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

[tonyrey]

By ‘value’ I thought you meant having some transcendental purpose and intent, was I mistaken?

I am simply pointing out that life is objectively valuable, i.e. it does not depend on a person’s opinion. It is similar to the truth in that respect. Do you think that if some one denies its value it ceases to be valuable?

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.

I leave others to draw their own conclusions…

Jesus was not a great moral teacher.

Then whose ideas did he purloin?

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).

You are distorting the meaning of his statement by taking it out of context.

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.

Those principles are evident in the teaching of Jesus and his attitude towards women and children in a patriarchal society.

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.

There is a consensus on fundamentals among Biblical scholars regarding the authenticity of the birth, teaching, healing of the sick, journeys in Judea, trial before Pilate in the Lithostrotos and crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem, the empty tomb, the appearances to the Apostles and the foundation of the Church - supported by archaeological and documentary evidence from Roman and Jewish sources.

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.

I am not writing off the OT but explaining that it was not the basis of, but the prelude to, Christianity. The first readings point to their fulfilment in the readings from the Epistles and Gospels.

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…

You will gradually eliminate every topic at this rate. There is no need to proceed any further. It suffices to note that if all the functions of our cerebral cortex and “other things” are caused and controlled by physical events self-control is an illusion. The self becomes superfluous.

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.’

Please provide compelling secular reasons for respecting the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. What incentives are there to resist temptations to put oneself and one’s family first?

There, however, is not one belief, value, principle or goal that is ubiquitous in all entities that we would term ‘religion.’

Even in primitive religions there is belief in spiritual reality, the need for sacrifice and worship, the distinction between good and evil and the efficacy of prayer. Of course the great religions of the world are united on other fundamental truths.

Why do think this forum exists?

Because people like talking to like minded individuals.

Its inception was based on the fact that you deny - that faith is based on reason

Where is the reason that–for example–Jesus rose again aside from the claims of the Gospels?

It would require another thread to deal with that question adequately but suffice it to say the teaching, life, death and example of the “dead Jew” have had a profound effect on human civilisation. It would be the most curious phenomenon in history if one third of the present population of the world are gullible enough to swallow a fairy tale but perhaps - like other atheists confronted with this fact - you dismiss their belief as symptomatic of the low mentality of the common herd…

Why should religion be devoid of fanatics?

I never said it should.

Then why did you bring up the subject?

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.

Once again the objective reality of beauty is evident regardless of its origin. Which of the other features I mentioned do you value?

 

[Betterave]

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? NO, NOT ME–its distortion by man).

Come now, Thomas, we both know (I hope!) that the only access I have to your consciousness is by means of what you write. If you want to deny my analysis of what you wrote, please do so directly. (Spurious comments about my ‘privileged access’ to your consciousness are really uncalled for.)

As for separating religion from how it is practised by its adherents, I have not done so, so far as I’m aware, so I’m not sure what the point of your question is.

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.

Here’s a suggestion: the class of persons who “cannot follow” unless there is present some firm rational basis backed by evidence (“proof”) is a null set. Your self-understanding as belonging to this null set is therefore an error.

Do you really mean to say that the idea of faith is what has always struck you as intellectually lazy? Or that the idea of faith has always struck you as the idea that intellectually laziness is not to be rejected? I assume you meant the latter (since the former is nonsense) and this would simply show that you have always had a straw man view of the idea of theological faith.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

dostoyevskyfan:
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.

I don’t have much time. I’ll just say this. I hold no animosity toward you, nor was I trying to insinuate that you were ignorant. Only that the vast majority of people, especially those on CAF (not you) haven’t read Sartre, kierkegaard, and Camus. Sorry if you interpreted it that way. I also will respond to the other thread “mass halluc…” and explain your logical error there when I get a chance.

Incidentally, yes I have read Freud. I think his contributions to literary criticism far outweigh what he has brought to the table in other fields in the humanities. If you want to advance the thesis that the history of western Christianity can be explained by Freud’s century old theories (11 out of 12 apostles martyred because of their repressed id’s and 300 years of persecution.) …good luck. I’m sure someone has already beat you to it, and has already been dismissed as a joke. I highly doubt anyone in academia would take you seriously. I will also say that you do seem likely uninformed about the historical origin of Christianity during the Roman Empire of Antiquity.

I love how you resort to non-falsifiable semi-scientific theory (as in Freud) when needed and alternate between that and “evidence based inquiry”/hard science depending on which type of argument you would like to refute. You may want to work on your consistency.

Ironically, Frued’s genes did not “prompt him to survive at any cost”, he euthanized himself. I consider him one of atheism martyrs for their lack of a church. I see no philosophical difference between a muslim who flies a plane into a building and an atheist who lethally injects himself because he comes to the conclusion that life, fundamentally, has no objective meaning. Both are equally absurd.

 

[ThomasToo]

Come now, Thomas, we both know (I hope!) that the only access I have to your consciousness is by means of what you write. If you want to deny my analysis of what you wrote, please do so directly. (Spurious comments about my ‘privileged access’ to your consciousness are really uncalled for.)

You said several times that what I meant was something other than what I said so my only conclusion was that you thought you had privileged access to my consciousness.

As for separating religion from how it is practised by its adherents, I have not done so, so far as I’m aware, so I’m not sure what the point of your question is.

You said ‘You had a typo then: you wrote “‘religion’ intends” where you should written “religious people intend.”’ This is the separation of religion as such and its adherents.

