Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I on the other hand am an Avatar from the realm of spiritual experience, and through the will of Unfathomable Grace I descend through layer upon layer, including academic and rational layers of limiting perception, and lay the bright orange & yellow Marigolds of Awareness upon a dark stone lit by a resplendent ray of piercing light.

Small thanks I get …

[Belinda]

I think that the belief that God exists and is good is a very useful heuristic device for helping to stop wars and injustice.
Capitalism and the profit motive taken to excess is more likely to be a main cause of crime and bad mental health than is belief in a good God.

That is a self-inflicted lobotomy with programming from three thousand years ago still addressing the same population of three thousand years ago; it is not helpful. Belinda, do you believe there is such a thing as religious insanity? That is what I infer, the Koran is an outstanding example of, but they are all degrees of popular insanity. Christianity itself is soaked in the blood of innocence.

You are partly right of course. What do you understand by weaponising of a religion?

[Immanuel Can]

The Koran is a recipe book for creating psychopaths, with very explicit instructions to kill the unbelievers.

As a matter of fact Jihad is firstly for making oneself a better person...

You really believe that, don't you? In spite of all that Islamists do in the name of Jihad, you still prefer to believe their PR line, that this is about "personal struggle"?

Tell that to the dead at the Bataclan. Tell it to the dead of the twin towers. Tell it to stabbing victims in central London. Tell it to the girls of Rotherham.

[Immanuel Can]

“You can’t evaluate a religion on the basis of some ethical criteria that in the end amounts to your own religious stance” (Keller 12.) "When a Russian cosmonaut returned from space and reported that he had not found God, CS Lewis responded that this was like Hamlet going into the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare" (Keller 122.)
For the answers, read the book. It will enlighten your opinions.
Keller, Timothy, (2008,) The Reason for God, Belief In An Age of Skepticism, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Why can't you evaluate a religion on the basis of your ethical criteria?

Because secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.

How else are you supposed to evaluate it?

You can't, obviously.

So all a secularist can do is pretend his preferences are actual, objective moral criteria, and use them, the imaginary criteria...even though his own worldview does not permit any, and nobody has any reason to accept his.

But he shouldn't be surprised if he is ignored. After all, his own worldview tells him no moral criteria are anything but somebody's prejudices.

[Immanuel Can]

The basis of philosophy of religion is?

The basis of philosophy of religion is?

Sociology.

Then it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.

[popeye1945]

That is a self-inflicted lobotomy with programming from three thousand years ago still addressing the same population of three thousand years ago; it is not helpful. Belinda, do you believe there is such a thing as religious insanity? That is what I infer, the Koran is an outstanding example of, but they are all degrees of popular insanity. Christianity itself is soaked in the blood of innocence.

You are partly right of course. What do you understand by weaponizing of a religion?

People with differing imaginary friends/Gods have been killing each other since time immemorial. Are you looking for other patterns? If you can explain the slaughter of the battling religions in any other way, I am all ears.

[Belinda]

You are partly right of course. What do you understand by weaponizing of a religion?

People with differing imaginary friends/Gods have been killing each other since time immemorial. Are you looking for other patterns? If you can explain the slaughter of the battling religions in any other way, I am all ears.

You explain the weaponising of religions as I asked. I could do no better.

Religions don't weaponise themselves. People weaponise religions. People also use religions in the interests of peace. I trust you don't need anyone to give you examples of the use of religion in the interest of peace.

[Belinda]

The basis of philosophy of religion is?

The basis of philosophy of religion is?

Sociology.

Then it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.

Yes , a matter of cultures. Except religious myths are not delusions but narratives. Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.
Religious codes of conduct are not delusions but are different ways men maintain social control.
Religious rituals are not delusions but like other rituals are the main means of bringing individuals together in a society.

Our notions differ, Immanuel, in that you believe that God voluntarily revealed religion to men, but I believe that religion is an aspect of human culture. This why we each like the Scriptures but interpret them differently.

[Belinda]

“You can’t evaluate a religion on the basis of some ethical criteria that in the end amounts to your own religious stance” (Keller 12.) "When a Russian cosmonaut returned from space and reported that he had not found God, CS Lewis responded that this was like Hamlet going into the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare" (Keller 122.)
For the answers, read the book. It will enlighten your opinions.
Keller, Timothy, (2008,) The Reason for God, Belief In An Age of Skepticism, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Why can't you evaluate a religion on the basis of your ethical criteria?

Because secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.

How else are you supposed to evaluate it?

You can't, obviously.

So all a secularist can do is pretend his preferences are actual, objective moral criteria, and use them, the imaginary criteria...even though his own worldview does not permit any, and nobody has any reason to accept his.

But he shouldn't be surprised if he is ignored. After all, his own worldview tells him no moral criteria are anything but somebody's prejudices.

