God and morality

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't usually respond to personal attacks. However, in this case there is a philosophical reason that I feel needs to be aired.

If a person asserts that I don't understand metaphysics, but never demonstrates a clearer understanding through their own reasoning, then I have not been given a substantive reason to regard their understanding as clearer than mine.

I believe that is a reasonable and respectful statement.

I gave you two excellent resources that you can use to upgrade your skills in a way that would be necessary if you want them to match your ambitions.

You don't have the education yet to have a big discussion. Those resources would give you a basic grounding.

It's up to you to take the offered help. I am not debating with you here, this is just remedial education.

You have made up your own idea about what metaphysics is and then decided you are too good for metaphysics. You need to understand what metaphysics actually is before you could possibly understand how wildly wrong you are. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a resource you can use to remedy your own misinformed opinion. It is a much more reliable source than I am. Your AI buddy was surely trained on it.

This is an entirely reasonable and respectful enough response. Go do some learning before you start boasting.

[Immanuel Can]

And this is exactly why you're wrong. Consequences still obtain. There are consequences in the here-and-now, for certain; the man who steals will still end up doing damage to his own character, an insult to his God, and a stint in jail. Nothing changes, so far as that is concerned. And while he cannot lose his eternal soul, God promises specifically that he will loose reward and honour in the next life, too. So there are consequences in the afterlife, in which each Christian believes fervently.

There are numerous levels to the responses I gave you that you missed due to the classic Protestant (Luther-like?) hard-headedness.

Ummm...no, I pointed out the Biblical standard, actually. I didn't invent it. Neither did the Protestants. And even the Catholics have it in their Bible, too...though it needs to be read to be useful, and Catholicism discourages that, especially among the laity.

"Complicity" is a Woke nonsense word, which assumes the existence of "systemic injustice" and (ironically) some objective standard which the "system" with which people are thought to be "complicit" runs afoul of. But they can never explain where that essential objective standard can be derived from, since they don't believe in objective truth or objective morals.

They also are never able to tell you what "privileges" that "the system" is supposed to afford, that fall to men and not to women, or to blacks and not to whites, or, in this case, to Protestants and not Catholics. Legally, at least now and in the West, all are given official equality; and if any "privilege" falls to any, it's to the visible minorities, today.

We have moved beyond a discussion on the topic of Europe,

Have "we"? I must have missed that. I'm still interested in your "save European civilization by way of re-Christianization" argument. It seems to me highly problematic...and not genuinely a Christian proposal, if I might say.

In this I agree with Dawson: Christian religion, Christian meditation (the spiritual practice of prayer etc.) and Christian ethics and social philosophy and practice, can and does produce a renewal, a regeneration of what had degenerated.

There it is, in a nutshell. That's the thesis I'm questioning. So we haven't "moved beyond" it at all. You still believe it, apparently.

If you really take the idea of the practice of Christian ethics (and Catholic social teachings) to their further point, our lives and our cultural relationships would necessarily be radically transformed.

There it is, again. But there are so many problems with that assumption, that we can hardly bypass it without comment.

We might well ask, why was Catholicism's first run at religious totalitarianism such a failure? After all, it gave rise to the Reformation, and then to Secularism, among other things. How can we not ask, "What was wrong with Catholicism or its program, that it failed to hold the West?" That's a very reasonable question, I would say. And it's never been more pressing than now to ask it.

As Paul puts it, writing to Christians specifically, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit." (Gal. 6:6-8)

Again, my reading of you, your general philosophy, your political stances, and your “social philosophy”, leads me to precisely the conclusion I have expressed here: You do not understand the implications in that bit of theology. You understand it conventionally however.

Great.

Tell me how you "understand" it. I'll listen.

There are a lot of fakes out there...as there always is, for any good thing. There are always knock-offs, imitations, cheap copies, and frauds galore. The only sure way to know is to use the Biblical standard -- not to make stuff up.

That is a valuable statement. And its implications, for those genuinely interested, would require being thought through.

Go ahead. I'm listening.

[Fanman]

Quite frankly, people are entitled to think whatever they want, but when the user does not engage with my reasoning and instead attacks me on the basis of competence, without demonstrating competence on the subject themselves, I am under no obligation to accept their statements as having veracity. The refusal to engage with someone on the basis of competence does not function as an explicit refutation of their position. And citing authorities without correctly identifying where they refute said position also does not constitute a refutation.

Refutations should be the currency of philosophical critique, not personal attacks and personal undermining. In my view, the user's comments constitute a reluctance to put their own reasoning on the philosophical table (that is what is occurring). I don't have that problem. It's not arrogance or boasting; it's called confidence in myself, and I believe that confidence is justified.

