|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jul 19, 2011 21:34:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 20, 2011 0:47:03 GMT
No UnklE, he is saying far more than that. He says that the invisible things of Him ARE CLEARLY SEEN, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.Think about it. Atheists are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Paul does not have to use the word "proof" - he has offered a very succinct definition of it. 1. What do you think the 'invisible things' are which are 'clearly seen'? 2. Where does Paul say anything here about atheists?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 20, 2011 7:10:39 GMT
- Original sin is not a sin in the sense of positive sinful acts. It is rather the origin-of-sin, which Aquinas equated with concupiscence or "wanting stuff." We an call that "selfishness."
- Doctrine originally imagined that as an innate selfishness that human beings inherited from their remotest ancestor. [BTW, doctrine does not hold that there was only one ancestor, only that there was one ancestor to whom all humans today trace their ancestry.]
- No one knew how this innate trait was transmitted from generation to generation; but genetics was not discovered until the 19th century.
- Dawkins' contention is that human selfishness is genetic. Thus, it must be something handed down from our remotest ancestor.
What you have described here is not the doctrine of 'original sin', which involves incurred guilt from Adam and a stain on the immortal soul. What you have described here is closer to the Jewish concept of the ' yetzer ha ra', or 'evil inclination'. You have not demonstrated any support from Dawkins for the actual doctrine of original sin. This is not a matter of people explaining a concept in a more sophisticated way. It's a matter of a group of people defining God as X and Jesus as Y, then a later group of people defining God as X and Jesus as Y+1, then a still later group of people definin God as X+1 and Jesus as Y+1, then a still later group of people defining God as X+2 and Jesus as X+2, then a still later group of people defining God and Jesus as X3. This is not simply a development of sophistication in the description of a particular doctrine, it's a gradual doctinal development away from what was orginally taught to something which was not originally taught. The New Testament writings, read in their original Second Temple Period contex, the later post-apostolic writings (especially the early creedal statements found in the 'Apostles' Creed' and the Didache), and the still later church writings, all of which demonstrate that the doctrine of the trinity was a gradual departure from original Christian teaching, and derived from late second century Greek speculation about the relationship of God and Christ. It's a problem because we can't prove that anything he said was from the apostles. Prove it. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the trinity did not exist in Christian thought at this time. Early Christian writings from the late 1st to late 3rd century show no knowledge of the trinity, and instead show that it was a gradual departure from original Christian teachings. But none of these writings contain any reference to the trinity. Athenagoras for example describes the Holy Spirit as an 'effluence' from God; this is a standard Second Temple Period Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit as a divine emmenation. Aristides says there is only one true God, and that Jesus is His son. The letters of Ignatius (riddled as they are with later interpolations), contain no references to the trinity. There is no evidence for any consistent transmission of the doctrine of the trinity from the first generation of apostles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2011 8:19:07 GMT
In an ideal world it should be about the ideas and not the individuals. Dawkins does however represent a constituency as you yourself tacitly admit, and what people refer to as the "New Atheism". Dawkins is a biologist, and in the main he has sought to defend evolutionary theory from it's detractors, that has been his main role. He has commented a number of times on why he would never debate Craig, and it is clear that he sees absolutely no reason to give Craig any more of an air of respectability than he already has. For Dawkins to debate Craig would give Craig an aura of respectability because he is debating a renowned biologist, and Dawkins has no intention of giving him that. This is a weak excuse not to debate Craig, and it puts Dawkins in a negative light in two ways: first, it shows he has an overinflated sense of self-importance. Beside a devout tiny group that adores him as if he's a demigod for no good reason, no one thinks of Dawkins as a profound thinker of our age who has left a mark on humanity. He's overrating his intellectual worth. Most people, including Craig, don't feel a special honor by interacting with him. I bet Craig in private perceives him as a two-bit thinker who is rambling in a territory far above his head. Second, he besmirches Craig by describing him as a fame chaser. Craig doesn't publicly debate to get himself a name. He's doing it for other Christians to convince them that there's nothing intellectually shameful in being a Christian and there's a respectable intellectual case for Christianity. He's also doing it for the image of Christianity in public; it must show teeth. It can't be marginalized or closeted as secular thinker want to have it. To achieve all of this, he must debate with prominent atheists to attract serious attention. That's