Religion Matters: Take 3

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 07:14 AMI'm just making a point, not trying to direct anything directly to you Dave.
I know! Worry not, I'm sitting comfortably here. But I appreciate the thought . Here in the UK we're in a different position regarding Christianity being the culturally-mandated religious position - atheism is a much more comfortable and fairly-treated position here than it is in large parts of the US.

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 07:14 AM"I'll happily concede that the parts of thinking that are faith-based and come from Christianity tend not to get the free pass in this small bit of a small website that they do in the great open expanses of America, and so those that insist on pushing faith-based ideas consistently get a hard time over it."

The fact of your statement confirms the bias against Christianity from a small segment of the TTF. Nothing more than that. The unintended statement is that atheism, Islamism, and other religions get a pass from this same group.
Ah no. It confirms a bias against assuming things without physical evidence. Which is a problem for many with a Christian worldview when tenets of faith are discussed. Ditto for an Islamic or other faith worldview - but the fact is that in the 12 years I've been posting here I cannot think of a single poster in these threads representing a faith position that isn't Christian or Judaic, and so we never find ourselves talking about them. That fact also reflects the selection bias that I'm describing - whether each individual poster is or isn't religious, pretty much invariably the faith that they are most familiar with is some form of Christianity. That wouldn't happen unless Christianity completely dominated the religious landscape in the West - as it does and has done for centuries.

The unintended statement is unintended precisely because it isn't true. Perhaps you could offer some examples of anything you've observed? I've certainly found myself with opposing positions to other atheists here in the past. For example on the topic of gun control. There's no reason to inflate people taking issue with what you're saying, into seeing them failing to take similar issue with people with other faith positions.

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 07:14 AMThe ideal response from people that claim to be tolerant and liberal is to give all views of faith/no faith a pass.
A pass to do what? A pass to be pleasant in general conversation while holding views that don't stand up to rational scrutiny? Sure, obviously. A pass to use that faith experience to offer moral viewpoints that can help us? Sure, although some won't appreciate being helped. A pass to attempt to enforce your faith viewpoints onto political offices or employment prospects? No way.

More specifically - a pass to say religiously-motivated things that can be logically dismantled in a conversation about how religions work? No, there we need to actually have the conversation. Hence all of this. We're here in this thread because we've tacitly agreed to talk about this stuff by clicking on the thread title. No one should expect not to be asked to think about what they've written in such a conversation.

So that's my thoughts on what passes are and aren't reasonable. What do you think?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Before going into the issue here, is recognition inherently bias?
 
In other words, if you make a statement about how something is, are you necessarily expressing bias, or might you just be observing what's there? If I say, for example, that free markets are driven by supply and demand economics, have I just indicated a bias? If I say that a group of protestors seem angry or hostile, have I thus inherently indicated a bias rather than simply making an observation?
 
A bias is a prejudice for or against something that distorts the observer's perception of it.
 
If I say the '89 49ers were a great football team, is that bias, or maybe it has to do with the team record? If you don't like the 49ers--say you're a Dallas or LA fan--does that then make it bias? Flip that around and say I point out that the '76 Tampa Bay Buccaneers were a horrible football team, have I indicated bias? If you're a huge fan of the Bucs, and you got to hang out with the team on the sidelines for the '76 season and remember it very fondly, does that mean if you see bias in the comment your take is credible?
 
Self-awareness is genuine and relatively accurate conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires. If you see something you don't like and therefore you decide that means it's biased against your take, is that perhaps more about your state of self-awareness than about actual bias? Try to remember that bias is independent of how people feel about the issue at hand, and people includes you as well as it includes me and Dave. Frankly you don't seem to have much at all going on in the way of self-awareness due to the consistent pattern of these kinds of obvious perceptual distortions in your posting history.
 
Onto the matter at hand in hopefully a more appropriately/reasonably/accurately calibrated state of mind ... a state of mind that's geared toward reality rather than our biases.
 
 
Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 07:14 AMI'm just making a point, not trying to direct anything directly to you Dave.
 
"I'll happily concede that the parts of thinking that are faith-based and come from Christianity tend not to get the free pass in this small bit of a small website that they do in the great open expanses of America, and so those that insist on pushing faith-based ideas consistently get a hard time over it."
 
The fact of your statement confirms the bias against Christianity from a small segment of the TTF. Nothing more than that. The unintended statement is that atheism, Islamism, and other religions get a pass from this same group.Can you actually make any kind of argument in support of your claim? You can express how you feel about it, but that's not an argument. It's not true because you posted it and it's an honest expression of your personal sentiment. You need to explain why it's true, if you can. If you can't then you need to consider that. Bias isn't defined as that which disagrees with DD, but that's all you've "argued" in your post there. It doesn't qualify toward making any case at all that your perception about Dave's comments being bias is accurate.
 
Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 07:14 AMThe ideal response from people that claim to be tolerant and liberal is to give all views of faith/no faith a pass.You're conflating tolerance with give a pass. Tolerance doesn't mean to give a pass though--even when that view helps a favored idea of yours to avoid criticism.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 21, 2017, 10:40AMBefore going into the issue here, is recognition inherently bias?
 
In other words, if you make a statement about how something is, are you necessarily expressing bias, or might you just be observing what's there? If I say, for example, that free markets are driven by supply and demand economics, have I just indicated a bias? If I say that a group of protestors seem angry or hostile, have I thus inherently indicated a bias rather than simply making an observation?
 
A bias is a prejudice for or against something that distorts the observer's perception of it.
 
If I say the '89 49ers were a great football team, is that bias, or maybe it has to do with the team record? If you don't like the 49ers--say you're a Dallas or LA fan--does that then make it bias? Flip that around and say I point out that the '76 Tampa Bay Buccaneers were a horrible football team, have I indicated bias? If you're a huge fan of the Bucs, and you got to hang out with the team on the sidelines for the '76 season and remember it very fondly, does that mean if you see bias in the comment your take is credible?
 
Self-awareness is genuine and relatively accurate conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires. Self-awareness is pretty important for recognizing one's own biases, but those who are aware and accepting of their nature as human brain owners have no option but to doubt their own raw perceptions in favor of evidence and the processes of sound critical thinking--regarding empirical matters of course.
 
If you see something you don't like and therefore you immediately or just without consideration decide that means it's biased against your take, that says everything about your state of self-awareness and nothing about any actual bias in the target of your reactionary accusation. Try to remember that bias is independent of how people feel about the issue at hand, and people includes you as well as it includes me and Dave and of course everyone else--all human brain owners.
 
A self-aware type who take honesty seriously doesn't answer any and all criticism with reactionary complaints of unfairness and irrelevant counterattacks without ever even addressing the criticism. A self-aware type who takes honesty seriously can generally articulate reasoning behind opinions and positions rather than simply stating those opinions and positions. And self-aware types who take honesty seriously tend to be able to recognize the difference between the mere statement of an opinion or position and supporting argumentation.
 
 --
 
On to the matter at hand.
 
 Can you actually make any kind of argument in support of your claim? You can express how you feel about it, but that's not an argument. It's not true because you posted it and it's an honest expression of your personal sentiment. You need to explain why it's true, if you can. If you can't then you need to consider that. Bias isn't defined as that which disagrees with DD, but that's all you've "argued" in your post there. It doesn't qualify toward making any case at all that your perception about Dave's comments being bias is accurate.
 You're conflating tolerance with give a pass. Tolerance doesn't mean to give a pass though--even when that view helps a favored idea of yours to avoid criticism.

As you're doing the same. LOL!

