Originally posted by bbarrIf I read your first post correctly, a Christian should limit their proclamations to the truths from God, not the fact of His existence--- since those who hear the message will already have established beliefs about the former.
You are wrong here on two counts. First, you tacitly assume that 'not supernatural' entails 'purely physical'. Many do not accept this entailment, and believe that there are facts about intentionality and consciousness that are not identical with physical facts, although they may supervene on physical facts. Second, you tacitly assume that if everyth ...[text shortened]... n flourish, that can enter into a relationship with God (if there was such a creature), etc.
As a former (and sometimes recalcitrant) apologist, I agree. What makes these threads so damningly frustrating is how little of the content is spiritual, yet the blame is almost entirely at the feet of the sniping atheists. For it is the atheist who consistently sidetracks virtually every conversation from their intended topic with such dazzling mind puzzles as "God?!? But what about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"
Such distractions make it difficult to cover much ground in the realm of actual doctrine, at least as far as I've experienced.
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrFirst, you tacitly assume that 'not supernatural' entails 'purely physical'. Many do not accept this entailment, and believe that there are facts about intentionality and consciousness that are not identical with physical facts, although they may supervene on physical facts.
You are wrong here on two counts. First, you tacitly assume that 'not supernatural' entails 'purely physical'. Many do not accept this entailment, and believe that there are facts about intentionality and consciousness that are not identical with physical facts, although they may supervene on physical facts. Second, you tacitly assume that if everyth ...[text shortened]... n flourish, that can enter into a relationship with God (if there was such a creature), etc.
Are these objects of 'intentionality' anything more than an infinitely complex interplay of particles in the brain? I don't see how these facts about intentionality and consciousness elevate secular ethics above the purely physical.
Second, you tacitly assume that if everything is physical, then there can be no emergent properties from the physical substrate. That is, you commit the fallacy of composition by assuming that whatever is true of the parts of a thing (the particles, or whatever) must be true of the whole of a thing (the human, the life, or whatever).
Of course, these emergent properties cannot be considered 'outside' of Nature. If they were somehow above, beyond or outside of Nature, then they would be, by definition, supernatural properties, right? My point is, regardless of how precious or refined we subjectively deem the emergent properties to be, they remain purely physical (i.e., mere conglomerations of particles). You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Even if we were conglomerations of physical particles, nothing about ethics would follow, since we can be both conglomerations of physical particles and agents with projects and concerns, that can be harmed, that can reason, that manifest virtue, that can flourish, that can enter into a relationship with God (if there was such a creature), etc.
Nothing about ethics would follow? Perhaps not, that is, if man is capable of permanently burying his head in the sand.
The problem is that an ethical norm arrived at within an inherently meaningless universe is always going to be impotently arbitrary -- merely a matter of consensus established by force of arms. And were I 'enlightened' to this idea that right and wrong are merely inferred, then would I not find myself suddenly empowered to determine for myself what is right and wrong? Could I not arbitrarily infer that killing innocent people is OK, provided I get away with it and that doing so furthers what I deem a greater cause?
A theory cannot escape its fundamental assumptions about the world. Without God, moral thought sinks into ambivalence and the human condition into absurdity. Again, provided a person fails to ignore altogether the inherent existential problem secularism poses (a failure which 'vital men' like Tolstoy share).
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat do you mean by "inherently meaningless" and how does it somehow not apply to a universe in which your God exists? Surely he too is inherently meaningless.
The problem is that an ethical norm arrived at within an inherently meaningless universe is always going to be impotently arbitrary -- merely a matter of consensus established by force of arms.
And were I 'enlightened' to this idea that right and wrong are merely inferred, then would I not find myself suddenly empowered to determine for myself what is right and wrong? Could I not arbitrarily infer that killing innocent people is OK, provided I get away with it and that doing so furthers what I deem a greater cause?
A popular fallacy. ie because following what I perceive to be the the logical outcome does not match what I personally believe to be right it must therefore be wrong. Also the use of threatened excessive violence to try to discourage further discussion.
