Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2026 3:10 pm
I don't think that's at all true, either. There are many reasons people choose to believe what they believe, and often these reasons are not rational. However, lots of people here do not believe mere Materialism. And I might add, without giving away too much, that unbeknownst to you, I have been told by others that they have been persuaded by the argument, as well: so how many of these there are, neither you nor I can say, but we can certainly say your claim that Materialism is overwhelmingly persuasive isn't true. For those who pay attention and think, it seems that Materialism is not such an amazing option after all.
Perhaps you perceive that I am defending a strict materialist orientation, and therefore you begin to rehearse rebuttals? That is certainly not the case. Also, you are avoiding responding to the most relevant part of the argument I present: the Christian story, indeed the Hebrew story, though highly relevant in the revelation of
meaning and
value, is tethered to a pictorialism that is largely unbelievable. I gather that it is impossible for you to understand the ramifications of this, or to acknowledge children’s storybook tales that have functions, naturally, but cannot be reconciled with our dominant science- and materialism-based epistemological systems.
The fact is that I am not asking you to acknowledge this because in rigid belief-systems that leads to crises of faith. Nor am I nor would I ask of you or anyone to sever their ‘conceptual pathway’ or their pictorialized metaphysical systems which, as Weaver points out, enable those grand ‘metaphysical dreams’ which are the vehicles for living meaningful lives.
The purpose I established was to attempt to get clear(er) about what “evil” actually is, and how the notion of it can be explained through metaphysics, since it is a meaningless term within Nature.
You have it set up strangely, IC. It’s you, the genuine and chemically-pure Christian
against all comers. I do not think you can recognize the degree to which I ally with significant portions of your metaphysics or, perhaps, religious principles. So any opposition is interpreted as adversarial.
We have to remain within coherent frameworks: You directly say and believe that evil entered the world with the error and disobedience of that first couple. And I propose that that is a pictorial that really does not have explanatory value.
And I think I will remain with my core assertion: materialism (science method, technology, the description and understanding of natural events etc.) is nearly absolutely dominant and dominating, even among those who hold to, or perhaps cling, to faith-positions dependent on story literalism: as your example the one you cling to, the “original mating pair” whose names are Adam and Eve.
I am trying to get to the point where, possibly, a clearer metaphysical picture could be presented. I know that you cannot undertake this without cracking of your strict Christian story-picture, and yet my assertion is that it is inevitable.