us the strength and opportunity to truly understand who and what we are, as living breathing beings, without constantly checking in the rear-view mirror of 1stC CE thinking. And it gives us enormous opportunity to explore our world, and universe as never before. A turn away from our old village-based religions will gives us the never-before opportunity to explore ourselves, our world, our universe, without preconditions, without presuppositions, without blinkers.<br />The rest is for you to decide for yourself.<br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17868894279131952262011-02-21T21:21:22.262-07:002011-02-21T21:21:22.262-07:00Hi Jason
It takes a theist, and it is de rigeur fo...Hi Jason<br />It takes a theist, and it is de rigeur for him/her, to throw out all that does not fit within the narrowest confines of theistic thinking. Theism is humankind's natural mind trap. There is no arguing with one so infected with the 'god virus' [Darrel Ray] and is very much in keeping with 'the god impulse' as described in neuroscientist, Kevin Nelson's new book, "The God Impulse: Is Religion Hardwired into the Brain?" As the blurb says, the book offers the first comprehensive, empirically-tested, peer-reviewed examination of the reasons we are capable of near-death experience, out-of-body experience, and other mystical states.<br />‘Faith,' which is predicated on belief, [in other words, I believe, therefore I have faith in that belief] is a perfectly natural human emotion, just as love, happiness, sadness, excitement. 'Faith' is the emotive element in a belief. It is the emotive feeling of comfort and goodness and right, that fortifies a particular belief. But as we all know all, emotions can be so easily misguided and misdirected for any number of reasons. How many times have people absolutely been besotted with believing they love someone, [who they think will return that love] only to find that it is misdirected? <br />Is there any reason to think that such a proof of 'faith' would require knowledge of why we are biologically inclined to believe? Yes there is. We are biologically/evolutionarily inclined to believe. This is the default state, regardless of whether something is true or not. Indeed the default state of belief, is part of that survival instinct that I mentioned in the previous post, Jason. If you saw that 'rustling in the bushes', as a hunter-gatherer, you have to make a choice 100% of the time, one way or the other; is it dangerous [a lion or tiger] or is it not dangerous [just the wind]? Our default state of belief screams out, "Not sure, best solution, Retreat." This decision is pretty much 100% positive you will survive at least another day to propagate the species, that is, have children. If however, you took the chance, despite all your instinctive intuition to run away, and went over to investigate that 'rustling in the bushes', there is a chance you will be that lion's meal for her cubs.<br />Belief in a religion is the easy step that one can take. And it is the cheap and easy option, if we as a species, continue to be driven by our primal instinctual evolutionary makeup. Humanity has come a long way in the past few thousand years and our knowledge base, especially the sciences, is ever increasingly, defining a better way of how we should respond to constraining, managing and using this primitive basal instinct to our advantage. A recourse to religion only takes us back to relying on ancient remedies and strategies. That is a retrograde step, a walk backwards in time, to run away. It is the easy way out of having to deal with the big questions of life, our existence, our cosmos. The answers are already there, chiseled in stone, indiscriminately agglomerated [as theism is additive in function], whether they are true or not, it doesn't matter. Religion is the natural survival 'running away' reflex that we possess from our evolutionary past. It is what keeps us turning our head to the rear. [cont.]Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80404729170661964842011-02-21T14:55:26.039-07:002011-02-21T14:55:26.039-07:00JRP: {{I haven't found any indication yet that...JRP: {{I haven't found any indication yet that PapaL was quoting from anywhere other than...}}<br /><br />I mean in his two-part reply to me, of course.Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8321533869412441122011-02-21T14:53:17.008-07:002011-02-21T14:53:17.008-07:00Weird... I thought Part 2 of 2 had posted already....Weird... I thought Part 2 of 2 had posted already... oh well. Picking up from where I left off at the end of part 1:<br /><br />This leads to what I have elsewhere called a 6=16 paradigm. Theories (including about evolutionary process) must be distinctly rational compared to non-rational behaviors (such as mere automatic genetically imposed feelings); but theories must be foundationally non-and-only-non-rational behaviors, and so part of (and produced by) evolutionary processes which are neither rationally designed nor foundationally rational in themselves. Real teleological intentionality must exist for theories to be theories per se; but real teleological intentionality must be only a projected illusion at best, if our behaviors are only non-intentional in quality.<br /><br />PapaL (or JesseB rather): {{As a result, today we overshoot our mental-state attributions to things that are, in reality, completely mindless [not in the pejorative sense; but as inanimate].}}<br /><br />I am quite willing to agree that this happens, and that this (once in place) could and would contribute strongly to both the scope and variety of religious belief.<br /><br />I will note, though, the principle application here has some extreme relevance to explanations of human mentality overall (not merely in regard to the perception that God and/or gods exist.)<br /><br />After all, you seem to acknowledge that we are “a painfully aware and conscious species”, in a fashion that leads to our creation of religion as a solace for this painful consciousness (unlike other animals who might also be conscious). But a line, quite literally for purposes of argument, has to be drawn on how far the “attribution of teleo-functional causality to even the most mundane of natural occurrences” can be explained away by false inferences from instinctive impressions. You draw that line in your own favor every day (and have repeatedly done so in this thread when robustly claiming to be a rational instead of an irrational thinker, sufficiently free from various oppressions to draw your own conclusions); you’re drawing it in my favor insofar as you are presenting your ideas as an argument for me to reply to (rather than as the equivalent of electrical gas that I may or may not fluoresce to); and you’re effectively drawing it when you talk about being a specially aware and conscious species.<br /><br />John’s application of the OTF, at least the first part of it, runs entirely on affirming this distinction, too. But affirming that distinction carries huge ramifications, which principally challenge the metaphysical precepts of atheism.<br /><br />PapaL: {{Mindful of the advent of the neuro-sciences shedding insight into how and why humans tick as they do, religion, as a product of human inventiveness and creative ingenuity is not immune from serious challenge and interrogation in the public domain.}}<br /><br />True; and neither is atheism immune from serious challenge and interrogation in the public domain. Also due, among other reasons, to those advances of the neuro-sciences which we are expected to be <i>mindful</i> of--mindful in a way qualitatively distinct from having our minds full of an instinctive feeling pressuring us to behave a particular way.<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90052412274737190062011-02-21T14:48:58.558-07:002011-02-21T14:48:58.558-07:00For what it's worth, I haven't found any i...For what it's worth, I haven't found any indication yet that PapaL was quoting from anywhere other than a couple of pages of Jesse Bering's <i>The Belief Instinct</i>; although I did find out that most of what looked like discussion was posted by Papa six days earlier (in pretty much the form presented here) as a comment to a First Things article on Hawking's recent cosmology. (A topic that has very much less to do with what he wrote than where he posted it here.)<br /><br />It is of course possible that he composed most of what he replied with, minus some unattributed copy-paste paragraphs from Jesse Bering, and even that he did so as a reply to that throwaway line that I myself said I wouldn't use as an argument against atheism, then posted it to First Things six days before getting around to posting it here where he originally intended it to go.<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66829269216414643192011-02-21T13:45:52.511-07:002011-02-21T13:45:52.511-07:00Well, the thread is about to scroll off the bottom...Well, the thread is about to scroll off the bottom of Victor’s page, so it’s time to catch up with it (if I can!) before it drops out of public view.<br /><br />PapaL: {{Even before we apply the OTF, there is the fundamental matter, an even deeper issue, that has to be addressed.}}<br /><br />I wouldn’t say that the variant proliferation of religions is <b><i>”the”</i></b> fundamental deeper issue that has to be addressed prior to the OTF.<br /><br />I would say that the fundamental deeper issue is whether or not I must assume, literally for sake of argument, that my opponent has the same possibility I must assume I myself have: that of being free enough from mere reaction to environmental stimuli to responsibly evaluate our own and other people’s beliefs. I find that I am required to assume this for purposes of presenting a rational argument to anyone, including to any opponent, which I expect them to judge (and so agree with, nominally.)<br /><br />There are logical corollaries to such an assumption, if the assumption is true. <a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/05/john-loftus-is-not-socratic-cole-slaw.html" rel="nofollow">But atheism isn’t one of them.