why he wants to debate Dawkins. Not because Dawkins impresses him as a thinker. I didn't question your qualifications! I only articulated how the current situation is; and it ought to be so by all standards of intellectual decency. When it comes to philosophy, I have noticed inconsistent humility: people give proper respect to natural scientists for their work and acknowledge them as experts for a distinct field, and so don't dare to dabble with natural sciences; however, if philosophy is on the table, everyone is an expert! All may talk about ethics, metaphysics, God. But nothing can be more farther from the truth. To do philosophy, one must pass professional training to gain competence. This is done in every professional field, so it's about time people extend the courtesy to philosophy. Dawkins's work is marginal in the intellectual sense. It is widespread only in the popular, unsophisticated culture. Dawkins is notorious, so one must respond to him, irrespective of the real worth of his claims. Most write books about him to point out how bad his philosophy is. No, Dawkins isn't a threat of any kind. Apples and oranges. These philosophers wrote genuine philosophy and were educated in it. Plato started an academy; Hume applied twice for a teaching post in philosophy. That's why they're acknowledged - as philosophers. Dawkins has none of these traits. Then we must be reading different works. All what I have read is written in philosophical jargon and presupposes philosophical preknowledge. In Dawkins's case, they're correct to dismiss him. This is done all the time in science, and no one objects to scientists. There's Craig. That's sufficient for now. In his article Flew said his definition of atheism is unusual. And going by the philosophical dictionaries, he didn't convince other philosophers that his definition is the correct one. Average church-going folk lives its life pestering no one; they don't need to prove to others what they believe. Missionaries do have to convince others.
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Jul 20, 2011 10:03:10 GMT
Fortigurn,
I take it that you don't believe in either original sin or trinity. Would you be an unitarian?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 20, 2011 10:10:16 GMT
Fortigurn, I take it that you don't believe in either original sin or trinity. Would you be an unitarian? Correct, a Unitarian of the kind which holds to the virgin birth, and rejects the doctrines of the pre-existence of Jesus, the immortal soul, penal substitionary atonement, and a supernatural 'satan'. See here for some historical antecedents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2011 10:39:15 GMT
Correct, a Unitarian of the kind which holds to the virgin birth, and rejects the doctrines of the pre-existence of Jesus, the immortal soul, penal substitionary atonement, and a supernatural 'satan'. See here for some historical antecedents. What do you make of the following response to Unitarianism? www.tektonics.org/uz/unitresp.html
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 20, 2011 11:34:15 GMT
Uh, Robert Turkel? Treat me with a little respect at least. What you have there is standard Fundamentalist 'proof text' apologetics. The complete lack of any scholarly references, especially on the Second Temple Period background to early Christianity, is notable. Go and see what real scholars are saying; James Dunn, NT Wright, James McGrath, for a start. Proper heavyweights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2011 11:53:39 GMT
Uh, Robert Turkel? Treat me with a little respect at least. What you have there is standard Fundamentalist 'proof text' apologetics. The complete lack of any scholarly references, especially on the Second Temple Period background to early Christianity, is notable. Here they are: www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.htmlYou'll be surprised whose names you'll see. As Larry Hurtado.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 20, 2011 14:37:54 GMT
This is even more hilarious; the only times he cites a real heavyweight are when he's citing someone who doesn't agree with his conclusions. * Larry Hurtado says 'this language of personification [of wisdom] does not necessarily reflect a view of these divine attributes as independent entities alongside God', and 'must be understood within the context of the ancient Jewish concern for the uniqueness of God, the most controlling religious idea of ancient Judaism' * Dunn says 'What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus', but while Turkel claims that this proves Jesus is God, Dunn takes the opposite view; 'But of a christology of pre-existent wisdom, or of 'Wisdom' as a title used by the Corinthians, we cannot speak', 'Christ is the action of God, Christ embodies the creative power of God', 'Christ is being identified here not as a pre-existent being but of the creative power and action of God' * The quote from Wright (out of context of course), isn't even addressing anything Turkel is arguing for; he's using it to imply that Judaism didn't really conceive of God in numerical terms (so adding another person here or there wasn't a big deal), but that's certainly not what Wright is saying, and if that isn't what Turkel is saying then what is he saying? So predictably, the only time we find him quoting anyone worth quoting, we find he quotes just tiny slivers of what they say and doesn't tell the reader that on the critical issue under discussion they actually all disagree with him. This is a typical Turkel tactic. Who contradicts Turkel right along the line. Quelle surprise!
