Originally posted by bbarr
I have no doubt that I could live with Haught in harmony. I'm sure we'd get along as neighbors and could even be friends. But I doubt that is what you're concerned with. What you really want to know, I take it, is whether we could achieve some sort of broad political consensus on issues that matter with theists of Haught's sort. Is that right? If so, then ...[text shortened]... d in that they are committed to the existence of an exoteric and personal divinity.

See, it isn't about truth .... it is all about politics.

Originally posted by josephw
"My chief objection to the new atheists is that they are almost completely ignorant of what's going on in the world of theology. They talk about the most fundamentalist and extremist versions of faith, and they hold these up as though they're the normative, central core of faith. And they miss so many things. They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christian ...[text shortened]... ve time I'm going to read the whole article. This could lead to some interesting debates.

Great point.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Roman-Catholic Church accepts the scientific theory of evolution. The Church has 1.000.000.000 members who are hopefully all theists and who hopefully all follow the Roman-Catholic teachings regarding this matter ...... so, it's time you upgrade your hard disk regarding this issue, Rwingo .....

Yes, but it seems as if they do so only grudgingly and would rather that nobody noticed the fact. If the Pope stood up and gave creationism a very public and scathing condemnation, then I might find his position a little more sincere.

Besides, how many Catholics actually follow Catholic doctrine?

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, but it seems as if they do so only grudgingly and would rather that nobody noticed the fact. If the Pope stood up and gave creationism a very public and scathing condemnation, then I might find his position a little more sincere.

Besides, how many Catholics actually follow Catholic doctrine?

Rwingett: "Yes, but it seems as if they do so only grudgingly and would rather that nobody noticed the fact."

What gives you the impression that the RC Church is only "grudgingly" accepting the scientific theory of evolution ? That is just a strawman on your part I'm afraid.

The Papal Academic of Sciences organises debates and congresses about the theory of evolution and invites scientists from all over the world to participate. If you want to notice it, you can notice it.

Rwingett: "If the Pope stood up and gave creationism a very public and scathing condemnation, then I might find his position a little more sincere."

I don't think the Pope should do this. It would be a political statement concerning a scientific matter and he would get involved in the political battle which is raging in the US under the cover of a scientific debate.

Besides, why would you make an appeal to the Pope to use his influence to support you in a political fight ? His position should be to let the scientists decide scientific matters and he should limit himself to criticism on the fact that "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" ) has stepped outside the borders of science and presents itself as a new ideology, a new way of thinking.

Originally posted by rwingett
A very interesting interview with theologian John Haught on evolution and other topics. Haught is among the seldom heard brand of theists who accept evolution. In fact, he goes so far as to say that Darwin is a "gift to theology." However, despite saying some things I agree with, Haught also says some things I disagree with. I'm sure the theists would proba ...[text shortened]... sts on Mr. Haught's position.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/

"So if you're a person of faith who wants to be intellectually responsible, you can't just shove all this science into a drawer. You do have to deal with it."

"Exactly. Theology has always looked to secular concepts to express, for its particular age, what the meaning of God is."

This answer by Haught points out exactly what is wrong with mainstream Christianity today.

Theology looks to secular concepts to express what the meaning of God is?
This is totally wrong. Only God Himself can define who and what He is.
We either accept by faith that God has revealed Himself or one can play a guessing game.

After reading the interview I found myself in the same old quagmire the so-called intellectual elite love to expound on. Nothing has changed. There were no answers. Just alot of talk. Only more of the same old thing.

Originally posted by josephw
"So if you're a person of faith who wants to be intellectually responsible, you can't just shove all this science into a drawer. You do have to deal with it."

"Exactly. Theology has always looked to secular concepts to express, for its particular age, what the meaning of God is."

This answer by Haught points out exactly what is wrong with mainstream C ...[text shortened]... ng has changed. There were no answers. Just alot of talk. Only more of the same old thing.

Revelation does not interpret itself, and Haught is not claiming that the actual content of revelation changes. He is claiming that our understanding of the content of revelation is conditioned by other things that we have good reason to believe, and what we have good reason to believe changes with inquiry.

Originally posted by bbarr
Revelation does not interpret itself, and Haught is not claiming that the actual content of revelation changes. He is claiming that our understanding of the content of revelation is conditioned by other things that we have good reason to believe, and what we have good reason to believe changes with inquiry.

I would only add that, (1) I would consider the very words of scriptural texts to be interpretations (or, when referring to earlier writings, interpretations of interpretations) of the revelatory experience; and (2) the interpretive schema employed by the early church (e.g., Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, later the Cappadocians) was far richer than the literalistic/historicistic approach that is often seen today, especially in the Protestant churches. (Even Biblical authors such as Matthew and Paul clearly applied midrashic exegesis to the received Jewish texts; and this approach, making large use of metaphor, symbol and allegory, was adopted, in various forms, by the post-apostolic exegetes mentioned above.)