</a> (Nor agnosticism either.)<br /><br />PapaL: {{There has been tremendous advances in the cognitive and neuro-sciences, and allied disciplines, now out of which there is a strong and consistent and testable narrative emerging, that is providing insights into the origins of thinking and functions of the human brain, mind and mind-states. Although we are only at the very forefront of science in this area, a growing and substantive base is becoming apparent.}}<br /><br />Yes; and one corollary to that base, is that reactions, no matter how numerous and complexly they are arranged, do not thereby become actions. The question then must be addressed, with an initial inference in favor of scepticism, whether the claims humans intrinsically make for ourselves fit into this paradigm, and if not then what most reasonably has to be denied?--intrinsic claims of human mentality, or a worldview set where reactions and only reactions exist?<br /><br />This is a topic that exercises scientists as well as philosophers, both religious and irreligious, because one of the answer options points toward theism being true instead of atheism. If theism is rejected on prior grounds (if there can be any such logically prior grounds), or by sheer assertion, then another option has to be taken instead.<br /><br />This distinction cannot be easily thrown away either. For example:<br /><br />PapaL: {{The simple answer is that humans evolved that way. The human species developed a theory of mind...}}<br /><br />Natural selection operating on random copy-errors might explain an instinctive behavior of what amounts to “feeling-of-person-over-there”. (Or maybe that wouldn’t explain it either!--since the relevant biophysical processes are galactically more complex than might be expected to occur from any series of randomly undirected copy-errors of genomes which managed to survive being repaired or rejected by other relevant biophysical processes.) But that is quite different from people rationally developing (and maybe passing along) theories of mind.<br /><br />On one hand, you are certainly talking about “evolutionary (i.e. genetic) predispositions”, in other words automatic knee-jerk reactions to stimuli (micro-environmental stimuli in this case, though with referent projection to the macro-environment, the end result being that we feel like trees should be dryads etc.)<br /><br />On the other hand you’re talking about theories of mind, where mere feeling is produced this way and then people draw rational (though mistaken) inferences from the feelings as data. The mere feeling isn’t a theory; the theory-making is qualitatively different from the mere feeling.<br /><br />Yet if “the evolutionary process” is the sole corporate cause of the theory, then the theory must be produced by the evolutionary process. And if atheism is true, the evolutionary process is categorically distinct from teleo-functional causality.<br /><br />(Part 2 of 2 next)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30946551126649570292011-02-21T13:42:33.541-07:002011-02-21T13:42:33.541-07:00Incidentally, Nick is correct that the Eastern Ort...Incidentally, Nick is correct that the Eastern Orthodox accept the doctrines of the Trinity up to the point of the Filioque, which they regard as an unauthorized addition that wasn’t properly debated and accepted in Ecumenical Council.<br /><br />Students of Christian theology are typically very well aware that the Eastern Orthodox, like the Roman Catholic and most Protestant communions, accepts the Nicene Creed as formulated by the Constantinopolitan Council. That was back before the split between the RCC and the EOx.<br /><br />(You may be thinking of the Church of the East, aka the Nestorian Church; but they are also trinitarians who, in effect, accept the same positions, the difference being more of a stress on the two natures of Christ. The Coptic and Ethiopian churches also basically accept the same positions, the difference being more of a stress on the deity over the humanity of Christ, though not denying the humanity. The disagreements between the three sides are pretty subtle, and focused on Christology, much like the Filioque debate between the RCC and the EOx.)<br /><br />The Wiki entry you quoted (without attribution) was about how the EOx tends to get there, compared to how the RCC tends to get there. That’s accurate enough as a rough generalization, although there are exceptions. (I would argue that the EOx aren’t really getting there by apophatic theology, but rather by kataphatic theology, too; but they certainly lean hard on apophatic theology, including for self-defense; a practice that keeps me from joining up with them.)<br /><br />Also, I have to say I have trouble believing you, when you talk on the one hand about how Christianity should be put on a shelf to respect its contributions to human culture and advancement along with other religions, but then you suddenly shift to colorful insults as though such things are beneath derision regardless of the religions (but obviously including Christianity and its variants.