Here’s a suggestion: the class of persons who “cannot follow” unless there is present some firm rational basis backed by evidence (“proof”) is a null set. Your self-understanding as belonging to this null set is therefore an error.

More claims about my ideology and consciousness. How do you know I–or others–don’t/can’t accept a proposition of any sort without proof?

Do you really mean to say that the idea of faith is what has always struck you as intellectually lazy? Or that the idea of faith has always struck you as the idea that intellectually laziness is not to be rejected? I assume you meant the latter (since the former is nonsense) and this would simply show that you have always had a straw man view of the idea of theological faith.

Faith is, put simply, ‘conviction of things not seen’ (Hebrews 11.1) and ‘blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed’ (John 20.29). Would you argue this definition?

I think, and have always thought, the acceptance of suppositions without refuge to evidence is intellectually lazy. It was always nonsensical to me that it was a good to not see (i.e. not have any reason to think something is the case) but still to believe. Honest Christians will admit that not all faith claims are reasonable and Tertullian was right when he called them ‘absurd’ (in his credo quia absurdum).

 

[davidv]

You said several times that what I meant was something other than what I said so my only conclusion was that you thought you had privileged access to my consciousness.

You said ‘You had a typo then: you wrote “‘religion’ intends” where you should written “religious people intend.”’ This is the separation of religion as such and its adherents.

More claims about my ideology and consciousness. How do you know I–or others–don’t/can’t accept a proposition of any sort without proof?

Faith is, put simply, ‘conviction of things not seen’ (Hebrews 11.1) and ‘blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed’ (John 20.29). Would you argue this definition?

I think, and have always thought, the acceptance of suppositions without refuge to evidence is intellectually lazy. It was always nonsensical to me that it was a good to not see (i.e. not have any reason to think something is the case) but still to believe. Honest Christians will admit that not all faith claims are reasonable and Tertullian was right when he called them ‘absurd’ (in his credo quia absurdum).

The problem with your argument is that faith in not without evidence or reason. So your implied claim that the faithful are lazy is inflammitory and uncalled for.

 

[ThomasToo]

I am simply pointing out that life is objectively valuable, i.e. it does not depend on a person’s opinion. It is similar to the truth in that respect. Do you think that if some one denies its value it ceases to be valuable?

I’m sorry but I still don’t quite follow. I understand that you think that life’s value is objective but I’m not sure what you mean by ‘value.’ Could you please clarify?

Then whose ideas did he purloin?.. You are distorting the meaning of his statement by taking it out of context.

The whole quote is reproduced here in its entirety. I think my use of Lewis passes muster.
"C.S. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Those principles are evident in the teaching of Jesus and his attitude towards women and children in a patriarchal society.

I feel as though attempts to seek proof on this point will result–on both sides–in data mining from the Gospels. An argument for a rudimentary form of these virtues’ presence in the Gospels seems to teeter on the very border of plausibility but if you insist they are there, fully formed and waiting for us to understand then I would humbly suggest another reading is in order.

There is a consensus on fundamentals among Biblical scholars regarding the authenticity of the birth, teaching, healing of the sick, journeys in Judea, trial before Pilate in the Lithostrotos and crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem, the empty tomb, the appearances to the Apostles and the foundation of the Church - supported by archaeological and documentary evidence from Roman and Jewish sources.

There is no such consensus; I refer you to the books of Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier. They are proponents, in the academy, of the Christ myth theory.

You will gradually eliminate every topic at this rate. There is no need to proceed any further. It suffices to note that if all the functions of our cerebral cortex and “other things” are caused and controlled by physical events self-control is an illusion. The self becomes superfluous.

Not eliminate, just move. Philosophy of consciousness is an enthralling and complex discussion that doesn’t deserve to be a mere thread of this discussion and if you would like we could move it to other channels. So too, for my answer to the other questions you’d raised that cannot be discussed here; incidentally I never did get a PM or email from you about them so I suppose you don’t want to discuss them.

Please provide compelling secular reasons for respecting the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. What incentives are there to resist temptations to put oneself and one’s family first?

The Rawlsian veil of ignorance is sufficient for the first two and I do not have the background in political philosophy to really understand what is meant by a rigorous understanding of fraternity in this sense. These principles are also the first to fulfill the categorical imperative.

Even in primitive religions there is belief in spiritual reality, the need for sacrifice and worship, the distinction between good and evil and the efficacy of prayer. Of course the great religions of the world are united on other fundamental truths.

*Spiritual reality meaning what?That there is more than this life and this body?
*Buddhism eschews both sacrifice and worship at least in the Christian senses of the terms which are, I’m afraid, the one you meant.
*Taoism lacks a distinction between good and evil in the Christian senses of the words (independent existing principles). It sees the interdependence of all dualities and forwards that when one labels something ‘good’ one also necessarily created the idea of ‘evil.’
*Buddhism lacks a deity to which to pray let alone a belief in the efficacy of prayer.

