Ask a Christian Theist

[Daniel Lezcano]

That's very gracious of you. Do you do this for all religions?

Firstly, by all appearances, you seem to be free of the emotional issues that distort the type of atheist I have spoken of (not that atheist must always be wrong if writhed by emotion, but it is extremely difficult for any man to trust his logic when emotional.) I truly appreciate your views and questions, as they reflect honesty and objectivity.

For the most part I do, though your question reveals an inconsistency in my philosophy based on my biasness towards my own values. That is to say, I don’t see myself putting much serious effort into the quest in question if it were say, to alleviate disdain towards Mormonism; all though, it is important to note, it’s unlikely you might find a person that takes it seriously enough to hate in the first place. Still, even that statement reveals my biasness. However, at the end of the day, they too should receive respect for their beliefs.

That's your problem, or was. I have no contempt for anyone who believes in some sort of spiritual element to the universe. I happen not to 'believe' myself, for the reason I have already given, but many people who I have profound respect for do, or did.

Everything I have observed in you thus far indicates that much; I agree.

Since you admit to delusional episodes, is there anything you can tell me about your current state of mind that will persuade me that it is not also delusional?

No sir there is not … It is the nature of true delusion to not be able to identify it as such, but I believe a man can at least acquire an experientially derived, and therefore educated sense of when it might be the case. That could be argued to be the essence of maturity – knowledge derived from experience = wisdom?

Furthermore, I believe the nature of delusion, and man’s apparent propensity for falling victim to it is why Socrates said, “All I know is that I know nothing.” However, it has always baffled me that he said that, yet thought so much of the principle of integrity that he sacrificed his life for it – if a man believes he knows nothing, then why sacrifice your life because, “you must do no wrong even in return for a wrong.” The best I can make of it is that, since we can know nothing, just choose your delusion and give life your best shot. Of course there is the fact that we can’t be sure of much when it comes to the historical Socrates.

Can you cite the source of this quote?

Sure, here’s a quote from, http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... VJX1PV4AAA

“Then Dawkins got to the part where he calls on the crowd not only to challenge religious people but to "ridicule and show contempt" for their doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist, which Catholics believe becomes the body of Christ during Mass.”

Challenging religion is perfectly fine, but Dawkins, often enough displays the kind of emotional issues I speak of; along with many atheists I have come across (but not all of them!)

Who are you talking about?

That answer should be more apparent now.

Apart from being a hyperbolic literary device, worship doesn't mean anything outside of religion,

I can go along with that to some extent, but, as defined by the Merriam dictionary, 1 of 4 definitions does not involve a deity; rather, it involves an object of esteem.

Worship – 4. extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>

and there is no such thing as the scientific method. The closest to it is empiricism, which can be boiled down to your hypothesis is supported by experimental data, or it is wrong.

That works for me … but it doesn’t change the fact that a scientist is to remain objective at all costs, and for the reasons I go on to stated – however, poorly I expressed it, that’s what I meant ... "Nowhere in the scientific method is a place for resentful emotionalism, because science recognizes the distorting psychological effect it has on rationality. Therefore, only a fool thinks his logic is trustworthy when fueled by emotionalism."

but even I can tell you that logic is valid or it isn't; emotion has nothing to do with it.

I agree, but that’s a different distinction. Emotionalism does not make it impossible to arrive logically to any given conclusion, but a man cannot trust the conclusion as readily as a man who remains objective. So if you will think it this way, emotionalism decreases the chances of reaching rational conclusions. Thus it works against the scientifically minded man. (all men for that matter)

Well, since we are talking logic, perhaps you could explain how that follows.

I will try and put an argument together, but that I think will deserve its own separate post; so look for it next.

That there are confusing and conflicting ideas about which way to go is just symptomatic of the fact that no one knows for sure, and rather than put all your eggs in one basket, as 'religionists' do, it is better to be open minded.

The religious close their mind to what atheists believe, and atheists close their mind to what religionists believe. It is a strange paradox, that often, that which offends us we in some way become. I think the concept of “open mind” probably deserves its own post as well; be it a very complex concept.

But maybe not in your case, you appear to indeed be rather open minded. Still, to state it is better to have an open mind is a massively philosophical state. There are many paradoxes and brick walls of contradiction one will run into when really delving into what it means to have an open mind.

Perhaps you can put an argument together that proves it is better to have an open mind and we can then discover some of the issues I am talking about.

That's precisely the mistake that scientists seeking to support a particular conviction make. What people usually fail to understand is that the same empirical evidence can support different, and sometimes mutually exclusive hypotheses. If you believe that god created the world, then the fact that there is a world supports that belief, but it doesn't make it true.

Very well: you point at the fact that believers that believe they are experiencing God may simply be experiencing a parlor trick of the mind. However, this level of experience would be like a properly basic belief; the experience is so real that one finds no reason to neither doubt it nor try to prove it empirically … kind of how you feel about the reality that comprises your being … you are alive, you are here now, you can feel you, you can hear you, you can even see you … but you cannot prove you.

Again, I truly appreciate your careful consideration of my points ... peace.

[Daniel Lezcano]

On your last point, “the origin of the universe is a mystery, what it is made of and how it works are too. Science can describe in fantastic detail what happens, but, at the fundamental level, to what and why it can only hypothesise,” – that’s one reason why I deduce it more rational to believe in God then to not.

Well, since we are talking logic, perhaps you could explain how that follows.

A. Foundational argument:

1. If a rationally minded man opts for the best most fulfilling world view based on perceivable evidence.
2. But in no way does any perceivable evidence indicate absolute truth.
3. And at best a man can only really attain a properly basic belief.
4. Then therefore, it follows that reality, comprising of the origins of the universe, the universe itself, and everything that can be experienced in that universe, is indeed a mystery.

B. If foundational argument is sound:

1. Since we can’t absolutely know anything.
2. And atheism proposes that there is only that which one can experience within their lifetime, and that at no time can a man experience anymore then the extent of human power = naturalism.
3. And if the believer proposes that God is omnipotent and benevolent, therefore has the power to do anything and wants to use that power for our sake = supernaturalism.
4. Then the man that chooses naturalism is choosing profoundly less of an existence then the man who chooses supernaturalism; he is choosing a finite and limited reality (if the premises are correct, that would be irrational.)
5. Therefore, it follows that it is more rational to choose supernaturalism.

This argument is basically the way man reasoned about this subject in more "primitive" times I realize; however, the only way to really refute the argument is to maintain the premise that indicates - we do in fact know thing now ... I'm not so sure that premise can be correct; though it accurately reflects what the secular culture wants to believe.

LOOK … I am not a formally trained philosopher, though I start my first class in January! (I have always been a philosopher at heart though.) So my attempt to develop a formal argument may be feeble indeed. My use of certain terms may lead to problems with the argument, it’s an extremely broad subject, and therefore likely deserves a longer argument... etc. etc., and I need a lot more education, but for now that’s what I got.

In any case, I hope to learn from any willing to offer insight on this.

[attofishpi]

For all I know, there may be something godlike behind it all, but to accept that it is god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost as described by christianity is intellectually feeble.

Why?

[Arising_uk]

Because she was only joking when she made Man.

[attofishpi]

Since when was making a joke (that is funny) intellectually feeble?

[uwot]

What happened to this bit?

Will you agree to retract that statement if i prove to you that it is not intellectually feeble?

Never mind.
Well, since the majority of human beings do not reach that conclusion, by far the most likely cause amongst the people that do is that they are simply taking someone else's word for it.

[uwot]

Daniel
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Good luck with your philosophy course, I think you will enjoy it.
A lot of what you say suggests you will quickly get into Alvin Plantinga, if you haven't already. I've not read much of his stuff, and I'm sure I'm doing him a disservice, but from what I know, he appears to have made a successful career and life rewriting Pascal's wager, and fair play to him.
I'm not going to go through all your points, if there are particular issues you would like me to address I shall do so, but I would like to comment on Richard Dawkins. I wasn't there so I don't know the context, but there are people on both sides of the debate who fully deserve ridicule and contempt. I don't think Dawkins is one of them, but he has been the target of a great deal of unpleasantness. I suspect he would, and possibly did, qualify what he said; he is too sharp to be so crude.

[Ginkgo]

On your last point, “the origin of the universe is a mystery, what it is made of and how it works are too. Science can describe in fantastic detail what happens, but, at the fundamental level, to what and why it can only hypothesise,” – that’s one reason why I deduce it more rational to believe in God then to not.

Well, since we are talking logic, perhaps you could explain how that follows.

A. Foundational argument:

1. If a rationally minded man opts for the best most fulfilling world view based on perceivable evidence.
2. But in no way does any perceivable evidence indicate absolute truth.
3. And at best a man can only really attain a properly basic belief.
4. Then therefore, it follows that reality, comprising of the origins of the universe, the universe itself, and everything that can be experienced in that universe, is indeed a mystery.