Unfortunately, this discussion has become personal. I try to avoid that, but with some people, like Flash, you just have to show them that you're capable of standing up to them and challenging their posture. I've stepped into the proverbial arena, Flash. Let’s see if you are all you're making yourself out to be.

[FlashDangerpants]

FFS.

In my experience, metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical.

The logical problem is that this is a metaphysical claim. Or more specifically, it is a meta-metaphysical one.

The other problem is that it is an extremely arrogant and sweeping claim. You lack much sense that you would benefit from any caution at all. I think you would benefit from a lot more scpeticism regarding your own capability.

If we claim something is metaphysical, it usually collapses into another subject, such as religion, spirituality, or esotericism.

This is also a metaphysical claim.

I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong, other than that I would expect any "meta" thing to be about some other thing, that goes with the meta- territory after all. That doesn't justify a proclamation of "collapse".

Consequently, when someone claims to be a metaphysicist, from my perspective the label carries no more practical meaning than witch or wizard.

This is a self defeating argument, because it is entirely dependent on metaphysical claims.








This shit is too easy. You aren't sophisticated enough to challenge me and demand satisfaction. I am giving you fair and reasonable advice about how to improve, mainly because I would rather that people who are willing to spend time arguing with Immanuel Can shouldn't lose to an idiot like that. The stuff I point out above is within even his ability because it is extremely obvious.

So ideally you should become too capable to make such rookie mistakes. That can only happen after your arrogance has taken a ding and you have realised that you have much to learn. From humans. You have been using AI chatbots to tell you that you are right about stuff, and that hasn't done you any good at all.

I'm sorry if you think I should treat you as an equal, or even a threat, but it just isn't that way. It would take quite a lot of improvment on your part for any of that to be possible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ummm...no, I pointed out the Biblical standard, actually. I didn't invent it. Neither did the Protestants. And even the Catholics have it in their Bible, too...though it needs to be read to be useful, and Catholicism discourages that, especially among the laity.

My dear IC, I certainly recognize that you refer to the NT, and I definitely understand how Christianity, and Protestant Christianity, arrives at its interpretive models. However, I need to remind you that this is a philosophy forum, and we naturally examine things, to the degree we can, by way of philosophical lenses and methods. Going further: The 'Christian world' of theologians and philosophers -- exegetes -- have carried a great deal of the Christian impetus much further forward than may be of concern or interest to you. So, 'Biblical Standard' is unquestionably relevant, perhaps crucial, but I suggest that exegesis is rather more open.

[Side note: daily reading of the Bible is encouraged in the Catholic Catechism. You earn 'point' by doing so. That 'by the way')

"Complicity" is a Woke nonsense word, which assumes the existence of "systemic injustice" and (ironically) some objective standard which the "system" with which people are thought to be "complicit" runs afoul of. But they can never explain where that essential objective standard can be derived from, since they don't believe in objective truth or objective morals.

I assume that *complicity* could very well be a 'woke word' if used by someone thinking and analyzing in that mood or with 'woke' ideas. But I assure you I do not use it in that specific way. And here again you show your blind spot, your determined thinking. Allow me to illustrate with an example.

Recently, the US president, has used language of annihilation in his threats to Iran (and I suppose the larger world). That language implies mass destruction, the destruction of a civilization in fact. And it also implies and suggest the use of nuclear bombs to achieve that end of annihilation. If in that context -- the Israeli led war against Iran or the US-Israeli led war against Iran -- the entirety of the Protestant Christian world and the entirety of the Catholic world does not immediately condemn and protest that initial threat, the language, the connotation, the use of nuclear weapons, the entire Protestant Christian and Catholic world is thoroughly complicit in the sense I mean (and clearly defined).

Now, it you and anyone accepts that this is language of madness and yet you or they or *we* say nothing about it, we are 'complicit' in a grotesque moral negligence which is far more consequential than any minor 'sin'.

Do you understand the point?

Right. If you do you will THEN be able to proceed from one concrete example to other examples, and perhaps examples of far lesser consequence.

And this is, of course, the area of the point that I made, which flies over your head.

They also are never able to tell you what "privileges" that "the system" is supposed to afford, that fall to men and not to women, or to blacks and not to whites, or, in this case, to Protestants and not Catholics. Legally, at least now and in the West, all are given official equality; and if any "privilege" falls to any, it's to the visible minorities, today.

Factually, in Catholicism as in Judaism, there is now and there always has been and there will continue to be an emphasis on issues of 'social justice'. I am simply repeating a known fact. And FYI there is a very strong emphasis in Catholic social teaching and doctrine that delves substantially into the issue and has some sensible things to suggest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Go ahead. I'm listening.

"Obstinacy makes it impossible for a man to hear...for all that he has ears."

[Alexis Jacobi]

Have "we"? I must have missed that. I'm still interested in your "save European civilization by way of re-Christianization" argument. It seems to me highly problematic...and not genuinely a Christian proposal, if I might say.

I think Dawson's 'proposal', written in 1960 and published in a series of small books touching on religious and spiritual themes, encapsulates an ideal picture and proposal of a sincere and committed Catholic. But you (a reader here) would have to be somewhat familiar with his other historical works. You would have to at least entertain and possibly to agree with his analysis that Europe is or was a Christian civilization. And that there is such a thing as 'cultural Christianity'. That is to say *admixtures* that are not the pure form you visualize. But you do not. The reasons are that you are, in your way, monomaniacal. An Evangelical fanatic. And you are entitled to be so and to think and express your views as you do.

If you are asking ME about renovation, recuperation, restructuring, recovering foundations (in Europe and in America) and other such things, I do not and I will not respond exclusively from a Christian or a Catholic posture. And if I were, say, talking to a Catholic authority I would say exactly the same. What I can say, and what I do stress, is that the Christian matrix is valuable and important, and that when its achievements are compared to other cultural religions (take Hinduism as an example) the level of philosophical and moral depth in Christianity pales what I have come across in that other tradition.

I must have missed that.

You miss so much, IC!

and not genuinely a Christian proposal

I do not have a 'proposal' per se. I have a good number of *interests* and some ideas about what needs to be protected and conserved. And then of course I have my own (inner) life which is another thing.

[Fanman]

Flash,

I stated: In my experience, metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical.

Flash replied: The logical problem is that this is a metaphysical claim. Or more specifically, it is a meta-metaphysical one.

My response: Can you please explain in more detail what that means, or point me to the SEP citation or moment in your video that does?

Flash continued: The other problem is that it is an extremely arrogant and sweeping claim. You lack much sense that you would benefit from any caution at all. I think you would benefit from a lot more scpeticism regarding your own capability.

My response: Another personal attack. No response necessary.

I stated: If we claim something is metaphysical, it usually collapses into another subject, such as religion, spirituality, or esotericism.

Flash replied: This is also a metaphysical claim.

My response: I disagree. And I don't see any reason to re-explain what I stated; it is a clear epistemological claim. Please explain why you think it's a metaphysical claim; you can use your citations to help you.

Flash continued: I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong, other than that I would expect any "meta" thing to be about some other thing, that goes with the meta- territory after all. That doesn't justify a proclamation of "collapse".

My response: Okay, but that is effectively a self-refuting statement. Here's why: You're arguing against your conclusion. If metaphysics is about some other thing, as you put it, I think that's the gist of what you're saying. That necessarily means that it collapses into other subjects, as I plainly stated. Now, I'm not claiming that's a fact; it's an observation based on years of philosophical engagement and discussion. You can't reasonably ignore my experience as data while claiming that your perceived knowledge is valid. The asymmetry would make the discussion arbitrary on your behalf.

I stated: Consequently, when someone claims to be a metaphysicist, from my perspective the label carries no more practical meaning than witch or wizard.

Flash replied: This is a self defeating argument, bcause it is entirely dependent on metaphysical claims.

I replied: It's not an argument; it's a strong opinion. Can't you tell the difference? You don't have to agree with it, but you should understand it's an opinion because you can't argue with it or refute it. When I said from my perspective, that set the frame (it was the qualifier ).

I continue: Also, I would note that my closing question:

However, I could be mistaken. If I am, can any of the interlocutors provide a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer?

was not engaged with, and even though you cited the SEP and provided a YouTube video apparently supporting your so-called position, you yourself did not cite where the SEP citation supported your personal critique or where the YouTube video supported your personal critique. Therefore, your actions do not amount to a refutation. When I read the conclusion on the SEP you cited (yes, I read the conclusion), I didn't see anything that refuted or supported my position; and when I watched the video (yes, I watched some of the video), I didn't hear anything that refuted my position either. So, perhaps YOU can show me where your citations support your 'position' and completely refute mine.

Flash stated: This shit is too easy. You aren't sophisticated enough to challenge me and demand satisfaction. I am giving you fair and reasonable advice about how to improve, mainly because I would rather that people who are willing to spend time arguing with Immaneul Can shouldn't lose to an idiot like that. The stuff I point out above is within even his ability because it is extremely obvious.

