If Jesus did come back would you want to kill him?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Agreed, and because of which I owe blue am apology
 What had appeared after the first few posts a mock the Christians thread has now that blue can post become very interesting, and is a good template for how we can talk about theism without the jejune snobbery

No apology needed my friend (and kudos for the "jejune"!).

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Bramble,

Well, so far as the concept "God" is concerned it doesn't seem to be mysterious to me at all - just a manifestation to our species' pattern-finding nature and preference for a conspiracy theory over no theory at all. If it turned out that there was a God (or lots of gods) though then there'd be mysteries aplenty alright, not least the mystery of why He/they created a universe exactly consistent with there being no god at all.

Then you don't!

First of all, as noted in post to Gonzo, my apologies, you were right and I was wrong to judge this thread after the first few posts.


Now, on the subject of the universe appearing th same as on with no god(s),i would suggest that the theological response would be a universe with no god would not exist. That without a reason the complexity that exists makes no sense. I know we look on the god talked of by many on here as a god of the gaps but I suspect it's more a god of the abyss. The abyss of strange weirdness that having consciousness creates. The abyss of not quite being able to connect completely with what appear to be our fellow creatures. The abyss that with all this awareness hard solipsism is unbreakable.


The gap that creates god is not mystery but the gap of the phenomenal which we experience and the noumenal.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

First of all, as noted in post to Gonzo, my apologies, you were right and I was wrong to judge this thread after the first few posts.

Thank you, but it's really not necessary.

Now, on the subject of the universe appearing th same as on with no god(s),i would suggest that the theological response would be a universe with no god would not exist. That without a reason the complexity that exists makes no sense. I know we look on the god talked of by many on here as a god of the gaps but I suspect it's more a god of the abyss. The abyss of strange weirdness that having consciousness creates. The abyss of not quite being able to connect completely with what appear to be our fellow creatures. The abyss that with all this awareness hard solipsism is unbreakable.

Perhaps, but that would at best be an argument for deism rather than for theism - the disinterested clockmaker who put together all the springs and cogs and then disappeared. It's Einstein's, "If by "God" you mean "the Universe", then I believe in God" but it says nothing to a theistic god concerned with human affairs. It also leaves open the infinite regression problem - if not for god's dad, whence god? - because the argument from necessity of an uncaused cause just sounds like special pleading to me.

As for the god of the abyss line, well I hear you but it still looks like a variant of god of the gaps. Yes many things seem to us to be deep and profound and unfathomable, but the key words there are "to us". Doubtless to a chimpanzee a helicopter or an iPod seems every bit as mysterious. The point is that we rely on our perspective to sort the mundane from the profound, whereas that's just one reference point. If, say, an advanced race of aliens had cracked consciousness in all its workings they'd point at us for referencing the divine as we point at tribespeople who ascribe an erupting volcano to their god.

Why in other words jump from "don't know" to "god" to explain the (currently) inexplicable?       

The gap that creates god is not mystery but the gap of the phenomenal which we experience and the noumenal.

But it's still just a gap isn't it? What's the logical path from gap to god?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not making an argument for gods, jus indicating that I don't think that most people's actual motivation for believing is a pat set of arguments. When people make arguments for gods like that it never seems to be why they actually believe.


The abyss is a gap, but it's not a scientific gap. It's not about lack of knowledge, it's a philosophical issue about what our limitations are. The feeling of being marooned but so close to being able to reach out but never touch. Like Tantalus, we are imprisoned with objectivity beyond our reach.


Given the feelings that this creates, i'm suggesting that that is what causes the gods that proliferate. No argument for them, just an indication that I see most arguments that people put forward as post hoc rationalisations of their feelings.

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm not making an argument for gods, jus indicating that I don't think that most people's actual motivation for believing is a pat set of arguments. When people make arguments for gods like that it never seems to be why they actually believe.


The abyss is a gap, but it's not a scientific gap. It's not about lack of knowledge, it's a philosophical issue about what our limitations are. The feeling of being marooned but so close to being able to reach out but never touch. Like Tantalus, we are imprisoned with objectivity beyond our reach.


Given the feelings that this creates, i'm suggesting that that is what causes the gods that proliferate. No argument for them, just an indication that I see most arguments that people put forward as post hoc rationalisations of their feelings.