It would require another thread to deal with that question adequately but suffice it to say the teaching, life, death and example of the “dead Jew” have had a profound effect on human civilisation. It would be the most curious phenomenon in history if one third of the present population of the world are gullible enough to swallow a fairy tale but perhaps - like other atheists confronted with this fact - you dismiss their belief as symptomatic of the low mentality of the common herd…

Now who’s moving topics! =P Out of respect I will not respond to your claims here though, of course, I disagree with them. And will leave you only with the thought that popular appeal does not imply truth. The same argument you make here could be reused almost verbatim (and the latter half verbatim with the substitution of ‘one fifth’ for ‘one third’) by a Muslim defending the revealed truth of Islam. I’d be happy to continue this in another thread but do not want to impose on you for a second discussion; you, however, are welcome to make one.

 

[ThomasToo]

Then why did you bring up the subject?

I didn’t. I was just saying that if you want to give religion credit for all the good its adherents do you must be willing to accept the bad.

Once again the objective reality of beauty is evident regardless of its origin. Which of the other features I mentioned do you value?

You can’t tell me that my beauty isn’t enough for you since that wasn’t the point and I was only answering your request for what I find beautiful about a universe without god. Origin, here, is incredibly important and also my (1) was not dependent on evolution as such. In brief, however, I find the sheer scale of the universe to be humbling and–in the fullest and truest sense of the word–awesome. I find the mechanics of the formation of stars and planets beautiful and fascinating. I find the Copenhagen interpretation to the problem of Schrodinger’s cat intriguing. I find the fact that of all the world that could have been we happened to end up in this one (and I would add, Leibniz was wrong, it is hardly the best of all possible worlds) far more meaningful and morally licit than I could if I thought a god had a hand in it and wanted it to have come along as far as it has in the way it is. Is that more to your satisfaction?

I don’t know what features you mentioned at all so I’m not quite positive what you’re asking there.

 

[ThomasToo]

The problem with your argument is that faith in not without evidence or reason. So your implied claim that the faithful are lazy is inflammitory and uncalled for.

It was truly not my intention to be inflammatory.

Is there evidence, outside the Gospels–the authenticity, canonical and inspired nature of which are articles of faith–and that is not privileged–that is not miraculous or revealed in another such fashion–for the divine nature of a Jesus? For his resurrection? For the immortality of the soul? For the existence of Satan?

This is a brief list, off the top of my head, but any principle that is an article of faith stands a better than even chance of being reliant on faith and not evidence.

 

[davidv]

It was truly not my intention to be inflammatory.

Is there evidence, outside the Gospels–the authenticity, canonical and inspired nature of which are articles of faith–and that is not privileged–that is not miraculous or revealed in another such fashion–for the divine nature of a Jesus? For his resurrection? For the immortality of the soul? For the existence of Satan?

This is a brief list, off the top of my head, but any principle that is an article of faith stands a better than even chance of being reliant on faith and not evidence.

Why the restriction on what counts as evidence?

Who beside Christians would have made effort to document these things? The Gospels and Epistles where written by varied authors over a period of years, if not decades.

So besides the teachers of the faith and their writings, who do you think could have done what you are asking for?

 

[ThomasToo]

Why the restriction on what counts as evidence?

Who beside Christians would have made effort to document these things? The Gospels and Epistles where written by varied authors over a period of years, if not decades.

Because the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses; they are people who wrote down stories they were told, which were probably told in turn by someone else on down the line. At best they are secondary sources. In brief because to refer to the Gospels as a source would then require the verification of that as a useful source which cannot be done to my satisfaction (i.e. there is no proof).

I set out miracles because none of these have been rigorously documented at least insofar as they answer the questions I set out above and similarly with revelation. I could tell you that it was vouchsafed to me that homosexuals ought to be extended the protections of civil marriage, or that fetuses are not moral people or that Joseph Smith had it all right and the Church has it all wrong but none of these claims would be credible because I’d be left saying, in brief, a god told me so. I doubt you would accept that because you have only my word.

I set those restrictions on what counts as evidence because I want things that are, frankly, actually evidence and the inclusion of any of the things I set out would dull the meaning of the word beyond recognition.

So besides the teachers of the faith and their writings, who do you think could have done what you are asking for?

I said nothing against reference to teachers of the faith or the writings of religiously inclined philosophers but I want evidence be it scientific or philosophical. What I am opposed to is refuge in claims that are exempt from proof be they two thousand year old texts the verisimilitude of which must be assumed or claims made to select privileged individuals which are inaccessible to the rest of us.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sorry but I still don’t quite follow. I understand that you think that life’s value is objective but I’m not sure what you mean by ‘value.’ Could you please clarify?

You have made it clear you appreciate life for what it offers you. You prefer to have it rather than not have been born. I believe that which has value is a positive aspect of reality and that which is valueless is negative. Or in your view is everything equally insignificant?

“…A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.”

Lewis is saying it is folly to believe Jesus was a great moral teacher - and no more than a great moral teacher!

Whose ideas did Jesus purloin?..

Those principles are evident in the teaching of Jesus and his attitude towards women and children in a patriarchal society.

An argument for a rudimentary form of these virtues’ presence in the Gospels seems to teeter on the very border of plausibility but if you insist they are there, fully formed and waiting for us to understand then I would humbly suggest another reading is in order.

Please explain why Jesus treated women as equals and told his disciples children are valuable in God’s eyes:

“His teachings concerning children were faithfully followed by the early church, which believed that to receive a child in the name of Christ was to receive Christ Himself. Admonitions against the pagan practices of abortion and child abandonment were found in the earliest Christian writings. The Epistle of Barnabas commanded: Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son, or from thy daughter, but from their infancy thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord.”

christianhistorytimeline.com/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps031.shtml

There is no such consensus; I refer you to the books of Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier. They are proponents, in the academy, of the Christ myth theory.