Ethical criteria are not imposed upon men by any supernatural authority. Ethical criteria are those criteria that have been found by men to work for peace and/or prosperity.

[Alexiev]

“You can’t evaluate a religion on the basis of some ethical criteria that in the end amounts to your own religious stance” (Keller 12.) "When a Russian cosmonaut returned from space and reported that he had not found God, CS Lewis responded that this was like Hamlet going into the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare" (Keller 122.)
For the answers, read the book. It will enlighten your opinions.
Keller, Timothy, (2008,) The Reason for God, Belief In An Age of Skepticism, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Why can't you evaluate a religion on the basis of your ethical criteria?

Because secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.

How else are you supposed to evaluate it?

You can't, obviously.

So all a secularist can do is pretend his preferences are actual, objective moral criteria, and use them, the imaginary criteria...even though his own worldview does not permit any, and nobody has any reason to accept his.

But he shouldn't be surprised if he is ignored. After all, his own worldview tells him no moral criteria are anything but somebody's prejudices.

You have repeated this silly point over and over. The notion that subjective opinions are nothing but prejudices is ridiculous. I decide what movies to see by reading critiques; I decide what restaurants to patronize by reading reviews; I vote for candidates based (in part) on reading editorials and op.eds. What's wrong with that?

A good critic explains the bases for his critical opinions. A "prejudice" is a preconceived opinion not based on evidence or reason. Not all subjective opinions are "prejudices". A secular (or religious) moral philosopher is a critic. He bases his opinions on cultural norms, basic moral principles (like do unto others), and general good will toward his fellows. The principles on which his moral philosophy is based have been tested by time, approved as societal norms, and vetted by other critics, both religious and secular.

Are you suggesting that a literary critic who prefers Jane Austen to Georgette Heyer is merely "prejudiced"? Can't he support his opinion with reasoned, logical arguments based on evidence? Of course a "preference" is "subjective" -- but how is that a bad thing?

Also, Christian moral philosophy is inevitably subject to interpretation and subjective reasoning. How could it be otherwise? Torquemada thought Christianity not only justified but demanded the torture and burning of heretics. Was his opinion objective or subjective? It was certainly based on reason and biblical admonitions. The problem with it was that it ignored basic moral principles of kindness and charity. The certainty with which Torquemada approached his faith -- feeling his beliefs were "objective -- justified his actions. If he had been less self-assured -- if his faith had been less robust -- he never would have defied common sense, general norms, and kindness. The same, of course, can be said of political fanatics (like the Communists you deplore). Their faith justifies their actions (supposedly). Doubt -- I'd suggest --is the beginning of wisdom. "And now I give you these three, hope, faith, and love. But the greatest of these is love." Both secular and Christian moral philosophers can (subjectively) agree. Those fundamentalists who prioritize faith are in error, as the parable of the sheep and the goats clearly demonstrates.

[Immanuel Can]

Sociology.

Then it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.

Yes , a matter of cultures. Except religious myths are not delusions but narratives.

Narrative just means "story." Nothing more.

Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.

What's your evidence for "nobody can possibly know..."?

Religious codes of conduct are not delusions but are different ways men maintain social control.

That just means that they're delusions that serve somebody's power-grabbing interest. Haven't you read Nietzsche?

Religious rituals are not delusions but like other rituals are the main means of bringing individuals together in a society.

Like sacrificing virgins to the Aztec gods, you mean? Yes, that does bring people together, alright. And one or two, it takes apart.

I believe that religion is an aspect of human culture.

Then it's a delusion.

You can mince words, but you can't change the reality.

[Immanuel Can]

Why can't you evaluate a religion on the basis of your ethical criteria?

Because secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.

How else are you supposed to evaluate it?

You can't, obviously.

So all a secularist can do is pretend his preferences are actual, objective moral criteria, and use them, the imaginary criteria...even though his own worldview does not permit any, and nobody has any reason to accept his.

But he shouldn't be surprised if he is ignored. After all, his own worldview tells him no moral criteria are anything but somebody's prejudices.

The notion that subjective opinions are nothing but prejudices is ridiculous.

No, it's what is called a "synonym." I can see you're irritated, but I think that's because you sense we're on the verge of a truthful realization here. But let me explain.

We can play with nomenclature; we can call it "subjective opinion," or "taste," or "preference," or "gut feeling," or "momentary disposition," but what "prejudice" captures much better is the element of taking received moral precepts that are (according to subjectivism) merely subjective, and treating them as if they had some sort of objective force. It's passing a "judgment" before one has any grounds to justify that judgment. And if that doesn't amount to "prejudice," then I'd say probably nothing can.

I decide what movies to see by reading critiques; I decide what restaurants to patronize by reading reviews; I vote for candidates based (in part) on reading editorials and op.eds. What's wrong with that?

