The Enterprise is back... at least for a while

[Spock]

It has been quite a long time since I participated on the board. I viewed some of the threads, however, and I see the very same problems as before.

To wit: there is no common set of definitions to build upon. Theists and atheists use the same word but do not use them in the same meaning. Not even such simple words as “love”, or “existence”, or “faith”. The same misconceptions are abound, like confusing “materialism” and “reductionism”. The same non-arguments are presented, like bringing up a scriptural reference as if that would constitute an “argument”.

Sad state of affairs indeed. Why not try to build a common ground, so some meaningful conversations could take place?

 

[JRKH]

It has been quite a long time since I participated on the board. I viewed some of the threads, however, and I see the very same problems as before.

To wit: there is no common set of definitions to build upon. Theists and atheists use the same word but do not use them in the same meaning. Not even such simple words as “love”, or “existence”, or “faith”. The same misconceptions are abound, like confusing “materialism” and “reductionism”. The same non-arguments are presented, like bringing up a scriptural reference as if that would constitute an “argument”.

Sad state of affairs indeed. Why not try to build a common ground, so some meaningful conversations could take place?

Good Idea.
Where shall we start?

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

Good Idea.
Where shall we start?

I was curious if anyone else shows interest. Looks like we are alone, at least for the time being. Pick your choice, whichever strikes your fancy. I will be here to participate.

 

[tomarin]

To wit: there is no common set of definitions to build upon. Theists and atheists use the same word but do not use them in the same meaning. Not even such simple words as “love”, or “existence”, or “faith”. The same misconceptions are abound, like confusing “materialism” and “reductionism”. The same non-arguments are presented, like bringing up a scriptural reference as if that would constitute an “argument”.

Sad state of affairs indeed. Why not try to build a common ground, so some meaningful conversations could take place?

I agree. There are really two camps in the philosophy sub-forum, usually talking past each other. Most of my attempts to find common ground have crashed and burned; I’m still not sure why.

 

[Spock]

I agree. There are really two camps in the philosophy sub-forum, usually talking past each other. Most of my attempts to find common ground have crashed and burned; I’m still not sure why.

Let’s try to fix that. It is pretty disheartening not to be able to communicate. Pick any topic you wish to talk about, and let’s just do it.

 

[AntiTheist]

Let’s try to fix that. It is pretty disheartening not to be able to communicate. Pick any topic you wish to talk about, and let’s just do it.

Well, okay, I’ll start.

I’ve noticed that believers attach a very different meaning to the words “value” and “meaning.” They seem to think that something can only be valuable or meaningful if it lasts forever and ever and ever and ever. Since atheists don’t typically believe that anything lasts forever and ever and ever and ever, you find theists saying things like, “You can’t have any meaning in a world without god!”

But, of course, these theists are just defining these words in this peculiar way rather than looking at how these words are actually used by real people. Nobody actually uses “value” or “meaning” to suggest lasting forever and ever and ever and ever.

For example: my car will not last forever and ever and ever and ever. One day it will break down, become scrap metal, and eventually it will cease to exist entirely. At that point, it will have no value to anyone. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value to me right now or that I can’t find it meaningful or that I don’t have good motivation for keeping it in good shape right now.

 

[davidv]

Well, okay, I’ll start.

I’ve noticed that believers attach a very different meaning to the words “value” and “meaning.” They seem to think that something can only be valuable or meaningful if it lasts forever and ever and ever and ever. Since atheists don’t typically believe that anything lasts forever and ever and ever and ever, you find theists saying things like, “You can’t have any meaning in a world without god!”

But, of course, these theists are just defining these words in this peculiar way rather than looking at how these words are actually used by real people. Nobody actually uses “value” or “meaning” to suggest lasting forever and ever and ever and ever.

For example: my car will not last forever and ever and ever and ever. One day it will break down, become scrap metal, and eventually it will cease to exist entirely. At that point, it will have no value to anyone. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value to me right now or that I can’t find it meaningful or that I don’t have good motivation for keeping it in good shape right now.

So, why is it that the non-believer gets to set the definitions? For the sake of the discussion should not the non-believer use the believers language? This is a Catholic forum.

 

[AntiTheist]

So, why is it that the non-believer gets to set the definitions?

