Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Outrider]

I take it then you think we should have a dogmatic commitmentment to ontological naturalism

Not as much as I do to spelling! I have a pragmatic commitment to science. To quote your favourite anti-theist 'It works, bitches!'.

I have both religion and science, how then does science supplant religion?

You have science where we have current answers. Science doesn't supplant religion, religion will always be there when you want to feel unjustifiably confident about something in the absence of sufficient information to make a reasoned accounting because you have some deep-rooted fear of saying 'I don't know'.

Doesn't that rather mean that people for whom science is now their cassus vivendi are neglecting an aspect of themselves?

(Isn't that 'casus'? And isn't it 'modus vivendi'? My Latin isn't great, I confess)

It might if you could demonstrate any sort of validity to the whole notion of religion/spirituality. Until then, it remains just a vague possibility. I'd be more concerned about my neglecting of classics, as you can see.

O.

[Outrider]

Well let me make it clear to you. I do not represent or have any interest in any 'christianity' that does not follow the creeds of the early church.

Or, at least, what you think were the tenets of the early church, at least.

I would have thought that it was a simple matter for you to find out what these are, given the inordinate amount of time you give over to criticism.

You'd think it would, wouldn't you. You'd think if an infinitely wise, infinitely good deity had critical information to impart to humanity you'd think the instruction book would be unambiguous and obvious, but you can't even decide if there's one sequel, or two, or which two.

What is it anyway, that distinguishes your opening complaint from an admission of ignorance of orthodox christianity and the main heresies?

Critical thinking.

or rather the God of the lesser evil

That's rather lowering the bar from the triple-omni, don't you think. Omnipotent, sort of omnibenevolent, well, better than the alternative...

what do you think that results in?

A distasteful depiction of a cosmically powerful sadist - sort of a antediluvian Thanos, if you will. (Or Darkseid, depending on which church you hold to)

Would you agree that you are in no relationship with God?

I'm not aware I'm in a relationship with any gods - I write, but they don't get back to me, I follow them on 'X' but they don't acknowledge. Of course, that presupposes that 'X' account isn't just a bot...

How then does God's jealousy affect you?

Because people believe it. Because people at my kids' school teach them this nonsense uncritically. Because our monarchy is predicated on the notion that it's fundamentally true.

Am I pleased that God will not let me be seduced into the damnable because of his jealousy. You betcha.

If that's your god, your god is not something to be worshipped, it's something to be placated. It's a monster, not something to aspire to. You talk of a relationship with god, your god is the boyfriend that won't let you have any other friends... we recognise that as abuse these days, how come you don't?

I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that it is only thanks to the enlightenment that rape and slavery were abolished

No-one said that it was, but it certainly wasn't based on scripture which doesn't admonish either and tacitly (rape) or explicitly (slavery) condones both.

I'm afraid you are talking to a chappy of the wrong religion on this one.

Because you have the definitive take on which bits of which of the books are valid and which aren't, and everyone else is wrong, and you can prove it...

Human decency is derived from religious conviction and enlightened self interest I would move...with self interest being the weak link in human decency.

That would be the human decency of genital mutilation, honour killings, religious persecution, homophobia, misogyny, caste systems and child marriage that springs like the glorious fruits of spring from religious conviction, right? Human decency can be argued to be enlightened self-interest, yes, and I'd say that human decency leads some people to religious conviction because they don't look too deeply at the content of their religion and believe the hype that it's 'the moral way'. I don't see anything that particularly leads from religious devotion to human decency.

Blood sacrifice occurs in war or even the lady crossing the road who helps someone and gets ploughed into by a car

Politicians who send soldiers to war don't want the blood, but they accept that it's a necessary price for achieving their goals because they don't have something better. They are not, for want of a better word, omnipotent...

We haven't established that at all.

We have. You're still catching up, but give it time.

God gives you free will in moral choices.

Free will is not logically viable in itself, it's not viable in light of the nature of time as a dimension and it's not compatible with the notion of a divinely created reality.

That is all he is guilty of, any moral choices being yours.

Who said anything about morality? The rules in the books aren't about morality, they're about obedience, they're about compliance. What's the moral justification of cutting off the end of a child's penis? You can argue that this requirement has been superseded (others would argue against that) but that doesn't change the fact that it was a requirement - what's the moral justification for that? What's the moral problem with homosexuality? Acting on that might, if you accepted the notion, be a 'free will' thing, but why make gay people in the first instance if it's such a problem? Why make people curious if curiosity is a problem, why make women have opinions if the intent is for them to sit down and be quiet?