Originally posted by vistesd
I would only add that, (1) I would consider the very words of scriptural texts to be interpretations (or, when referring to earlier writings, interpretations of interpretations) of the revelatory experience; and (2) the interpretive schema employed by the early church (e.g., Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, later the Cappadocians) was far richer than the liter ...[text shortened]... ol and allegory, was adopted, in various forms, by the post-apostolic exegetes mentioned above.)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I intended the term 'revelation' to refer to that which God reveals, not the primary text one interprets. You are right, though, that an attempt to transcribe that which is revealed will itself be an exercise of interpretation. I see absolutely no reason to think that original transcriptions of revelations will not be conditioned by conceptual repertoire of the transcriber, and this is simply one illustration of Haught's point.

Originally posted by bbarr
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I intended the term 'revelation' to refer to that which God reveals, not the primary text one interprets. You are right, though, that an attempt to transcribe that which is revealed will itself be an exercise of interpretation. I see absolutely no reason to think that original transcriptions of revelations will not be conditioned by ...[text shortened]... eptual repertoire of the transcriber, and this is simply one illustration of Haught's point.

You are right, though, that an attempt to transcribe that which is revealed will itself be an exercise of interpretation. I see absolutely no reason to think that original transcriptions of revelations will not be conditioned by conceptual repertoire of the transcriber...

That’s really the only point I wanted to make. It was more for those who seem to take the text as revelation, “unsullied” by the conceptual repertoire of the transcriber. I did not imagine that’s what you meant by “revelation”—but it’s a point I’ve argued a lot on here.

EDIT:

I was also thinking in terms of my understanding that every attempt to translate the experience of the ineffable into conceptual content involves interpretation, even at the spontaneous level that James Austin, in his Zen and the Brain calls “reflexive interpretation”—“...original interpretations which the person formulates spontaneously either during the experience itself or immediately after.”

Later interpretive activity draws on that, incorporating more fully cultural, philosophical, religious, etc. elements.

Originally posted by bbarr
If by "analytic ability" you mean "creative stipulation", then I'm sure you're right. In the absence of even a rough demonstration of the putative entailment, I'm unconvinced. In any case, there is no valid demonstration that atheism entails nihilism, since atheism is compatible with the claim that moral categories (goodness, rightness, worth, value, virtue, ...[text shortened]... h nihilism in that it is committed to there being facts about what one ought to do.

That is, you cannot take as premises "God does not exist" and "There are moral facts" and derive a contradiction without importing an additional unjustified premise.
I don't see where additional premises are required. The phrase "God does not exist" brings with it all manner of significance, beginning first and foremost with "God." As the Bible states, God is the Alpha and the Omega, the origination of all things with intrinsic value. As He is the base upon which morality is founded, taking Him out of the picture eventually and necessarily removes all things dependent upon His being.

The quote you pick out (and apparently fail to grasp) actually entails that nihilism is false.
The quote that I used wasn't directed toward nihilsm per se, but rather it was to highlight Freddy's "ethical exemplars," i.e., his ethics were based upon some aribitrary rules each member of society was to follow. His ultimate standard? A person's ability to register as being in possession of "overflowing life." The greater your chi, the more appropriate your domination. Very ethical, that.

Though perhaps you are sloppily confusing nihilism (the view that there are no moral facts) with the view that everyone is bound by the exact same ethical norms regardless of their capabilities or natures.
There was no confusion, sloppy or otherwise. Thanks for the thought, though.

This claim of Neitzsche's is incompatible with nihilism in that it is committed to there being facts about what one ought to do.
Again, based upon what (or, better, whose) standard?

Originally posted by LemonJello
(atheiesm = nihilsm), it doesn't take too much analytical ability to connect the dots.

Are you saying that it doesn't take much to see that's what F.N. thought; or are you saying that it doesn't take much to see this equation is valid? Either way, you're wrong.

Is this like the time you tried to teach us all something about Schopenhauer and his views on reason?[/b]

Are you saying that it doesn't take much to see that's what F.N. thought; or are you saying that it doesn't take much to see this equation is valid? Either way, you're wrong.
I don't know that Freddy was able to see the end of his thinking; I believe he arrived at a satisfying point and decided to sit tight. Therefore, I can't say that he actually thought the thought. However, as stated, it doesn't take too much effort to connect the dots and arrive at the conclusion that sunsets only have meaning on planets.

Is this like the time you tried to teach us all something about Schopenhauer and his views on reason?
Only if you learn something.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
However, as stated, it doesn't take too much effort to connect the dots and arrive at the conclusion that sunsets only have meaning on planets.

And what is that supposed to mean. Are you really trying to advance the inane notion that atheism = nihilism (which I guess reads as atheism => nihilism and nihilism => atheism)?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]That is, you cannot take as premises "God does not exist" and "There are moral facts" and derive a contradiction without importing an additional unjustified premise.
I don't see where additional premises are required. The phrase "God does not exist" brings with it all manner of significance, beginning first and foremost with "God." As the Bible what one ought to do.[/b]
Again, based upon what (or, better, whose) standard?[/b]

I know you don't see where additional premises are required. I guess you think that from the following two propositions you can derive a contradiction:

(1) God does not exist.

(2) There are moral facts.

In the absence of an actual demonstration of the contradiction, your claims seem merely ignorant posturing. Of course, you will fail at providing such a demonstration, but will probably be unable to see this. You will claim something irrelevant to the debate like "God is the alpha and omega, blah, blah, blah", and think that this shows that atheism entails nihilism. That is, you will import into the argument the additional premise "moral facts derive from God", or something roughly synonymous. But this additional premise (while securing a contradiction when conjoined with (1) and (2)) is precisely what the atheist rejects. This is why I claimed above that a theist like Haught can only secure the conclusion that atheism entails nihilism if he helps himself to an unjustified premise. This additional premise is unjustified because, in the context of this debate, it is question-begging. The theist can only show that atheism entails nihilism if he tacitly assumes that all moral facts derive from God.

After your mangling of Schopenhauer, I can't take your views on any philosopher seriously in the absence of direct citation. So, show me the quote where Nietzsche makes the claims you allege that he makes.

EDIT: And come on, you certainly were confusing nihilism with the normative universality. Now you're just being disingenuous. For anybody who goes back and reads your original post it is clear that you really have no idea what nihilism means; you certainly didn't think it meant the absence of moral facts.

Originally posted by bbarr
I know you don't see where additional premises are required. I guess you think that from the following two propositions you can derive a contradiction:

(1) God does not exist.

(2) There are moral facts.

In the absence of an actual demonstration of the contradiction, your claims seem merely ignorant posturing. Of course, you will fail at provi ...[text shortened]... dea what nihilism means; you certainly didn't think it meant the absence of moral facts.

I know you don't see where additional premises are required.
The additional premise is not required because--- as stated clearly enough for one of your elevated intellect to ascertain--- the first statement (God does not exist) contains a reference to a person with characteristics and qualities you sloppily overlook.

It is not as though your statement can simply stand alone, as though God and a chair, for instance, are of the same qualitative existence. The essence of God's personhood is overflowing with multiple attendant applications. Chief among the descriptions of God is His position as creator of all things, the One upon whom all things are dependent.

Take a chair away and the one thus resting upon falls. Take God away, and all things fall. Your first statement fails because it is nonsense. And, in the absence of any substantial arguments supporting God's non-existence, you are left with no reason to even begin the attempt to claim moral truths.

The theist can only show that atheism entails nihilism if he tacitly assumes that all moral facts derive from God.
Since you have failed to provide any position which would support moral facts deriving from anywhere or anyone other than God, the theist's silence is understandable.

After your mangling of Schopenhauer, I can't take your views on any philosopher seriously in the absence of direct citation.
Even with direct citation, you will likely take the contrarian position, regardless of either the straight-forward meaning or underlying intent.

So, show me the quote where Nietzsche makes the claims you allege that he makes.
Here's your turn for a direct citation. Directly cite me wherein I allege anything Freddy said.

For anybody who goes back and reads your original post it is clear that you really have no idea what nihilism means; you certainly didn't think it meant the absence of moral facts.
I didn't? Must have been my lack of clarity that led you to such a boneheaded conclusion. Freddy's perspective on the perfect world necessarily relied on his standards of 'oughts' without any objective standard--- unless, of course, you think that somehow a zest for life can be standardized to the point of universal agreement. Specifically because he lacked anything remotely close to a universal rule leads me to the conclusion that he endorsed nihilism... whether he was able to realize what he was doing or not is beside the point.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I know you don't see where additional premises are required.
The additional premise is not required because--- as stated clearly enough for one of your elevated intellect to ascertain--- the first statement (God does not exist) contains a reference to a person with characteristics and qualities you sloppily overlook.

It is not as though ...[text shortened]... ilism... whether he was able to realize what he was doing or not is beside the point.[/b]

Right, that's the question-begging supplementary premise. I'll bold it in the mini-dialogue below:

Theist: "Atheism entail nihilism."

Atheist: "No, because even if God doesn't exist there may still be moral facts."

Theist: "No, because the very definition of 'God' entails that there are no moral facts independent of God ."

And, again, if you or Haught are seriously concerned about secular accounts of moral facts, you should really think about reading some ethical theory.

Regarding Nietzsche: Citation please?