No, it’s not that I think “the non-believer gets to set the definitions.” It’s that I think we should use the meaning of the words that people actually use.

For example, I’ll bet that in your daily life, you – and just about every other believer here – use the common, everyday meaning of words like “value” and “meaning.” When you hear someone talking about his car having value, you don’t jump up and cry, “What! Your car has no value, for it will one day cease to be! Nothing that will cease to be can have any value!”

You only use this peculiar and weird definition of “value” when it suits you, when you’re engaged in a conversation where it helps to redefine common words to have new meanings that you don’t use anywhere else.

I’m not saying that non-believers should get to define words. I’m saying that we should actually use words the way that people typically use them. For starters, you could acknowledge that in almost all situations, “lasting forever and ever and ever and ever” is not at all a precondition for having value.

 

[Spirithound]

For example, I’ll bet that in your daily life, you – and just about every other believer here – use the common, everyday meaning of words like “value” and “meaning.”

I’m more used to seeing the word “values”, not “value”. But I’ll stick around for a good thread.

 

[davidv]

No, it’s not that I think “the non-believer gets to set the definitions.” It’s that I think we should use the meaning of the words that people actually use.

For example, I’ll bet that in your daily life, you – and just about every other believer here – use the common, everyday meaning of words like “value” and “meaning.” When you hear someone talking about his car having value, you don’t jump up and cry, “What! Your car has no value, for it will one day cease to be! Nothing that will cease to be can have any value!”

You only use this peculiar and weird definition of “value” when it suits you, when you’re engaged in a conversation where it helps to redefine common words to have new meanings that you don’t use anywhere else.

I’m not saying that non-believers should get to define words. I’m saying that we should actually use words the way that people typically use them. For starters, you could acknowledge that in almost all situations, “lasting forever and ever and ever and ever” is not at all a precondition for having value.

It seems that this post demonstrates the basic failure. Some words, when used in relation to our faith, do not mean what they typically mean.

With regard to “value”, one must distinguish between objective value and subjective value. The value of your vehicle is a good example of subjective value. On the other hand, the value of you life, is an objective value. You life, regardless of subjective opinions, which might attempt to devalue it, cannot remove it intrinsic value.

 

[AntiTheist]

It seems that this post demonstrates the basic failure. Some words, when used in relation to our faith, do not mean what they typically mean.

With regard to “value”, one must distinguish between objective value and subjective value. The value of your vehicle is a good example of subjective value. On the other hand, the value of you life, is an objective value. You life, regardless of subjective opinions, which might attempt to devalue it, cannot remove it intrinsic value.

Well, I think distinguishing between types of value might be useful here, but even with this distinction, I would submit that in everyday usage, “value” always means what you mean by “subjective value.”

In fact, even under “objective value,” things are (presumbaly) given value because some supposed supernatural consciousness that exists outside the universe makes it so. This kind of value is no less subjective – you’ve merely pushed the subjectivity back a level onto a different being.

In all of these cases, “value” consists of a consciousness placing importance on something. Whether or not the something lasts forever is completely irrelevant.

 

[Spock]

It seems that this post demonstrates the basic failure. Some words, when used in relation to our faith, do not mean what they typically mean.

In and by itself this is not an insurmountable problem, as long as we can agree on the different usage and in their respective context both are sensible. The trouble comes when the assumed “meanings” of the words in different context contradict each other. Example: “person A loves person B” in everyday usage does not allow person B come to harm, if person A can prevent it. Yet, when applied to God’s assumed “love”, such behavior is “accepted” by the Christians. They refuse to acknowledge that such usage contradicts the normal usage of the word “love”, and thus the terminology is unacceptable.

 

[davidv]

In and by itself this is not an insurmountable problem, as long as we can agree on the different usage and in their respective context both are sensible. The trouble comes when the assumed “meanings” of the words in different context contradict each other. Example: “person A loves person B” in everyday usage does not allow person B come to harm, if person A can prevent it. Yet, when applied to God’s assumed “love”, such behavior is “accepted” by the Christians. They refuse to acknowledge that such usage contradicts the normal usage of the word “love”, and thus the terminology is unacceptable.

If the meaning of a word has changed and the old meaning is critical to the concept being explained why should the believer give up the old meaning in explaining that concept just because the old and new meanings are in conflict?