Given that we can only know phenomena, there is nonetheless an increasing capacity (partly due to science) in the complexities of phenomena we can know. I wonder whether some people's immediate jumping to the conclusion 'God' results from the brain suddenly being overwhelmed with a host of unexplained phenomena on occasion, phenomena which are indeed out of the normal everyday range of experience, but for which other explanations are available, if people were only prepared to take the time to investigate them.
That, of course, can be hard when you have an experience like Pascal's* (which people only knew about after his death).

*

L'an de grâce 1654,

Lundi, 23 novembre, jour de saint Clément, pape et martyr, et autres au martyrologe.
 Veille de saint Chrysogone, martyr, et autres,
 Depuis environ dix heures et demie du soir jusques environ minuit et demi,

FEU.

« DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob »
non des philosophes et des savants.
 Certitude. Certitude. Sentiment. Joie. Paix.
 DIEU de Jésus-Christ.
Deum meum et Deum vestrum.
« Ton DIEU sera mon Dieu. »
Oubli du monde et de tout, hormis DIEU.
 Il ne se trouve que par les voies enseignées dans l'Évangile.
 Grandeur de l'âme humaine.
« Père juste, le monde ne t'a point connu, mais je t'ai connu. »
Joie, joie, joie, pleurs de joie.
 Je m'en suis séparé:
Dereliquerunt me fontem aquae vivae.
« Mon Dieu, me quitterez-vous ? »
Que je n'en sois pas séparé éternellement.
« Cette est la vie éternelle, qu'ils te connaissent seul vrai Dieu, et celui que tu as envoyé, Jésus-Christ. »
Jésus-Christ.
 Jésus-Christ.
 Je m'en suis séparé; je l'ai fui, renoncé, crucifié.
 Que je n'en sois jamais séparé.
 Il ne se conserve que par les voies enseignées dans l'Évangile:
 Renonciation totale et douce.
 Soumission totale à Jésus-Christ et à mon directeur.
 Éternellement en joie pour un jour d'exercice sur la terre.
Non obliviscar sermones tuos. Amen.

[Nearly Sane]

Given that we can only know phenomena, there is nonetheless an increasing capacity (partly due to science) in the complexities of phenomena we can know. I wonder whether some people's immediate jumping to the conclusion 'God' results from the brain suddenly being overwhelmed with a host of unexplained phenomena on occasion, phenomena which are indeed out of the normal everyday range of experience, but for which other explanations are available, if people were only prepared to take the time to investigate them.
That, of course, can be hard when you have an experience like Pascal's (which people only knew about after his death).

I don't know, it seems to me more likely that it's being overwhelmed with the feelings engendered by trying to think about thinking. Take the ongoing discussions on free will and the self on the Searching for God thread. The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed.


This applies on either side of the god debate as well as others, as when people argue for rationality without understanding that as Hume said 'Reason is a slave to the passions', or that our conscious decisions seem explanations of sub conscious ones, not real decisions.

[Dicky Underpants]

I don't know, it seems to me more likely that it's being overwhelmed with the feelings engendered by trying to think about thinking. Take the ongoing discussions on free will and the self on the Searching for God thread. The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed.


This applies on either side of the god debate as well as others, as when people argue for rationality without understanding that as Hume said 'Reason is a slave to the passions', or that our conscious decisions seem explanations of sub conscious ones, not real decisions.

esp.
"The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed."

I noticed that Leonard in particular was extremely loath to accept such a conclusion. And even if we accept the illusory nature of self and free-will in theory, it's still an extremely bitter pill to swallow.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'm not making an argument for gods, jus indicating that I don't think that most people's actual motivation for believing is a pat set of arguments. When people make arguments for gods like that it never seems to be why they actually believe.

Which is fine for them, but it leaves the evangelical with nothing - absent an argument for why I should believe too, why should I?

The abyss is a gap, but it's not a scientific gap. It's not about lack of knowledge, it's a philosophical issue about what our limitations are. The feeling of being marooned but so close to being able to reach out but never touch. Like Tantalus, we are imprisoned with objectivity beyond our reach.

I get that - it's an existential gap - but still it's a gap. We can ascribe labels and significance to it it as we please, and it may well be that it's a gap we can never close but still the basic principle stands that a gap is no argument for something to fill it. "This is the limit of what we know and what we can know" may lead to an existential yearning to reach beyond that, but just making shit up and calling it "god" doesn't seem to me to be in any way up to the job. Why in other words call our ignorance "God" and then worship it?

Given the feelings that this creates, i'm suggesting that that is what causes the gods that proliferate. No argument for them, just an indication that I see most arguments that people put forward as post hoc rationalisations of their feelings.

Quite possibly, though this thread is more of a what if?: if JC was divine and came back he'd be a scumbag; if he was mortal the faith would collapse. Neither I'd have thought are particularly palatable to the Christian, but I don't see a third option just yet. Perhaps though someone can propose one?

[Nearly Sane]

esp.
"The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed."

I noticed that Leonard in particular was extremely loath to accept such a conclusion. And even if we accept the illusory nature of self and free-will in theory, it's still an extremely bitter pill to swallow.

The odd thing is on a day to day level, I'm with Leonard. It's an unimportant discussion 99% of the time. I act and have to act as if I have free will. It'd only when we look at as a claim to actual truth that it becomes significant.

Also, if we say there is no such thing as free will, it makes no difference, since thinking that wouldn't be a free choice.

[Dicky Underpants]

Quite possibly, though this thread is more of a what if?: if JC was divine and came back he'd be a scumbag; if he was mortal the faith would collapse. Neither I'd have thought are particularly palatable to the Christian, but I don't see a third option just yet. Perhaps though someone can propose one?

The Sea of Faith group are doing their best Many more traditional Christians see such ideas as a rapid route to the demise of the Christian faith - maybe so. Strip away the myth and you are left with a courageous bloke with some interesting and maybe important ideas. Can't have too many heroes - especially of the non-violent kind. I personally don't think you could make much of a people's religion of this. The lure of the supernatural is very strong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The odd thing is on a day to day level, I'm with Leonard. It's an unimportant discussion 99% of the time. I act and have to act as if I have free will. It'd only when we look at as a claim to actual truth that it becomes significant.

Also, if we say there is no such thing as free will, it makes no difference, since thinking that wouldn't be a free choice.

I agree - I proceed on the basis that I have "free" will even though I know that it's a logical dead end, and indeed that the meaning of "I" is opaque too. After all, what choice do I have? When though the Alans of this world seek to deploy their misunderstanding of the term to argue for a "true for you too" god, then it's appropriate to falsify his argument.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Which is fine for them, but it leaves the evangelical with nothing - absent an argument for why I should believe too, why should I?

I get that - it's an existential gap - but still it's a gap. We can ascribe labels and significance to it it as we please, and it may well be that it's a gap we can never close but still the basic principle stands that a gap is no argument for something to fill it. "This is the limit of what we know and what we can know" may lead to an existential yearning to reach beyond that, but just making shit up and calling it "god" doesn't seem to me to be in any way up to the job. Why in other words call our ignorance "God" and then worship it?

Quite possibly, though this thread is more of a what if?: if JC was divine and came back he'd be a scumbag; if he was mortal the faith would collapse. Neither I'd have thought are particularly palatable to the Christian, but I don't see a third option just yet. Perhaps though someone can propose one?

Existential gaps aren't ignorance. It's not about fact, it's about feeling. Again, i'll emphasise I am not making or providing an argument for gods. Rather I am looking at what seems to me the difference between what causes people to believe and how they argue for it. This difference then means that when you argue against a lot of what appears on here as justification, it's not really arguing against why people believe.


When you overlay that with how people interpret their personal experiences, which are culturally and socially modulated, which we then ask the to deny then it's not as easy to break out of. Further since we are also bound by the same thing, it's difficult to make a sensible case for doing that.

And that's not even dealing with the idea that no free will means belief is a determined state.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

Many more traditional Christians see such ideas as a rapid route to the demise of the Christian faith - maybe so.

Just reflect on the import of that sentence for a moment - the faith can't withstand logic and facts and reason and evidence so, um, best to bar the door against them just in case...

I find that astonishing. Really.

Strip away the myth and you are left with a courageous bloke with some interesting and maybe important ideas. Can't have too many heroes - especially of the non-violent kind. I personally don't think you could make much of a people's religion of this. The lure of the supernatural is very strong.

For what it's worth, I do think of JC as "a courageous bloke with some interesting and maybe important ideas" albeit possibly a delusional one re his relationship to "God", hence the "Why has thou forsaken me?" on the cross - he really believed his own PR. It's a lousy basis for a religion I agree, but insofar as it goes so what? If though he actually was as most (I think) Christians believe him to be and he put in another appearance next week, any reasonable person would I think be entitled to ask him some pretty stiff questions.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I agree - I proceed on the basis that I have "free" will even though I know that it's a logical dead end, and indeed that the meaning of "I" is opaque too. After all, what choice do I have? When though the Alan's of this world seek to deploy their misunderstanding of the term to argue for a "true for you too" god, then it's appropriate to falsify his argument.

It's a non falsifiable claim,as it doesn't have a methodology to support it.

[Owlswing]

47 feet 10 inches!

This is how far this discussion now passes over the top of my head!

WTF does "jejune" mean? Thick?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Existential gaps aren't ignorance. It's not about fact, it's about feeling.

But isn't the "feeling" just a different type of itch that can't be scratched? Whatever would satisfy the feeling would plug the gap, and so there'd be nothing into which to drop a pat explanation like "god". I see the difference, I really do. It seems to me though to be a difference without significance - whatever the nature of the gap, factual or existential, it's still a gap and so the principle applies.

Again, i'll emphasise I am not making or providing an argument for gods. Rather I am looking at what seems to me the difference between what causes people to believe and how they argue for it.

Yes I know.

This difference then means that when you argue against a lot of what appears on here as justification, it's not really arguing against why people believe.

Perhaps, but when these same people want me to believe too why not instead deploy their actual reasons for believing? Could it be that they know that the "real" reasons are ineluctably limited to the personal, the subjective and so they can never bridge the gap to a "true for you too" god but, if so, why not just say so?

You're telling me that I'm arguing against what people say, but not against what they really think. Surely the fault lies with them then doesn't it - you can only play the team in front of you as the philosopher Ron Atkinson used to say.   

When you overlay that with how people interpret their personal experiences, which are culturally and socially modulated, which we then ask the to deny then it's not as easy to break out of. Further since we are also bound by the same thing, it's difficult to make a sensible case for doing that.

Yes, the remarkable co-incidence of so many people's experiences just happening to be caused by the god to which they're most enculturated isn't a knock down argument against them by any means, but I think that if I were one of them it would at least give me pause.

And that's not even dealing with the idea that no free will means belief is a determined state.

Indeed.

[Nearly Sane]

47 feet 10 inches!

This is how far this discussion now passes over the top of my head!

WTF does "jejune" mean? Thick?

It means, in this context, uninteresting

[Owlswing]

It means, in this context, uninteresting

My thanks to you, Sir!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's a non falsifiable claim,as it doesn't have a methodology to support it.

You can falsify the argument(s) made for a claim without concerning yourself with whatever claim happens to pop out at the end. Hence "...falsify his argument" rather than "...falsify his claim".

Logically fallacious arguments are always wrong - the claims they produce are usually wrong too, but sometimes they may not be for the same reason that a stopped clock is right twice a day: co-incidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

It means, in this context, uninteresting

It's also in my entirely subjective and rarely humble opinion a particularly lovely word too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Existential gaps aren't ignorance. It's not about fact, it's about feeling. Again, i'll emphasise I am not making or providing an argument for gods. Rather I am looking at what seems to me the difference between what causes people to believe and how they argue for it. This difference then means that when you argue against a lot of what appears on here as justification, it's not really arguing against why people believe.


When you overlay that with how people interpret their personal experiences, which are culturally and socially modulated, which we then ask the to deny then it's not as easy to break out of. Further since we are also bound by the same thing, it's difficult to make a sensible case for doing that.

A great and thoughtful post.

[Sassy]

Because (according to the story) it was deliberately and unnecessarily cruel to the pigs, given that presumably Jesus could have simply made these so-called demons disappear or if not that, then to go into some inanimate object rather than a herd of pigs. Neither - Jesus did according to the story.