A theory cannot escape its fundamental assumptions about the world. Without God, moral thought sinks into ambivalence and the human condition into absurdity. Again, provided a person fails to ignore altogether the inherent existential problem secularism poses (a failure which 'vital men' like Tolstoy share).
And God solves this how? He is just as absurd as the human condition.
Originally posted by epiphinehasEven if bbarr's responses to your postings were vitriolic, that would still not absolve you of the responsibility to address and refute the counterarguments he raises to your position--should you still wish to maintain, as I presume you do, that you position is well-founded. In short, critiquing bbarr's style does not amount to critiquing his substance. Do you believe that your opinions become correct merely because you take umbrage at someone's else's attitude towards you?
I'm noticing a pattern here: secular types get down right vitriolic when the ideology they hold dear is even the least bit questioned. It's remarkable what hostility boils to the surface within a perfectly impersonal debate. Suddenly the theist is too ignorant or uneducated to waste one's time with; if the theist truly understood or ceased being willfu ...[text shortened]... nd I appreciate the time you put into our discussion, but I think I'll be moving on, thanks.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeDo you believe that your opinions become correct merely because you take umbrage at someone's else's attitude towards you?
Even if bbarr's responses to your postings were vitriolic, that would still not absolve you of the responsibility to address and refute the counterarguments he raises to your position--should you still wish to maintain, as I presume you do, that you position is well-founded. In short, critiquing bbarr's style does not amount to critiquing his substance. ...[text shortened]... ons become correct merely because you take umbrage at someone's else's attitude towards you?
No.
Originally posted by epiphinehasDo you think that bbarr's responses to you are nothing but *empty* vitriol, or do you think they they contain well-reasoned arguments that merit addressing?
[b]Do you believe that your opinions become correct merely because you take umbrage at someone's else's attitude towards you?
No.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasSigh... Once again discussion of things spiritual reduces to only ethical/moral questions.
[b]First, you tacitly assume that 'not supernatural' entails 'purely physical'. Many do not accept this entailment, and believe that there are facts about intentionality and consciousness that are not identical with physical facts, although they may supervene on physical facts.
Are these objects of 'intentionality' anything more than an infinitely tential problem secularism poses (a failure which 'vital men' like Tolstoy share).[/b]
Are these objects of 'intentionality' anything more than an infinitely complex interplay of particles in the brain? I don't see how these facts about intentionality and consciousness elevate secular ethics above the purely physical.
Because of what (on my limited understanding) appears to be confusion in some quarters between “physicalism” and “materialism”, I want to make clear that I understand the “purely physical” to refer to all aspects of the natural cosmos: material forms, forces, their interplay and interrelationships. Thus, I think the real issue here is between supernaturalism and non-supernaturalism—or at least, I think it can be more clearly cast in those terms.
Your underlying claim (taking ethics as simply an example) seems to be that such natural processes cannot give rise to a consciousness that is capable of intentionality, wonder, meaning-making, moral consideration...i.e., that such a consciousness must have a supernatural source. But unless you can provide further argument, you are merely being circular, viz.:
(1) Such consciousness cannot arise purely from such natural processes.
(2) There must be a supernatural source.
(3) Therefore there is a supernatural source.
Or else you are simply arguing from a position of mystification: I can’t understand how it could be so, so it must not be so.
The problem is that an ethical norm arrived at within an inherently meaningless universe is always going to be impotently arbitrary -- merely a matter of consensus established by force of arms.
We have, of course, argued this before. I do not see the universe disclosing meaning; what is disclosed to our consciousness are facts and relationships. We interpret those to construct meaning; we apply the grammar of our consciousness to the syntax of the universe in which and of which we are (that very grammar being inseparable from the larger syntax).
You seem to take a monarchical view: that is, sans some monarchical source to tell us the meaning, sans some monarchical source to tell us how we must behave, we are simply lost in the dark. Do you see any disjunct here between that view and your own social/political philosophy? Or your Protestant ecclesial philosophy (as opposed to, say, the hierarchical ecclesiology of Roman Catholicism)?
