Originally posted by RistarThat assertion simply creates by fiat a vicious circle from which neither the nontheist nor an adherent to another religion can escape—
Ah, I see. I believe that the issue here is that Christianity asserts that mankind knows the truth in their hearts, i.e. the problem is not the lack of evidence for the validity of Christianity but rather the suppression of it in the conscience of each individual (a la Romans 1:21). Thus, the Christian claim is that sufficient evidence is present and the in ...[text shortened]... , not for evidence he failed to uncover, but the evidence he consciously supressed.
Thoughts?
(1) The evidence is innately given, irrefutable, inescapable. [premise]
(2) There can be no good-faith reason for questioning such evidence. [from (1)]
(3) Therefore, any attempt to question such evidence is itself evidence of bad faith.
The “conclusion” is begged in the premises. Neat...
______________________________
There is another version of culpability—that it is inherited as part of original sin.* That is, we are born culpable (some sort of spiritual genetics?). Salvation is solely by grace through faith. Thus, salvation comes through a decision to “faith” (pisteo being an active verb), regardless of evidence and belief—even if the evidence and belief seem absurd—ala Kierkegaard’s “leap.” People who cannot make that leap, perhaps because of honest doubts, are nevertheless worthy of condemnation because they were born culpable.
This version depends upon certain interpretive readings of the Bible, along with the assertion that the Bible is divine revelation (of course, believers in this version assert that their reading is the only correct one—not only against nonbelievers and non-Christians (e.g., Jews), but also against other Christians). Again, internal consistency comes from question-begging and a vicious circle.
* Eastern Orthodox Christians have long accused Augustine of conflating original sin (as a capacity) with original guilt (which I believe Augustine thought was transmitted sexually in procreation.
Originally posted by vistesdHi vistesd,
[b](1) The evidence is innately given, irrefutable, inescapable. [premise]
(2) There can be no good-faith reason for questioning such evidence. [from (1)]
(3) Therefore, any attempt to question such evidence is itself evidence of bad faith.
The “conclusion” is begged in the premises. Neat...
Can you help clarify the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" for me, just so I understand where you're coming from?
Webster's would define "good faith" as "honesty or lawfulness of purpose;" that would therefore imply that "bad faith" would be dishonesty and lawlessness of purpose." Am I correct in that?
If so, I think you might be misinterpreting the Christian assertion. To take your points individually:
1. The conclusion is merely based on evidence and is not intellectually provable in an unlimited absolute sense. The premise merely states that it is "known." This is an important distinction as it points to mankind's willingness to believe or to disbelieve as they exercise their free will. As to the truth claims of Christianity, it is again asserted that mere intellect will only take you so far as logic is itself a better test for falsehood than it is for the truth. As Chesterton said, science can analyze a prok-chop but not a man's wish for a pork-chop.
2. If something is indeed true, then to assert it is in one's best interests, while to deny it is to do damage to oneself because it dissociates oneself from reality, i.e. a moral (not an intellectual) decision has been made. Hence the true exercise of "good" or "bad" faith is in deciding if you are allied with the truth or not.
3. Seekers of the truth, i.e. those motivated by a desire for enlightenment, and even honest doubters (as opposed to those who enter into debate for out of sheer combativeness or bitterness) are commended in Christianity (a la Mal. 3:10, Isa. 1:18, Matt. 7:7, etc.). In 1 Kings 18:21, the prophet Elijah posits a most reasonable course of action when he claims "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." This asserts the orthodox Christian view of a belief in exclusive truth.
As to culpability, is it not reasonable to assume that if a person denies that which is absolutely true, he proves that he is not on the side of truth and therefore his own worst enemy by doing violence to his own nature?
Again, comments are welcome. I have a thick skin. 🙂
3 edits
Originally posted by RistarCan you help clarify the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" for me, just so I understand where you're coming from?
Hi vistesd,
Can you help clarify the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" for me, just so I understand where you're coming from?
Webster's would define "good faith" as "honesty or lawfulness of purpose;" that would therefore imply that "bad faith" would be dishonesty and lawlessness of purpose." Am I correct in that?
If so, I think you might be misint is own nature?
Again, comments are welcome. I have a thick skin. 🙂
I was using the terms in the sense of honesty and self-integrity.
As Chesterton said, science can analyze a pork-chop but not a man's wish for a pork-chop.
But neither wishing nor hoping have any evidentiary value. There may be many reasons why I would wish for a pork-chop—or a God.
As to culpability, is it not reasonable to assume that if a person denies that which is absolutely true, he proves that he is not on the side of truth and therefore his own worst enemy by doing violence to his own nature?
What is absolutely true would also have to be apparently true. The Christian assumption that you laid out—i.e., innate knowledge of the absolute truth of God—is just that: an assumption. That assumption dictates that one who “denies that which is absolutely true” is doing so in bad faith: i.e., dishonestly (deliberate suppression of the truth). Yes, you allow a temporary “escape clause” for those who are seeking the truth—but the truth that you assert they will find has been assumed, and assumed as inescapable for one who honestly seeks. Thus, you are back to: “Anyone who doesn’t find that ‘truth’ was not honestly seeking.” The circularity is still there.
BTW, I don’t accept the assumption that the Bible is divine revelation, either.
Note: If your post comes out all-bold like that, you can add a [ /b ] at the very beginning, and then only what you designated as bold will come out that way...
