Religion...Bitch slapped...

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:57
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 5 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CAUSAL

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What he said was that without eternal consequences there is no guide for human law - that it beomes a matter of whim and circumstance.

Yes, but he is making a metaethical claim, not a factual one. No one, I think, is going to deny that if you make an action in the here-and-now, it will have consequences in the here-and-now. Antimason is, I think, trying to claim that if there are no ethical standards that obtain transculturally, then there is no objective way to make the claim that something is "right" such that that claim can be the basis of human law. I believe that he thinks that if it's the case that "right" and "wrong" are merely cultural artifacts, then what is "right" and "wrong" are arbitrarily assigned--that is that "right" and "wrong" are what they are not in virtue of anything real, but just in virtue of what people happen to think about the matter at some particular place and time.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Is it the case, then, that such people ought not make any attempts to provide rational arguments for their beliefs? I'm trying to clearly see the difference between saying, "I believe as I believe" and leaving it at that, and what you take Anti to be doing.

Beliefs are not necessarily irrational because they may be internally consistent. (Irrational, definition: a. Not endowed with reason. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment)

Can religious beliefs be internally consistent?

Can religious beliefs be rational?

Quote:
The purview of science is "how": How did life being? How do electromagnetic waves propagate through space? But there are areas of thought and feeling where science has no insight: beauty, morality, purpose. Religion can provide insight where science cannot. But what Anti is doing is irrational. S/he is trying to ram religion and science together in areas where they are mutually exclusive.

I think that I agree with you that in general, science investigates the "how" of things. Interestingly, I am a religious believer myself because I am much more interested in the "why" of things than the "how." "How did humans get here" seems to be a question that falls under the purview of science (albeit, I also have theological beliefs about that to; but I don't reject outright the claims of science on the question). But "Why are humans here" is a question that I don't believe that science is at all equipped to answer. Of course, the claim might be made that there isn't a "why"--but there's no way to support that claim "scientifically."

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose, for the sake of the thought experiment that the following propositions are all true:
1) There is a God
2) God created the universe
3) God revealed himself via some scripture
4) God is self-consistent (that is, he does not self-contradict).
I'm not asking you to believe these are all true, merely that you suppose they are for the sake of argument. It seems to be the case that if (4) is true, then the results of accurate investigation of the universe (which God created, according to (2)) will never contradict the results of accurate interpretation of scripture (which reveals God, according to (3)). Augustine, for example, thought that interpretation of scripture and study of nature should be dialectical: that is, that they should inform one another. So if a particular observable fact (like the spherical shape of the planet) appeared to contradict a particular scriptural interpretation (like a flat earth) then one or the other was in error, and had to be abandoned (just as Christians have abandoned the flat earth and geocentric interpretations of the Bible). It seems to be the case that if 1-4 are true, then one can believe that the Bible is true and also believe the results of the study of nature. Because while science can tell us a lot about the phenomenal aspects of existence, it can tell us almost nothing about the teleological aspects of the same.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:04 PM

Causal- Yes, religious beliefs can be internally consistent and rational.

And yes, in theory "the book" should not be contradicted by "the evidence". But the Bible has many contradictions even within itself. You can find arguments for anything within its pages, and retrospectively fitting the words of the Bible to the evidence as it is discovered only proves the power of the evidence, not the other way around.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:08 PM

And in general, that's how humanity has run. I'd like to point out that each assemblage of notions has nearly always invoked (a) god(s) as their basis. The big exceptions are Asian societies that follow ancestor or nature worship and run by a secular code of conduct (Confucianism). So on the one hand we have a multitude of religions per se being invoked in support of social rules, and on the other, societies that don't invoke religion at all.

Either way, I can't see a special claim for AntiM's religion as the eternal basis for the only good.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Causal- Yes, in theory "the book" should not be contradicted by "the evidence". But the Bible has many contradictions even within itself. You can find arguments for anything within its pages, and retrospectively fitting the words of the Bible to the evidence as it is discovered only proves the power of the evidence, not the other way around.

Well, the accuracy or lack thereof is really beyond the scope of the argument I wanted to construct (and, incidentally, not something I'm really keen to argue, because of the entrenched nature of the various opinions on it). So is it true to say that the answer is that your answer would be no, one cannot have an internally consistent set of religious beliefs?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

KANEMAN

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Also, can I just point out the irony in the fact that we are at each other's throat over a thread our resident troll started? How please do you think he is with himself right about now?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

What is trollish about posting a link to a doc. that I found interesting? I found the whole part about the Fed and NAU interesting also. Like tossing darts? "at each others throats" is a bit much by the way. So, take your flame thrower and go read some Plato or something. I think someone pointed out once or twice that you are a philosopher

What a tool.........

Love always kaneman

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:17 PM

As a side note:

Anti,

I don't harbor any hostility toward you and find your spirited defense of your position refreshing. You're facing overwhelming opposition here and doing so without resorting to the usual hyperbole. In short you've inspired a lot of fun discussion. Thanks!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CAUSAL

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And in general, that's how humanity has run. I'd like to point out that each assemblage of notions has nearly always invoked (a) god(s) as their basis. The big exceptions are Asian societies that follow ancestor or nature worship and run by a secular code of conduct (Confucianism). So on the one hand we have a multitude of religions per se being invoked in support of social rules, and on the other, societies that don't invoke religion at all.

Either way, I can't see a special claim for AntiM's religion as the eternal basis for the only good.

I don't see him making that claim, though (although I certainly think that he would say that his religion is the eternal basis for the only good). The claim I see him making is that if there is no ground for moral assertions over and above cultural norms, then "right" and "wrong" are arbitrary and therefore not reliable for guiding human behavior. Of course, that view depends heavily on the idea that human behavior has some end towards which it aims, although I don't really want to get into that mess!

I do want to point out that the mere fact that other cultures have based their legal codes on their own views of the Ultimate DOES NOT* entail that there is no Ultimate and no one standard for morality. You've quite accurately described the way things are (multiple views on the Ultimate and on morality). But the mere fact of disagreement DOES NOT entail that it's not the case that there is some one objectively true standard of morality. That is, the mere fact of disagreement doesn't automatically mean that there's no objective truth to be had. Disagreement may make it hard to believe, but logically speaking it doesn't follow from your observation.

*caps for emphasis only
________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:36 PM

Quote:
So is it true to say that the answer is that your answer would be no, one cannot have an internally consistent set of religious beliefs?

Causal- Quite the opposite. Religious beliefs can be wholly internally consistent. I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:36 PM

Sorry Causal, I'm going to temporarily derail this just a bit. Are there any Hindus on the board ? I think religions reflect the society in which they were formed. I occurred to me that Hindusim was formed in a severe society. Look at it this way. If the threat you hold over people is death, but the circumstances are such that death might actually be nice, what can you do? You claim that even death isn't a release from pain - it goes on, and on, and on until you're good enough to get off the wheel of life. What do you think ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE