How to respond to the "Expedite Heaven" argument from nonbelievers?

[Betterave]

It wasn’t until the 1960s that the Church rescinded the charge of deicide against the Jews as a people the charge which was a major factor in the cultural milieu that led to the atrocities.

Source, please?

I don’t find meaningful your distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘man’s distortion of it’ not (only) because I think all religions are man-made but because ‘religion’ intends simply a set of claims immune from criticism because they fall under the banner of faith…

And yet you criticize that which is immune to criticism… Either your view here is correct and you are wasting your time; or it is not correct and you are merely gratuitously insulting the intelligence/intellectual honesty of believers. Which do you think it is?

(FWIW, your view is clearly incorrect, therefore etc. …)

 

[Betterave]

why would God create (human) life in the form it takes? [WHY NOT?] Condemn us for our natural faults? [LIKE WHAT?] Allow a potential hell? [WHY NOT?] I think that your question stops short and other questions in a similar vein asked with enough persistence and an open mind will cut as Occam’s razor and–at the risk of sounding poetical–cut the trinity into a non-entity.

Why wouldn’t an all-loving, all-powerful god make (human) life in a different form?
As I addressed above, we are, on the aggregate, destructive and puerile, believing what we wish were so rather than what is so. Our base drives run contrary to (Christian/Catholic) norms of morality on almost every point. This doesn’t get into the myriad biological flaws that a competent engineer would remedy.

But this is clearly a one-sided view of human nature. We have just as basic drives correcting those that run counter to norms of morality. And perhaps you are simply blind to it, but there is a marvelous harmonious beauty that can be observed in biological mechanisms, not just ‘flaws.’

Why would an all-loving, all-powerful god not **contemn (?)**humans for possessing human nature?
It is, at best, strange for any god who had a hand in creating mankind to then make it a sin–without getting into the Euthyphro dilemma–more or less, to be human. Man is made curious and is commanded to not satisfy his curiosity and all his progeny is punished for one act that is so very human: satisfying (or trying to satisfy) curiosity.

This is pure straw man.
(Contemn or condemn?)

Why would an all-powerful, all-loving god disallow the existence of a place of perpetual torment?
It’s hard to sum this one up in a few brief sentences and for a fuller treatment I would recommend If Grace is True by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. It is contradictory, however, for a being capable of doing anything and with a desire–it would seem–to prevent as much suffering as possible (I’m hardly perfectly loving but I will forcefully assert that suffering is an objective bad and any love would remove or diminish as much as possible) to allow a place such as Hell or a being such as Satan–who as one pre-Vatican II phrase put is, is prowling the world for the ruin of our souls–to exist. At worst the gates of heaven must stand open and inviting for all the dead to come and try. This, however, stands opposed to the orthodox notion that the choice at death is an eternal one.

Nothing of substance here. The very simple point you ignore is that suffering is not intrinsically evil; suffering can be just and justice is intrinsically morally good.

 

[ThomasToo]

Source, please?

Here’s an article on the Vatican’s website about Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document in which the traditional belief was repudiated: vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-31_en.html. You can also read Nostra Aetate.

And yet you criticize that which is immune to criticism… Either your view here is correct and you are wasting your time; or it is not correct and you are merely gratuitously insulting the intelligence/intellectual honesty of believers. Which do you think it is?

(FWIW, your view is clearly incorrect, therefore etc. …)

I criticize that which others try to set up as immune to criticism, there is a substantive, meaningful and important difference. Surely you too do not simply accept everything you are told must be accepted with faith and disagree with, for a brief list, Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus. These too are claims built necessarily on revealed truth which necessitates faith but that doesn’t make them true.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Very interesting…

In short…The answer is “indulgence” in sin, as opposed to “sacrifice” in Faith.

 

[Betterave]

Here’s an article on the Vatican’s website about Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document in which the traditional belief was repudiated: vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-31_en.html. You can also read Nostra Aetate.

It seems that your charge that only in 1960 the Church “rescinded” her charge that the Jews collectively were responsible for deicide is inaccurate: the ‘traditional belief’ was repudiated, but not rescinded. The Church did not have any such teaching to rescind. As the article indicates, the popes have long been defenders of the Jews.

I criticize that which others try to set up as immune to criticism, there is a substantive, meaningful and important difference. Surely you too do not simply accept everything you are told must be accepted with faith and disagree with, for a brief list, Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus. These too are claims built necessarily on revealed truth which necessitates faith but that doesn’t make them true.

You had a typo then: you wrote “‘religion’ intends” where you should written “religious people intend”:

**I don’t find meaningful your distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘man’s distortion of it’ not (only) because I think all religions are man-made but because ‘religion’ intends simply a set of claims immune from criticism because they fall under the banner of faith… **

With the correction of your typo, your general claim is still simply false (again). The reason why religious people consider their dogmas to be immune from criticism is often because they believe they are true and that the truth is immune to criticism. That which is genuinely immune to criticism is nothing but the truth. My point is precisely that any claim can be criticized, so obviously I don’t “simply accept” everything. My faith seeks understanding.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Because our genes prompt us to want to survive at any cost, and this instinct is very strong in most people.

That’s the best explanation within the framework of a scientific methodology and satisfies the question from a physiological point of view. It would be an intellectually satisfying response if the question dealt with a base beast such as a dog. Unfortunately human beings are rational animals endowed with reason, volition, intellect, and consciousness of consciousness, so don’t be offended when many higher minded beings dismiss your obvious assertion as superficial, shallow, mindless, and inadequate. We are complex creatures and your answer reeks of simplicity.

I really wanted to focus on theistic existentialism in this thread, not have a discussion about the existential implications of atheism( ie despair), especially not with those whom may not even have the proper foundation for such a discussion.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

As I addressed above, we are, on the aggregate, destructive and puerile, believing what we wish were so rather than what is so. Our base drives run contrary to (Christian/Catholic) norms of morality on almost every point.
​

You’re brilliant. I’m not being facetious either. The caliber of your posts is remarkably higher than the average non-believer who comes here solely for the thrill of playing “bumper cars”. I’d love to have a discussion with you at a later time when I actually have the luxury of reflecting on “existence” rather than being forced to do the mundane activities required of existence. Yeah unfortunately I’m really busy right now and don’t have the time required to defend all the points I wish to make.

I will say this though (and sorry if you don’t get prompt response), the quotation above is precisely one of the reasons I abandoned by atheism. Why would a “man-made” religion deny the base drives of mankind? Such an elaborate fabrication as Catholicism could only be spawned by a schizophrenic. Have a great day and I hope you continue to challenge us here at CAF with your highly quality and well though out posts.​

 

[tonyrey]

Insofar as I think our earthly lives are all we will ever have I suppose you could say so in the way that uniqueness seems valuable in itself (and not just economically).

It was an atheist, Ernest Nagel, who pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. A person who argues that life is not valuable is inconsistent because he values his power of reasoning and his conclusion (that life is not valuable).

I am intentionally not responding to this question and respectfully request that you do the same or move this thread of the discussion to private channels.

This question is concerned solely with an analysis of what purpose is. It cannot be physical activity because it refers to the future. Foresight cannot be explained by biochemical activity restricted to the here and now: purpose belongs to a richer dimension of reality.

Why is it reasonable to say that these books over here were inspired by God but need not be taken to be literally true while these others, also inspired by God, must be taken to be literally true?

It is reasonable to believe the Gospels are literally true because they are historical accounts of the life, death and resurrection of the finest moral teacher known to the world. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are accepted in principle if not in practice not only by Christians but by all civilised persons.

Surely also you would grant that the Tanakh are also, although perhaps to a slightly lesser degree, the basis of Christianity.

The Tanakh are the basis of Jewish monotheism which foretold the coming of the Messiah and established the Law which He was to perfect but the true basis of Christianity is Christ whose revolutionary teaching led to His death and the persecution of his followers.

Thanatos is not so much the desire to kill as to destroy and, frankly, I don’t know that it can be escaped so much as sublimated into more useful affairs…

To sublimate presupposes the ability to control our urges and desires. What gives us this power of self-control?

Surely too, then, you would be willing to acquiesce to the involvement of Christianity in the Nazi mentality.

Most Germans, Christian or otherwise, were powerless.

So hope of heaven and fear of hell are all that keeps you, and Christians at large, from raping, murdering, pillaging and so on?

“are all” is an obvious exaggeration! Do you think everyone is going to behave decently if they are not faced with any prospect of reward or punishment? If they think how they live makes no difference to what happens to them when they die they are going to be more tempted. Why is there so much violence and corruption in human society? Because people think they can get away with it. If people believe they will inevitably get what they deserve and that being selfish is self-destructive they are more likely to do what is right. Christians do what is right for its own sake but everyone needs incentives to resist temptations.

I don’t find meaningful your distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘man’s distortion of it’ not (only) because I think all religions are man-made but because ‘religion’ intends simply a set of claims immune from criticism because they fall under the banner of faith and whether these religious claims were true or not they were undoubtedly religious just as Jonestown was even though we can all agree Jim Jones was not speaking truth.

If religions are manmade it is necessary to explain why they have the same fundamental beliefs, values, spiritual principles and goals. Even an online summary of “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley is enough to cast doubt on that theory.

The claims of a religion worth having are not immune from criticism but based on reason rather than blind faith. Why do think this forum exists?

So too, 9/11 was undoubtedly religion inspired violence even though, again, we can all agree the hijackers were wrong in their religious claims.

Why should religion be devoid of fanatics?

Without religion I find the world a far more inspiring and beautiful place than I ever did when I thought a god was at the bottom of it all.

You give no positive reasons why, whereas I have pointed out the negative consequences of the “This-is-the-only-life-in-the-darkness-of-eternity” theory. You obviously did not regard God as the Source of all life, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love.

The issue is simply whether **one **

Supreme Being is a more… intelligible… explanation than a multitude of atomic particles and physical laws…

Again, a repudiation of this claim required explanation of the nature of the physical laws at work and this is not the place for it. Also again, I respectfully ask you to drop this point or move it to private channels.

The nature of the physical laws at work does not come into the picture because that is a subsequent development. The issue is quantitative: the problem of the Many and the One. The multiplicity of particles and laws is less economical and less simple than One Supreme Being - as summed up elegantly by Kant:

“This highest formal unity, which rests solely on concepts of reason, is the purposive unity of things. The speculative interest of reason makes it necessary to regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme reason. Such a principle opens out to our reason, as applied in the field of experience, altogether new views as to how the things of the world may be connected according to teleological laws, and so enables it to arrive at their greatest systematic** unity**.”

 

[ThomasToo]

You had a typo then: you wrote “‘religion’ intends” where you should written “religious people intend”:

It was not a typo; can you please make meaningful the distinction between religion as such and the fact that is must necessarily be practiced (and organized) by people. Further, I wrote ‘religion’ to clarify the fact that I was discussing the word ‘religion’ not the phenomenon of religion.

With the correction of your typo, your general claim is still simply false (again). The reason why religious people consider their dogmas to be immune from criticism is often because they believe they are true and that the truth is immune to criticism. That which is genuinely immune to criticism is nothing but the truth. My point is precisely that any claim can be criticized, so obviously I don’t “simply accept” everything. My faith seeks understanding.

The truth is hardly immune to criticism, it simply stands up to it. The truth is, can and must be able to be questioned and examined and it will always resound in the face of that skepticism. Other claims, however, including many those of revealed religions are set up as immune from criticism in the sense that they are claims that must be taken on faith (that is, without evidence). Sorry for the–continued–confusion.

 

[ThomasToo]

You’re brilliant. I’m not being facetious either. The caliber of your posts is remarkably higher than the average non-believer who comes here solely for the thrill of playing “bumper cars”. I’d love to have a discussion with you at a later time when I actually have the luxury of reflecting on “existence” rather than being forced to do the mundane activities required of existence. Yeah unfortunately I’m really busy right now and don’t have the time required to defend all the points I wish to make.

I will say this though (and sorry if you don’t get prompt response), the quotation above is precisely one of the reasons I abandoned by atheism. Why would a “man-made” religion deny the base drives of mankind? Such an elaborate fabrication as Catholicism could only be spawned by a schizophrenic. Have a great day and I hope you continue to challenge us here at CAF with your highly quality and well though out posts.

blushes Thank you.

Pinning down exactly why man-made religions (as though there were any other sort but that does also raise the question of what Catholic teaching/y’alls thoughts are on non-Christian religions, were they Satan? God working in other means? Man-made?) are the way they are vis-a-vis our base drives with some arguing that it is just expansion of religion as a means of explanation, others that it was a means of social unity one strain of which (as practiced by a fortunate tribe of former slaves in the Middle Eastern desert about 4,000 years ago) had rather extreme norms of sexual behavior and others that all religion has been an attempt to control female sexuality. One of the easiest answer, it seems to me, is that it’s a simple power grab to tell people the things they want to do are evil and doom their eternal salvation unless they pay up either monetarily or otherwise. I have not made a study of the natural history of religious sexual ethics but would be happy to recommend a couple books on the natural history of religion as such that could prove more insightful that my half-remembered snippets of lectures long past.

The other is a bit more optimistic in that we would not want to have others enact their base desires on us and as such have enacted some form of what is codified in Christianity as the Golden Rule and by Kant as the categorical imperative. Then things got a bit out of hand and all sorts of safe, normal, healthy things were decried as sinful.

I appreciate the irony that you expressly call Catholicism as ‘an elaborate fabrication’ though I know that wasn’t your intention. I think 2000 years of retcons, technological/scientific advances and social advancement is more than enough to make any philosophy schizophrenic especially when great efforts are made to keep everyone inside the fold of orthodoxy.

 

[ThomasToo]

It was an atheist, Ernest Nagel, who pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. A person who argues that life is not valuable is inconsistent because he values his power of reasoning and his conclusion (that life is not valuable).

Then perhaps I do not understand your terms. By ‘value’ I thought you meant having some transcendental purpose and intent, was I mistaken?

This question is concerned solely with an analysis of what purpose is. It cannot be physical activity because it refers to the future. Foresight cannot be explained by biochemical activity restricted to the here and now: purpose belongs to a richer dimension of reality.

I asked nicely, now I’m telling you; this avenue of discussion is finished.

It is reasonable to believe the Gospels are literally true because they are historical accounts of the life, death and resurrection of the finest moral teacher known to the world. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are accepted in principle if not in practice not only by Christians but by all civilised persons.

Jesus was not a great moral teacher. C.S. Lewis, in framing his trilemma, wrote ‘A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher’ (Mere Christianity, 1954, 54). Further, the principles you cite are those of the (wholly secular and more anti-religious than a-religious) French revolution and are not found in the Gospels. Finally, if they were historical there is a whole lot of disagreement that would need to be ironed out; even many Catholic clergy, let alone the multitude of biblical scholars, understand that the Gospels are not–in the sense we understand the term today–history.

The Tanakh are the basis of Jewish monotheism which foretold the coming of the Messiah and established the Law which He was to perfect but the true basis of Christianity is Christ whose revolutionary teaching led to His death and the persecution of his followers.

As you wish but it seems strange that a set of books you write off as–it seems–barely relevant to Christianity make up the bulk of the bible and are read at Mass. Frankly this seems less important than the other threads in this conversation.

To sublimate presupposes the ability to control our urges and desires. What gives us this power of self-control?

Amongst other things, our cerebral cortex. This is not a place for a discussion on the philosophy of consciousness–which will invariably get into a debate on mind and matter and the meaning of the word ‘soul’–and so answers beyond that should probably be continued elsewhere if at all.

“are all” is an obvious exaggeration! Do you think everyone is going to behave decently if they are not faced with any prospect of reward or punishment? If they think how they live makes no difference to what happens to them when they die they are going to be more tempted. Why is there so much violence and corruption in human society? Because people think they can get away with it. If people believe they will inevitably get what they deserve and that being selfish is self-destructive they are more likely to do what is right. Christians do what is right for its own sake but everyone needs incentives to resist temptations.

I think we have reason without having to refer to transcendental, eternal or otherworldly entities. I think your last sentence is misleading in two ways; I would say only ‘the many do what is right for its own sake.’

If religions are manmade it is necessary to explain why they have the same fundamental beliefs, values, spiritual principles and goals. Even an online summary of “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley is enough to cast doubt on that theory.

They aren’t. We should read more than online summaries and delve into the richness of the tapestry of religion–both modern, historic and classical. There, however, is not one belief, value, principle or goal that is ubiquitous in all entities that we would term ‘religion.’ In fact, I would ask you to name one.

The claims of a religion worth having are not immune from criticism but based on reason rather than blind faith. Why do think this forum exists?

Because people like talking to like minded individuals. Where is the reason that–for example–Jesus rose again aside from the claims of the Gospels?

Why should religion be devoid of fanatics?

I never said it should.

You give no positive reasons why, whereas I have pointed out the negative consequences of the “This-is-the-only-life-in-the-darkness-of-eternity” theory. You obviously did not regard God as the Source of all life, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love.

The beauty of a world where there is nothing but the physical existence is awe inspiring in every dimension. Two such insights–cribbed respectively from Ricard Feynman and Carl Sagan–are (1) the beauty not only of a flower but its cells and molecules along with the fact that its beauty exists (i.e. evolved but we won’t get into that) to attract bees which raises questions about whether this aesthetic principle is available to bees as well and (2) ‘it elevating that our universe permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we.’ I mean not to draw wrath from the moderators but I find the Darwinian principle so key to the beauty of much of the world that I cannot answer this question without it.

 

[fhansen]

But that doctrine is itself problematic. Aside from the notion that the sins of the father are visited on the son (and grandson and on down the line) I was never–well, almost… since I was a small child and had any understanding whatever–overly fond of the notion of original sin. It never seemed fair (i.e. just) for God to build this garden, put a tree smack dab in the middle of it and say ‘now, no touching’ and wander off. Set aside also that God is allegedly all-knowing so it’s not as though the outcome of this scheme was unknown; God has to have known that we were made curious so that tree was–at best–not a great idea and–at worst–intentionally led us to our current state.

But could it be that you haven’t explored the meaning of the fall et al since you were quite young? IMO the doctrine of OS is the best working explanation we have of why moral evil exists in the world. It may or may not seem fair that OS is said to have warped mankind as a whole, but, when I observe mankind, I can’t help but feel that we really are warped, which itself lends credence to the doctrine. IOW, man could/should be another way; that the evil man commits against man is disordered, unnatural, out of whack with the rest of the universe, *merely possible *but in any case objectively wrong.

But an objective wrong also implies an objective right, of course, and, even if there’s a “law” written inside me which determines my nature and morality, it wouldn’t carry much weight unless there’s a Determiner, one who’s superior to me and who made the law. Because if, for example, incest is an unnatural act (a sin) for man, I can still override any natural law against it which may reside within my conscience, i.e. I have the freedom to determine right and wrong for myself. And this leads into the matter of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
‘The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.’

Man’s been given a good thing: the gift of a freedom so radical it allows him to reject the will of his maker-but when he does he’s unwittingly rebelling against his very self as well, all the while thinking he’s improving his lot.

 

[ThomasToo]

I would caution you to not make assumptions about my beliefs, past or present. I’m happy to answer questions about them but it is not obvious that I may or may not have held that conception of God.

The nature of the physical laws at work does not come into the picture because that is a subsequent development. The issue is quantitative: the problem of the Many and the One. The multiplicity of particles and laws is less economical and less simple than One Supreme Being - as summed up elegantly by Kant:

So you are supposing that there is only one being (i.e. the One) and no others? You then side with Alan Watt in his The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are in which he writes–more or less–that god split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends then hid the whole charade to make it that more fun for everyone, that is himself?

If not then you are not only supposing the one but also the many, one entity more than I do.

 

[ThomasToo]

But could it be that you haven’t explored the meaning of the fall et al since you were quite young? IMO the doctrine of OS is the best working explanation we have of why moral evil exists in the world. It may or may not seem fair that OS is said to have warped mankind as a whole, but, when I observe mankind, I can’t help but feel that we really are warped, which itself lends credence to the doctrine.

I think you’ve hit the nail right on the head. It isn’t fair, or rather just, and so it does not and cannot square with the rest of Christian theology–Pelagius had something right there.

IOW, man could/should be another way; that the evil man commits against man is disordered, unnatural, out of whack with the rest of the universe, *merely possible *but in any case objectively wrong.

What other way? I think most of us, most of the time are the other way you suggest we ought to be. Truly evil men are the stark exception to the rule of human goodness.

But an objective wrong also implies an objective right, of course, and, even if there’s a “law” written inside me which determines my nature and morality, it wouldn’t carry much weight unless there’s a Determiner, one who’s superior to me and who made the law.

That’s not true at all and doesn’t really answer the problem. Where does the determiner (or Determiner) get the rubric for the decision regarding morality? Is it good because it is commanded (i.e. could a determiner say that incest is a good) or is it commanded because it is a good (i.e. does good exist independent and ontologically prior to the determiner)?

Because if, for example, incest is an unnatural act (a sin) for man, I can still override any natural law against it which may reside within my conscience, i.e. I have the freedom to determine right and wrong for myself. And this leads into the matter of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I don’t mean to sound crass but do you really need God to tell you incest is wrong? I’ve never had any desire to bed my sister and I think that has more to do with (a) cultural influences and (b) the maladaptivity of such close consanguinity.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
‘The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.’

Man’s been given a good thing: the gift of a freedom so radical it allows him to reject the will of his maker-but when he does he’s unwittingly rebelling against his very self as well, all the while thinking he’s improving his lot.

So now original sin isn’t actually from a real happening, we’re all just kind of… made broken because our reach exceeds our grasp? At least with Eden we had a reason–and someone to blame…

 

[AntiTheist]

dostoyevskyfan:

Why would a “man-made” religion deny the base drives of mankind?

Read Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents. To oversimplify greatly, he argues that guilt is at the root of society because individuals get “socialized” by means of their superegos “punishing” them with guilt because of their id-impulses toward acts that are destructive to society.

Such a framework – which accords very well with what we know of the mind – explains very easily why ascetics exist and why people have come up with myths that enable them to feel guilty about their natural inclinations.

If you’re going to be throwing around sly insinuations about who doesn’t have a “proper grounding” for this sort of conversation, at least have the decency to know Freud.

 

[fhansen]

I think you’ve hit the nail right on the head. It isn’t fair, or rather just, and so it does not and cannot square with the rest of Christian theology–Pelagius had something right there.

I don’t think we have the information to know whether or not its fair- we first of all have to ask whether or not human nature/behavior as we observe and deal with it in ourselves and others in real life is, itself, just.

What other way? I think most of us, most of the time are the other way you suggest we ought to be. Truly evil men are the stark exception to the rule of human goodness.

Yes, but none of us are really so different from each other as we may like to think. Truly evil men, if there is such a thing, act out irrational desires which reside to a lesser degree in the hearts of all men.

That’s not true at all and doesn’t really answer the problem. Where does the determiner (or Determiner) get the rubric for the decision regarding morality? Is it good because it is commanded (i.e. could a determiner say that incest is a good) or is it commanded because it is a good (i.e. does good exist independent and ontologically prior to the determiner)?

It’s commanded because it’s good. But who determines good if not a determiner? And none of us existed before it was determined that incest was bad. Most of us universally already seem to know it.

I don’t mean to sound crass but do you really need God to tell you incest is wrong? I’ve never had any desire to bed my sister and I think that has more to do with (a) cultural influences and (b) the maladaptivity of such close consanguinity.

Most people not only lack the desire but are actually repulsed by the idea. But the point is that when man plays god he can determine anything to be good from petty gossip to incest to murder-and that’s the situation-the freedom- we have in this life. The fact that most of us pretty much universally stick with gossip or such lesser evils rather than the obviously worse ones just means we act more in line with human nature, for whatever reason, without much thought about where these innate “laws” come from.

So now original sin isn’t actually from a real happening, we’re all just kind of… made broken because our reach exceeds our grasp? At least with Eden we had a reason–and someone to blame…

Well, I believe it came from a real happening-but I thought you didn’t anyway so what difference would it make? In any case through Adam all fell. This just means that all humankind is implicated-not blamed per se-but separated from God by Adam’s act so that all have the opportunity as individuals to make their own choice now, in this life-and turn to Him, the ultimate good. And that’s perfectly fair.

 

[ThomasToo]

I don’t think we have the information to know whether or not its fair- we first of all have to ask whether or not human nature/behavior as we observe and deal with it in ourselves and others in real life is, itself, just.

I don’t think we need to know whether we all act justly all the time to have an understanding of justice as such and can apply that question the to doctrine of original sin.

Yes, but none of us are really so different from each other as we may like to think. Truly evil men, if there is such a thing, act out irrational desires which reside to a lesser degree in the hearts of all men.

I disagree. I’ve never had the desire to kill an entire race of people (or any class of people) or really, truly, to kill anyone at all. I would think the same of you but I cannot say for sure.

It’s commanded because it’s good. But who determines good if not a determiner? And none of us existed before it was determined that incest was bad. Most of us universally already seem to know it.

If it is commanded because it is (objectively) good then the determiner is ontologically unnecessary as the goodness of the proposition being commanded is regardless of the command or determination. Either horn of this dilemma is problematic in its own way and their union renders god-given morality all but moot as a philosophical justification. More on this question can be read in Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling.

Most people not only lack the desire but are actually repulsed by the idea. But the point is that when man plays god he can determine anything to be good from petty gossip to incest to murder-and that’s the situation-the freedom- we have in this life.

I understand your point but I think truly objective moral evils (to use Catholic terminology for consistency’s sake, I would use the word ‘wrongs’ for reasons not wholly germane here) do not need to be determined. We can come to grasp the reality of these moral answers without reference to any external moral lawgiver. Kant, for example, does this in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics and Mill in his Utilitarianism. In brief, it is possible to be good without gods.

The fact that most of us pretty much universally stick with gossip or such lesser evils rather than the obviously worse ones just means we act more in line with human nature, for whatever reason, without much thought about where these innate “laws” come from.

Or that we stick to things that are (a) legal, (b) safe and (c) more or less harmless. I would hardly class gossip as an objective moral evil especially when setting up the basic framework of an ethic.

Well, I believe it came from a real happening-but I thought you didn’t anyway so what difference would it make? In any case through Adam all fell. This just means that all humankind is implicated-not blamed per se-but separated from God by Adam’s act so that all have the opportunity as individuals to make their own choice now, in this life-and turn to Him, the ultimate good. And that’s perfectly fair.

What difference would what make? Your belief?

I think that without a literal Eden original sin is a non-starter. Put another way I think Darwinism implies, necessarily, Pelagianism. How is it just for one man to separate all his progeny from (an all-powerful, all-loving) God? That would be like saying it was just for me to sit in jail because my great grandfather killed someone; it may be the reality in a (very) backwards legal system–though none I can think of at least in modern times–but it cannot be called ‘just’ in any intelligible meaning of that word.

 

[Betterave]

It was not a typo; can you please make meaningful the distinction between religion as such and the fact that is must necessarily be practiced (and organized) by people. Further, I wrote ‘religion’ to clarify the fact that I was discussing the word ‘religion’ not the phenomenon of religion.

I think it was a typo - you just don’t understand why (okay it wasn’t exactly a typo - it was an erroneous use of punctuation ). You were not discussing the word ‘religion’; you were discussing the concept ‘religion.’ And what you said about the concept of religion was false. On the other hand, if you had said it about the reality of religion, it would also have been false (certainly as a general statement).

(There is no reason for me to “make meaningful” the distinction you suggest and I don’t know why you bring it up here. The distinction I made was between the concept of religion and the intentions of religious people regarding the possibility of their beliefs being criticized.)

The truth is hardly immune to criticism, it simply stands up to it. The truth is, can and must be able to be questioned and examined and it will always resound in the face of that skepticism. Other claims, however, including many those of revealed religions are set up as immune from criticism in the sense that they are claims that must be taken on faith (that is, without evidence). Sorry for the–continued–confusion.

Immune can have two possible relevant meanings. Here you intend ‘immune’ in the sense of being free from. In this case your claim is false: ‘taken on faith’ is not at all the same as ‘immune from criticism’ (I think this is obvious); nor does ‘taken on faith’ imply ‘without evidence’ (this too is obvious, unless you happen to have put some question-begging prejudicial spin on the notion of ‘evidence’). The other possible meaning is protected, i.e., able to stand up to. This is the meaning I had in mind and in this sense the truth is immune to criticism (as you seem to grant).

 

[Betterave]

You might wonder: “Why is truth immune to criticism? In particular, how could anyone say that their religious beliefs are true and immune to criticism? I run around taking potshots at religious beliefs all the time!”

But the point is that you need to stick around long enought to see if your potshot hit the target. In order to do this one needs to respond when someone suggests that your potshot missed.

 

[ThomasToo]

I think it was a typo - you just don’t understand why (okay it wasn’t exactly a typo - it was an erroneous use of punctuation ). You were not discussing the word ‘religion’; you were discussing the concept ‘religion.’ And what you said about the concept of religion was false. On the other hand, if you had said it about the reality of religion, it would also have been false (certainly as a general statement).

(There is no reason for me to “make meaningful” the distinction you suggest and I don’t know why you bring it up here. The distinction I made was between the concept of religion and the intentions of religious people regarding the possibility of their beliefs being criticized.)

I appreciate that you think you have privileged access to my consciousness that I don’t but I think there is a misunderstanding here. I will put it another way but I would however, again, ask you to define ‘religion’ so that I can understand how you are separating religion from how it is practiced by its adherents (or as it was originally called–by you?–its distortion by man).

You might wonder: “Why is truth immune to criticism? In particular, how could anyone say that their religious beliefs are true and immune to criticism? I run around taking potshots at religious beliefs all the time!”

But the point is that you need to stick around long enought to see if your potshot hit the target. In order to do this one needs to respond when someone suggests that your potshot missed.

That’s not the point at all. I have, and have more or less always had, a problem with the virtue of faith as such–aside from never really possessing it. Frankly, the idea of faith always struck me as intellectually lazy and, not knowing Camus’s words for it, philosophical suicide. That’s where one of my biggest problems with religion lies. If every single principle had a firm rational basis backed by evidence I would be fine but the moment we need to take something ‘on faith’ (i.e. without proof) that’s where I cannot follow.