One more point, since you are new here: I have no desire to dissuade you from your individual religious beliefs—my standard final comment is “May they be for you and others a source of blessing.” I am only arguing what you seem to assert as their incontrovertibility...
1 edit
Originally posted by Anonymousnumber1Well, I guess you can't help it.
belief = some bullcrap
choice = some bullcrap
I prefer determinism.
Unfortunately, however, your point is self-refuting.
If you say you prefer determinism, I guess you imply that you believe it.
But if your belief in it is, for deterministic reasons, some bullcrap, then you have no grounds for believing determinism.
So, why should I believe you?
(Correct response: you can't help it whether you do or whether you don't!)
Originally posted by RistarThat implies that no one who is sufficiently informed could doubt the truth for Christianity for honest reasons; there would always be an iniquity biasing their process of ratiocination that leads them not to accept Christianity.
Ah, I see. I believe that the issue here is that Christianity asserts that mankind knows the truth in their hearts, i.e. the problem is not the lack of evidence for the validity of Christianity but rather the suppression of it in the conscience of each individual (a la Romans 1:21). Thus, the Christian claim is that sufficient evidence is present and the in ...[text shortened]... , not for evidence he failed to uncover, but the evidence he consciously supressed.
Thoughts?
I think this may be the position of the Roman Catholic Church; Lucifershammer will advise. I also think that many other Christians would maintain this position.
However, some fideistic versions of Christianity (Kierkegaard, Unamuno) would not maintain this position. Indeed, quite the contrary; they would maintain that belief in God is not rationally justified, but is nonetheless emotionally warranted.
I believe the position is manifestly false. I think there are plenty of people who have honestly, dispassionately, and humanely considered whether Christianity (of one sort or another) is true, and have arrived at a negative conclusion.
Hi guys,
Just finished dinner and wanted to post one more time. The board awaits! 🙂
Just so it's firmly established, my purpose is not to persuade. As Poe said, "It is my business simply to proceed." The questions of freedom of choice, will, and responsibility are sobering issues, ones I hope we do not take lightly (from what I've seen, no one in this thread does). I present the Christian view as an alternative which I believe to be superior, not merely because I have a psychological need for it to be true (I do wish it to be true, by the way 😀), but because I believe I have sufficient evidence for it. This evidence is not merely material, but moral.
I met Christ as a teenager after having grown up in a Christian home but not taking the "religion" seriously. The preacher wasn't very good and I forgot his message almost immediately after I heard it. I was living a happy life and felt that I was okay.
But something happened to me that night. I was overcome by the sense of a presence that I wished would go away. Yet that presence only wished me to come and did not frighten me into coming. Yet the thought of leaving this life without that presence in communion with my own soul would lead, I knew in that moment, to the ultimate form of death. I could not but answer.
I'm afraid I have no spectacular story of drug abuse, sexual abuse, or juvenile delinquency in my past; nothing that would strike anyone as very dramatic (though I am trying to become a published author of drama and fantasy 🙂 ). My life just changed one day, and I have come to know that presence as my Holy Father - Holy: So Distant. Father - So Near. I present Him to you as what He can be to you as well. You have but to ask Him.
That's all for now. Got some chess to play, after all (gotta keep my priorities straight 😉 ). If you want to talk further, feel free to PM or e-mail me.
God Bless and hope to see you over the board. 🙂
Originally posted by RistarAre you claiming that your subjective certitude counts as evidence?
Hi guys,
Just finished dinner and wanted to post one more time. The board awaits! 🙂
Just so it's firmly established, my purpose is not to persuade. As Poe said, "It is my business simply to proceed." The questions of freedom of choice, will, and responsibility are sobering issues, ones I hope we do not take lightly (from what I've seen, no one in th ...[text shortened]... her, feel free to PM or e-mail me.
God Bless and hope to see you over the board. 🙂
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI seem to imply alot of things when I'm drinking, haha; but no, I don't believe in anything. Determinism will exist with, or without me; it doesn't matter.
Well, I guess you can't help it.
Unfortunately, however, your point is self-refuting.
If you say you prefer determinism, I guess you imply that you believe it.
But if your belief in it is, for deterministic reasons, some bullcrap, then you have no grounds for believing determinism.
So, why should I believe you?
(Correct response: you can't help it whether you do or whether you don't!)
Also, you don't have to believe me. That's not the point; it's the substance; hear one thing, learn another. It's just how you interpret it.
Originally posted by Anonymousnumber1It seems to be to be true that you believe in determinism, whether you regard that as relevant or not.
I seem to imply alot of things when I'm drinking, haha; but no, I don't believe in anything. Determinism will exist with, or without me; it doesn't matter.
Also, you don't have to believe me. That's not the point; it's the substance; hear one thing, learn another. It's just how you interpret it.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWell said.
Several people of an evangelical persuasion have told me that I am morally culpable for not believing that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.
They claim that, having witnessed to me, I now have the choice to believe them or not. And because I freely choose not to believe them, I am therefore morally culpable, and indeed running the risk of damnation.
W ...[text shortened]... s strikes me as a very odd belief to maintain. Maybe if I only tried harder to believe it...
Originally posted by rwingettThan I hope you get all the facts strait to make the right choices.
I don't "believe" it's a simple matter of belief/non-belief. I think all beliefs are grounded in probabilities. If something is highly probable, then you say you strongly believe it. If something is highly improbable, then you would have little or no belief in it.
What if you are presented with an improbable choice that is being
presented by an honest, truthful, thoughtful person who is telling
you to not lean on your own understanding in a case?
Kelly