So ideally you should become too capable to make such rookie mistakes. That can only happen after your arrogance has taken a ding and you have realised that you have much to learn. From humans. You have been using AI chatbots to tell you that you are right about stuff, and that hasn't done you any good at all.

I'm sorry if you think I should treat you as an equal, or even a threat, but it just isn't that way. It would take quite a lot of improvment on your part for any of that to be possible.

My reply: I won't be engaging with this ridiculous level of hubris, sorry, Flash; that is your domain. Mine is confidence.

[FlashDangerpants]

ridiculous level of hubris

erm...

[Fanman]

ridiculous level of hubris

erm...

Flash,

If that is the calibre of your response to my detailed post, I don't think there is much value in us attempting to discuss philosophy together.

I am here to talk about ideas, arguments, and reasoning. I believe the record shows that I am not here to give personal opinions about other forum users or try to diminish them based on what I believe about them.

Our exchange has shown me that we are not operating on the same wavelength, and that's perfectly fine. I think the best path is for us to avoid engaging with one another in the future.

Proverbially, we are chalk and cheese.

Good luck, mate.

[Gary Childress]

What is a Christian?

I don't know what a Christian is, so I couldn't tell you what a Christian is. Do you know what a Christian is, and if so, (in your own words), what is a Christian?

I take it, IC, that your answer would be that a Christian is someone who follows Christ's example or "imitates" Christ and believes in everything that Christ said and did. Is that correct? Or, if I am mistaken, where in my synopsis of your view am I mistaken?

And if the above synopsis is correct, is it possible for someone to be a "Christian" but not believe that Christ was God? Rather, such a person believes that everything Christ said and did is the right way to say or do and tries to follow Christ's example, with the only exception making the two different, is that s/he doesn't think Christ was God.

[Gary Childress]

IN SIMPLE TERMS, METAPHYSICS ASKS

What is reality, at its deepest level?
What does it mean for anything to exist?
How does everything hang together?

Questions that are apparently beyond human capacity to know the answers to (especially if there's no God). Now what?

The disco!

How about we come up with an answer to those questions and then fight anyone who doesn't agree with our answer?

[Immanuel Can]

I take it, IC, that your answer would be that a Christian is someone who follows Christ's example or "imitates" Christ and believes in everything that Christ said and did. Is that correct? Or, if I am mistaken, where in my synopsis of your view am I mistaken?

Nope. In a broad sense, you're right on the money. There are a few caveats, but I won't trouble you with them unless you're interested.

The beginning is faith: "without faith, it is impossible to please God," says the Word. So personal belief in Christ as Saviour, not the example or the imitation, and certainly not trying hard (Eph. 2:8-9) is the gateway to becoming a Christian. Effort follows from salvation, of course; but it never leads.

...is it possible for someone to be a "Christian" but not believe that Christ was God?

Is it possible for somebody to become a "friend of Gary" while believing that Gary is, say, a 5'4" Chinese female? To be in a relationship with somebody, don't you have to know who they are?

[Impenitent]

Is it possible for somebody to become a "friend of Gary" while believing that Gary is, say, a 5'4" Chinese female? To be in a relationship with somebody, don't you have to know who they are?

I have been a friend of Bill's for over 38 years, but I've never met him...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

I take it, IC, that your answer would be that a Christian is someone who follows Christ's example or "imitates" Christ and believes in everything that Christ said and did. Is that correct? Or, if I am mistaken, where in my synopsis of your view am I mistaken?

Nope. In a broad sense, you're right on the money. There are a few caveats, but I won't trouble you with them unless you're interested.

The beginning is faith: "without faith, it is impossible to please God," says the Word. So personal belief in Christ as Saviour, not the example or the imitation, and certainly not trying hard (Eph. 2:8-9) is the gateway to becoming a Christian. Effort follows from salvation, of course; but it never leads.

So if I were a Christian and then I lose my family in an earthquake and become so devastated by the event that I lose faith in God, will God hold it against me? Will God condemn me to Hell for no longer being a Christian?

...is it possible for someone to be a "Christian" but not believe that Christ was God?

Is it possible for somebody to become a "friend of Gary" while believing that Gary is, say, a 5'4" Chinese female? To be in a relationship with somebody, don't you have to know who they are?

I have friends that the only things I truly know about them are only things that I encountered while around them or heard them speak of themselves. Can I not be friends with them unless I know every detail, or at least the most salient details about their life that I don't encounter or hear about?