Why do they have more insight, knowledge and wisdom than recognised authorities on the history of Christianity? It seems that Robert Price attends the Episcopal Church and keeps his mouth shut!

Philosophy of consciousness is an enthralling and complex discussion that doesn’t deserve to be a mere thread of this discussion and if you would like we could move it to other channels. So too, for my answer to the other questions you’d raised that cannot be discussed here; incidentally I never did get a PM or email from you about them so I suppose you don’t want to discuss them.

For me the whole point of being on a forum is to have discussions which enlighten as many people as possible. If we have something to say it should be aired in the light of day. It is possible to deal with questions without going into evolution but I realise they place you in an impossible position. The reference of purpose to the future, for example, cannot be eliminated or explained away by any amount of pseudo-scientific juggling and conjuring. Biological, chemical and physical processes lack hindsight, insight and foresight… and nothing can alter the fact if all the functions of our cerebral cortex and “other things” are caused and** controlled by physical events** self-control is an illusion.

Please provide compelling secular reasons for respecting the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

The Rawlsian veil of ignorance is sufficient for the first two and I do not have the background in political philosophy to really understand what is meant by a rigorous understanding of fraternity in this sense. These principles are also the first to fulfill the categorical imperative.

A veil of ignorance is hardly an adequate basis for genuine concern for the well-being of others. It reduces morality to expediency. “I’ll scratch your back so you scratch mine!”

Why should there be a categorical imperative at all? It presupposes that you - or anyone else - are not simply playing the system and using the rules to trick others so that you get what you want yet in an amoral universe moral laws are merely human modes of manipulation!

*Buddhism eschews both sacrifice and worship at least in the Christian senses of the terms which are, I’m afraid, the one you meant.

Incorrect. My interpretation of religion is not as narrow as you think.

*Taoism lacks a distinction between good and evil in the Christian senses of the words (independent existing principles). It sees the interdependence of all dualities and forwards that when one labels something ‘good’ one also necessarily created the idea of ‘evil.’

The very concept of duality maintains the distinction between good and evil even though it is not Christian. Why seize on Christianity as the model for all religion?

*Buddhism lacks a deity to which to pray let alone a belief in the efficacy of prayer.

You are singling out one variety of Buddhism which does not even invalidate the general principle of spiritual development.

And will leave you only with the thought that popular appeal does not imply truth.

It does not imply truth but it requires explanation. The onus is on the sceptic to show why the vast majority are misguided and why it is an illusion that religion corresponds to our spiritual needs.

The same argument you make here could be reused almost verbatim (and the latter half verbatim with the substitution of ‘one fifth’ for ‘one third’) by a Muslim defending the revealed truth of Islam.

The fundamental tenets of the main religions of the world remain the same: the existence of God, the soul, good and evil, free will, the power of prayer, the need for worship, an afterlife and cosmic justice.

 

[Slowlearner]

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.

Yes, this thread had gotten off topic, and, I must say is not going well even in its new course. I have the impression that great armies have gathered in the desert, but rather than engage in battle, they spend days sending small contingents to engage in skirmishes.

As to your OP, I answered earlier, and offer the following, which may seem rather simplistic, but has been practical for me. For a Christian, life is not about happiness. Our core belief and principle is not “I want to be happy.” (That turns out to be practical as happiness results from happenstance which is really out of our control.) Through the human example of St. Paul (and other martyrs, who all emulated Christ), we learn a truth: that even in suffering there can be joy. Even in jail, St. Paul was joyous. Thus, with Christ, we Christians persevere through our suffering, hoping to extend our temporal existence in which we can serve God.

Perhaps I’m missing the point of your OP, but the atheist argument seems silly as it ignores even a rudimentary understanding of Christian beliefs.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, this thread had gotten off topic, and, I must say is not going well even in its new course. I have the impression that great armies have gathered in the desert, but rather than engage in battle, they spend days sending small contingents to engage in skirmishes.

lol! I’m not entirely sure what this means, but I like it.

 

[ThomasToo]

You have made it clear you appreciate life for what it offers you. You prefer to have it rather than not have been born. I believe that which has value is a positive aspect of reality and that which is valueless is negative. Or in your view is everything equally insignificant?

So by ‘has value’ you simply mean ‘is positive’ (in some way)? By such a vacuous definition I would concede life’s value.

Whose ideas did Jesus purloin?..

You asked this before and I’m not sure what prompted it but there isn’t really anything all that original in the teachings of the Church. The Golden Rule as Jesus put it was e

Please explain why Jesus treated women as equals and told his disciples children are valuable in God’s eyes

He didn’t. The lack of women in the 12 Apostles is evidence of that and the early Church’s treatment of women can hardly call them equals in any intelligable reading of the term. ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent’ (1 Timothy 2:12).

Why do they have more insight, knowledge and wisdom than recognised authorities on the history of Christianity?

By recognized authorities do you mean people who agree with you? They are both Ph.Ds in the field and have far more understanding of the world around 1 A.D. than either of us. All I was saying is that there is no such consensus as you described on the authenticity of Jesus. If you have quarrel with their ideas–and, this point cannot be stressed enough–have read their books then take it up with them or give me time to give them a more careful reading.

A veil of ignorance is hardly an adequate basis for genuine concern for the well-being of others. It reduces morality to expediency. “I’ll scratch your back so you scratch mine!”

Why should there be a categorical imperative at all? It presupposes that you - or anyone else - are not simply playing the system and using the rules to trick others so that you get what you want yet in an amoral universe moral laws are merely human modes of manipulation!

We treat others with equality, and grant them liberty as a society precisely because that’s what we want from the system. We can all agree we don’t want to be raped, robbed or stabbed so we make clear that these things are not acceptable.

Incorrect. My interpretation of religion is not as narrow as you think.

The very concept of duality maintains the distinction between good and evil even though it is not Christian. Why seize on Christianity as the model for all religion?

I apologize for my assumption but then I would ask you to define your terms. What do you intend by ‘worship,’ ‘sacrifice,’ ‘good’ and ‘evil’? The vast majority of people in the West have Christianity fixed in their heads as the sole model of religion and reject–implicitly because they don’t know any better or explicitly because they fixate on the notion that all religions are basically the same.

You are singling out one variety of Buddhism which does not even invalidate the general principle of spiritual development.

You said the efficacy of prayer (that is, asking a deity to grant a request or thanking the same); in a philosophy without a deity, Buddhists cannot pray in any meaning of the word.

It does not imply truth but it requires explanation. The onus is on the sceptic to show why the vast majority are misguided and why it is an illusion that religion corresponds to our spiritual needs.

Whether or not religion answers some basic need is not the question. The question is whether or not is true and in that the onus is on the believer to furnish evidence because–as in all claims–the person or persons making a positive claims are those who ought to prove it. If, for example, the world were convinced that you could fly (i.e. superpowers of some kind) but chose not to it would be beyond nonsense for me to be expected to prove that you couldn’t fly. Further, my claim is and has always has been that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any god. Surely we can both agree that people, when taken as a mass, are–to say the least–credulous.

The fundamental tenets of the main religions of the world remain the same: the existence of God, the soul, good and evil, free will, the power of prayer, the need for worship, an afterlife and cosmic justice.

You added to your list list above… naughty, naughty… You also switched from ‘religion’ to ‘main religions’ which seems ambiguous at best. Further the switch represents a major shift in your intention; unless you want to argue that it’s only important that people are religious and not members of your sect of your religion then this is a great strawman. You said that (a) Jesus’s (alleged) teachings changed the course of history–which does not speak to their truth–and (b) 2 billion Christians can’t be wrong–but 1.2 billion Muslims evidently can.

 

[Betterave]

You said several times that what I meant was something other than what I said so my only conclusion was that you thought you had privileged access to my consciousness.

Uh…right; but I also provided my reasons for thinking that - which are not infallible, but which are based on what you wrote. Did you miss that point?

(When something says something plainly absurd or offensive, it is a principle of charity to assume that he didn’t actually mean what he said.)

You said ‘You had a typo then: you wrote “‘religion’ intends” where you should written “religious people intend.”’ This is the separation of religion as such and its adherents.

Obviously the separation you mention is necessary: there are phenomena known as hypocrisy, sin, ignorance, indifference which makes it true that the reality of ‘religious people’ does not always reflect the this-world reality of what religion in fact can be (and obviously is supposed to be) - would you like to deny this??

My distinction was to separate ‘religion’ (a concept) from religious people’s intentions (a contingent statement of fact), regarding both of which you were making indefensible claims, as I explained.

More claims about my ideology and consciousness. How do you know I–or others–don’t/can’t accept a proposition of any sort without proof?

Because you (and others) assert propositions for which you obviously have no proof!

Faith is, put simply, ‘conviction of things not seen’ (Hebrews 11.1) and ‘blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed’ (John 20.29). Would you argue this definition?

I wouldn’t argue with it, but I would point out to you that it doesn’t imply any affirmation of the virtuousness of intellectual laziness. (Your implying otherwise is an example of what I noted above: you are perfectly able to believe propositions without evidence.)

I think, and have always thought, the acceptance of suppositions without refuge to evidence is intellectually lazy. It was always nonsensical to me that it was a good to not see (i.e. not have any reason to think something is the case) but still to believe. Honest Christians will admit that not all faith claims are reasonable and Tertullian was right when he called them ‘absurd’ (in his credo quia absurdum).

‘Not see’ obviously does not imply ‘not have any reason to think that something is the case.’ Honest Thomas will admit that his appeal to Tertullian here is a fallacious appeal to authority, and that his implication that those who disagree are dishonest is a fallacious ad hominem.

 

[tonyrey]

So by ‘has value’ you simply mean ‘is positive’ (in some way)? By such a vacuous definition I would concede life’s value.

You wouldn’t think it is vacuous if you were deformed, diseased, disabled, homeless, penniless, helpless, unemployed, unattractive, unwanted or unloved…

Whose ideas did Jesus purloin?..

… there isn’t really anything all that original in the teachings of the Church.

How about loving your enemies, praying for those persecute you, turning the other cheek, dying if necessary for those you do not even know…

Please explain why Jesus treated women as equals and told his disciples children are valuable in God’s eyes

.

He didn’t. The lack of women in the 12 Apostles is evidence of that and the early Church’s treatment of women can hardly call them equals in any intelligible reading of the term. ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent’ (1 Timothy 2:12).

Jesus had to be realistic in a patriarchal society. His mission was difficult enough without having to contend with male and female Apostles. After His death there were differences of opinion about the role of women - like the need for circumcision - but there were deaconesses and others in positions of authority. Attitudes, habits and customs die hard - which makes the success of Christianity all the more remarkable. Although some followers were conservative Jesus treated women as equals and told his disciples children are valuable in God’s eyes. He scandalised the Jews by consorting with everyone from every level of society, stressing the fact that we are all children of the same Father. That is the only logical foundation for the principles of liberty, equality and - especially -fraternity.

They are both Ph.Ds in the field and have far more understanding of the world around 1 A.D. than either of us. All I was saying is that there is no such consensus as you described on the authenticity of Jesus.

What counts is not reverence for the academic prowess of others but facts produced here and now. Historians are fallible and more liable to be prejudiced by preconceptions than scientists because of the nature of their subject and its methodology.

We treat others with equality, and grant them liberty as a society precisely because that’s what we want from the system.

We want that from the system for ourselves but it does not follow that everyone wants it for everyone else. Racism, nationalism, tribalism and nepotism - to mention a few - are ample evidence of that. In an amoral universe moral laws are merely human modes of manipulation…

We can all agree we don’t want to be raped, robbed or stabbed so we make clear that these things are not acceptable.

“Not acceptable” is not a categorical imperative.

The vast majority of people in the West have Christianity fixed in their heads as the sole model of religion and reject–implicitly because they don’t know any better or explicitly because they fixate on the notion that all religions are basically the same.

I have explained what they have in common. It is for you to show why they are not basically the same…

You said the efficacy of prayer (that is, asking a deity to grant a request or thanking the same); in a philosophy without a deity, Buddhists cannot pray in any meaning of the word.

How do you explain prayer wheels? Most Buddhists accept the existence of gods of some kind.

Whether or not religion answers some basic need is not the question. The question is whether or not is true and in that the onus is on the believer to furnish evidence because–as in all claims–the person or persons making a positive claims are those who ought to prove it.

The unbeliever is making the positive claim that physical reality is the sole reality. The onus is also on him to furnish evidence.

Further, my claim is and has always has been that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any god.

Then your notion of evidence is defective because it cannot justify belief in the existence of any type of intangible reality - such as your mind, truth and freedom.

Surely we can both agree that people, when taken as a mass, are–to say the least–credulous.

Not about the things that really matter: truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love. They may not have intellectual understanding but they certainly have experiential insight and appreciation when they are happy or when they suffer. This is where academics, scientists and historians are most likely to go astray. “Uneducated” people - especially the poor - are often wiser and more perceptive because they are more in touch with daily life and have no philosophical axe to grind.

The fundamental tenets of the main religions of the world remain the same: the existence of God, the soul, good and evil, free will, the power of prayer, the need for worship, an afterlife and cosmic justice.

You also switched from ‘religion’ to ‘main religions’ which seems ambiguous at best. Further the switch represents a major shift in your intention; unless you want to argue that it’s only important that people are religious and not members of your sect of your religion then this is a great strawman. You said that (a) Jesus’s (alleged) teachings changed the course of history–which does not speak to their truth–and (b) 2 billion Christians can’t be wrong–but 1.2 billion Muslims evidently can.

“main religions” is not at all ambiguous. The very fact that I used that term shows that I have not changed my intention. Both Christians and Muslims - and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists - are right on fundamentals. Their basic view of reality is the same. They all reject materialism and hedonism.

 

[ThomasToo]

Obviously the separation you mention is necessary: there are phenomena known as hypocrisy, sin, ignorance, indifference which makes it true that the reality of ‘religious people’ does not always reflect the this-world reality of what religion in fact can be (and obviously is supposed to be) - would you like to deny this??

I would deny that the reality of religious people ‘does not always reflect this-world reality of what religion in fact can be.’ The reality of religious people are the very definition of what religion can in fact be (and more importantly, actually is). A Christian bombing an abortion clinic is a religious person showing the reality of religion, as is the Christian doctor who saves the life of the abortionist afterward.

Because you (and others) assert propositions for which you obviously have no proof!

How cutesy.

I wouldn’t argue with it, but I would point out to you that it doesn’t imply any affirmation of the virtuousness of intellectual laziness. (Your implying otherwise is an example of what I noted above: you are perfectly able to believe propositions without evidence.)

It is intellectual laziness. It is semantically equivalent to ‘don’t worry thinking about it, just think it’s true and it’ll be good.’

‘Not see’ obviously does not imply ‘not have any reason to think that something is the case.’ Honest Thomas will admit that his appeal to Tertullian here is a fallacious appeal to authority, and that his implication that those who disagree are dishonest is a fallacious ad hominem.

I would say that in context ‘see’ implies far more than seeing with one’s eyes. It’s about having proof (which is more than a reason).

Tertullian put it better than I can, rather he is part of my intellectual milieu so I don’t know that I could put it other than in his terms and it’s always best to cite sources. Besides, I’d probably raise ire if I called it absurd without naming the origin of my use of the phrase. I meant it less as an ad homenem than the implicit claim that Christians who deny the absurdity of some of their beliefs (which dostoyevskyfan–the OP–acknowledges and like Tertullian it strengthens its belief) at best don’t understand the fullness of Christian doctrine and at worst are being dishonest either with themselves or others (or both).