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67118908853302659682011-02-20T06:57:27.354-07:002011-02-20T06:57:27.354-07:00I've issued my challenge Papa. I see you'r...I've issued my challenge Papa. I see you're not ready to accept it but want to hide behind plagiarism and emotional ranting instead of really debating the issue.<br /><br />When you have enough guts to part ways with Wikipedia, the abomination that causes misinformation, let me know. Until then, I don't debate a plagiarizer who's too intellectually lazy and dishonest to come up with his own arguments due to an ego that says he can't admit a theist is right about something.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61605597785914435942011-02-19T23:02:49.538-07:002011-02-19T23:02:49.538-07:00Hi Nick
"Well tell you what. You can come to ...Hi Nick<br />"Well tell you what. You can come to theologyweb.com and I can set up a debate in the advanced debate section on the five ways of Thomas Aquinas and we can have a real debate on whether he did demonstrate that God exists. "<br /><br />PapaL<br />Where is he then, Nick. Tell him to come out from skulking behind whatever he is skulking behind. Parody, mirth and mockery are the only tools that seems to get Him or his Henchmen (e.g. you) upset. Tell me, is he the same god that Pat Robertson said caused the earthquake in Haiti because the Haitians made a pack with Satan? <br /><br />Tell me again, where I can find him?<br /><br />I plotted an historical record of god[s]. They started out as small village-bound creatures and over time morphed into the grandiose one of them all. Of course, I'm not sure which one it is, Allah, jesus or one of his other persona, or the Hindu one, or Chthulu, or any other? Each one has a clan of hangers-on. <br />From a historical perspective... ...gods started out small. Any decent book on the history of religions will show you this. Indeed it only takes a split moment for any rational and logical person to know that religions start with one, I'll say it again, with a membership of ONE person. For christianity, it supposedly started with the jesus himself. The he went out looking for a whole bag of gullible suckers to test his charismatic self. Just like Jim Jones did. Just like David Coresh did. <br />Unfortunatelt, for human kind, the last christian died on the cross. After that we ended up having to contend with a syndicate called the Catholic Church, which in itself split into thousands of little protection rackets around the world. And humanity is still paying the huge price for this folly. <br /><br />Indeed I have plotted a little potted history of the story of religion:<br /><br />First it was spirits and demons and gods in the rocks and the trees, rivers and sea.<br />As inquisitive man approached those trees and climbed the big rock, gods had shifted<br /><br />Then it was spirits and demons and gods just over there out of sight in the next valley.<br />As inquisitive man went just over there into the next valley, the gods had shifted.<br /><br />Then the gods resided on the highest mountain.<br />As inquisitive man climbed that highest mountain, the gods had shifted <br /><br />Then the gods made their home in the sky<br />When inquisitive man flew into the sky and looked around, the gods had moved house.<br /><br />Then god moved to all points in the universe.<br />As inquisitive man began to search and explore the universe, god had shifted<br /><br />Then god moved outside the universe to reside in .... open space outside of space, into .... nothing [the 'uncaused cause' or the 'unmoved mover']<br />But when inquisitive man began looking through Hubble.... they saw nothing<br /><br />Now god has moved back inside, back into your head. Now, he can only be accessed through personal revelation, through a religious experience, through transcendence.<br /><br />Still, scientists must go where the science leads them, relativity, M-theory, multiverses; even inside your head, the neuroscientific study of the brain, mind and mind-states.<br />And still he hides away.<br /><br />There is a story unfolding, Nick, but I'm not sure it is the one you are expecting, particularly if you append that anthropomorphic, finger-tweaking fine tuner, natural law violator and mendicant, portrayed as the Abrahamic phantasm.