Letter to a Christian Nation

[Leela]

Interesting thread Leela, I’ll refer you to Sam Harris’ own words from his book “End of Faith” page 52:-

*“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live” *

.

Hi Redneck,

I have read this book. Can you tell me what point you are making by posting this quote?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Are there any examples you can provide where this can shown to be true using the scientific method, science or repeatable observation?

.

Hi redneck,

Do you insist that every claim must be demonstrable through the scientific method?

Debating evolution is outside the bounds of this thread. I believe there is a current thread on evolution? You may also start a new thread for your specific question.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

the synthesis i use is fine for me and makes the First Cause irrefutable as far as i can see, however it is no good when dealing with atheists, because the descriptions of the nature of G-d, as i understand him are all found in Scripture, it is that synthesis of modern cosmology and biblical cosmology that makes it such a powerful argument to me.

Can you demonstrate how you refute one of the arguments I made against First Cause?

Reason changes

but faith, faith is a rock, it is my firm foundation, when the wind blows and i doubt, i make that act of will called Faith, and i am strengthened, Faith does not change
.

Can you explain what you mean by faith. It sounds like you use faith to mean the virtue of willing yourself to believe things when you doubt them to be true. I can’t imagine how that is a virtue. In fact 9/11 shows the immense danger of such faith?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi Petey,

scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

no offense intended but this does seem like an apt description of
the atheists i happen too know. if you dont take this position then can you tell me what sources other than empirical evidence you will accept the veracity of?

Please see my posts in Morality without God? #'s 94, 120, and 124 where I discussed this issue extensively.

or to translate that into zen “if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to here it did it really fall?” or something to that effect

The hypothetical tree that I’m imagining actually did fall and made a crashing sound when it hit the ground.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

the implication is that religion causes war, but the fact of the matter secular, officially “atheistic regimes have killed hundreds of millions”

I refer you to these regimes

1. nazis 6 million
2. soviets 20 million
3. red china 20 million
4. pol pot 5 million

these are rough numbers and only cover a few well known examples in the 20th century.

Has there even been a war over purely religious reasons in the last 100 years?

yes it happens ocasionally, but i think serious research would show that regimes denying a faith are by far the more deadly.

even worse i can understand why religious disputes might escalate to killing. but i don’t understand that same killing on a much more massive scale over simply political and economic restructuring.

a world where all people held some religious belief would seem to have a lower net number of deaths than that same world where people had none.

in other words that kind of evil is a function of people, not of faith

My thesis is not that religion causes war but rather that dogmatic belief hinders rather than promotes human flourishing. The examples you cited are certainly not evidence of the evil of being too desirous of evidence in support of our core beliefs.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Leela,
of course i could, but you wont accept the validity of the base definitions and you have said before cosmology is of little interest to you, as such the time it would take me to type out the arguments would not be worth the expected result, so i will simply yield too you on the matter of First Cause. I cannot empirically prove the existence of G-d, any more than one can prove the existence of magnetism by the same method.

as to the matter of Faith, it is not willing yourself to believe in something you doubt, it is willing yourself not to doubt something you believe, for my reason to believe i refer you to my reply concerning why i am not a muslim.

how do you explain the fact that a universe exists? you have said before that you don’t need to provide such a reason, because you don’t know, however your lack of knowledge doesn’t change the fact of the universes existence, so on what basis can you reject all others arguments for that creation, you have an observable universe to compare it to. surely some conjectures are more closely aligned with that universe than others. so you do have a method by which to evaluate these arguments

having that method and not using it may just be a dodge to avoid the obvious fact of the universes existence.

moral realist heh?, what empirical evidence exists of absolute morals? you cant even prove your own existence moment to moment to another person, in fact i am not sure at this moment you exist, i cant see you, and these posts dont prove your existence, i could go on into utter reducibility,

but this just proves my point about the ultimate usefulness of Reason, its twistable, manipulatable, sophist word games that deny the pragmatism of an observable universe. even your position has anti realists (who may be a more appropriate audience) I was a philosophy major for one semester, then i realized that what one philosopher said was disputed by another for equally valid reasons they claim to search for truth or its philosophical equivalent , but as far as i could tell it was a close race between the search for tenure, and the race to who had the biggest brain. i found nothing of value to learn there.