Again he is the only one who dies for those choices...

The whole point of the book is that (spoilers) HE'S NOT DEAD!!!! Wow, Sixth Sense seems so tame now... He didn't 'Die for our sins' he took the weekend off in a fit of pique.

That is just forgetting, not forgiving and therefore what you describe as mercy is just letting someone get away with it.

Who said anything about forgetting? You don't take revenge, but you don't let people do it again - mercy. Taking payment is punishment, whether it's a fine or a pound of flesh. Taking that payment from someone else, that's another massive short circuit in the 'morality' that you touted. If someone else makes the payment, how have I been punished, and I've been forgiven without being punished, how does someone else being punished change that?

If god somehow needs to feel that someone's been punished.. warning signs. Don't give that god a cat, that's all I'm saying.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly what is the effect of the mercy on the perpetrator? Is the perpetrator moved to repentance or is it business as usual?

Perpetrator of WHAT? Being human? Having the wrong haircut. Eating the wrong cuisine. Effective horticulture. Fashion faux-pas? Loving someone with unfortunately matching genitals? Not kowtowing at the correct building?

Fallacy of modernity.

You need to learn what that means. Suggesting that there is a modern world is not 'the fallacy of modernity'. Suggesting that we've rid ourselves of innumerable ideas of magic as unrealistic and could do with getting rid of the last few is not 'the fallacy of modernity'.

O.

[jeremyp]

How has the universe all gone wrong? If 'right' is a universe with entities with moral free will then what has gone 'wrong'?

Let me remind you that I was responding to this assertion by you

God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault

That suggests that you think it all went wrong, at least in respect of humans. Did God know that we were going to offend or didn't he?

Again, Jesus dies in the demonstration of how all human deaths have, do and will occur.

So Jesus is to salvation what Fanny Craddock was to cookery?

Try to be a bit more coherent. First he was paying a price, then he was demoing resurrection. What was he really doing?

Wrong doing hasn't been wiped of the slate Jesus has taken on the consequences of sin in existential and cosmic terms namely the experience of separation from God and in human terms, the death of himself to himself. There is no casual just forgetting about it all going on here. Not non christians who aren't caricaturing the doctrine, no.

If you don't have to face the consequences of your sin because of Jesus, then your wrong doing has been wiped off the slate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Continuing the internet encyclopedia of philosophy on ATHEISM

5. Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism
 

In 20th century moral theory, a view about the nature of moral value claims arose that has an analogue in discussions of atheism.  Moral non-cognitivists have denied that moral utterances should be treated as ordinary propositions that are either true or false and subject to evidential analysis.  On their view, when someone makes a moral claim like, “Cheating is wrong,” what they are doing is more akin to saying something like, “I have negative feelings about cheating.  I want you to share those negative feelings.  Cheating.  Bad.”

But should we stop there? Shouldn't we explore our feelings not least to find out if they are our feelings and not second hand feelings. Surely we can and should analyse our feelings and get to the root and gain from the experience after all that is what counselling and therapy are about

A non-cognitivist atheist denies that religious utterances are propositions.  They are not the sort of speech act that have a truth value.  They are more like emoting, singing, poetry, or cheering.  They express personal desires, feelings of subjugation, admiration, humility, and love.  As such, they cannot and should not be dealt with by denials or arguments any more than I can argue with you over whether or not a poem moves you.

Yes but again, is the non- cognitivist atheist going deep and far enough a) because they tend to leave it at this and b) they ignore their own feelings and attitudes....i.e. the problem is people having religious feelings.....we're OK they're not OK...Zero self reflection on whether it might just be us atheists.

Of course the challenge of self or type reflection can be avoided by reference to neuroscience not only a science but a way of explaining away feelings....because you feel you should do.

[jeremyp]

Continuing the internet encyclopedia of philosophy on ATHEISM But should we stop there? Shouldn't we explore our feelings not least to find out if they are our feelings and not second hand feelings. Surely we can and should analyse our feelings and get to the root and gain from the experience after all that is what counselling and therapy are aboutYes but again, is the non- cognitivist atheist going deep and far enough a) because they tend to leave it at this and b) they ignore their own feelings and attitudes....i.e. the problem is people having religious feelings.....we're OK they're not OK...Zero self reflection on whether it might just be us atheists.

Of course the challenge of self or type reflection can be avoided by reference neuroscience not only a science but a way of explaining away feelings....because you feel you should do.

I don't think you should be introducing new topics into this thread just yet. You still have a lot of questions about previous stuff that you haven't answered yet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not as much as I do to spelling! I have a pragmatic commitment to science. To quote your favourite anti-theist 'It works, bitches!'.

I could be mean here and call you to say how does ontological naturalism work after which you would probably embarrass yourself by confusing and conflating Ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism but..........,.....
OK, since you have asserted ontological naturalism works state how it works.

[Outrider]

I could be mean here and call you to say how does ontological naturalism work after which you would probably embarrass yourself by confusing and conflating Ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism but..........,.....

You could be mean, you could be generous, but the very least you could do is actually read what was written. I have a PRAGMATIC commitment to science, not an ideological one. That's methodological naturalism, not ontological.

O.

[Spud]

No, that's you back projecting again.

A prophecy is no good if you have to wait until after the thing it prophesies happens before you can identify it.

I've already admitted to back projecting. It's talking about David, but you have to look at the bigger picture which is how is God going to fulfil his promise to David. The 'holy one' (ps 16:10) will be completely holy and so will not be left in the grave

It's the same kind of prophecy as in John 19, for example, where there are three fulfilments, none of which Jesus had any control over. I don't know if all the fulfilments cited by the NT are similar, but a lot are. You probably know that this is called 'prophetic typology'. Again, they identify who the Messiah is. That is the context of Peter's speech to the crowd in Acts 2, where he's arguing that Jesus is the Messiah.
If you think this type of prophecy is no good, I understand.

[Enki]

But the more pressing message from Adam and Eve is the fall of mankind. concentration on the fall of woman is not a requisite for getting the point of the story which if we follow it through we see the consequences of Adam's sin, murder, expressed in terms of two brothers

On the other hand try reading this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1989/03/26/genesis-from-eves-point-of-view/dc371184-1f4c-4142-ac2d-d5efee72a0da/
Indeed it is all about the fall of mankind, where, it seems, we were all sinful but some(especially women) are more sinful than others. 

And again it is an example of human evil of sin rather than your own gradation of sin where, if only catholics were removed the world would be a better place

Actually, even though Catholic nuns were in charge of running the Magdalene laundries, the first ones  were protestant run. Certainly, if attitudes had been different and those who ran and managed such harmful institutions had been more enlightened, more sympatheic and caring, the world for those unfortunate women might well have been a better place.

No He was a very big minded example of the times he lived who unlike Russell never indentured his intellect to the high rolling life of an upper class shagger.

He was certainly a man of his times, which included of course his idea that homosexual sex was a perversion, that the man should be head of the household, that the first step in education is 'to break the child's will' in order to encourage obedience to our 'Creator'. It seems his intellect remained unsullied by more enlightened views. 

His marriage to a feisty female american former atheist jew for me tends not to bear that out, however I am prepared to accept how this would need repentance from a stuffy oxford academic misogyny......something Dawkins has yet to pull off?

How he conducted his personal life was not as influential as his thoughts conveyed by the written and the spoken word. As for Dawkins, not sure why you bring him up? I have found his views and explanations on evolution(e.g. 'Climbing Mount Improbable' or 'The Extended Phenotype') to be particularly interesting and revealing. But apart from that, I have nothing to say about him.

I missed this, getting as I did the chief points of the book still, I suppose it depends what your motives are for reading it.

My motives are simple. I read any similar book with what I hope is an unswerving critical eye, hoping to learn and extend my knowledge of what and how other people think.

As for viewing humanity in moral terms as a lowly and unpleasant blighting species that is a term found in green philosophy. What is lost on you apparently is in christianity we have the biblical perspective that ''God so loved the world that he gave his only son''

which of course has no real significance to me, as it is based on the idea that this God exists, that Jesus is his son and that by dying for a short period of time, he somehow shows his love for the world.

Lewis is right to be scathing about the human record and any rose tinted presentation of it.

Except that he misses so much emphasising the 'sin' aspect rather than explore in more detail other aspects of humanity, some of  which I would say are worthy of a degree of admiration.

I am the same with some secularists and some secular organisations as well as some christian ones.