Morality is not like taste in movies -- mine, yours, or the critics'. If it is not grounded in some reality, then it has no authority, no power, no obligatory force...it can, and should be, simply disregarded.

Nietzsche got that.

A "prejudice" is a preconceived opinion not based on evidence or reason.

Yes. So what "evidence" or "reason" can you produce for even one moral precept? Just one. Any one. You can pick it. But show why anybody at all is obligated to agree with it.

Are you suggesting that a literary critic who prefers Jane Austen to Georgette Heyer is merely "prejudiced"?

No. I'm suggesting he's dealing with mere matters of taste, not matters of morality at all. Taste can neither be right nor wrong...but morality always requires both.

Torquemada thought Christianity not only justified but demanded the torture and burning of heretics.

No, I don't think he did. I think he just wanted to do it, and found it convenient to invent a pseudo-religious rationale to do it. But you won't find he had any basis in Scripture. He was just making stuff up.

Of course, you might be referring to Torquemada in the hopes of invoking a case we'll all agree that he did something wrong. But if his opinion on the subject was subjective, and yours is subjective, then is torturing "heretics" actually right or wrong? What's your "reason" and "evidence" that you're right, and he wasn't?

The problem with it was that it ignored basic moral principles of kindness and charity.

What's the "reason" and "evidence" you use to inform yourself that "kindness" and "charity" are good, and Torquemada was bad?

You see, even subjectivists can't help trying to smuggle back into the discussion value judgments for which they can explain no warrant. Alexiev does not like torture. Torquemada did. What is the arbitrating authority that ought to compel us to agree with Alexiev and not with Torquemada?

The certainty with which Torquemada approached his faith -- feeling his beliefs were "objective -- justified his actions.

You're guessing. Neither you nor I knows his motive. If his faith was really focused on objective realities, he surely should have compared his own actions to Scripture and discovered he was not "loving his enemies" or "praying for them" by torturing them.

Did he know about the Biblical view? Probably. We might guess he did. Maybe he didn't. But he certainly didn't care, if he knew; and he wasn't looking to it for any instruction about what he was doing. His actions prove that.

But given that Atheists have killed far, far more people than all the religious in the world combine, throughout the entirety of human history, what's your assurance that they are in a more "moral" position?

Doubt -- I'd suggest --is the beginning of wisdom.

I agree. Doubt is very good, so long as it does not merely decay into brainless cynicism, but rather provokes proper questioning.

"And now I give you these three, hope, faith, and love. But the greatest of these is love." Both secular and Christian moral philosophers can (subjectively) agree.

But again, why do you believe they should agree? And if they don't, what makes one of them bad?

[Belinda]

Then it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.

Yes , a matter of cultures. Except religious myths are not delusions but narratives.

Narrative just means "story." Nothing more.

Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.

What's your evidence for "nobody can possibly know..."?

Religious codes of conduct are not delusions but are different ways men maintain social control.

That just means that they're delusions that serve somebody's power-grabbing interest. Haven't you read Nietzsche?

Religious rituals are not delusions but like other rituals are the main means of bringing individuals together in a society.

Like sacrificing virgins to the Aztec gods, you mean? Yes, that does bring people together, alright. And one or two, it takes apart.

I believe that religion is an aspect of human culture.

Then it's a delusion.

You can mince words, but you can't change the reality.

Yes, narratives are stories.

Nobody can possibly know which stories are the more true, because nobody has ever lived outwith a specific culture of beliefs and ideas.

Social control is a two-way relationship between the governed and the governors.

What do you think religious rituals are for?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes , a matter of cultures. Except religious myths are not delusions but narratives.

Narrative just means "story." Nothing more.

Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.

What's your evidence for "nobody can possibly know..."?

Religious codes of conduct are not delusions but are different ways men maintain social control.

That just means that they're delusions that serve somebody's power-grabbing interest. Haven't you read Nietzsche?

Religious rituals are not delusions but like other rituals are the main means of bringing individuals together in a society.

Like sacrificing virgins to the Aztec gods, you mean? Yes, that does bring people together, alright. And one or two, it takes apart.

I believe that religion is an aspect of human culture.

Then it's a delusion.

You can mince words, but you can't change the reality.

Yes, narratives are stories. Nobody can possibly know which stories are the more true,

Again, what is your evidence that convinces you that this is the case? How did you arrive at this settled confidence about what everybody can know?

What do you think religious rituals are for?

You'll have to ask somebody who cares to defend them. I don't.

[popeye1945]

People with differing imaginary friends/Gods have been killing each other since time immemorial. Are you looking for other patterns? If you can explain the slaughter of the battling religions in any other way, I am all ears.

You explain the weaponising of religions as I asked. I could do no better.

Religions don't weaponise themselves. People weaponise religions. People also use religions in the interests of peace. I trust you don't need anyone to give you examples of the use of religion in the interest of peace.

The order of the questions and answers seems a bit chaotic