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Jul 20, 2011 17:27:00 GMT
Fortigurn, I take it that you don't believe in either original sin or trinity. Would you be an unitarian? Correct, a Unitarian of the kind which holds to the virgin birth, and rejects the doctrines of the pre-existence of Jesus, the immortal soul, penal substitionary atonement, and a supernatural 'satan'. See here for some historical antecedents. What do you think of the UU?
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jul 20, 2011 20:08:34 GMT
To return to your post then and answer your questions.
1. I take it you are referring to the probable truth or falsity of a proposition. I don't think that the probable truth of a proposition depends upon the probable truth of alternative propositions, as if truth were the kind of thing that could be parcelled out in that way. Te my mind, a propositon is in general, either true or false, depending upon whether it corresponds to reality. The issue is determing whether it corresponds to reality or not.
2. Agnostics might take you to task over this. Your example is ambiguous. Prevaricating over whether to marry someone is not the same as deciding not to marry someone. Eventually a decision has to be made, unless the other person takes it out of your hands. Practically, the outcome is the same, but the pyschology is different.
A person who does not believe in God may or may not be in the same pyschological position as someone who believes there is no God, I don't know. I think that too much is made of the distinction to be honest. The same person can make both statements as far as I can see. I know I have, but the one statement expresses the same truth as the other. I could say both that I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and that I believe there is no Loch Ness Monster. One entails the other.
It is I think, just one of those oddities of language, that negative statements can take different propositional forms. There seems to be no equivalent for positive statements - I believe in the Loch Ness Monster = I don't believe the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. But no one would say that would they.
3. Yes,I agree. But you are talking about practical decisions here, not beliefs. However, I agree that we often form decisions on the basis of the best available evidence.
4. A person can be certain of something on very little evidence, and uncertain of something even though the evidence is overwhelming. You mention faith again. In my view, faith is irrelevant when it comes to deciding the probability of the truth of this or that proposition. If something is true, it is true. Where does faith come into it? One discovers what is true by examing the evidence. You seem to be sayingy that I am seeking a greater degree of certainty than is available. I almost sounds tome as if you are accusing me of being too dogmatic in my views. But that's ok.
Let me ask you, are you not convinced of the truth of Christianity? If you are, is that not dogmatic too? Does your certainty go beyond the available evidence? Evidence plus faith = certainty? And if you are not certain of the truth of Christianity, why not? Is it that the evidence is not sufficient, and you just know that faith does not add one iota of difference to the likelihood of it being true? Because it doesn't, and I am sure you know it doesn't. I just have difficulty with this notion of faith - and I think I always have. Of course, it may be the case that God deliberately makes the evidence ambiguous to make room for faith, and that faith is very valuable to God - and maybe He decided that when he was dishing it out, that he wasn't going to give me any. I have prayed for years and years for the gift of faith, and at the end of the day, the heavens have remained silent. So' okay, maybe he isn't there after all. Maybe Dawkins is right, and believers are completely and utterly deluded. So let me assure you UnklE, I am not an atheist because I WANT to be. The mystery of the universe, to me, is the real engine that drives faith - as Wittgenstein said, not HOW the Universe is, but THAT it is, that is the real wonder.
I like classical music. Particularly Mozart. The music captures something of the sheer unexpectedness of being alive - a wonder that goes beyond dogma and anti dogma, theism and antitheism. Existence is wonderful and terrifying, it fills you with happiness and breaks your heart at the same time. Mozart, the genius, captures all that. The nearest I have EVER come to a religious experience - listening to Mozart.
I didn't embrace atheism willingly. I still don't. I fought it, my god I fought it!. I wanted so badly for there to be a god, and eternal life, and a happy ending. But that would have required faith, but I just don't have it in me! I just don't.
I said earlier that I studied Philosophy. I fell in love with Plato at college. I have all his dialogues, and a shelf full of academic studies. I love the allegory of the cave - are you familiar with it? I love the idea of the Form of the Good. It is a notion that I find emotionally and up to a point, intellectually satisfying. I think that Christianity took Plato's Form of the Good, and combined it with Jewish Monotheism - but to be honest, I think I just prefer the Form on it's own. I could very easily be persuaded that the universe exist solely because it is GOOD THAT IT EXISTS, and that it emanates from some ultimate Source of Goodness without combining that notion with the idea that the ultimate reality is in any way personal.
Enough confession already.
