|
Post by gnosticbishop on Sept 12, 2014 1:01:50 GMT
Can you force yourself to believe something you do not believe in? That depends on your idea of belief. If you have a modern, Protestant notion of belief, then only sincere belief would do, so then it's a no. But how is this pertinent? I didn't suggest to delude oneself. As to benefits, what are they and are they worth you discarding reason and logic for? The second part of your question makes it loaded. You are stating something that I never implied and that I in fact reject. Can you demonstrate that one has to discard these when one believes in a creator God? Some benefits: - Belief in a creator God avoids belief in an uncaused multi- or universe (problems of infinite regress), a self-caused multi- or universe (contradictory) or a multi- or universe mechanistically caused by an uncaused cause (on what variable does that depend?). - It offers a ground for ethics that extends beyond this mere universe and can connect these to our moral instinct, as a Creator could plan ahead so that we'd end up with the proper instincts. - Such belief can explain the narrow parameters for this universe to evolve in such a way to allow life. One might even venture the suggestion that such belief is almost rational! Logic and reason deal with facts.
Faith is belief without facts.
To say that all that we do not know we give to the God of the Gaps, if all were to believe as you do, would stifle research in many fields.
If for instance we had said that people die of a given disease at God's will then no one will investigate and find the cause and cure for that disease. This applies to your "belief in an uncaused multi- or universe" as well in that if we had given up what we thought of the big bang to a God of the Gaps, science would have stopped there.
Christianity tried to put there God of the Gaps everywhere and ushered in the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.
Go ahead and serve your God of the Gaps and put your brain in your own Dark Age if you like. I think it too high a price and would rather say I do not know to many things and keep logic and reason for the rest.
As to morals, secular law already makes biblical law look immoral and draconian. If you get your morals from the bible's genocidal son murdering God then you may as well study under Satan. He kills far fewer of us than God has promised to do.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Sept 12, 2014 7:42:14 GMT
Christianity tried to put there God of the Gaps everywhere and ushered in the Dark Ages
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Sept 12, 2014 14:16:42 GMT
No rebuttal or argument against is agreement or one not capable of formulating an argument.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Sept 13, 2014 19:56:10 GMT
GB, the concept of a "Christian dark ages" where rational inquiry was jettisoned in favour of blind dogma is (a) not not recognised by today's secular historians and (b) discussed *at length* in these boards and James Hannam's book (which I presume you're familiar with given that you've shown up on his forum). If this is your mindset then you're either dreadfully ill-informed or have so little critical thinking ability that the above photo is an entirely appropriate response.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 15, 2014 14:58:44 GMT
Logic and reason deal with facts.
Faith is belief without facts. I don't like to turn this into a semantic argument, but I don't agree with either of these statements. Keeping it analogous to your definitions, I prefer: Logic and reason deal with relations between statements and states and can only establish so many facts. Faith is belief in absence of deductive certainty. (So 'faith' would cover a lot of areas in my book.) You don't have to accept these, but do you think they are reasonable? To say that all that we do not know we give to the God of the Gaps, if all were to believe as you do, would stifle research in many fields.
If for instance we had said that people die of a given disease at God's will then no one will investigate and find the cause and cure for that disease. This applies to your "belief in an uncaused multi- or universe" as well in that if we had given up what we thought of the big bang to a God of the Gaps, science would have stopped there. Yes, "to say that all that we do not know we give to the God of the Gaps" indeed "would stifle research in many fields". Your error is in "if all were to believe as you do". I have never believed and definitely never have said anything like that. How did you even read that into it? A God of the gaps is an attempt to explain a physical phenomenon by attributing it to God. However, since the thing to be explained (the cause of the Big Bang) precedes the Big Bang, it is not observable and it strictly speaking isn't a physical phenomenon. The best that can be done is calculating what a multiverse can explain or surmising what a hypothetical theory of everything could explain. However, cosmology and philosophy have to share some of their turf here and theistic explanations can't be ruled out. I'm not sure what you intended to say about "belief in an uncaused multi- or universe", but in any case I do not believe in that. Christianity tried to put there God of the Gaps everywhere and ushered in the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. Eh, no it didn't. Did you get any of the two books I recommended to you? In fact, medieval Latin Christianity if anything put God squarely in as a Creator but rejected the idea that God would have to intervene all the time to keep the universe running. If anything, medievals chased the God of the gaps away. Go ahead and serve your God of the Gaps and put your brain in your own Dark Age if you like. I think it too high a price and would rather say I do not know to many things and keep logic and reason for the rest. Yeah, so this does not make much sense. As to morals, secular law already makes biblical law look immoral and draconian. If you get your morals from the bible's genocidal son murdering God then you may as well study under Satan. He kills far fewer of us than God has promised to do. Note that what I wrote was: I did not write that Biblical laws are the basis of our ethics. It was more modest: there are absolute moral standards. Here's one example: stoning homosexuals (whether for their homosexuality or simply as a form of capital punishment) is always immoral. Do you agree? If so, good, you agree with an absolute moral standard.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Sept 18, 2014 16:11:01 GMT
GB, the concept of a "Christian dark ages" where rational inquiry was jettisoned in favour of blind dogma is (a) not not recognised by today's secular historians and (b) discussed *at length* in these boards and James Hannam's book (which I presume you're familiar with given that you've shown up on his forum). If this is your mindset then you're either dreadfully ill-informed or have so little critical thinking ability that the above photo is an entirely appropriate response. Neither is the Inquisition.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Sept 18, 2014 16:22:42 GMT
Logic and reason deal with facts.