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 11:42AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on May 21, 2017, 10:40AMBefore going into the issue here, is recognition inherently bias?
 
In other words, if you make a statement about how something is, are you necessarily expressing bias, or might you just be observing what's there? If I say, for example, that free markets are driven by supply and demand economics, have I just indicated a bias? If I say that a group of protestors seem angry or hostile, have I thus inherently indicated a bias rather than simply making an observation?
 
A bias is a prejudice for or against something that distorts the observer's perception of it.
 
If I say the '89 49ers were a great football team, is that bias, or maybe it has to do with the team record? If you don't like the 49ers--say you're a Dallas or LA fan--does that then make it bias? Flip that around and say I point out that the '76 Tampa Bay Buccaneers were a horrible football team, have I indicated bias? If you're a huge fan of the Bucs, and you got to hang out with the team on the sidelines for the '76 season and remember it very fondly, does that mean if you see bias in the comment your take is credible?
 
Self-awareness is genuine and relatively accurate conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires. Self-awareness is pretty important for recognizing one's own biases, but those who are aware and accepting of their nature as human brain owners have no option but to doubt their own raw perceptions in favor of evidence and the processes of sound critical thinking--regarding empirical matters of course.
 
If you see something you don't like and therefore you immediately or just without consideration decide that means it's biased against your take, that says everything about your state of self-awareness and nothing about any actual bias in the target of your reactionary accusation. Try to remember that bias is independent of how people feel about the issue at hand, and people includes you as well as it includes me and Dave and of course everyone else--all human brain owners.
 
A self-aware type who take honesty seriously doesn't answer any and all criticism with reactionary complaints of unfairness and irrelevant counterattacks without ever even addressing the criticism. A self-aware type who takes honesty seriously can generally articulate reasoning behind opinions and positions rather than simply stating those opinions and positions. And self-aware types who take honesty seriously tend to be able to recognize the difference between the mere statement of an opinion or position and supporting argumentation.
 
 --
 
On to the matter at hand.
 
 Can you actually make any kind of argument in support of your claim? You can express how you feel about it, but that's not an argument. It's not true because you posted it and it's an honest expression of your personal sentiment. You need to explain why it's true, if you can. If you can't then you need to consider that. Bias isn't defined as that which disagrees with DD, but that's all you've "argued" in your post there. It doesn't qualify toward making any case at all that your perception about Dave's comments being bias is accurate.
 You're conflating tolerance with give a pass. Tolerance doesn't mean to give a pass though--even when that view helps a favored idea of yours to avoid criticism.
As you're doing the same. LOL!
That's possible--I am a human brain owner after all.
 
Explain.
 
There's more than one point in that post, but you haven't specified to what you're referring or why.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 21, 2017, 07:48AM
Ah no. It confirms a bias against assuming things without physical evidence. Which is a problem for many with a Christian worldview when tenets of faith are discussed. Ditto for an Islamic or other faith worldview

You forgot to include atheism since it can be included in with faith discussions as well.


Quote - but the fact is that in the 12 years I've been posting here I cannot think of a single poster in these threads representing a faith position that isn't Christian or Judaic,

Again, your dismissing atheism and agnostics from which most of the criticisms of Christians come.

QuoteThe unintended statement is unintended precisely because it isn't true. Perhaps you could offer some examples of anything you've observed? I've certainly found myself with opposing positions to other atheists here in the past. For example on the topic of gun control. There's no reason to inflate people taking issue with what you're saying, into seeing them failing to take similar issue with people with other faith positions.
MyBad. I shouldn't have used the word unintended. Out of all the world views concerning faith, Christianity is the most targeted for criticism in places where people come from different backgrounds.

Quote

A pass to do what? A pass to be pleasant in general conversation while holding views that don't stand up to rational scrutiny? Sure, obviously. A pass to use that faith experience to offer moral viewpoints that can help us? Sure, although some won't appreciate being helped.

Agree. That's what I meant.

Quote
 A pass to attempt to enforce your faith viewpoints onto political offices or employment prospects? No way.

Unfortunately, the members of unfaith want to enforce their viewpoints onto the faithful. Here in the US, they have gone so far as to have people put in jail. Loss of free speech is apparent.

I believe that in order to live in a society of many different view points successfully, you have to have an attitude of tolerance in the public. This forum is a public chat space, and tolerance should be afforded to all, and just let everyone get along peacefully without having to endure pages of insults.

Won't happen though.

At least you're one of the members that do engage in peaceful discussion without all the personal attach rhetoric.

#ABigThumbsUpToYou


QuoteMore specifically - a pass to say religiously-motivated things that can be logically dismantled in a conversation about how religions work? No, there we need to actually have the conversation. Hence all of this. We're here in this thread because we've tacitly agreed to talk about this stuff by clicking on the thread title. No one should expect not to be asked to think about what they've written in such a conversation.

So that's my thoughts on what passes are and aren't reasonable. What do you think?

Totally agree. (Without the personal attacks)

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 12:13PMUnfortunately, the members of unfaith want to enforce their viewpoints onto the faithful. Here in the US, they have gone so far as to have people put in jail. Loss of free speech is apparent.
Do you have any substantiation to offer for those claims?
 
You have a consistent history of making claims without any basis, and for using alleged sources for these claims that are demonstrably, often laughably bogus, often self-contradictory, and often the sources cited make precisely the opposite point from what you claim, so there's just a bit of a credibility problem here, on top of just a completely unsupported, dubious claim, as well as imperviousness to correction, data and evidence, no matter what.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 11:42AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on May 21, 2017, 10:40AMBefore going into the issue here, is recognition inherently bias?
 
In other words, if you make a statement about how something is, are you necessarily expressing bias, or might you just be observing what's there? If I say, for example, that free markets are driven by supply and demand economics, have I just indicated a bias? If I say that a group of protestors seem angry or hostile, have I thus inherently indicated a bias rather than simply making an observation?
 
A bias is a prejudice for or against something that distorts the observer's perception of it.
 
If I say the '89 49ers were a great football team, is that bias, or maybe it has to do with the team record? If you don't like the 49ers--say you're a Dallas or LA fan--does that then make it bias? Flip that around and say I point out that the '76 Tampa Bay Buccaneers were a horrible football team, have I indicated bias? If you're a huge fan of the Bucs, and you got to hang out with the team on the sidelines for the '76 season and remember it very fondly, does that mean if you see bias in the comment your take is credible?
 
Self-awareness is genuine and relatively accurate conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires. Self-awareness is pretty important for recognizing one's own biases, but those who are aware and accepting of their nature as human brain owners have no option but to doubt their own raw perceptions in favor of evidence and the processes of sound critical thinking--regarding empirical matters of course.
 
If you see something you don't like and therefore you immediately or just without consideration decide that means it's biased against your take, that says everything about your state of self-awareness and nothing about any actual bias in the target of your reactionary accusation. Try to remember that bias is independent of how people feel about the issue at hand, and people includes you as well as it includes me and Dave and of course everyone else--all human brain owners.
 
A self-aware type who take honesty seriously doesn't answer any and all criticism with reactionary complaints of unfairness and irrelevant counterattacks without ever even addressing the criticism. A self-aware type who takes honesty seriously can generally articulate reasoning behind opinions and positions rather than simply stating those opinions and positions. And self-aware types who take honesty seriously tend to be able to recognize the difference between the mere statement of an opinion or position and supporting argumentation.
 
 --
 
On to the matter at hand.
 
