Languish's church attendence

[grumbler]

Yes you can say that. Shooting down the argument from design doesn't disprove god, it merely conclusively removed it as an argument for the existence of god. Basically before 1859 you could argue that the giraffes neck was proof of gods existence because it must have been designed by a mind. Darwin showed that you don't need to get a designer to get diversity of species.

The watchmaker god idea wasn't related to argument from design.  The watchmaker god idea was that the mere existence of the watch implies a watchmaker.  I'd say that the watchmaker god concept was mostly invalidated by the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang theory.

[Sheilbh]

Moderates are the levees in their own self declared defensive war on religion when the nutjobs are under attack.

Typical extremist attacks on the via media

[Viking]

It is a copout for the simple reason that the idiocy of the incomprahensability argument necessitates the end of inquiry. Inquiry itself becomes impious. It is the little brat claiming that the majesty of his calculations are such that they are incomprehensible to the teacher so the teacher must just accept his answer to be true.

I'd say it's the intellectual equivalent of 'render unto Caesar'.  Inquiring greatly into the nature of God isn't terribly helpful, or plausible because of the incomprehensibility of God as a concept.  I think this is one of the very attractive features of Islam.  With Christianity there is Christ who is God that we can grasp towards comprehending because he's fully man, but beyond that saying you can comprehend God is like saying you can comprehend infinity.

So incomprehensibility is an end to inquiry into the nature of God and replaces it with, as I say, a sort of humble wonder.  But it doesn't end inquiry in to anything else.

The thing here is that Islam fell prey to occasionalism which renderd all inquiry pointless. Just imagine the scientific paper which has to include as possible sources of uncertainty the uncomprehensible will of god and you might understand the problem here.

Asserting the incomprahensability of god is absurd when you at the same time assert that there are things that are comprehensible viz your won religious dogma. You can't assert that so much did god love mankind that he sent his only begotten son to die so that those who belive in him shall be granted eternal life while at the same time claiming that his ways are mysterious. It is in effect asserting that your conclusions are true and refusing to answer any questions apart from repeating your own assertions. It is intellectual servility.

Furthermore the religious actually do believe that he is good and omnipotent, without those beliefs their faith is pointless. Claiming that god is neither good and/or ominpotent contradicts all abrahamic religions.

That's not what I'm claiming.  What I said was that good and omnipotent are human terms.  If they are true of God then they are on such a cosmic scale that we cannot comprehend them.  What can 'good' mean when discussing God.  Therefore the only way to appropriately use those terms is to use them in such a way that distances us from them, that makes us aware of how alien they are when applied to God.  Thus God is not not good.  This isn't contradictory to Abrahamic faith, it's an argument and phrases from early Greek Orthodox theologians and has been used by others.

Again, when you can't explain something you claim incomprehensability, then you assert other things about god. You are basically saying that the description of god uses words that don't mean what they usually mean. Your religion falls apart at that point you are basically saying that there is no connection between the meaning of the words used and the content of the message. You cannot assert that some parts are incomprehensible and other parts are clear and obvious without some way of differentiating between the two.

[Viking]

Yes you can say that. Shooting down the argument from design doesn't disprove god, it merely conclusively removed it as an argument for the existence of god. Basically before 1859 you could argue that the giraffes neck was proof of gods existence because it must have been designed by a mind. Darwin showed that you don't need to get a designer to get diversity of species.

The watchmaker god idea wasn't related to argument from design.  The watchmaker god idea was that the mere existence of the watch implies a watchmaker.  I'd say that the watchmaker god concept was mostly invalidated by the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang theory.

The mere existence of the watch implies the watchmaker because the watch needed making. The making of the watch is the miracle. The Big Bang does not suggest that there is no god nor is it an argument against design. When the pope first heard of the big bang he was very happy because it had a beginning and was in that sense consistent with the bible unlike the steady state universe which the big bang theory superceded. The big bang actually opened up for a return of design in the form of guided evolution. God created the giraffe with a long neck by setting the fundamental constants of the universe at the time of the big bang etc.

So, no you are wrong.

[Iormlund]

Is it the indoctrination itself that bothers you, or are you just concerned over the values with which they happen to be indoctrinating their kids?

Instilling morals at an early age is a natural mechanism. We all need to learn to live in society and the basic rules are pretty much the same all over the globe. Don't steal, don't murder and so on.

But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?

[Barrister]

  Well I didn't think you'd actually admit it.

I do carry the courage of my convictions.