 

[donsnow]

It has been quite a long time since I participated on the board. I viewed some of the threads, however, and I see the very same problems as before.

To wit: there is no common set of definitions to build upon. Theists and atheists use the same word but do not use them in the same meaning. Not even such simple words as “love”, or “existence”, or “faith”. The same misconceptions are abound, like confusing “materialism” and “reductionism”. The same non-arguments are presented, like bringing up a scriptural reference as if that would constitute an “argument”.

Sad state of affairs indeed. Why not try to build a common ground, so some meaningful conversations could take place?

Hi, Spock,

If the existing dictionaries are not common ground of definitions for some of both believers and ungodly, then then there’s no common ground available.

Regards,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Anti-Theist,

You are not on a secular forum. This is a Christian forum with a Christian viewpoint which is not in error.

As long as you reject the tenets of our viewpoint out of hand, instead of respecting our freedom of choice for where to invest our faith, then, we all, both believer and ungodly, have a communication problem.

Regards,
Don

 

[Spock]

If the meaning of a word has changed and the old meaning is critical to the concept being explained why should the believer give up the old meaning in explaining that concept just because the old and new meanings are in conflict?

Because it spreads confusion and misunderstanding. Why not create a new word, and explain what its meaning is?

The following is just an example. I do not wish to derail the thread, so I present it as an illustraton, and will not discuss it. The word in question is “love”. When we say that “person A loves person B” , and then we discover that person A knew about some impending disaster coming to person B, and he could have prevented it, but did nothing, then our conclusion is simple: “person A does not love person B”, and no amount of rationalization (why did he stay inactive?) can change that. Whatever the relationship of A to B might be, it is most emphatically not “love”. (Of course, if you, or person A could rationally explain the reason for this inactivity, we could make a different decision. But simple rationalizing will not do.)

 

[Spock]

If the existing dictionaries are not common ground of definitions for some of both believers and ungodly, then then there’s no common ground available.

Dictionaries are a good start. But they are not the final arbiter of what words mean. Also the dictionaries simply rattle off the different uses of words, but that is usually insufficient for deeper understanding.

 

[davidv]

Because it spreads confusion and misunderstanding. Why not create a new word, and explain what its meaning is?

How would a new word with an untested meaning be any less confusing?

The following is just an example. I do not wish to derail the thread, so I present it as an illustraton, and will not discuss it. The word in question is “love”. When we say that “person A loves person B” , and then we discover that person A knew about some impending disaster coming to person B, and he could have prevented it, but did nothing, then our conclusion is simple: “person A does not love person B”, and no amount of rationalization (why did he stay inactive?) can change that. Whatever the relationship of A to B might be, it is most emphatically not “love”. (Of course, if you, or person A could rationally explain the reason for this inactivity, we could make a different decision. But simple rationalizing will not do.)

 

[JRKH]

I’ll jump in here just long enough to comment on the "common meanings of words etc issue.

Each and every person is going to bring to a given conversation, not just the “common meanings”, or “dictionary meanings” of words, but also their own, “emotionally influenced meaning”. No amount of trying to “define” a common definition between believers and non-believers will ultimately solve this completely. Why? Because, even if those currently here agree on common terms and meanings, as an open forum, there will constantly be new people coming in who have not “learned” this agreed upon language.

What is needed instead is the patience on both sides to work carefully and charitably with each other to improve understanding.

Naturally this will involve much explaining of why certain words are used in certain ways and in certain contexts by certain individuals coming from differing backgrounds.
So the answer here is not creating a new “language” or new “dictionary” for use here, but rather a deisre to communicate clearly and with patience, understanding and a desire to understand the other fellow’s view.

Just my 2 cents

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

How would a new word with an untested meaning be any less confusing?

Because we would start with “tabula rasa”, without preconceptions, and with a methodical approach we could discern the meaning of it.

Using the previous example, the proposition “God loves us” is meaningless if one considers “love” as it is generally accepted. And worse than meaningless, misleading. If you would substitute “love” with a brand new word (make one up, if you feel like it), the sentence would not become meaningful without further clarification, but at least it would not not be confusing, and that is a good start. During the clarification process (which might take some time) you could enlighten us just what this new word means, and then we could have a mutually acceptable starting position.