 

[ThomasToo]

You wouldn’t think it is vacuous if you were deformed, diseased, disabled, homeless, penniless, helpless, unemployed, unattractive, unwanted or unloved…

I would still be alive and that is positive. I am disabled, near penniless and was unemployed for most of this year. Please don’t assume you know me or my story.

How about loving your enemies, praying for those persecute you, turning the other cheek, dying if necessary for those you do not even know…

All of these ideas, with the exception of prayer, are evident in the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama and predate Jesus by 500 years.

Jesus had to be realistic in a patriarchal society.

The Son of God, who could preform miracles and rose from the dead couldn’t completely defeat cultural misogyny? That seems a bit of a weak response.

What counts is not reverence for the academic prowess of others but facts produced here and now. Historians are fallible and more liable to be prejudiced by preconceptions than scientists because of the nature of their subject and its methodology.

So should I then presume that you’ve carefully studied the facts presented by Carrier and Price?

We want that from the system for ourselves but it does not follow that everyone wants it for everyone else. Racism, nationalism, tribalism and nepotism - to mention a few - are ample evidence of that. In an amoral universe moral laws are merely human modes of manipulation…

I never said the universe was amoral and you seem to be convinced I think that it is. I am a moral realist just not the same sort as you.

“Not acceptable” is not a categorical imperative.

Pardon my use of the vernacular shorthand. I suppose I could have said ‘are neither morally licit nor legally acceptable and are punished under the rubrics of both.’

I have explained what they have in common. It is for you to show why they are not basically the same…

I did show why they were not the same, and have made a study of world religions. Have you? More on this below.

How do you explain prayer wheels? Most Buddhists accept the existence of gods of some kind.

Buddhas are not gods and any attempt to claim them as such is misguided. Prayer wheels are tools for accruing good karma and expunging bad in an effort to bring the user closer to enlightenment. Just because it has the word ‘prayer’ in it doesn’t mean it’s prayer to a deity.

The unbeliever is making the positive claim that physical reality is the sole reality. The onus is also on him to furnish evidence.

This unbeliever is making the claim that there is insufficient evidence to suspect–or believe in–the existence of anything that cannot be seen (or physically observed in other ways).

Then your notion of evidence is defective because it cannot justify belief in the existence of any type of intangible reality - such as your mind, truth and freedom.

There is plenty of evidence to accept the existence of mind (especially one’s own as Descartes showed). Beyond that I would ask you to define your terms. If truth just intends that a supposition corresponds with reality then we have nothing about which to argue. If you would like to forward the existence of some other sort of truth existing independent of suppositions I’m a bit confused what that could be. Similarly with freedom as such; it may adhere as a property of individuals in that they can choose one course over another but if you are going to forward the existence of some separately existing freedom out there I’d ask for the evidence for it.

“main religions” is not at all ambiguous. The very fact that I used that term shows that I have not changed my intention. Both Christians and Muslims - and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists - are right on fundamentals. Their basic view of reality is the same. They all reject materialism and hedonism.

I feel like we’re having some confusion here. This discussion sprung from your claim that religions share ‘the same fundamental beliefs, values, spiritual principles and goals.’ If you are just arguing that all religions try to answer the same sorts of questions than I would agree with you in the same way I would agree that all restaurants serve food. There are numerous philosophies, at least in the contemporary reading of the term, that attempt to answer the same questions you would say are the domain of religions.

It was my understanding that you were claiming that all religions shared the same fundamental beliefs (e.g. God and Satan exist, the soul is immortal, judgment after death, the existence of Heaven and Hell), values (masturbation, homosexuality and idolatry are evil/bad/not good/sinful), spiritual practices (self-flagellation, prayer, veneration of relics–actually this one is fairly ubiquitous and an interesting book, Rag and Bone talks about the ubiquity of this across all religions and (interestingly) Communism as I recall) and goals (unity with God in Heaven). Sorry for the confusion.

 

[tonyrey]

I would still be alive and that is positive.

That is the very point I am making! BTW I was not making any assumptions about you, just selecting words with negative prefixes (and one suffix) to support the argument that evil is essentially negative. I sympathise with your problems, having similar ones myself…

How about loving your enemies…

All of these ideas, with the exception of prayer, are evident in the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama and predate Jesus by 500 years.

Guatama’s attitude to life is negative and passive whereas that of Jesus is positive and active. Compassion is noble but not so fulfilling and fertile as love. Guatama died by accident of food-poisoning but Jesus died on a Cross to liberate men from the vortex of evil and violence. The absence of prayer sums up the renunciation of the beauty and value of life to escape from the world as opposed to the appreciation of God’s power and goodness which have given us a foretaste of heaven.

The Son of God, who could perform miracles and rose from the dead couldn’t completely defeat cultural misogyny? That seems a bit of a weak response.

He has defeated it by His teaching but to expect Him to force people to accept the principle of equality is to misunderstand His mission. You may as well ask why He was rejected in Nazareth - and crucified - given his power to work miracles.

So should I then presume that you’ve carefully studied the facts presented by Carrier and Price?

No because if you cannot present them succinctly they cannot be compelling. How, for example, do they explain the archaeological evidence, e.g. the Lithostros, and the Evangelists’ knowledge of Roman and Jewish customs? How do they explain the origin, development and authorship of the Gospels?

I never said the universe was amoral and you seem to be convinced I think that it is. I am a moral realist just not the same sort as you.

On what are values based in an amoral universe? They seem to have nothing in common with physical objects.