Faith is belief without facts. I don't like to turn this into a semantic argument, but I don't agree with either of these statements. Keeping it analogous to your definitions, I prefer: Logic and reason deal with relations between statements and states and can only establish so many facts. Faith is belief in absence of deductive certainty. (So 'faith' would cover a lot of areas in my book.) You don't have to accept these, but do you think they are reasonable? To say that all that we do not know we give to the God of the Gaps, if all were to believe as you do, would stifle research in many fields.
If for instance we had said that people die of a given disease at God's will then no one will investigate and find the cause and cure for that disease. This applies to your "belief in an uncaused multi- or universe" as well in that if we had given up what we thought of the big bang to a God of the Gaps, science would have stopped there. Yes, "to say that all that we do not know we give to the God of the Gaps" indeed "would stifle research in many fields". Your error is in "if all were to believe as you do". I have never believed and definitely never have said anything like that. How did you even read that into it? A God of the gaps is an attempt to explain a physical phenomenon by attributing it to God. However, since the thing to be explained (the cause of the Big Bang) precedes the Big Bang, it is not observable and it strictly speaking isn't a physical phenomenon. The best that can be done is calculating what a multiverse can explain or surmising what a hypothetical theory of everything could explain. However, cosmology and philosophy have to share some of their turf here and theistic explanations can't be ruled out. I'm not sure what you intended to say about "belief in an uncaused multi- or universe", but in any case I do not believe in that. Christianity tried to put there God of the Gaps everywhere and ushered in the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. Eh, no it didn't. Did you get any of the two books I recommended to you? In fact, medieval Latin Christianity if anything put God squarely in as a Creator but rejected the idea that God would have to intervene all the time to keep the universe running. If anything, medievals chased the God of the gaps away. Go ahead and serve your God of the Gaps and put your brain in your own Dark Age if you like. I think it too high a price and would rather say I do not know to many things and keep logic and reason for the rest. Yeah, so this does not make much sense. As to morals, secular law already makes biblical law look immoral and draconian. If you get your morals from the bible's genocidal son murdering God then you may as well study under Satan. He kills far fewer of us than God has promised to do. Note that what I wrote was: I did not write that Biblical laws are the basis of our ethics. It was more modest: there are absolute moral standards. Here's one example: stoning homosexuals (whether for their homosexuality or simply as a form of capital punishment) is always immoral. Do you agree? If so, good, you agree with an absolute moral standard. I do not agree. If in the Lord of the Flies, our gay friend would be stoned for the continued health of the tribe.
Keep looking though. You might find an absolute moral tenet that works all the time. There may be one out there. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few might be one.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 22, 2014 16:29:00 GMT
It is a prescriptive moral statement. That some loopy tribe somewhere might think otherwise is irrelevant. Or do you think it isn't always valid as a prescriptive statement?
I'd also like it if you could answer my other question in that post, but if you are short on time I'd just like to know what you think of The Beginnings of Western Science or God's Philosophers.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Sept 23, 2014 19:17:29 GMT
It is a prescriptive moral statement. That some loopy tribe somewhere might think otherwise is irrelevant. Or do you think it isn't always valid as a prescriptive statement? I'd also like it if you could answer my other question in that post, but if you are short on time I'd just like to know what you think of The Beginnings of Western Science or God's Philosophers. I would agree with God's Philosophers in part. How much I do not know as I have not read it. I did do so skimming though. I agree that the Dark Ages were dark and that they were not free of the odd bit of light.
"That some loopy tribe somewhere might think otherwise is irrelevant."
Not when it shows that morals are subjective and not objective.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 25, 2014 10:54:33 GMT
... How do you date the "Dark Ages"? Do you mean 500 - 1000 (properly the early Middle Ages) or 500 - 1500 (properly the Middle Ages)?
It shows that our opinions about ethics are subjective, but the usefulness of positing an objective morality is that it steps beyond "it's all subjective". Many perpetrators of genocide wouldn't consider genocide wrong, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Sept 30, 2014 19:59:34 GMT
... How do you date the "Dark Ages"? Do you mean 500 - 1000 (properly the early Middle Ages) or 500 - 1500 (properly the Middle Ages)? It shows that our opinions about ethics are subjective, but the usefulness of positing an objective morality is that it steps beyond "it's all subjective". Many perpetrators of genocide wouldn't consider genocide wrong, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Genocide against cancer cells in your body would be quite good. Subjective to you.
Genocide against cancer cells in your body would be quite evil from the cancers POV. Still subjective.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 2, 2014 8:13:39 GMT
...
And could you answer my question about how you date the supposed "Dark Ages"?
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Oct 5, 2014 0:02:14 GMT
|
|