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3124698463985315362011-02-19T17:59:39.975-07:002011-02-19T17:59:39.975-07:00Papa: You know that I know that you know, but hasn...Papa: You know that I know that you know, but hasn't the courage to acknowledge it, is religion is largely social, in both senses of the word. It is an activity that humans do together; it is created, maintained, and perpetuated by human group behaviour. [It is a cultural construct] It is also social in the sense that it extends that sociality beyond the human world, where a believer freely interacts with a spectral numen which in turn putatively engages socially with him. This activity-engaging sociality is the single common thread that binds all deity forms of religions, from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Judaism, and includes christianity right among them. Christianity is no less different to any other religion in which talking to gods, making them dinners, toasting on wine, asking for assistance, is the done thing. Surely you can see the blindingly obvious?<br /><br />Reply: Oh? You think I know it and it's blindingly obvious?<br /><br />Well tell you what. You can come to theologyweb.com and I can set up a debate in the advanced debate section on the five ways of Thomas Aquinas and we can have a real debate on whether he did demonstrate that God exists. <br /><br />If you're so sure and think it's blindingly obvious, you should have no trouble whatsoever agreeing to that.<br /><br />Unless you're willing to back your talk, I see no reason to continue with someone who can only cut and paste from Wiki.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73322145314536662642011-02-19T17:59:31.078-07:002011-02-19T17:59:31.078-07:00Papa: Nick
I'm glad you scour. I do not deny u...Papa: Nick<br />I'm glad you scour. I do not deny using Wiki; it is among many sites that are a wonderful source of information. But you classically obfuscate.<br /><br />Reply: No. I treat dishonesty like dishonesty. People like Bob and myself and others here have done the necessary reading in the topic of medieval philosophy. You haven't and you did the exact thing I have accused many Christians of doing with their pastors. Just hearing something and not bothering to digest it. You just puke it out again. <br /><br />Papa: The manner of my reporting the fundamental import of the message doesn't detract from its veracity. Indeed I lifted it exactly as it was written without attempt to mask or disguise. <br /><br />Reply: And you have no shame to being caught plagiarizing which is even worse! When you were referencing David Eller, you quoted him and told where it was. This time you didn't do that. Why? You've been caught in over your head and are trying to save face for not doing your homework because you can't dare admit a theist might know what he's talking about. You could learn something from Tony Hoffman. When he disagreed with me on the Five Ways, he actually gave reasons and interacted with me and I got to interact with him. I can respect someone like that. For someone who commits intellectual theft, I have no respect.<br /><br />Papa: Your version of woo simply does not hold up under gaze of evidentiary investigation. As you so proudly tout, you memorise a lot of stuff in your head. Memorising does not a sage make. <br /><br />Reply: Here's the difference. I've done the necessary reading to have something to memorize. You just did cut and paste. You got caught in a topic you knew nothing about and had to save face. If I need to check on something in the medieval period, I have actual books on the topic here.<br /><br />And you'd better bet I'm quite pleased with the work that I've done to come to where I am and know that I don't have to rely on Wiki, the worst source that there is. <br /><br />Papa: It is cogency of the argument offered and not the physical source of its information, that is the substance of the argument. Your continued bleating about the veracity of the five ways is de rigeur for theists. <br /><br />Reply: And you know what? You haven't countered the argument at all. You haven't even looked at one of them. The arguments are there. I'm waiting for you to say something other than "Aquinas wanted to kill heretics!" and "It's from Aristotle!" We generally call what I'm requesting an argument.<br /><br />Papa: Face it, the move is inexorable, Nick, as science and related disciplines push back the christian myth, and not through direct research i might add but incidentally, to gently place the myth back among the other great stories of its time; such as the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead', the legends of Mithraism, of the Greek and Roman pantheons, of the wonderful Mesopotamian fables. When science finds facts that refute religious claims - about man, about society, about the universe, or about god[s], that shrinks the factual base on which Apologetics is built, invariably it is the religiose that cry foul.<br />But alternatives to the fallacious christian worldview are now open for discussion in the public domain. Indeed there is a billboard or a bus advert, or the media, in television, magazines, journals, radio, now openly letting us know that 'one can be good without god'.<br /><br />Reply: Yet I asked you to show such an occurrence where this has happened and all I got were crickets. Still, I don't see why I should bother engaging you since you've shown me you're intellectually dishonest and lazy.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.com