that also explains the reticence i found to provide reasonable, logical explanations in another thread, are you gathering information for some dissertation or school project?

as too the idea that dogmatic belief hinders human “flourishing” from where i sit humans fail to flourish for a lack of proper dogmatic belief. and ive already stated why i believe, so that is what i would call the “proper dogmatic belief”

as to the regimes in question they acted as they did because they practiced moral relativism and they had no extrinsic source of values to put the brakes on, their Reason was the only way they had to make judgments, though one may not be a directly correlated to the other, the level of correlation between those conditions in a society and mass murder numbering in the millions is simply to high to ignore.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi Holy1,

I am not at all an advocate of scientism.

Can you please explain why the arguments I’ve made have no merit? And how they obliterate the scientific method?

Best,
Leela

One of the problems with your arguments is that they presuppose the existence of actual infinities.

Are you unfamiliar with Hume’s attack on causal reasoning?

 

[delberto]

Hi everyone,

. Can we ever have peace when one group of people believes in the Koran and another believes in the Bible?

Best,
Leela

Leela,
unfortunately the american christian fundemenatlists are just as crazy as the taliban.
This little world of ours will eventually be destroyed by those of faith. In fact, surely true christian should you be looking forward to the end of days? second coming and all that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

delberto

the word i think you are looking for, is Maranatha

Maranatha
Maranatha Mar`a*nath"a, n. [Aramaic m[=a]ran ath=a].]
“Our Lord cometh;” – an expression used by St. Paul at the
conclusion of his first Epistle to the Corinthians (xvi. 22).
This word has been used in anathematizing persons for great
crimes; as much as to say, "May the Lord come quickly to take
vengeance of thy crimes.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I think the First Cause argument has a lot of problems. Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t.

The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take.

If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause.

And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the universe itself rather than God.

Leela, why can’t you simply state what you believe?

You don’t believe there is a “first cause”, do you?

You, at least at this point, buy the idea that the “material”
universe, in one form or another, has never not existed. Is that correct?

The “agnostic” dodge of “I don’t know!” is not an operational premise. It gives no base for any further consideration of that which could develop from actually taking a position one way or the other.

You DO have an operational premise, which you won’t tell us about, which allows you to base what you mean by “truth” on.

So, would you please simply tell us what that operational premise is?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

My thesis is not that religion causes war but rather that dogmatic belief hinders rather than promotes human flourishing. The examples you cited are certainly not evidence of the evil of being too desirous of evidence in support of our core beliefs.

Your only error in the above is that instead of saying “dogmatic belief” you should have said “incorrect dogmatic belief”.

But, as a scientistic materialist, your (incorrect) dogmatic belief that all dogmatic belief is evil (which is just a subset of your full set of beliefs which is your religion), or at least “bad” , it’s not surprising that you’d get that bit wrong.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.

Absolutely true!

The grand primal error of those who think that religion is evil is that they think that they are not religious.

The problem is that those with incorrect religions claim they have correct religion, and due to stubbornness (pride, hubris, whathaveyou…) try to impose by force their religion on those with any religion other than theirs.

Catholics are prohibited from imposing their (correct) religion on anyone. They realize the evil produced by not only having incorrect religion but also the evil produced by trying to impose ANY religion on others in a coercive manner.

Yet another “oddity” which makes the Church such a special thing in the world.

Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Quite true!

But “most reasonableness” is defined only as that which the Church does.

But, as you see any dogma as evil, other than yours of course, as you are your own “pope”, which you “get around” via the “clever” tactic of “dogmatically declaring dogma evil”, no other dogma but yours is reasonable, and as you are the only reasonable decision maker in existence, all should follow you as well treated slaves to the “benevolent dictator”.