Really... The pigs themselves rushed over the cliffs.
No one made them do it.. but the devils within them drove them mad and they rushed over the cliff.
Are you saying the pigs did not know what they were doing or the demons killed them?


The demons asked to go into the pigs. One human being worth more than many pigs.
Would you save the human or the pigs?
Basically the choice was to save the one man worth more than the pigs.

You do make a fuss about nothing because you have absolutely nothing in these discussions to support your disbelief.
If moaning about pigs is the height of your argument I guess that you being a vegetarian means eventually pigs will die anyway.

The truth is,if people stopped eating meat animals would not be kept and looked after as they are by farmers.
They would be put down or left to die from horrible diseases in horrible states because no one would feed them or pay for medical attention for them.

Not eating meat would harm animals far more than them being well looked after and then slaughtered for their meat.

Look at the stray dogs and cats who are flea ridden and diseased. You would condemn all animals to that life if people stop eating meat.

So if they stop drinking milk and eggs we see that even hens and cows would probably die out. No one to milk them and no one to feed and keep them healthy. Seems vegetarians will cause more harm to animals than eating them ever did.

[Shaker]

Really... The pigs themselves rushed over the cliffs.
No one made them do it..

That's not what the story says.

Are you saying the pigs did not know what they were doing or the demons killed them?

I'm saying that your storybook has Jesus transfer these alleged demons into a herd of pigs, which he need not have done. I would say that I'm finding it difficult to believe why you seem to be struggling with this very simple point, except I know who I'm dealing with and all becomes clear.

Would you save the human or the pigs?

Instinctively, with nothing else to go on, the pigs. I like pigs. What if the human was a child molester or torturer, for instance?

Basically the choice was to save the one man worth more than the pigs.

That's a matter of opinion, but doesn't change the point that according to the terms of the story, magic miracle man Jesus could have done anything with these so-called demons apart from sending them into a herd of pigs leading to their death. That's unless he was constrained in his actions in some way - was he?

You do make a fuss about nothing because you have absolutely nothing in these discussions to support your disbelief.

What supports disbelief is lack of reasons for belief. Unless you are irremediably fallacy-prone (i.e. Hope; you) belief needs reasons; disbelief is the default setting until and unless those reasons are provided. That's basic logic.

If moaning about pigs is the height of your argument I guess that you being a vegetarian means eventually pigs will die anyway.

... and that isn't.

The truth is,if people stopped eating meat animals would not be kept and looked after as they are by farmers.

You seem to have a different idea of 'looked after' to me - and to sundry organisations such as VIVA, PETA, Compassion in World Farming and so forth.

They would be put down or left to die from horrible diseases in horrible states because no one would feed them or pay for medical attention for them.

No they wouldn't. If people stopped eating meat these poor creatures wouldn't even exist in the first place as there would be no demand for their flesh. Supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand.

Not eating meat would harm animals far more than them being well looked after and then slaughtered for their meat.

No it wouldn't. See above. Food animals exist in the numbers that they do to meet the demand for flesh. If the demand is cut off, the supply will die.

Look at the stray dogs and cats who are flea ridden and diseased. You would condemn all animals to that life if people stop eating meat.

What sort of mental aberration links cats and dogs to cows, pigs and sheep?

So if they stop drinking milk and eggs we see that even hens and cows would probably die out.

Yes, and like food animals that would be fine by me. I'd rather creatures were never brought into being in the first instance rather than being brought into being to live miserable lives and suffer horrendous deaths.

No one to milk them and no one to feed and keep them healthy. Seems vegetarians will cause more harm to animals than eating them ever did.

Only if you're incapable of rational thought, as you are.

[floo]

If the pig story has any credibility, I reckon Jesus was responsible for frightening them over the cliff, but pretended it was  mythical demons wot dun it!

[Sebastian Toe]

One human being worth more than many pigs.
Would you save the human or the pigs?
Basically the choice was to save the one man worth more than the pigs.

Why not at least only put all of the demons into just one pig?
After all they were all in just one man.
Then the choice could have been to save the one man against just one pig.
Many pigs being worth more than one pig.
Would you save many pigs or just one pig?