You remind me of a friend of mine from university.  He was an evangelical, but he also loved a good rip-roaring debate where he'd refuse to give an inch.  Which meant he loved to argue why evolution was wrong.

At the time I was studying geology.  So a couple of times I wanted to argue how zircon dating had pretty conclusively shown the world was a hell of a lot older than 5000 years.  But do you think I could get him to debate zircon dating?  Of course not - he'd always go back to what he knew, which was evolution.

It's not about preferring to argue with fundamentalists over liberals, but rather the fundamentalists are honest. They stand their intellectual ground and argue with conviction for what they believe to be true.

You don't know what the arguments against more liberal christian theology are, so you just call us "intellectually dishonest" because you'd prefer to argue about biblical literalism.   

I called the act of ignoring the death penalty for shrimp cocktails intellectually dishonest. The act is intellectually dishonest not the person. The person might be doing it honestly. The liberal christian theologian that preaches the virtue of crab sticks is intellectually dishonest.

The podcast "The history of philosophy without any gaps" just had an episode on Philo of Alexandria who was the first liberal (albeit jewish) theologian for anybody interested in the topic. I highly recommend it.

The issue with the liberal theologians is that when confronted with an obvious untruth or immorality in the bible they call it allegorical or symbolic or spiritual asserting that what the bible says is not what it means. Then the make their own assertions, usually using som monstrously convoluted logic, that could have been cut and pasted from the relevant branch of philosophy.

What I don't understand is how the liberal theolgian knows which passages are true and which ones are allegorical. I don't understand how he can assert that he who belives in him shall be granted everlasting life is true but the shellfish bit isn't.

Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

[Viking]

Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.

This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh's transformation into a proper adult central-right middle classer is fun to watch

[Valmy]

But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?

Critical thinking capabilities?  So around 35 or so?

[Valmy]

What I don't understand is how the liberal theolgian knows which passages are true and which ones are allegorical. I don't understand how he can assert that he who belives in him shall be granted everlasting life is true but the shellfish bit isn't.

I think the answer is obvious.  They all are allegorical.  Otherwise it makes no sense.

[Viking]

What I don't understand is how the liberal theolgian knows which passages are true and which ones are allegorical. I don't understand how he can assert that he who belives in him shall be granted everlasting life is true but the shellfish bit isn't.

I think the answer is obvious.  They all are allegorical.  Otherwise it makes no sense.

How can you be sure the answer isn't "They are not true. Otherwise the world would be completely different." ?

[Iormlund]

But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?

Critical thinking capabilities?  So around 35 or so?

If only.

[DGuller]

Instilling morals at an early age is a natural mechanism. We all need to learn to live in society and the basic rules are pretty much the same all over the globe. Don't steal, don't murder and so on.

But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?

To be fair, to paraphrase Arthur Mitchell, if you let children do what they want, they'll eat boogers all day.  Children don't have the thinking skills to do what they need to do when they need to do it.

[grumbler]

The mere existence of the watch implies the watchmaker because the watch needed making. The making of the watch is the miracle.

I don't see the making of the watch (i.e. the existence of the universe) as "needing a miracle."  It just needed a maker, since no one could explain the existence of the watch absent a watchmaker.  That was precisely the "watchmaker god" concept.

The Big Bang does not suggest that there is no god nor is it an argument against design. When the pope first heard of the big bang he was very happy because it had a beginning and was in that sense consistent with the bible unlike the steady state universe which the big bang theory superceded. The big bang actually opened up for a return of design in the form of guided evolution. God created the giraffe with a long neck by setting the fundamental constants of the universe at the time of the big bang etc.

You are making my argument back at me, claiming that it disproves my argument! 

The watchmaker god theory wasn't based on the argument by design.  What the Pope says about the Big Bang Theory, and the discovery of evidence for it, isn't relevant.  The evidence to support the Big Bang Theory mostly invalidated the "watchmaker god" concept because it gave a reason for the watch's existence that didn't require a watchmaker.

So, no you are wrong.

  I can't be "wrong," since my statement was

I'd say that the watchmaker god concept was mostly invalidated by the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang theory

and I'd still say that.  Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what I would say!  I reserve that right to myself.  Maybe you can find someone that accepts your diktats as to what they can say.  Good luck with that. 

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh's transformation into a proper adult central-right middle classer is fun to watch

I've always been a Blairite ultra and I still am.  The only change is that I don't believe in Europe any more and I've moved from a cultural Catholicism to an actual Anglicanism.