Pardon my use of the vernacular shorthand. I suppose I could have said ‘are neither morally licit nor legally acceptable and are punished under the rubrics of both.’

Is punishment a necessary criterion of a categorical imperative?

Buddhas are not gods and any attempt to claim them as such is misguided. Prayer wheels are tools for accruing good karma and expunging bad in an effort to bring the user closer to enlightenment. Just because it has the word ‘prayer’ in it doesn’t mean it’s prayer to a deity.

Many Buddhists worship statues as greater powers - which amounts to petitionary prayer.

This unbeliever is making the claim that there is insufficient evidence to suspect–or believe in–the existence of anything that cannot be seen (or physically observed in other ways).

Then why believe in moral values?

There is plenty of evidence to accept the existence of mind (especially one’s own as Descartes showed).

The evidence is intangible.

If truth just intends that a supposition corresponds with reality then we have nothing about which to argue.

Is the correspondence tangible?

If you would like to forward the existence of some other sort of truth existing independent of suppositions I’m a bit confused what that could be.

Does a fact cease to be a fact if no one is aware of it?

Similarly with freedom as such; it may adhere as a property of individuals in that they can choose one course over another but if you are going to forward the existence of some separately existing freedom out there I’d ask for the evidence for it.

Freedom means the power of choice but it also means a set of circumstances in which you can exercise that power. Both are intangible.

It was my understanding that you were claiming that all religions shared the same fundamental beliefs (e.g. God and Satan exist, the soul is immortal, judgment after death, the existence of Heaven and Hell), values (masturbation, homosexuality and idolatry are evil/bad/not good/sinful), spiritual practices (self-flagellation, prayer, veneration of relics… Sorry for the confusion.

There is no need to apologise for a misunderstanding due to the complexity of the subject . My initial remark on the subject was a reference to “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley in which it is evident that the religions are not tribal but those which uphold the basic values of civilisation and base them on supernatural reality:

"Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions…

The Perennial Philosophy is primarily concerned with the one, divine Reality substantial to the manifold world of things and lives and minds. But the nature of this one Reality is such that it cannot be directly and immediately apprehended except by those who have chosen to fulfil certain conditions, making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirit…

It is by making psychological and moral experiments that we can discover the intimate nature of mind and its potentialities. In the ordinary circumstances of average sensual life these potentialities of the mind remain latent and unmanifested. If we would realize them, we must fulfil certain conditions and obey certain rules, which experience has shown empirically to be valid."

powells.com/biblio?PID=27627&cgi=product&isbn=006057058x

 

[ThomasToo]

That is the very point I am making! BTW I was not making any assumptions about you, just selecting words with negative prefixes (and one suffix) to support the argument that evil is essentially negative. I sympathise with your problems, having similar ones myself…

The fact that we exist–as opposed to not, as was the case before we began life and will be when we die–is positive but is that fact enough to be valuable? I guess I just don’t like your terminology but that’s really not a meaningful problem.

The absence of prayer sums up the renunciation of the beauty and value of life to escape from the world as opposed to the appreciation of God’s power and goodness which have given us a foretaste of heaven.

The absence of prayer in Buddhism is a reflective of a radically different ideology than yours. Not necessarily better, not necessarily worse but very different.

You may as well ask why He was rejected in Nazareth - and crucified - given his power to work miracles.

I understand the theological claims behind the necessity of the crucifixion but I find them lacking.

No because if you cannot present them succinctly they cannot be compelling. How, for example, do they explain the archaeological evidence, e.g. the Lithostros, and the Evangelists’ knowledge of Roman and Jewish customs? How do they explain the origin, development and authorship of the Gospels?

I have not made extensive study of their writings and have made almost no study of them in several years. Simply because I agree with them and cannot give an appropriate summation of their views is my failing and not theirs.

On what are values based in an amoral universe? They seem to have nothing in common with physical objects.

Sam Harris answers (or rather attempts to answer) this question in his forthcoming book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values which comes out 5 October. In brief–as I can recall from a lecture he gave on the topic–he argues that we have objective data and objective principles are derivable from that data. Again, my failing in description is not indicative of his failings in writing–the book is not yet available for me to read.

In more general terms, values are based on principle of universalization; I side with Kant on that question.

Is punishment a necessary criterion of a categorical imperative?

Poor wording I suppose, I mean only that is is not morally licit though Kant also thought the last murderer in jail ought to be put to death as society was being dissolved as a matter of justice so perhaps punishment is not all that far off.

Then why believe in moral values?

Because there are reasons to believe that actions have natural consequences that cause suffering–or the opposite–in other creatures and I lack any reason to think their experience of such feelings is meaningfully different from mine and as such the goodness or badness of such feelings is objectively available.

The evidence is intangible.

No it’s not. I have clear evidence of the existence of my own mind. In fact, its existence is the only thing in which I can have absolute certainty.

Is the correspondence tangible?

Insofar as language is tangible and reality is the same.

Does a fact cease to be a fact if no one is aware of it?

If no one is aware of it nor ever can be nor ever will be I think the question of its factualness is meaningless.

Freedom means the power of choice but it also means a set of circumstances in which you can exercise that power. Both are intangible.

The power of choice adheres to physical objects (i.e. people) and the social circumstances that allow people to exercise such a power adhere to societies. The principle of supervenience is important and relevant here and elsewhere in this conversation.