Good, so am I.

Sadly I also suspect publicly professed atheists of indifference not only to alienation from God but alienation from others and the issue of self alienation.

Not even sure what you are trying to say here. You'll have to explain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let me remind you that I was responding to this assertion by you
That suggests that you think it all went wrong, at least in respect of humans. Did God know that we were going to offend or didn't he?

Sorry I was under the impression you think God had got it wrong. He didn’t. Any foreknowledge is not forordination. I think we’ve had this conversation already. He knows because he is there

So Jesus is to salvation what Fanny Craddock was to cookery?

Strange analogy. Horses laugh fallacy?

Try to be a bit more coherent. First he was paying a price, then he was demoing resurrection. What was he really doing?

or he was paying a price and demoing resurrection

If you don't have to face the consequences of your sin because of Jesus, then your wrong doing has been wiped off the slate.

The effect of any original sin has been wiped off the slate because Jesus has taken the consequences of it. The way to a relationship with God is now open.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the other hand try reading this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1989/03/26/genesis-from-eves-point-of-view/dc371184-1f4c-4142-ac2d-d5efee72a0da/
Indeed it is all about the fall of mankind, where, it seems, we were all sinful but some(especially women) are more sinful than others. 

All have fallen short

Actually, even though Catholic nuns were in charge of running the Magdalene laundries, the first ones  were protestant run. Certainly, if attitudes had been different and those who ran and managed such harmful institutions had been more enlightened, more sympatheic and caring, the world for those unfortunate women might well have been a better place.

The thing is what is it about attitudes that makes them bad? Your focus is on religion my focus is on self centred ness and deeds done for the protection and aggrandisement of the ego.

My motives are simple. I read any similar book with what I hope is an unswerving critical eye, hoping to learn and extend my knowledge of what and how other people think.

I came to CS Lewis writings as an agnostic atheist thinking religion was for those who needed a crutch but came away with something quite different from you.

which of course has no real significance to me, as it is based on the idea that this God exists, that Jesus is his son and that by dying for a short period of time, he somehow shows his love for the world.
Except that he misses so much emphasising the 'sin' aspect rather than explore in more detail other aspects of humanity, some of  which I would say are worthy of a degree of admiration.

The death involved Jesus experiencing a very human sense of alienation from God which comes from sin. That cannot be his own sin. Jesus really does die and is ressurected by God, as we all will be.

Not even sure what you are trying to say here. You'll have to explain.

It means that atheists who publicly announce their atheism and contrast are not heavy on encouraging an exploration of feelings which they consider the useless rind from the fruit of scientific analysis. Preferring Neuroscience to psychology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could be mean, you could be generous, but the very least you could do is actually read what was written. I have a PRAGMATIC commitment to science, not an ideological one. That's methodological naturalism, not ontological.

O.

Since most people have some kind of commitment to science....How then would you describe your commitment to ontological naturalism?

[Enki]

All have fallen short

Don't agree.

The thing is what is it about attitudes that makes them bad? Your focus is on religion my focus is on self centred ness and deeds done for the protection and aggrandisement of the ego.

As my original comment(reply 106) was in response to your ideas associated with the religious aspect of human offence against God, then I make no apology for that. I would also remind you that when you suggested that when you included 'some secularists and some secularist organizations' I agreed with you.

I came to CS Lewis writings as an agnostic atheist thinking religion was for those who needed a crutch but came away with something quite different from you.

Obviously

The death involved Jesus experiencing a very human sense of alienation from God which comes from sin. That cannot be his own sin. Jesus really does die and is ressurected by God, as we all will be.

I have no reason to think that Jesus was resurrected by God/Himself. Hence, all you are stating are your own beliefs. And therefore as I said, this is of little significance to me.

It means that atheists who publicly announce their atheism and contrast are not heavy on encouraging an exploration of feelings which they consider the useless rind from the fruit of scientific analysis. Preferring Neuroscience to psychology.

So, let me get this right. If you publically profess you are an atheist then you are more likely to dismiss feelings(of alienation?) from God, others and even oneself. That's the way I read it.
Well I am an atheist, I have plenty of feelings but I have no sense of alienation from a God whom I don't believe in, no particular alienation from my fellow human beings and certainly no alienation from myself as far as I know. Hence am I indifferent to this supposed alienation, as you suggested? Well certainly as it applies to God for obvious reasons(like saying water's wet), certainly not from my fellow human beings and as regards myself, I'm not sure how I(myself) would recognise/understand alienation from myself. Sounds rather confusing to me.

[jeremyp]

Sorry I was under the impression you think God had got it wrong. He didn’t.

So he went ahead and created us, knowing full well that we were going to screw up. That seems a bit stupid of him.

I think we’ve had this conversation already.

May times. You'd think by now that you could have thought up a credible argument.

He knows because he is there  Strange analogy. Horses laugh fallacy?

You said he was demoing death and resurrection. Fanny Craddock was the first TV cook that came to mind who demoed cookery.

or he was paying a price

You still seem to think crime and punishment is like a financial transaction and yet you fail to follow the analogy through to its absurd conclusion.

The effect of any original sin has been wiped off the slate because Jesus has taken the consequences of it. The way to a relationship with God is now open.

So now you agree that you've had the consequences of your sinful actions wiped clean. But couldn't God just forgive you?

[Outrider]

Since most people have some kind of commitment to science....How then would you describe your commitment to ontological naturalism?

On a par with your commitment to dealing with the pertinent issues at hand, tenuous at best. Way to deal with the main thrust of the post and just pick out the bit that you think you can build a straw-man out of, you are truly the scarecrow chieftain, and just in time for bonfire season.

 

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't agree.

Who do you think, then, has not fallen short in moral terms?

I have no reason to think that Jesus was resurrected by God/Himself. Hence, all you are stating are your own beliefs.

Which is what most of us are doing here,isn't it

And therefore as I said, this is of little significance to me.

You may believe that as an atheist but as an agnostic how can you know what the significance is to you of God resurrecting the dead?

So, let me get this right. If you publically profess you are an atheist then you are more likely to dismiss feelings(of alienation?) from God, others and even oneself. That's the way I read it.

Yes, that's about the size of it.

Well I am an atheist, I have plenty of feelings but I have no sense of alienation from a God whom I don't believe in, no particular alienation from my fellow human beings and certainly no alienation from myself as far as I know. Hence am I indifferent to this supposed alienation, as you suggested?

But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...or put another way, how do you manage to avoid it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So now you agree that you've had the consequences of your sinful actions wiped clean. But couldn't God just forgive you?

There are no consequenceless offences Jeremy, even if the only one who recieves them is the offender. Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.

[Stranger]

Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.

No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you. Even if it were, that does not make the insane sadomasochistic nonsense of Jesus being tortured to death for our sins any more rational. Neither does it address the nonsensical standard of perfection your god imposes on its own imperfect creation.

[jeremyp]

There are no consequenceless offences Jeremy, even if the only one who recieves them is the offender. Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.

The point is that you will not have to bear the consequences of your sinful actions. Your slate is wiped clean.

[Sebastian Toe]

.But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...

I'm familiar with the term, are you?
How would anyone know if they felt alienated?
Is it identical feeling for everyone or is it an individual case by case experience?

[jeremyp]

Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.

No it isn't. The consequences of murder are a life sentence if you get caught. If the victim's relatives forgive you, they don't have to serve your time. In fact, you'll be sent down whether or not they forgive you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point is that you will not have to bear the consequences of your sinful actions. Your slate is wiped clean.

My hope then is that you realise this and gratefully embrace that a relationship with God is therefore now open to you.

[jeremyp]

My hope then is that you realise this and gratefully embrace that a relationship with God is therefore now open to you.

So where's the justice?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you.

''reasons which have been explained to you'' a phrase which frequently runs effortlessly and thoughtlessly from you'' Outrider says he has nothing to be forgiven. Jeremy thinks that offence imposes zero burden and forgiveness is just achieved with a word. As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero so no, the moral equations used to acquit mankind have not been adequately presented. As usual what is explained is just the usual warmed over vociferacely enforced agnosticism.

[Stranger]

''reasons which have been explained to you'' a phrase which frequently runs effortlessly and thoughtlessly from you''

That will be because its true. Most recent example: #145.

As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero so no, the moral equations used to acquit mankind have not been adequately presented.

What the hell is the justification for comparing this to mathematics?

The other point you keep on running away from is that if any of this shit is true, we would be being held responsible for being what god has made us. If anybody needs forgiveness it's your god, not humanity. Making us incapable of being 'sinless' and then blaming us for it is god's immoral fuck up, not ours.