B. If foundational argument is sound:

1. Since we can’t absolutely know anything.
2. And atheism proposes that there is only that which one can experience within their lifetime, and that at no time can a man experience anymore then the extent of human power = naturalism.
3. And if the believer proposes that God is omnipotent and benevolent, therefore has the power to do anything and wants to use that power for our sake = supernaturalism.
4. Then the man that chooses naturalism is choosing profoundly less of an existence then the man who chooses supernaturalism; he is choosing a finite and limited reality (if the premises are correct, that would be irrational.)
5. Therefore, it follows that it is more rational to choose supernaturalism.

This argument is basically the way man reasoned about this subject in more "primitive" times I realize; however, the only way to really refute the argument is to maintain the premise that indicates - we do in fact know thing now ... I'm not so sure that premise can be correct; though it accurately reflects what the secular culture wants to believe.

LOOK … I am not a formally trained philosopher, though I start my first class in January! (I have always been a philosopher at heart though.) So my attempt to develop a formal argument may be feeble indeed. My use of certain terms may lead to problems with the argument, it’s an extremely broad subject, and therefore likely deserves a longer argument... etc. etc., and I need a lot more education, but for now that’s what I got.

In any case, I hope to learn from any willing to offer insight on this.

The main problem I see is that your statements rely heavily on the term "reason"

As Hume points out, "It is not contrary to reason to wish the destruction of the whole world upon the scratching of my little finger."

"Reason is a slave of the passions."

[Arising_uk]

Since when was making a joke (that is funny) intellectually feeble?

Never, especially when it makes its point about the intellectual feebleness of patriarchical gender assignment to 'Gods'.

[attofishpi]

What happened to this bit?

Will you agree to retract that statement if i prove to you that it is not intellectually feeble?

Never mind.
Well, since the majority of human beings do not reach that conclusion, by far the most likely cause amongst the people that do is that they are simply taking someone else's word for it.

Yes, bit of wishful thinking on my part.

So why is the christian notion of God the father, God the son, and God the holy ghost\spirit NOT intellectually feeble?

As i have stated all along, God is ALL - everything, all matter, sub atomic particles, all dimensions, all reality. Hence God is the emanating force behind everything, our Father. God is also the son and the ghost\spirit that pervades everything. His statement - 'I am the light' rings even more true now that physicists are understanding the complexities of sub atomic particles.
He is also the pig, goat, you, me, etc, etc...

[uwot]

So why is the christian notion of God the father, God the son, and God the holy ghost\spirit NOT intellectually feeble?

You were on a hiding to nothing really. It isn't the idea of the trinity that I think is feeble, rather it is the uncritical acceptance of it. Religions generally try to answer three questions: Where does the world come from? What is it made of? How does it work? That Christians fetishize the material world, anthropomorphised into the body of Christ, is weird, given the efforts to accommodate Platonism and the disdain expected for your own bodily functions. Still, the idea that there is just one thing that has different properties takes a leap of imagination, since the world doesn't look that way. I don't know if it's true, but some versions are anything but feeble.

[jackles]

The father is nonlocality the son is nonlocality as conciousness to the event and the holy ghost is nonlocality.

[uwot]

The father is nonlocality the son is nonlocality as conciousness to the event and the holy ghost is nonlocality.

Jackles, me old plum pudding; nonlocality is simply the word that some physicists give to events that happen faster than light could have caused them. Generally this is attributed to 'entanglement'; the idea that particles that have been separated retain some physical attachment, rather than what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". God the father is more yer Big Bang, or 'Cosmic Egg' described by Georges Lemaitre, the Belgian priest who came up with the idea. God the son is all the matter created, and god the holy ghost is the forces acting on them. We're still trying to answer the same questions; where did the world come from? What is it made of? How does it work? But frankly, it as much of a mystery as ever, although the current scientific ideas are a bit more complicated.

[jackles]

Well uwot you just aint understanding nonlocality. Nonlocality is spooky action across space as in timespace. Time is omni present to everything so its omni present as the time in the spooky action. As in no time no action. Spooky action is time without space. Time with out space is times status befoe the big bang. Cant understand why you cant see it. May be you just dont want to ya brain that is.

[uwot]

Sounds like we've been listening to different physicists. Yours take a fairly hardcore instrumentalist approach to nonlocality, but a realist view of time. My brain's a bit unruly sometimes; maybe that's why I take pretty much the opposite stance. Who knows though?