 Can you actually make any kind of argument in support of your claim? You can express how you feel about it, but that's not an argument. It's not true because you posted it and it's an honest expression of your personal sentiment. You need to explain why it's true, if you can. If you can't then you need to consider that. Bias isn't defined as that which disagrees with DD, but that's all you've "argued" in your post there. It doesn't qualify toward making any case at all that your perception about Dave's comments being bias is accurate.
 You're conflating tolerance with give a pass. Tolerance doesn't mean to give a pass though--even when that view helps a favored idea of yours to avoid criticism.As you're doing the same. LOL!
So just hurling empty words as if that counted as argument as usual then ... LOL!

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 12:13PMQuote from: MoominDave on May 21, 2017, 07:48AMAh no. It confirms a bias against assuming things without physical evidence. Which is a problem for many with a Christian worldview when tenets of faith are discussed. Ditto for an Islamic or other faith worldviewYou forgot to include atheism since it can be included in with faith discussions as well.
I think that often you use the word 'atheism' to stand for a whole bunch of unrelated concepts (e.g. evolution) that tend to form part of an evidence-derived worldview but that you don't personally like (or feel that your permitted cultural range allows). Fair?

Atheism is simply the lack of subscription to a religious position. In its purest form (where religion simply isn't engaged with) it assumes nothing - how could it? Does an aphilatelist assume things about stamp collecting? Does a "non-aircraft-spotter" assume things about aircraft? I've never watched an American Football game - does that mean that I make assumptions about the game?

And so it makes no sense to include atheism in a list of categories detailing groups that have inbuilt problems with evidence-based thinking. Individual atheists may think incredibly loosely. But the thing that makes them an atheist has nothing to do with that. Make sense?

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 12:13PMQuote from: MoominDave on May 21, 2017, 07:48AM- but the fact is that in the 12 years I've been posting here I cannot think of a single poster in these threads representing a faith position that isn't Christian or JudaicAgain, your dismissing atheism and agnostics from which most of the criticisms of Christians come.
So, this is the same distinction, one you've consistently avoided acknowledging.

Atheism is the opting out of a religious position. As a faith position, it is a special case, one that says "I do not play this game".
Agnosticism is the hedging of this with some other position.

Let's think in terms of set theory. A set is a container that contains objects, e.g. the set containing the numbers 0 and 1: {0, 1}. How many possible subsets of this set are there? The answer is 4, and the possible subsets are: {0,1}, which is the whole set, {0}, which is the first element only, {1}, which is the second element only, and {}, the empty set, a box containing no numbers at all. Set theory is attractive and intuitive; I hope I've not lost anyone here, even if they aren't a friend to mathematics.

Let's make a category of basic religious positions - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Judaic, etc. These all subdivide greatly, and also have a great many intellectual relations between them - but we'll ignore this rich structure as it isn't relevant to the illustration. Further, let's make things much simpler by pretending that there are only two basic faiths - Christian and Muslim. This stops us having to list millions of cases, without changing the logic.

So our set of religious positions is {Christian, Muslim}. Then we ask ourselves what subsets of people we can create from this. Following the example above of the set {0, 1}, we see that we have 4 subsets. The first is the set of all religious people: {Christian, Muslim}. The second is the set of all Christian people: {Christian}. The third is the set of all Islamic people: {Muslim}. But it's the fourth that concerns us here, the empty set: the set of all people that are not religious. These people are not included in the set of religious people, but we can tag them by the absence of the religious characteristic in them. However, this doesn't mean that it is meaningful to include them in discussions about religious ways of thinking - they aren't in that set listing religious positions. Am I making any sense to you here?

Put simply, I did not include atheism there because I was talking about people holding faith assertions. Not holding a faith assertion is something else.

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 12:13PMQuote from: MoominDave on May 21, 2017, 07:48AMThe unintended statement is unintended precisely because it isn't true. Perhaps you could offer some examples of anything you've observed? I've certainly found myself with opposing positions to other atheists here in the past. For example on the topic of gun control. There's no reason to inflate people taking issue with what you're saying, into seeing them failing to take similar issue with people with other faith positions.
MyBad. I shouldn't have used the word unintended. Out of all the world views concerning faith, Christianity is the most targeted for criticism in places where people come from different backgrounds.
Is it, though? Or are your views skewed by criticism of Christianity feeling like a personal attack to you, and by your cultural milieu seeing very few representatives of other faiths? Islam cops an awful lot of flak from a large frightened segment of the West these days, and I see much more chatter about that online, for example in newspaper comment sections.

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 12:13PMQuote from: MoominDave on May 21, 2017, 07:48AMA pass to attempt to enforce your faith viewpoints onto political offices or employment prospects? No way.Unfortunately, the members of unfaith want to enforce their viewpoints onto the faithful. Here in the US, they have gone so far as to have people put in jail. Loss of free speech is apparent.
Examples please. To my eyes you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope, standing in a country and more particularly a state where exactly the opposite happens. You're standing in an empowered majority accusing a disempowered minority of bullying you. It doesn't work that way. Christianity has its hands all over the levers of power in the US and even more so in Texas.

Quote from: ddickerson on May 21, 2017, 12:13PMI believe that in order to live in a society of many different view points successfully, you have to have an attitude of tolerance in the public. This forum is a public chat space, and tolerance should be afforded to all, and just let everyone get along peacefully without having to endure pages of insults.

Won't happen though.

At least you're one of the members that do engage in peaceful discussion without all the personal attach rhetoric.

#ABigThumbsUpToYou
Cheers! That's kind of you. And I've always appreciated the politeness that you respond with, even when you go so far as to feel angered.

The trouble you tend to consistently run into here is that you appear to grab a position without caring too much about how well backed-up it is with evidence - seeming to care much more about whether it fits in with what you think you ought to be thinking. And then if it has logical holes, to not adjust that position at all while denying the existence of holes and often claiming that identical non-existent holes exist in the position of whoever's talking with you. This tends to get under people's skin and cause them to lose goodwill.

But I'm sure you know this. After all, you've been living it from the inside for these many years here on TTF.

[ttf_ddickerson]

I understand your point about atheism, yet in any discussion regarding Christianity, atheists always jump in to discredit what the Christian has to say, so, there must be a connection between the two. Maybe a bridge between the two sets.

If atheists were as detached as you say, then why not just let the faithers battle it out? I am totally uninterested in soccer ball, and when I encounter people debating the merits of their team, or soccer in general, I just watch or listen for entertainment value, and never attribute a single byte.

IOW, why would an atheist ever join in a discussion on this forum that is clearly marked as a religious, or religion topic? I don't browse over to the trumpet forums and join in. So, there must be a connection.

[ttf_MoominDave]

You get non-faith Western people talking about this stuff because they're used to living in a society where Christianity has historically enforced its moral framework on all of us. Our noses have been rubbed in the idea that Christianity represents an ideal state for long enough that it's blindingly clear to us that it's important to resist it when it attempts to encroach on us. And there's often an element of anthropological curiosity - "How can these people believe this nonsense? What have they done to their brains to fall for it?". At root it's about engaging and understanding - but also about resisting a cultural force (Christianity) that has expended vast amounts of effort over huge amounts of time trying to crush those that don't believe in it.

I am not saying that atheists are detached. Atheists are people, with the myriad human variations. They just don't have a religion attribute. They may be wise, they may be stupid - I could certainly point you at a number of atheists that are sorely lacking in the thinking department. They may be argumentative, they may be completely chilled out.

[ttf_ddickerson]

"but also about resisting a cultural force (Christianity) that has expended vast amounts of effort over huge amounts of time trying to crush those that don't believe in it."

I don't see Christianity trying to crush people who don't believe. Maybe, your use of the word "to crush" is different than me. I will defend Christianity with vigor, but I don't see that as 'crushing' people.

If I went into a cake bakery, and discovered that the two owners were atheists, do you think that I would do everything possible to put them out of business, or get them arrested? I would purchase the cake and go home.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ddickerson on May 22, 2017, 12:01PMI don't see Christianity trying to crush people who don't believe. Maybe, your use of the word "to crush" is different than me. I will defend Christianity with vigor, but I don't see that as 'crushing' people.

Spanish Inquisition.

Salem witch trials.

Crusades.

Missionaries.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on May 22, 2017, 10:33AMI understand your point about atheism, yet in any discussion regarding Christianity, atheists always jump in to discredit what the Christian has to say, so, there must be a connection between the two. Maybe a bridge between the two sets.
That's more about you and yours than Christianity.
 
Very few atheists (or anyone else for that matter) have any problem at all with Christians who are serious enough about honesty to be intellectually and civically rational and responsible.
 
 
Quote from: ddickerson on May 22, 2017, 10:33AMIOW, why would an atheist ever join in a discussion on this forum that is clearly marked as a religious, or religion topic? I don't browse over to the trumpet forums and join in. So, there must be a connection.
The answer is plainly obvious and you've seen this "question" answered many times in here ... as if it actually needed to be.
 
The real question is why that doesn't matter and you still act as if you haven't been able to see it for some reason. Or rather, for what reason you consistently absolutely refuse to even acknowledge such information no matter how clearly or how repeatedly it's presented to you. Some of us know the answer, but it's probably a rather unambiguous violation of the TOU to treat the matter both honestly and openly.

[ttf_drizabone]

Five rational arguments why God (very probably) exists http://theconversation.com/five-rational-arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451

[ttf_drizabone]

 Bertrand Russell wrote “Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.”

[ttf_drizabone]

Its Dave's fault - or divine providence 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on May 22, 2017, 12:45PMSpanish Inquisition.

Salem witch trials.

Crusades.

Missionaries.

Atheism:

Stalinist, Maoist, etc. purges and genocides like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia-- killed far more people than any religious groups throughout history.  In fact statistics show that 20th century atheist and/or secular governments were the bloodiest in history.  Only the rise of ISIS and other Islamisist movements are violent 20th-21st century religious movements and the number of dead by their hands, as tragic as it is, still is tiny compared to the atheistic and secularist atrocities of recent times.

Check out the facts.

BTW, unless you are going to argue that any cross cultural persuasive effort is inherently evil-- which has implications that almost no one really agrees with-- missionaries have to be in a different category than the others than you listed.  As a historian, I can assure you that western economic imperialism was far more devastating on the traditional cultural life of non-Western cultures than any group of missionaries ever was.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 05, 2017, 07:52PMAtheism:

Stalinist, Maoist, etc. purges and genocides like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia-- killed far more people than any religious groups throughout history.  In fact statistics show that 20th century atheist and/or secular governments were the bloodiest in history.  Only the rise of ISIS and other Islamisist movements are violent 20th-21st century religious movements and the number of dead by their hands, as tragic as it is, still is tiny compared to the atheistic and secularist atrocities of recent times.

Check out the facts.

BTW, unless you are going to argue that any cross cultural persuasive effort is inherently evil-- which has implications that almost no one really agrees with-- missionaries have to be in a different category than the others than you listed.  As a historian, I can assure you that western economic imperialism was far more devastating on the traditional cultural life of non-Western cultures than any group of missionaries ever was.
That's not about atheists actually--that's all the responsibility of the aphilatelists.
 
It's understandable that with the normal fixation on religious matters a lot miss this.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: ddickerson on May 22, 2017, 10:33AMI understand your point about atheism, yet in any discussion regarding Christianity, atheists always jump in to discredit what the Christian has to say, so, there must be a connection between the two. Maybe a bridge between the two sets.

If atheists were as detached as you say, then why not just let the faithers battle it out? I am totally uninterested in soccer ball, and when I encounter people debating the merits of their team, or soccer in general, I just watch or listen for entertainment value, and never attribute a single byte.

IOW, why would an atheist ever join in a discussion on this forum that is clearly marked as a religious, or religion topic? I don't browse over to the trumpet forums and join in. So, there must be a connection.


Because it's as you say. (Many/some/all/most/a few) Atheists think we believe in faeries and seek to discredit our faith with excessive mockery and belittling. They look at us as uneducated fools. Why start a religious topic much or even participate in it? It's not for understanding. BVB is acting as a proselytizer. Dave is not one of those though. He can discuss without being obnoxious.
Aphilatelist is a word they made up by the way.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Reply moved from: Read Da Book.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 10:00AMNo actually it's treating Dave with respect and not just giving him sound bite answers as so many do on this forum.You can offer something in an entirely genuine, respectful and sincere manner while still missing the mark. It's also still much appreciated, or at least it should be. I didn't suggest you were being disrespectful or thoughtless at all. Quite the contrary. That's why a few posts back I described your sentiments as The Better Angels of Our Nature--one of the more profound and positive products of humans communing. That was absolute sincerity, and it doesn't change just because to me/us it doesn't mean anything more (as if what it does mean is trite).
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 10:00AMApologetics is not simply "window dressing" as you suggest.  It's serious wrestling with issues that sound bite answers, by both believers and unbelievers, BTW, are so prone to giving.It can be anyway, at least in theory even if rarely in practice. It may not be so rare for theologians (though I suspect it is more so than very many appreciate, which is more or less to say theologians are using human brains like the rest of us), and there are plenty of exception if for no other reason than the fact that so many are so interested in various religious matters.
 
What I was saying is that what's real about religion is communal rather than anything allegedly supernatural, and all the religious thinking and behavior (at least all that's not about that) is really just distraction. It's a kind of tragedy of the commons kind of thing. Yet human nature still overcomes all of that and brings us to what's really important, even if the dark side of our nature can incline us to fix on the distraction to the detriment of what's real. That being my take, of course I see religious apologetics as window dressing. In good religious communities it detracts little if at all significantly from what's real/really important to us, whereas in worse religious communities, particularly the darker, ugly variety, it's the focus and the excuse to reject and deride our humanity and to judge others harshly for not agreeing ... and such. And for the record I think there are far more religious communities of good people than there are of problem children. Unfortunately religion is tailor made so that the problem children can use it to their nasty ends.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 10:00AMI believe that you, too, have often suggested further reading when some of us are very underwhelmed by some of your sound bites.  Nothing wrong with that.Nope--nothing wrong with it at all. Sorry if my comment came across that way--certainly not what I intended.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 10:00AMIn fact suggesting further reading is the best way to say that a person's response deserves more than a sound bite.Yes, from your perspective. You have to gauge your audience's depth of interest though, and his/her general take on the matter, whether it's personally important to him/her, and his/her standards of epistemology, etc. It certainly doesn't hurt to offer a reference. Dave obviously wanted your take (after the reference--not saying you should have somehow divined that through the Interweb) and isn't as invested as would be required to follow up with the reference. No problem--no harm, no foul--all is well, just calls for an adjusted approach. I'm sure no greater "offense" has been taken.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 10:00AMRarely does a sound bit do anything more than cheerlead.That's certainly not my experience. Of course that's also far from foreign to me.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Reply moved from Read Da Book.
 
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 12:14PMTim, they are popularizers and not really serious apologists from an academic perspective.I think that's probably a pretty fair statement. But how many popularizers per serious apologist (no, that doesn't say anything qualitative about the issue--not what I'm saying), and where to draw the line? Also, serious doesn't mean sound or reasonably critical or rigorous, or even reasonably managed bias.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 12:14PMYes apologists seek to defend the faith, but they do so because it is challenged and the scriptures-- cf. 1 Peter 3:15-- commands us to always give an answer.  Higher level apologetics is just such an answer on a more sophisticated level.If they've never seriously and genuinely challenged their beliefs while ready and "agnostically" willing to accept wherever the evidence and reasoning took them, their beliefs are ultimately at some point untested assumptions, and I don't think that really amounts to actual belief (a believer may think of this as not having genuine or secure or complete faith). If you can't or won't allow for certain lines of inquiry then you're not able to really challenge your beliefs. That's not necessarily a bad thing at all--it's just the relationship of what these terms mean and how they function. Many believers simply aren't interested in these kinds of questions and there's no reason they should be.
 
I had a brilliant religion professor I respect a great deal once tell me that agnosticism (popular definition) was "a good place to come back from", as if you can be genuinely agnostic as a strategy to strengthen your faith. That's the kind of "challenging" and "questioning" that passes for genuine in most religious circles--even highly intellectual religious circles (he was--hopefully is--a Quaker cleric). I've seen that all my life. Religious questioning is great, but only to a point, and at that point it's important that you stop and have faith. Quite often there isn't even any pretense to value questioning or intellectual responsibility, which is at least more honest--stronger in a way, truer to one's self--no need for self-deception.
 
Having been there, ready and willing to genuinely question my beliefs for real--to face my views without a net--it's often obvious when others pretend they have as well. Until a believer can really do this and has done so I don't find the basis of their beliefs very credible--they're more about socialization than genuine consideration or questioning. You can't really challenge your beliefs if you're not ready to let them go and you have the courage to do it any more than you can really consider a choice if you're only open to one option. And if you can't really challenge your beliefs, particularly if you feel threatened by the notion (you feel compelled to protect them from genuine challenges), do you really believe them? If you really believe them then how could you perceive the threat?
 
Anyway, very very few American believers in my experience have ever really questioned much less challenged their beliefs (their reasons require belief to work, which means they don't justify belief but rather excuse it). Many like to pretend though. The fact they want that credibility but can't or won't really pull it off for real says a lot.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 05, 2017, 02:27PMFive rational arguments why God (very probably) exists http://theconversation.com/five-rational-arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451


These all look like "argument from incredulity."

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 07, 2017, 06:13AMThese all look like "argument from incredulity."

Maybe but its a bit hard to be sure from the quick summary.  I've got the book on kindle so I'll post a summary when I read it.  But just commenting on the article.

- the idea that its interesting that the universe obeys the laws of maths is significant is interesting.  I'd never really thought of it.  Why should it or why shouldn't it?  I don't know.  I'd expect that the argument around that would be way to philosophical for me
- and the idea that maths exists apart from the thinks it describes.  I'm incredulous there.  once again I expect it to be philosophical. 
- Same for consciousness.

It will be interesting to see if the arguments are more scientific than religious, but I'm expecting that they will be philosophical, mainly because I don't think a subject can prove itself to be true, you have to look elsewhere.  eg you can't prove science to be true from scientific assumption, you can only prove its self consistent or not. 

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 07, 2017, 03:34PM
- the idea that its interesting that the universe obeys the laws of maths is significant is interesting.  I'd never really thought of it.  Why should it or why shouldn't it?  I don't know. 
That is actually an extremely interesting concept.

Why should it?  I don't know either.  The author of the article doesn't understand why it should, therefore that proves God makes it happen.  (argument from incredulity = if I don't understand how it could work, it's false) 

I've thought about this a bit because I transitioned from a common appreciation of math (something you solve that may or may not be relevant to anything real) to the engineer's trust that if you do your calculation right your machine will work.  That's something we engineers take for granted, and I don't know any nonengineers with the same attitude. This is a divide much greater than people realize, I think. 

I said earlier that naturalists only have one a priori assumption (what jtt calls a presupposition):  that facts mean something.  But maybe there is a subcategory, that math works. 

I went to grad school for Clinical Psychology.  We used some fairly advanced calculations.  But none of us connected math to reality in the way all engineers do. 

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 07, 2017, 06:33PMThat is actually an extremely interesting concept.

Why should it?  I don't know either.  The author of the article doesn't understand why it should, therefore that proves God makes it happen.  (argument from incredulity = if I don't understand how it could work, it's false) 

I got the impression that there was more to his argument than that.  I hope that the book proves me correct.

QuoteI've thought about this a bit because I transitioned from a common appreciation of math (something you solve that may or may not be relevant to anything real) to the engineer's trust that if you do your calculation right your machine will work.  That's something we engineers take for granted, and I don't know any nonengineers with the same attitude. This is a divide much greater than people realize, I think. 

That reminds me of a book I read 18 months ago: "In Search of Planet Vulcan: The Ghost in Newton's Clockwork Universe"

It tells the story of how Newtons maths were used to "magically" find one of the outer planets and the effect that that had on what people/scientists thought of the power of maths.  The maths seemed to predict that there would be a planet inside the orbit or Mercury so the race was on to find it.  Until Einstein explained it away with more maths.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 07, 2017, 06:33PMThat is actually an extremely interesting concept.

Why should it?  I don't know either.  The author of the article doesn't understand why it should, therefore that proves God makes it happen.  (argument from incredulity = if I don't understand how it could work, it's false) 

I've thought about this a bit because I transitioned from a common appreciation of math (something you solve that may or may not be relevant to anything real) to the engineer's trust that if you do your calculation right your machine will work.  That's something we engineers take for granted, and I don't know any nonengineers with the same attitude. This is a divide much greater than people realize, I think. 

I said earlier that naturalists only have one a priori assumption (what jtt calls a presupposition):  that facts mean something.  But maybe there is a subcategory, that math works. 

I went to grad school for Clinical Psychology.  We used some fairly advanced calculations.  But none of us connected math to reality in the way all engineers do. 

Naturalists often make some other assumptions-- i.e presuppositions-- as well, some of which are difficult to square with their naturalism.  Here's a semi-technical, but rather short discussion of what type of warrants for knowledge are compatible with various worldviews by James Anderson, the same author whose book I recommended a couple of days ago.

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/knowledge_and_theism.html

[ttf_timothy42b]

I read it.

Lots of rehash of Platinga, lots AND LOTS of straw men, and a good bit of "we can imagine X, therefore X is probable."

The one clear section simply states as self evident that science cannot determine questions of morality, therefore naturalism doesn't work. 


Quote[Naturalism’s] Achilles’ heel (in addition to its deplorable falsehood) is that it has no room for normativity. There is no room, within naturalism, for right or wrong, or good or bad. (Plantinga, 1998, p. 356, emphasis original)

So naturalism, as a metaphysical position, cannot accommodate the notion of right or wrong ways to form or hold beliefs. Consequently, it cannot accommodate the notion of epistemic warrant. In short: if we know anything at all, then naturalism must be false.
He does claim, as JTT mentioned, that there are many more presuppositions inherent in those who believe evidence means something.  But this bald assertion depends on whether you accept all his (the author, not the scientist) presuppositions and definitions. 

It's turtles all the way down.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

A conversion story by a secularist historian-- PhD from Cambridge-- who ended finding the beliefs of secularism bankrupt while studying at Oxford as a post-doc research fellowship.  Thought some of you might be interested in her story.  Sure sounds as if the intellectual and worldview-- i.e. the presuppositions-- played a key role here.

http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/?platform=hootsuite&utm_source=TGC+List&utm_campaign=d06b46f9ed-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_621531349f-d06b46f9ed-118239053

[ttf_BillO]

Uughh!

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 09, 2017, 06:12PMA conversion story by a secularist historian-- PhD from Cambridge-- who ended finding the beliefs of secularism bankrupt while studying at Oxford as a post-doc research fellowship.  Thought some of you might be interested in her story.  Sure sounds as if the intellectual and worldview-- i.e. the presuppositions-- played a key role here.
 
http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/?platform=hootsuite&utm_source=TGC+List&utm_campaign=d06b46f9ed-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_621531349f-d06b46f9ed-118239053
She's started out with a lot of rhetorical problems. Also, she entered into a disorienting and exciting time in her personal development carrying some poorly considered notions along with her, so she set herself up for encountering the need for some pretty significant adjustments to her views. She also conflates atheism with the version of progressive liberalism she brought with her to King's College. Atheism is merely a modifier, not integral to such views much less a source. It says a lot about her that she made those adjustments, absolutely (good stuff!), but when you're so inclined and you've made some rather bad presumptions (i.e. her presumption that "Christians were anti-intellectual and self-righteous"--true in many cases, not true in many other cases--a lot like other people that way, oddly enough) and you enter into a culture where that's going to quite strikingly dispossess you of that notion, you've given yourself good reason to question the credibility of your views, not just the views that have been blown out of the water, so to speak. It's very cool that she could go there, but she also set herself up like this in a very proprietary social situation in which this kind of disorientation will be taken advantage of. Wait for the next major shift in her personal development (or just time). Unless her inclinations are destroyed by her religiosity (which seems a lot less likely her situation than in most conversion environments) she'll very likely level out and find her stable course. That may well include religious beliefs and practices--very likely so given this development at this stage in her life. From what I can tell from her article she'll be fine though--seems pretty squared away--and we can never be overburdened by more leveled out and stable elements influencing human societies and communities, far from the least of which are communities which have collected around religious belief and behavior.
 
Some notes from the opening:
QuoteThe natural world yields no egalitarian picture of human capacities. What about the child whose disabilities or illness compromises her abilities to reason? Yet, without reference to some set of capacities as the basis of human worth, the intrinsic value of all human beings becomes an ungrounded assertion; a premise which needs to be agreed upon before any conversation can take place.And ... ?
 
This is an appeal to the consequences. She needs more affirmation than is readily apparent, like most of us. And she's young and displaced and finding her way in exciting new environs which are dispossessing her of some poorly considered notions--mostly more of the same good stuff! But this is also some of the most fertile ground for easy solutions as provided (counterfeit) by religion (really by communities of believers--community being the important part, believers being counterproductive if anything--but the denial of this fact is central to such groups' identities, most unfortunately) to take root--or for the ideology of some charismatic socialist or atheist or new age type spiritual or whatever prof with a worshipful populace of also displaced and excited and psychologically and socially mobile orbiting satellites to get a foothold. Even if someone like Ms. Irving-Stonebraker is too well grounded and self-possessed to get caught up into all that, the residual contact with the orbiting system and the ego and confidence and charisma-boosting effects it has on its centerpiece still has a significant effect on human brain owners, and all the more under those conditions.
 
The enthusiasm of converts can seem compelling if you're more inclined toward System 1 thinking and haven't trained your mind not to trust it very much (unless it's an emergency). Of course if you have you still have to learn not to trust System 2 thinking, and to instead trust sound systems of vetting ideas and information and such which rudely shove our personal sentiments and inclinations aside in favor of those sound systems of epistemology (see Feynman quote below).
 
I also take issue with the first sentence. The natural world, if considered in a less developed state than modern human society, yields no egalitarian picture of human capacities unless you consider it in terms of what we currently understand regarding current or even recent human societies. We do know we're all better off in more egalitarian societies though--that's what the notion of the social contract is all about, and that is our natural state where we're at now in terms of social development. It's only when we try to force anachronisms and juxtapose inappropriate development and circumstances that we can see what's natural for us now as unnatural in favor of our less developed social natures.
 
I'd also argue that more than likely when she says she was "attracted but not convinced" she was already convinced. That's the way human minds actually work. If we don't internalize a fundamental level of doubt regarding our thinking (particularly System 1 thinking in non-System 1 settings) we have no brakes to keep System 1 in check. We make a System 1 decision and then appeal to System 2 for justification. We're in control of System 2 and it doesn't function under our radar, so that's what we perceive as driving the process. In order to (sort of) dethrone System 1 thinking we have to become comfortable enough with the true level of uncertainty we all actually live under to internalize a healthy self-doubt about our raw perceptions and ideas and inclinations and sentiments ... etc. Ideological systems that excuse all of that--maybe wrap it up neatly into an impressive term--are fundamentally about denying our nature as humans, and it should go without saying that's obviously not a very sound way to take our methods of understanding reality.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 10, 2017, 10:33AM
She's started out with a lot of rhetorical problems. Also, she entered into a disorienting and exciting time in her personal development carrying some poorly considered notions along with her, so she set herself up for encountering the need for some pretty significant adjustments to her views. She also conflates atheism with the version of progressive liberalism she brought with her to King's College. Atheism is merely a modifier, not integral to such views much less a source. It says a lot about her that she made those adjustments, absolutely (good stuff!), but when you're so inclined and you've made some rather bad presumptions (i.e. her presumption that "Christians were anti-intellectual and self-righteous"--true in many cases, not true in many other cases--a lot like other people that way, oddly enough) and you enter into a culture where that's going to quite strikingly dispossess you of that notion, you've given yourself good reason to question the credibility of your views, not just the views that have been blown out of the water, so to speak. It's very cool that she could go there, but she also set herself up like this in a very proprietary social situation in which this kind of disorientation will be taken advantage of. Wait for the next major shift in her personal development (or just time). Unless her inclinations are destroyed by her religiosity (which seems a lot less likely her situation than in most conversion environments) she'll very likely level out and find her stable course. That may well include religious beliefs and practices--very likely so given this development at this stage in her life. From what I can tell from her article she'll be fine though--seems pretty squared away--and we can never be overburdened by more leveled out and stable elements influencing human societies and communities, far from the least of which are communities which have collected around religious belief and behavior.
 


Nice try to psychologize someone you've never met.   I prefer to take her at face value that she had real intellectual issues.  Perhaps we could all discover your secret motives as we take apart your response, but I'll take your word that you really believe what some of us might think deep down is really just sophisticated whistling in the dark .

[ttf_timothy42b]

She writes a pretty good sermon.

That's how I saw her piece, and so would not try to nitpick item by item.  There's clearly some poetic license there.

She has some misconceptions about atheists, which is strange considering she was one.  Probably just poetic license again.

Her conversion appears to be heavily influenced by being accepted into a warm and welcoming community, which seems to have been a novel experience for her. 

I'm not sure whether another phase in her development is coming.  She may very well remain happily where she is, provided the continuing reinforcement of the social milieu.

Theologically (if it's even fair to call it that) she has created a unique and ideosyncratic image of Christianity.  The dissonance between her concept and how it is usually practiced in the US is huge.  That is where the challenge to her faith will come, should she choose to recognize it.  She might not though, it is not hard to shield ourselves from that intrusion when the payoffs are great enough. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 10, 2017, 01:52PMNice try to psychologize someone you've never met.   I prefer to take her at face value that she had real intellectual issues.  Perhaps we could all discover your secret motives as we take apart your response, but I'll take your word that you really believe what some of us might think deep down is really just sophisticated whistling in the dark .
Frankly, unless you choose to be rather unkind about imposing the burden of doubt on me you won't find any such presumptions in my post--unlike the presumptions you've clearly made about me trying to psychoanalyze someone I've never met ... for the purpose of self-deceptive dismissal and/or evasion, I gather?
 
You say you prefer to take her at face value and then tack on a straw man by presuming I've presumed she didn't have real intellectual issues (apparently you mean issues with her atheism), but your objection is with my comments about the way human psychology functions in such situations, because there's nothing in my post that would lead you to believe I think she had no intellectual issues [with atheism?] going on (again, however you meant that).
 
You may take issue with my points about psychology, and you may well be right if you do that homework, and you may well be able to correct my mistakes if I've made any. It's entirely possible my understanding of psychology is off there. I'd welcome the corrections if so. But since you aren't arguing that humans in fact don't respond to the situation in question in the ways I pointed out you're making an argument of exceptionalism, as if Christians aren't effected by the same psychological vagaries as other humans (i.e. human psychology may work this way, but not Christian psychology, or maybe just not her psychology). If you separate what's set you off from the points I've actually made you should also be able to recognize that the psychology I discuss is explanatory and not argumentative--doesn't have any effect on my arguments regarding the errors or merits of her points, it just explains common reasons humans think and behave the way we do in such situations. If that's troubling to you and my psychology is correct, then you may want to give the implications a bit more consideration.
 
In any case what you characterize as trying to psychoanalyze is really just pointing out some things about how human brains work, and not presuming the exceptionalism it seems to me that you do. As I stated I have no problem at all with the idea that Ms. Irving-Stonebraker may be "too well grounded and self-possessed to get caught up into all that", but I [/i]never suggested she did get caught up in it. I'm just pretty sure she's a human brain user, and as such the effects I pointed out are in play to some extent or another (again unless I'm in error on my understanding of human psychology of course, but that's not the tack you went with your response). In any case the psychological effects I point out may well be insignificant, having little to no real impact on her intellectual process. I'm not assuming anything along those lines. You have to assume that on my behalf.
 
Maybe if you read that post more soberly, giving me at least some benefit rather than the burden of doubt, you'll recognize that I have no problem with her conversion. In fact I point out why I think it would likely have positive effects, though your sentiments may not exactly help you to deal soberly with that point either. I do make some corrections regarding her apologetics though. You opted out of addressing any of that for whatever reason.
 
In any case she seems like she's pretty solid intellectually even if she's got some things wrong (likely more in accord with her chosen community of affiliation than her actual experiences--again, this likelihood does admittedly assume she's using a human brain that functions in a fairly normal manner). Recognizing the very real potential of these pervasive errors among believers requires no extrapolation of her particular psychological posture, just a modestly disciplined reading of her article and at least a moderately unbiased (or bias-managed) understanding of the topics she raises. Maybe try it again ignoring the psychological extrapolations and just considering with the points I made directly about the content of her article? I think that might help you get a more sober sense of what I was actually saying in that post.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 10, 2017, 02:01PMShe writes a pretty good sermon.
 
That's how I saw her piece, and so would not try to nitpick item by item.  There's clearly some poetic license there.
 
She has some misconceptions about atheists, which is strange considering she was one.  Probably just poetic license again.
 
Her conversion appears to be heavily influenced by being accepted into a warm and welcoming community, which seems to have been a novel experience for her. 
 
I'm not sure whether another phase in her development is coming.  She may very well remain happily where she is, provided the continuing reinforcement of the social milieu.Heh ... that's basically an abstract version of what I wrote in more concrete, referential terms. Though I'd say it appears it may have been significantly influenced (which inherently includes the potential that she may not have been--just like some but not all is plainly redundant, so would may have been or not be, even though that rather blatant reading error is ubiquitous in the reading of/objections to iconoclastic material ... for some reason).
 
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 10, 2017, 02:01PMTheologically (if it's even fair to call it that) she has created a unique and ideosyncratic image of Christianity.  The dissonance between her concept and how it is usually practiced in the US is huge.  That is where the challenge to her faith will come, should she choose to recognize it.  She might not though, it is not hard to shield ourselves from that intrusion when the payoffs are great enough.Can you elaborate a bit--concretize the abstractions some there?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 10, 2017, 04:48PM
Frankly, unless you choose to be rather unkind about imposing the burden of doubt on me you won't find any such presumptions in my post--unlike the presumptions you've clearly made about me trying to psychoanalyze someone I've never met ... for the purpose of self-deceptive dismissal and/or evasion, I gather?
 

I was mostly messing with you guys, but i do find it very ironic that a few of you almost immediately jump to a very pschological explanation.  I'm not at all attempting to do a pschoanalysis on any of you  My point is that I don't think it's ultimately helpful because it is really mostly shooting in the dark.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 10, 2017, 07:30PMI was mostly messing with you guys, but i do find it very ironic that a few of you almost immediately jump to a very pschological explanation.  I'm not at all attempting to do a pschoanalysis on any of you  My point is that I don't think it's ultimately helpful because it is really mostly shooting in the dark.

I tend to see conversion experiences in either direction as examples of human behavior, with some obvious human influences.

There are positions within Christianity that hold something different.  Conversions from atheist to Christian occur ONLY under the command of the Holy Spirit.  This command is believed to be resistable, otherwise the element of free will is absent, but it is a requirement.  Conversions from Christian to atheist do not ever occur.  That was never a true Christian to begin with. 

John has not articulated that position but it is far from extreme. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 10, 2017, 07:30PMI was mostly messing with you guys, but i do find it very ironic that a few of you almost immediately jump to a very pschological explanation.  I'm not at all attempting to do a pschoanalysis on any of you  My point is that I don't think it's ultimately helpful because it is really mostly shooting in the dark.
Ironic? You sure that's the right term?
 
But sure, it's certainly predictable that some of us go with more testable, verifiable potentials before giving up and just presuming an "answer" that's pointedly not.
 
Can't argue with that.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 11, 2017, 04:47AMI tend to see conversion experiences in either direction as examples of human behavior, with some obvious human influences.

There are positions within Christianity that hold something different.  Conversions from atheist to Christian occur ONLY under the command of the Holy Spirit.  This command is believed to be resistable, otherwise the element of free will is absent, but it is a requirement.  Conversions from Christian to atheist do not ever occur.  That was never a true Christian to begin with. 

John has not articulated that position but it is far from extreme. 

I suppose if one is a naturalist, it is inevitable that one would try to give a psychological analysis of everything.  However, the belief systems of the naturalists are subject to the same psychological analysis.  In other words if the theist believes as he/she does because of some traumatic experiences, poor nutrition or anything else, it is fully appropriate to claim that the naturalist believes what he/she does because he too had some traumatic experience as a youth-- perhaps his/her Sunday school teacher was very mean to him when he was 7 years old .  It's only far to be true to one's own presuppositions, after all.

For an entertaining short essay on this theme, see C. S. Lewis's classic article on "Bulverism".

https://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009/Lewis/Bulversim-rev1.doc


BTW, many convinced naturalists find it difficult to believe in "free will" in the classical sense because since we are just products of chemical and physical forces, we really don't really make ethical choices in the classic sense.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PMI suppose if one is a naturalist, it is inevitable that one would try to give a psychological analysis of everything.Nope. It seems you're presuming dogmatism rather than naturalism--affirmation rather than verifiability.
 
If you keep in mind that science and critical thinking can be described as systems proven as the best means of keeping us from fooling ourselves you may have less of an issue with what's going on behind the scenes--what motivates naturalists.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PMHowever, the belief systems of the naturalists are subject to the same psychological analysis.Why not? Just don't analyze a straw man rather than what's really there.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PMIn other words if the theist believes as he/she does because of some traumatic experiences, poor nutrition or anything else ... Exactly--great example of straw man thinking.
 
Heh ...
 
Granted, I'm sure some, perhaps many make this error, but the errors advocates or just adherents make isn't a good basis on which to assess what they advocate or adhere to. That's true of religious ideologies as well as empirical.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PM ... it is fully appropriate to claim that the naturalist believes what he/she does because he too had some traumatic experience as a youth--perhaps his/her Sunday school teacher was very mean to him when he was 7 years old .  It's only far to be true to one's own presuppositions, after all. Again--not affirmation, verifiability.
 
Imposing systematic checks and standards on our desire for affirmation rather than defending it.
 
Valuing evidence and rigor and sound processes of epistemology over the comfort of seeking validation of our personal sentiments.
 
Subordinating our perceptions and sensibilities to evidence and sound epistemic processes rather than the reverse ... etc.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PMFor an entertaining short essay on this theme, see C. S. Lewis's classic article on "Bulverism".
 
https://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009/Lewis/Bulversim-rev1.docRichard Feynman: Ode On A Flower
 
Feynman offers the advantage of not relying on straw men to make his point ... or false dichotomies (or trichotomies).
 
I always find it curious (and questionable) when apologists try to argue that developing understanding somehow diminishes our experience of its subject.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PMBTW, many convinced naturalists find it difficult to believe in "free will" in the classical sense because since we are just products of chemical and physical forces, we really don't really make ethical choices in the classic sense.Okay ... ?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PMBTW, many convinced naturalists find it difficult to believe in "free will" in the classical sense because since we are just products of chemical and physical forces, we really don't really make ethical choices in the classic sense.

Free will is not a biblical concept.  There is no scriptural support.

It was introduced into Christianity because of a sense of inherent unfairness if God punishes us for something beyond our control, like yielding to temptation, particularly if He is the author of our control abilities. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 12, 2017, 05:34AMFree will is not a biblical concept.  There is no scriptural support.
 
It was introduced into Christianity because of a sense of inherent unfairness if God punishes us for something beyond our control, like yielding to temptation, particularly if He is the author of our control abilities.
I guess it's the best that can be done to try and bury that little problem, but it doesn't do any more than to stick a band aid on an untreated, infected wound.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 11, 2017, 02:04PM
For an entertaining short essay on this theme, see C. S. Lewis's classic article on "Bulverism".

https://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009/Lewis/Bulversim-rev1.doc

That was actually quite good, and more logical than most of Lewis's articles.

Until!

QuoteEvidently, then, something beyond Nature exists. Man is on the border line between the Natural and the Supernatural.

Up until that point, he had been quite correct in pointing out the error of assuming that a fact is not true because of the bias of the person believing it. 

But now he asserts this claim without any need to support it, as self evident.

There's an interesting point made in all the attacks on naturalism so far.  Every author at some point says "it doesn't work because."  However, there is no point at which the users fail - no point where the naturalist approach prevents the physicist, chemist, engineer from doing their work.  In fact, the opposite seems to be true.  If we had to assume and then rule out a supernatural influence for everything we do - maybe an angel pushed that satellite out of orbit - we would greatly complicate the calculations. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 12, 2017, 05:58AMThat was actually quite good, and more logical than most of Lewis's articles.Is the whole straw man schtick for the first couple of pages about examples of the ad hominem argument from fallacy then? Could very well be I missed something explaining that because of what I expect from Lewis' stuff.
 
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 12, 2017, 05:58AMThere's an interesting point made in all the attacks on naturalism so far.  Every author at some point says "it doesn't work because."  However, there is no point at which the users fail - no point where the naturalist approach prevents the physicist, chemist, engineer from doing their work.  In fact, the opposite seems to be true.  If we had to assume and then rule out a supernatural influence for everything we do - maybe an angel pushed that satellite out of orbit - we would greatly complicate the calculations.In other words (I think?), we don't yet have an answer for this question isn't even anywhere near the ballpark of we can't answer this question much less God/the supernatural must therefore be the answer.
 
There's something deeply human about that error, because plenty of us make it, regularly, including many who know better and many more who should know better (and/or demonstrate they do know better in non-sacred cow contexts). Seems there's something almost physical/neurological going on there ... of just physical--no almost about it. Could be another human brain owner kinda thing. The only remedy to a lot of that is simply accepting it as a fact and owning it--accepting the fact that I/you/him/her am/is a human brain owner and therefore in fact have/has this issue to contend with. If you do that you're inherently also accepting a great deal more uncertainty than most seem to be okay with/able to accept, so it seems this deeply human disconnect from reality isn't going away any time soon.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 12, 2017, 05:34AMFree will is not a biblical concept.  There is no scriptural support.

It was introduced into Christianity because of a sense of inherent unfairness if God punishes us for something beyond our control, like yielding to temptation, particularly if He is the author of our control abilities. 

It depends on how you define free will.  If you mean libertarian free will, I agree with you.  Theologians have often made the distinction between free will and free agency, but that's a discussion for another time.

I only mentioned "free will" because many people seem to think it is self-evident that they can hold it along with a hard naturalism and many serious philosophers argue that the two are not compatible.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 12, 2017, 12:29PMIt depends on how you define free will.  If you mean libertarian free will, I agree with you.Isn't that the context people are generally talking about when they're on about determinism and free will?
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 12, 2017, 12:29PMI only mentioned "free will" because many people seem to think it is self-evident that they can hold it along with a hard naturalism and many serious philosophers argue that the two are not compatible.Shocking, I'm sure, but I'm pretty comfortable with not knowing yet, since as far as I'm aware we don't understand free will well enough to even have a good definition or set of definitions researchers have agreed upon. The issue doesn't interest me very much though, so I haven't done any digging into it at all, largely because it seems to me it's pretty near completely inconsequential to me based upon the discussions I've kind of spot-checked here and there. It may just be a blind spot, but from what I can tell the matter is inherently highly speculative at this point, so we can spin the matter about in our heads until smoke starts coming out of our ears, and we'll still need to hold of on actual evidence before we actually have much of anything at all besides pure speculation. It at least seems like potentially high octane fuel for some great sci-fi though.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 12, 2017, 02:48PMIsn't that the context people are generally talking about when they're on about determinism and free will?


Not always since there are differences in definitions among philosophers and theologians.  Popularly perhaps yes, but most people haven't really thought it through very much and just assume something that sort of resembles libertarian free will, but is pretty vaguely defined.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 12, 2017, 03:07PM... but most people haven't really thought it through very much and just assume something ...
An apparently on-going problem with the religiously devout.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 13, 2017, 06:46AMAn apparently on-going problem with the religiously devout.

I don't agree with you on this one.  Not that I don't have some complaints about the more fundagelic end of the devout - but this I think has more to do with the wiring of the human brain than the institution of religion.

Most people are oblivious to a large portion of the world we live in.  There are huge areas they could wonder about, but you can only critically examine so much of your life in the 24 hours a day we have. 

The devout do have the fear of questioning mindset reinforced consistently from their peer group.  But all of us have some groupthink working.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 13, 2017, 06:46AMAn apparently on-going problem with the religiously devout.

Actually I find that unbelievers haven't thought through most significant matters to any serious degree.  In fact most people don't.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 13, 2017, 12:35PMActually I find that unbelievers haven't thought through most significant matters to any serious degree.  In fact most people don't.


I don't see much difference between theists and nontheists on the amount of serious thinking they do.

What I see making the difference is the social milieu - if their peers do not support it they are extremely unlikely to do much.