Aside: Theistic ethical systems based on divine command theory have not been reluctant to use force of arms.
Could I not arbitrarily infer that killing innocent people is OK, provided I get away with it and that doing so furthers what I deem a greater cause?
Inference is not arbitrary; it is the drawing of a conclusion based on the available evidence.
You hold to a belief system in which the killing of at least one innocent person was deemed by God to be the only way to further his greater cause.
Without God, moral thought sinks into ambivalence and the human condition into absurdity. Again, provided a person fails to ignore altogether the inherent existential problem secularism poses (a failure which 'vital men' like Tolstoy share).
And yet you are continually confronted by non-theists who are not ambivalent about moral thought or the human condition. That must at least give you pause.
I am not exactly sure how you are using the word “absurdity” here. In the Camusian sense in which I use the word, it is a descriptor of our existential confrontation with a world that discloses no meaning (only facts and relationships) and our desire to have such meaning merely disclosed to us without our creative participation—that desire being sometimes called by Camus “nostalgia”.
“This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart. The absurd depends as much on man as on the world.” (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, p. 21)
Now, I would not put it in quite those (somewhat poetic) terms. I might use the word “non-rational”, rather than “irrational”. But it is we who reason; the syntax of the world is coherent with the grammar of our consciousness—it would be surprising if it were not (indeed, we would likely not be here to discuss it). That is not to say that our grammar is exhaustive of that syntax, that there remains no ineffable mystery. (My Camusian views are also colored by my Zennian principles of non-separability and mutuality.)
With that said: “The Absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.” (ibid p. 28) And: “...[T]he Absurd is not in man (if such a metaphor could have a meaning), nor in the world, but in their presence together.” (ibid, p. 30)
Among the attempts to escape or evade the absurd situation that Camus criticizes is the Kierkegaardian “leap of faith.” (I have not read the Tolstoy work cited here, but it seems as if he is also talking about a similar kind of existential leap.)
Nevertheless, if you were to describe your position in terms of a leap of faith, or simply a decision of faith, rather than bringing in such stuff as “psychological certainty”,* then at the very least our argument would take a different form. I am not as purely critical of such leaps as is Camus. (Although Camus is, to my mind, partially correct in describing leaps of faith as non-courageous attempts at escape or evasion, I do not think he is entirely correct: that depends on the subject’s reasons, and I can imagine reasons that could be quite courageous in the face of existential uncertainty.)
This has, however, been the crux of many of the arguments on here about meaning (including within the context of scriptural hermeneutics): I do not think that one can, without self-deception, evade one’s participation and responsibility in meaning-making, including the interpretation of the results of such activity received from our forebears and mentors (again, e.g. scriptural hermeneutics).
In the very act of positing an exoteric being as the ground and source of meaning and ethics, in the very act of interpreting mystical/spiritual/contemplative experience—or affirming and expanding whatever reflexive interpretation that may arise spontaneously in the midst of such experience—you are exercising that creative participation and responsibility. It is inescapable. I have sometimes described it paradoxically (though in terms that I think Camus might approve) as an “inescapable freedom”.**
____________________________________
* It appears that you have relinquished epistemic certainty with regard to matters of faith. Psychological certainty could be no more than one’s ability to convince himself of something despite the evidence. As you know, I do not use the word faith as relating to either.
** I hope I do not need to add that I am not talking about “libertarian free-will”—but I add it anyway.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdYour underlying claim (taking ethics as simply an example) seems to be that such natural processes cannot give rise to a consciousness that is capable of intentionality, wonder, meaning-making, moral consideration...i.e., that such a consciousness must have a supernatural source. But unless you can provide further argument, you are merely being circular.
Sigh... Once again discussion of things spiritual reduces to only ethical/moral questions.
[b]Are these objects of 'intentionality' anything more than an infinitely complex interplay of particles in the brain? I don't see how these facts about intentionality and consciousness elevate secular ethics above the purely physical.
Because of what (on my do not need to add that I am not talking about “libertarian free-will”—but I add it anyway.[/b]
No, I'm just attempting to elicit the underlying assumptions of secularism and bring them to bear upon its ethics. The emergent properties which arise out of the physical substrate, as bbarr puts it, intentionality, wonder, meaning-making, moral consideration, as you put it, cannot be greater than the sum of its parts within a closed system, scientifically speaking. What we call 'virtue', that which is appreciated within the context of a human society, in all its lauded glory nevertheless can be nothing more than a particular confluence of particles, objectively void of any real meaning. If secularism remains true to its underlying assumption about the world, then it can only undermine the motivating factors behind right action (empathetic intuition).
You seem to take a monarchical view: that is, sans some monarchical source to tell us the meaning, sans some monarchical source to tell us how we must behave, we are simply lost in the dark. Do you see any disjunct here between that view and your own social/political philosophy?
I personally believe that meaning doesn't need to be "made" but can be discovered, and that nobody needs to tell us how to behave because that can be discovered as well, regardless of whether one posits a Creator or not. To me it is not surprising that secular ethics adopted the Golden Rule, as it is the most morally intuitive aspect of our human existence, i.e., the Light which is Christ, the Logos of God, enlightens the inner life of everyone who enters this world.
In order for a civilization to exist laws can be enforced which uphold agreed upon ethical norms, but I think it's a misunderstanding of Christ's teaching which gives rise to the notion that Christianity is merely prohibitive. Far from it, Christ stresses above all a radical transformation of the heart from selfishness and hard-heartedness to unselfishness and love. Paul says correctly that there is no law against a person with such a renewed heart, i.e., prohibitions are meant strictly for the selfish and hard-hearted.
I doubt rational ethics has the ability to fundamentally transform a person's heart, and I also doubt its ability to elicit genuine ethical behavior.
Inference is not arbitrary; it is the drawing of a conclusion based on the available evidence.
But what is the available evidence? We are an accidental and evolving conglomeration of particles, according to the assumptions of secularism and science.
And yet you are continually confronted by non-theists who are not ambivalent about moral thought or the human condition. That must at least give you pause.
Like I said, Christ is the Light which illumines the inner lives of all who enter this world, whether they realize it or not. Failing to give glory to God for this is simply active ignorance or foolishness. If anything, the fact that certain non-theists aren't ambivalent should give them pause. Why is righteousness so appropriate to human beings? Why does the heart long for it so deeply?
Christianity's explanation of the facts is more reasonable, plausible and practical than the long and involved explanations of those secular-minded individuals who unconsciously advertise absurdity (in my opinion).
I am not exactly sure how you are using the word “absurdity” here.
I think Camus and Kierkegaard, as well as Tolstoy, express quite well what it is I'm referring to by that term. I'm asserting that a secular ethics cannot escape absurdity's intellectual and spiritual fallout, as it were.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOh, his are undoubtedly well-reasoned arguments that merit addressing! I'd be the first to admit that my high school diploma is inadequate and that I am quite stupid. I offer up no defense on that account.
Do you think that bbarr's responses to you are nothing but *empty* vitriol, or do you think they they contain well-reasoned arguments that merit addressing?
Further, I have no illusions of being or seeming the most qualified individual to be arguing my position, whatever that position is exactly. But I nevertheless like to offer up something if believe I have something relevant to say.
To me a discussion gets uninteresting when people become petty and insulting. Especially those in a position to condescend to others' limitations; vistesd is a good example of someone like this who exhibits no unnecessary vitriol. Also, my mother is a distinguished professor who exhibits graceful and humble ethical conduct towards the ideas of the inferiorly educated.
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI understand secular ethics to be completely compatible with the findings of science, and holding nothing extracurricular to the evidence. Because science has shown nothing to indicate that we are more than an accidental collection of particles, I have to assume that secular ethics...at bottom can itself assert nothing beyond the existing data.
First, I've already presented my argument toward the beginning of this thread within the given doxastic confines. If you remember, I presented the New Testament as the testimony of others whom one can justifiably trust. This argument has been pretty well ignored, and any suggestion on my part to study the NT in depth, as far as I am aware, has been ign pite your appeal to authority, at bottom can itself assert nothing beyond the existing data.