But, what is the source of your authority?

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

Hi Cats,

Your only error in the above is that instead of saying “dogmatic belief” you should have said “incorrect dogmatic belief”.

But, as a scientistic materialist…

I know you are, but what am I?

It just sounds like name calling at this point.

Catholics are prohibited from imposing their (correct) religion on anyone. They realize the evil produced by not only having incorrect religion but also the evil produced by trying to impose ANY religion on others in a coercive manner.

Yet another “oddity” which makes the Church such a special thing in the world.

How are Catholics prohibited from imposing their religion? (You should tell Petey who wishes for a theocracy.) Hasn’t the Church attempted exactly this at least in the past? If the Church was wrong about something then, can’t the Church be wrong about something now?

But “most reasonableness” is defined only as that which the Church does.

Really? If the Church does it it’s reasonable? If the Church doesn’t do it it’s not reasonable?

But, as you see any dogma as evil, other than yours of course, as you are your own “pope”, which you “get around” via the “clever” tactic of “dogmatically declaring dogma evil”, no other dogma but yours is reasonable, and as you are the only reasonable decision maker in existence, all should follow you as well treated slaves to the “benevolent dictator”.

Now I’m a dictator? All I’m saying is that we should hold all of our beliefs up to the conversational pressures of rational discourse. Under such pressures you need to resort to name-calling?

But, what is the source of your authority?

I don’t claim to have any special power for discerning truth or special knowledge that was revealed to some of us and not to others. Instead I think we need a taste for evidence and a healthy skepticism for arguments based on authority.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

what prevents us from imposing our will?

Surely it is the might of those titans of reason, dawkins, hitchens, and harris.

they restrain the mighty evil of faith from complete global domination!

bwaaaaaa, bwaaaaaa, bwahahahaha!
(imagine my evil laughter as i rub my hands together, planning their overly intricate demise, ala austin powers)

whats wrong with a Catholic theocracy? the one we have in Rome, the Vatican, works just fine, and held it europe together through the collapse of the roman empire the invasions of barbarians, and the dark ages, it is on the the shoulders of those saintly Popes that was built this age of reason, even you stand on the shoulders of these giants, you owe the body of Christ even while you deny her. yes i said that, you dont have to reread it

and before you go on about the protection of equality, and rights, and people of other opinions, let me point out that secularism doesn’t seem to have that great a track record,

 

[GailMac]

Dear OP - Next time you visit the Library, find a book about some Saints and have a better read!

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

P.S. Tomorrow I’m voting for McCain and Palin! And proud to do so! Yippie! The wait is over!

 

[Swan]

My thesis is not that religion causes war but rather that dogmatic belief hinders rather than promotes human flourishing. The examples you cited are certainly not evidence of the evil of being too desirous of evidence in support of our core beliefs.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Best,
Leela

Leela, I think that is an excellent analysis. The problem is not what faith/dogma is followed, it is how it is followed. Fundamentalism can be found in any philosophy. It is a way of thinking, fundmentalism and cognitive rigidity, that results in a certain type of behavior. The same mindset that gave us Pol Pot also gave us the witch burnings.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Catholics are prohibited from imposing their (correct) religion on anyone. They realize the evil produced by not only having incorrect religion but also the evil produced by trying to impose ANY religion on others in a coercive manner.

Yet another “oddity” which makes the Church such a special thing in the world.

How are Catholics prohibited from imposing their religion? (You should tell Petey who wishes for a theocracy.)

How do you think we are empowered by the Church, or even passively allowed, to impose our beliefs on others?

We evangelize through persuasion, which I personally am VERY bad at, and not through force (of arms).

Theocracy is an absolute oxymoron to an actual Catholic.

Hasn’t the Church attempted exactly this at least in the past?