I read your link. Thanks for that - very interesting. It reminds me of the distinction that Antony Flew made between reasons and causes. It is the case that people become disenchanted with religion due to negative experiences, and it may be just that which sets them on the road to questioning theitr own beliefs. But as I said earlier, one just has to be as honest and self aware as one can be. I have no more respect for the unreflective atheist who is simply reacting to a bad experience and no more, than for the religious fundamentalist. I mean, just because some Christians are s***s is not evidence that Theism is wrong, any more than some atheists might be s***s is an argument against atheism. When the argument reaches that level we might as well pack up and go home!
I won't be posting for a few days as I will be away, but I look forward to your response when I get home.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 21, 2011 3:05:41 GMT
What do you think of the UU? A waste of time. In seeking to please everyone, they ended up committing suicide. Source. There are plenty of similar articles available which tell the whole sorry story.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 21, 2011 8:57:16 GMT
I think this point is settled. Thanks again for the discussion, hawk - I feel I have taken several points as far as I wish, so will just pick up on a few .... Your background in philosophy makes you more rigorous than I tend to be, I'm sorry. I think I am probably using strength of conviction as a measure of epistemic certainty. So I understand you to describe yourself as lacking belief rather than having disbelief = agnostic/"weak atheist". As such, I'd expect you to be equally critical of those who have strong belief or strong disbelief. But when I watch the comments you make about those who have belief, it seems to me that you are more critical of belief than you are of disbelief. So I feel a little confused - but then, I sometimes speak more definitely that I actually believe also, so I can accept that. I don't see how any of that prevents the evidence being direct. Perhaps we have different definitions - I use it to mean measuring the thing you are after. So if you tell me you are an atheist I regard that as direct evidence of your belief, whereas drawing conclusions for your posts is indirect. Likewise, hearing God speak, feeling him heal, or seeing his incarnation is direct, looking at his creation is indirect. I base this on three facts. (1) Textual experts confirm the NT is far better attested than any other document of comparable age. (2) Many historians of all persuasions (I have quotes by Bart Ehrman, James Charlesworth, Marcus Borg and others) say that we can know as much about Jesus as any person of his time. (3) When historians as diverse as Michael Grant, EP Sanders, NT Wright and others list what they believe is virtually certain about the life of Jesus, they come up with very similar lists which cover most elements of his life. I can give quotes and references if you like. I didn't really understand your argument here at all, I'm sorry. It seems simple to me. We have a bunch of questions which we want to answer. When I consider everything, I find the reasons to believe are much stronger than the reasons to disbelieve (though I recognise both); the evidence is better explained by one set of answers than by any other. I thought that was what I was doing. I agree completely. When testing the hypothesis that God exists, the biggest reason to reject it is evil. But when testing the hypothesis that no God exists, it is meaningless, because evil can only have a subjective meaning. So it is a problem for believers, but an unsupportable argument for unbelief. Even if we reduce the problem to suffering as you suggest, the same argument applies - why should we worry about suffering (except our own) unless we have an ethical reason to do so? I'm sorry hawk, but I think you have drawn an adverse conclusion based on proof texting, poor exegesis and the apparent natural propensity of unbelievers to only look at the verses they think makes a case, and not at other contrary verses or the passage as a whole. Here is the first part of the passage (Romans 1:18-20): 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.1. You will notice that Paul does not say (as you accuse him) that unbelief leads to condemnation, he says quite clearly that "godlessness and wickedness" is what is condemned. This sin leads to suppression of the truth, another sin. When he gets to the part you quote (v20), he has already established their guilt, and is now explaining why they cannot plead ignorance - because they have enough information to know better i.e. to know the moral code and the rightness of obeying it. So to repeat, it is not unbelief that is condemned in this passage, but wrong behaviour. 2. Later Paul amplifies this, in two ways: G od “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. (Rom 2:6-8) 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Rom 2:14-16) Again it is clear that the punishment is for bad behaviour. Those who are ignorant of the truth will be judged by their behaviour just as those who know the truth are. There is no punishment in this passage for those who don't know the truth about God. It is not atheists who are 'without excuse', but people who commit evil and suppress the truth. I am obviously not God (whew! I'm glad we established that!), but I would say the biggest problem for atheists is if they suppress the truth - which some do, but other don't. 3. This is fair, for most atheists, including you in your post, acknowledge that you know right and wrong every bit as much as we christians do. So you are just as responsible to obey that code as we are. So I suggest you read the whole passage, and then choose another one that actually says what you want it to say, if there are any. But this one doesn't support what you say. I'll leave it there. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jul 21, 2011 17:59:50 GMT
I think this point is settled. I don't see how any of that prevents the evidence being direct. Perhaps we have different definitions - I use it to mean measuring the thing you are after. So if you tell me you are an atheist I regard that as direct evidence of your belief, whereas drawing conclusions for your posts is indirect. Likewise, hearing God speak, feeling him heal, or seeing his incarnation is direct, looking at his creation is indirect. Hearing God speak or being healed is only direct evidence for the believer - not for anyone else. The unbeliever would ask "how do you know it was God speaking to you?" The believer cannot use that as an argument for God's existence until they establish God's existence on other grounds. Mental wards are full of people who have a direct line to the Almighty. In any event, many religions have as their source a founder who claimed that God spoke to them. How are you going to decide who is right and who is wrong? Mohammed, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Moses, Jesus - they cannot all be right can they, but they can all be wrong. As for healings, people leave crutches at Lourdes. To the best of my knowledge there are no glass eyes or false limbs. Show me someone with an ew arm or leg, I might reconsider, ut otherwise, forget it. Virtually certain? The most that they have been able to come up with is that Jesus was some kind of prophet - so what? How does that make God's existence any more likely? As for historical evidence that Jesus was God incarnate - or rose from the dead - what evidence? Not even the early followers of Jesus were agreed on his divine status, and they were much nearer in time than we are. Non beleivers don't have to accept your theory that objective morality depends on God. Anyone watching a child die of starvation knows that what is happening is an evil - and all they need for that is the human and universal evolved sense of sympathy. The converse of what you are saying is that if God does not exist then that would be an "inconvenience" as you put it. Hiroshima would be an "inconvenience", as would the Nazi death camps. Do you honestly believe that those things are only evil because God exists? Suppose though you arwe right about that. Then these things would be evil, horrendously evil, and existing in a world created by a good God, who has the power to prevent such things. Many atheists were once believers who became atheists because of the discrepancy between what they believed about God and what they saw happening in the world. People like me. So we took our teachers at their word and said "Well, if there is a god, and he allows this, then he must be evil himself, or else he doesn't exist at all". Theism falls apart under the weight of it's own contradictions. [/quote] Strange - it's not my proof text. It is a popular Catholic one. By the way, the Catholic church does teach that it is possible to know for a certainty that God exists without divine revelation, and this is one of the pasasages they use in support of that teaching. Section 1, chapter 1 (111) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says "God..can be known with certainty, from the created world by the natural ligth of human reason". Romans 1 19, 20 - according to The Oxford Bible Commentary, this passage shows that for Paul, "the problem is not that God is unknowable - it is that humanity does not want to know God" I nowhere said that unbelief leads to condemnation - my point was that Paul is expressing in very strong terms that God can be known from the creation - "his invisible power and godhead are CLEARLY SEEN FROM THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE.." That's a cosmological argument if ever I saw one. Paul's argument is that it is moral corruption that leads to unbelief. He would no more have accepted that there was such a thing as honest intellectual disbelief than Queen Victoria could accept that there were such creaures as lesbians. No, if there was unbelief, it had to be a result of moral failure. He would not have spoke of atheists anyway. Christians were accused of atheism because they believed in only one god. When Paul refered to unbelief, it was not atheism he had in mind. It was people of other relgions. And they were unbelievers because they did not believe in the one true God Had Paul been around now, he would no doubt have said exactly the same thing with reference to contemporary atheists, in much the same way as many modern Christians do, that we cannot be atheists really, it must be an excuse so we can misbehave! Given his views in Romans 1:19.20, I am confident he would have said that modern atheists too, were without excuse. I was drawing an inference from what Paul said, not engaging in dodgy exegesis. I'm better than that. There is a similar thing going on in the Psalm that says "the fool has said in his heart there is no God". The thought here too, is the idea of the suppression of the truth so that the fool can live immorally - at least according to the Psalmist. The link between unbelief and immorality is consistent throughout the Bible. Hosea calls the unfaithful Israelites a "harlot" "whoring after other gods". Nice eh? So there you have it, if you don't beleive in the one true God, you are an unbeliever, a harlot, corrupt, blinded, but, as Paul said WITHOUT EXCUSE!
|
|