I'm not quite sure I'm understanding you. The normative claims of secular ethics will of course be compatible with the findings of science, which are descriptive. But that doesn't entail nor is it because secular ethics does not or cannot assert anything beyond the findings of science; rather, science just doesn't have anything to say about normativity. I don't care one lick if science were to show that we are "an accidental (whatever that is descriptively supposed to mean) collection of particles". That just doesn't have any normative implications and wouldn't preclude any value claim. That you can't understand this; that Tolstoy couldn't understand this; doesn't somehow make it our problem.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI figured you would consider that hasty, though I still think it follows directly from the falsifications conditions you yourself provided.
A bit hasty don't you think? There are many things that could have gone amiss with the experiment.
1. God may have answered your prayer to an extent but you missed the results , possibly by looking for the 'out of the ordinary' too much. Maybe you didn't get "absolutely" nothing.
2. You may not have performed the correct checks on your motivat ...[text shortened]... with you , it's unlikely to snap around in a few days in the way you might be expecting.
But, to be honest, I'm not prepared to say this experiment has been anything other than inconclusive. I'm not even sure it was an experiment at all, considering that there were no discernable predictions and falsification conditions to guide the effort.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNormative ethics cannot address the existential dilemma which secularism creates. And merely understanding the distinction between descriptive and normative doesn't solve the problem either.
Yikes. Let me get this straight: you think from X is compatible with Y, it follows that X cannot assert anything outside of the entailments of Y? The normative claims of secular ethics will of course be compatible with the findings of science, which are descriptive. But that doesn't entail nor is it because secular ethics does not or cannot assert anyth ...[text shortened]... tand this; that Tolstoy couldn't understand this; doesn't somehow make it our problem.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't care one lick if science were to show that we are "an accidental (whatever that is descriptively supposed to mean) collection of particles". That just doesn't have any normative implications and wouldn't preclude any value claim.
I understand secular ethics to be completely compatible with the findings of science, and holding nothing extracurricular to the evidence. Because science has shown nothing to indicate that we are more than an accidental collection of particles, I have to assume that secular ethics...at bottom can itself assert nothing beyond the existing data.
I' ...[text shortened]... nd this; that Tolstoy couldn't understand this; doesn't somehow make it our problem.[/b]
Your lack of concern is ill-founded. Whether you choose to ignore the implications or not does nothing to change the implications. No matter what sense of the word is used, accident brings more freight with it than you are willing to oblige.
Whether in law or everyday common usage, an accident infers lack of expectation, unfortunate event, chance, or mishap. In law, no one is at fault, no one receives either punishment or credit for an accident. While the under tone remains for common usage, the terms are broadened to cover all manner of unpurposed events: value (at best) neutral. At worst, undesirable. From such a cause (which is not really a cause, but that's something else altogether), no value is inherent.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI never said the experiment was to be a rigidly scientific one . I have only claimed that God's presence can be known and experienced by individuals. My guess is that you were looking for something too much instead of just allowing the process to unfold. You were unlikely to come across much given the short amount of time you gave to it but even so there may be something you passed by unwittingly.
I figured you would consider that hasty, though I still think it follows directly from the falsifications conditions you yourself provided.
But, to be honest, I'm not prepared to say this experiment has been anything other than inconclusive. I'm not even sure it was an experiment at all, considering that there were no discernable predictions and falsification conditions to guide the effort.
The Holy Spirit can be experienced sometimes as a tingling in the spine or a warm sensation on the back or shoulder. Sometimes one can have an involuntary cough or sneeze when being touched by the Spirit or have a trembling (not fearful) feeling in the body. This can be accompanied by a sense of being filled with some energy or having a bad feeling lifted from you. It can also be a very strong sense of feeling very light or sensitive inside as if something is melting within you usually leading to feelings of compassion , love or a heightened sense of justice/ morality.
I know these are very subjective phenomena ( and these are just a few) but can you relate to any of them?