Some Catholics who were not too bright thought that having the Church actually wielding temporal power was a good idea. They were wrong, and the Church qua the Church told them that they were wrong but the Church (qua the Church) was overwhelmed by the actual temporal power held by these people, and just as with any sin with enough “support” to be imposed on people this sin had to be “played out” and been defeated by it’s self-destructive consequences.

If the Church was wrong about something then, can’t the Church be wrong about something now?

The Church qua the Church is never wrong. The people within the Church are always sinners, and occasionally the sins of some of the people within the Church are quite grave indeed.

Once again, people who can’t see truth, because “all is relative”, confuse the sin for the sinner, and (usually) vice versa.

To blame the one authority which gives us a clear statement of morals for the fact that those morals are not followed is a bit “odd”, wouldn’t you say?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
But “most reasonableness” is defined only as that which the Church does.

Really? If the Church does it it’s reasonable? If the Church doesn’t do it it’s not reasonable?

Not necessarily, but usually, yes.

If the Church says that it (some behavior or belief) is NOT to be done, then it is most certainly NOT reasonable.

It is quite possible to be reasonable without reference to explicit Church infallible moral statement, as we all have access to listening to natural law as best we can.

I’m not saying that reasonableness is “owned” by the Church, but that anything CLAIMING to BE reasonableness will be (can be) verifiable AS reasonableness only by reference it’s corollary within the Church.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
But, as you see any dogma as evil, other than yours of course, as you are your own “pope”, which you “get around” via the “clever” tactic of “dogmatically declaring dogma evil”, no other dogma but yours is reasonable, and as you are the only reasonable decision maker in existence, all should follow you as well treated slaves to the “benevolent dictator”.

Now I’m a dictator? All I’m saying is that we should hold all of our beliefs up to the conversational pressures of rational discourse. Under such pressures you need to resort to name-calling?

You are proposing that you should dictate what “reasonableness” is, with no authority other than “because it works for me”.

Your “standard” that you’ve just given us as, “…conversational pressures of rational discourse”, is meaningful only to you as only you know what “rational” means (as you use the word).

We have two choices: We can follow the dictates of whomever has enough temporal power to enforce their definition of words, or follow God’s definition of words (interpretations) of those very important words which define morality.

I choose God’s interpretations.

You choose “your own” (or those you trust) because there is no “God”, as “God” is simply an invention of man, or at best (if HAVING a “god” is deemed relatively “good”) “God” can’t be known and is irrelevant.

So, your choice is amongst various slavemasters, none of whom are worthy of being followed.

God is utterly worthy of being followed, considering the definition of God qua God, and He has the added benefit of being utterly committed to never violating our free will, which is precisely what all human slavemasters are ultimately committed to doing.

I’m not calling you names. I’m describing what your “thinking” descends into.

I do agree with you that our competing understandings of what “morality” is should be compared in the “conversational pressures of rational discourse”, but when one “side” of the conversation thinks they have the only valid meaning of “rational” they by fiat can come to any conclusion that they please.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
But, what is the source of your authority?

I don’t claim to have any special power for discerning truth or special knowledge that was revealed to some of us and not to others.

Of course you do! You call it “being rational and reasonable” (using your definitions of those words and excluding all others).

Instead I think we need a taste for evidence and a healthy skepticism for arguments based on authority.

I agree that, with one exception, there is no good that can come from basing an argument on authority.

But there is one authority, and only one, on which to base questions of truth.

He who is not God who gets to define “evidence” is a slavemaster (or at least a wouldbe slavemaster).

He who is not God who gets to define “healthy” or “skepticism” is a slavemaster.

He who is not God who gets to define “authority” is a slavemaster.

All slavemasters are anti-Christs. Not themselves as persons/sinners, but their behaviors as sin-purveyors/proliferators.

We can certainly, and will certainly, because God allows it, argue amongst ourselves about what morality really is, but that doesn’t change what morality actually is.

Now, how well anyone, most especially those who DO know what is meant by morality, obeys the dictates OF true morality and minimizes the proliferation of the consequences of sin in the world is an entire other issue.

:shamrock2: