Pages

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Christian Ethics Exposed

 


In my recent post on pride, I was presented with the following comment and challenge from Ron. This post is my response to that challenge. The challenge came after I said:


" According to Christianity, Yahweh is "all good." If Yahweh is all good, then he would be completely virtuous. But Yahweh is not completely virtuous, because he exhibits certain vices, such as jealousy and anger. Now, let's examine your attempt at Humpty Dumpty Semantics. You think that you can change the meaning of the term by mere assertion. Almost every culture list jealousy and anger as vices. The Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, and so on. In almost all the religions, jealousy and anger are vices. Worse yet, even according to Christianity, jealousy and anger are vices. Furthermore, according to Christians, these are "absolute" and come from Yahweh. But how bizarre, Yahweh himself exhibits jealousy and anger according to the bible! Note, for it to be absolute, there would be no exception to the rule. No matter what the condition, anger and jealousy would still be vices. The Christian claims "god is good" and "god is virtuous"--based on what standard? As you illustrate, if the standard changes, and is applied differently to make whatever Yahweh does "good and virtuous" even if it is a vice, you would have no standard at all. It is clear that jealousy and anger are vices, according to Christianity, and have been considered to be vices by almost all the major cultures and religions. You illustrate your bias and ignorance when you try to make anger and jealousy virtues in an attempt to make your god and bible seem consistent--when they are not. According to the bible itself, Yahweh is not all good and virtuous because he exhibits the vices of jealousy and anger. How sad. You want to take scripture, like Humpty Dumpty, and make it mean whatever you want it to mean. To claim that something is a vice, and then say it is a virtue, is totally inconsistent and ignorant."


To clarify,  I said that according to Christians, these are "absolute" and come from Yahweh. To claim that something is a vice and that it is a an absolute, and then say it is a virtue, is totally inconsistent and ignorant."  I will explain this below and offer a better explanation as to what counts as a virtue and under what circumstances one would be justified in overriding that virtue in favor of another virtue.


The challenge was as follows:

"Short and sweet today... I'll attempt to get you out of the university classroom and into the real world. Here's a scenario for you to apply your logic towards.

A father's daughter is raped. He loves her more than life itself. Do you imagine that he is angry with the man who raped her? Now imagine that the man continues to rape her every day. Do you think the father is angry with the man who is raping her? Do you think he can still be a loving father and at the same time be angry? Would you consider him loving if he were not angry with the man who raped her? Would you consider him loving if he continued to allow the man to rape her daily?

Since you are a perfect person I'm hoping you can tell me the best way to handle this situation. First imagine she were your daughter."

As I pointed out before, I am a Peircian pragmatist, and as a result, there is no distinction for me between the university classroom and the real world. "Speaking of the real world"-- that is odd coming from a Christian who bases his hopes on a fake afterlife, as opposed to "living in the real world."

First of all, Ron's example is neither short nor sweet. In fact, it is complicated, and is a bizarre example for him to use, as it will illustrate the weakness of his position, and for the Christian conception of their own God(s), Yahweh and/or Jesus; and the Christian religion in general.

Secondly, Ron's example does not present a moral dilemma for me nor an objective morality that is not founded on a God, in particular the Christian God Yahweh. Worst yet, his example presents a problem and dilemma for Christian Ethics and the Divine Command Theory and again, for the Christian conception of their own God(s), Yahweh and or Jesus, and the Christian religion in general. I will show that if I were the father in his example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him to prevent him from raping my daughter. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and my arguments will be supported by Biblical scriptures and Normative Ethical Theories.

Let us consider Ron's example: "A father's daughter is raped. A daughter he loves more than life itself."

Now, if Jesus had his way, no one would love anyone more than they love him! As Nietzsche pointed out:

"Love of one man is a barbarity: for it is practiced at the expense of all the rest. Also the love for God."

Not only is Yahweh/Jesus' demand for love at the expense of family and all else barbaric, it is the highest form of egotism/narcissism/perversion I can think of.

The bible is full of contradictions, as I will illustrate shortly, and have already done so earlier. According to Ron's god, he is to love him, and love his enemy MORE than he loves his daughter. So, in his example, according to Jesus, he ought love the man raping his daughter, more than he loves his daughter!--how bizarre. According to Jesus:

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."  Luke 6:27-36

As the Christian Pastor, Ralph F. Wilson notes, "The world says -- RIGHTLY(my emphasis) -- "Love your friends. Be loyal to your friends. Look out for your friends." Why? Friends will look out for you. Loving your friends is just smart...Loving your friends and your spouse is just enlightened self-interest."

So again I say--bizarre. The Christian must resort to Humpty Dumpty semantics in order to try to make sense out of this nonsense. For in Ron's example, the father ought love the man raping his daughter, more than he loves his own daughter! Not only is he supposed to love him, but he is also supposed to express his love for his daughter's attacker. To paraphrase Jesus, "If someone rapes you, let him rape you again. If someone takes your virginity, do not stop him from taking more. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." Now, let's see if we substitute agape love for eros or philia, does that help? Agape love is:

"...one of the Greek words translated into English as love, one which became particularly appropriated in Christian theology as the love of God or Christ for mankind. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love. Although the word does not have specific religious connotation, the word has been used by a variety of contemporary and ancient sources, including Biblical authors and Christian authors. Thomas Jay Oord has defined agape as "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being." In his book, The Pilgrimage, author Paulho Coelho defines it as "the love that consumes," i.e., the highest and purest form of love, one that surpasses all other types of affection. Contemporary philosopher Slavoj Zizek refers to it as "political love." Greek philosophers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to philia (an affection that could denote friendship, brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros, an affection of a sexual nature.
Although some sources claim agape appears in the Odyssey twice, the word is in fact not used there. Instead, two forms of the word agape may be found: agapêton and agapazomenoi. Agapêton is found in Book 5 of the Odyssey and means "beloved" or "well-loved". Agapazomenoi is found in books 7 and 17 of the Odyssey and means “to treat with affection.
The verb agapao is used extensively in the Septuagint as the translation of the common Hebrew term for love which is used to show affection for husband/wife and children, brotherly love, and God's love for humanity. It is uncertain why agapao was chosen, but similarity of consonant sounds (aḥava) may have played a part. The Greek concept may have originated as a transliteration from some Semitic tongue. This usage provides the context for the choice of this otherwise obscure word, in preference to other more common Greek words, as the most frequently used word for love in Christian writings. The use of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers, but is clearly derived from the use of the verb agapao in the Septuagint."*

Now, according to Christians, one ought to have agape love for his enemies. We see from the definition above, that would mean Christians ought have unconditional love for their enemies. Also note that Yahweh is kind to the "ungrateful and wicked," according to passages above cited from Luke 6.  In Ron's example, the father ought have unconditional love for his daughter's rapist, and Yahweh will be "kind" to the rapist. I still say--BIZARRE!! According to Christians, one ought be "self-sacrificing" to his enemies. So, the father and daughter ought sacrifice themselves to the rapist/attacker. Perhaps the father can "turn his cheek" over to the rapist too. I still say-BIZARRE!! According to Christian agape love, the father should respond to the rapist with well-being instead of ill-being. I still say-BIZARRE!! Well, I hope that you get the point.

The Christian conception of a god that has unconditional love contradicts the god of the bible, Yahweh, whose love is conditional. According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh only loves you if you keep his laws and commandments. As the bible says:

"If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers." Deuteronomy 7:12

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments. " Deuteronomy 5:9-10

Therefore, according to the bible, and Christians, Yahweh's love is unconditional, and NOT unconditional!--a contradiction. For if Yahweh's love was unconditional, then there would be no conditions involved. But as the passages cited above illustrate, Yahweh's love has conditions! The claim that we ought to have Christian agape love, a divine, unconditional love, and I quote from above, the use , "...of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers"--instead of innovation, I say a BIZARRE INVENTION!! For, we should have the kind of love that Yahweh exhibits in Deuteronomy. That is, you should punish those who hate you, and love those who love you. In the case of the father whose daughter is being raped, he ought to punish and HATE the rapist. The father ought stop the rapist from raping his daughter. The father ought show the rapist no mercy. The daughter ought not give herself to the rapist if he demands her too, nor should the father give his daughter to the rapists.

Christian Pastor, Ralph F. Wilson said it right, "The world says -- RIGHTLY(my emphasis) -- "Love your friends." And I add to that, the world says--rightly HATE your enemies,  and in the spirit of Yahweh, hate them and show them your "wrath" if they treat you unjustly.  In Ron's example, the father ought to hate the rapist and show the rapist wrath to prevent his daughter from being raped.

While Christians claim that Yahweh is all loving and even loves the sinner and they cite New Testament scripture, such as John 3:16, as support and proof of this interpretation, we also find that according to New Testament scriptures that Yahweh does not love the sinner, and in fact, he hates and punishes the sinner:

"You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors." Psalm 5:5-6
"The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates." Psalm 11:5
"The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry; the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth." Psalm 34:15-16

"The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous." Proverbs 3:33

"The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death. The Lord detests men of perverse heart but he delights in those whose ways are blameless. Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free." Proverbs 11:19-21
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him." John 3:36

"For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer,but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” 1 Peter 3:12

Therefore, If I were the father in Ron's example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and as I have demonstrated above, and I support this on the basis of Biblical scriptures. If anyone can cite Biblical scripture that contradicts this, such as the passage I cited above, and if, according to Ron, this would somehow not be acting divinely and is not in line with being perfect, and thus, I am not perfect, then Yahweh is not perfect--and it would be inconsistent and contradictory. This would be in accordance with my argument in the post that generated his comment and my replies to him, and eventually this post, that shows that if we accept the Christian conception of their ethics and the Christian' s claim that Yahweh is all good and thus virtuous is false, since Yahweh exhibits anger, jealousy, and now we can add to that list--hate, which according Christianity are vices. Now we can see how complicated Ron's example is, and how it illustrates the problems, inconsistencies, and contradictions within Christianity.

On the other hand, if we go by Old Testament law, and remember, Jesus said to follow ALL the laws and ALL the prophets until heaven and earth disappear, (Matt 5:18) then if I was the father in Ron's example, the result of my daughter being raped depends on whether or not she is a virgin, betrothed or married, or whether she was raped in the wilderness or not.  I will address this issue in my next post title "Christian Ethics Exposed Part 2 - Sanctioned Rape".  

Let's continue. Ron's complicated example is easily handled by other normative ethical theories and non Christian conceptions of morality which posit absolute moral rules.

In ethics, we have absolute rules and non absolute rules. Christians claim that their God's rules are absolute and non changing. According to this view, there can be no objectivity without absolute direct moral rules; what they call commandments. Nevertheless, Christians claim they are under a new covenant, and the old laws no longer apply. However, in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus said to follow all the laws and all the prophets until heaven and earth disappear--but that is a discussion for another posting, as this too is inconsistent and contradictory.

There are no absolutes. The problem with absolutist Normative Ethical Theories is that they use specific factor fixed-weight rules. A factor is a characteristic of action. For example, an action can be characterized as truthful or lying; prideful or arrogant. Truth telling or lying; having pride or being arrogant, are factors of some actions. In general, when we think that an action is right or wrong, we almost always describe a factor. "What did Paul do that was wrong?" "Paul lied to his brother about using his bike." A rule has a fixed-weight if it cannot be overwritten by other factors. A factor overrides another when its presence changes and judgement we would otherwise make about a situation. A variable weight factor in contrast to fixed weight factor is one that varies from context to context. For example, if a father told his child he/she should murder their neighbor, which would be breaking the commandment of "do not murder" but if the child disobeyed their father, he/she would be breaking the commandment of "honoring their father." In this case, both commandments are supposed to be specific-fixed-weight rules.

According to Christians, Yahweh commandments are absolutes, and Christians claim that without absolute rules, there can be no objectivity or morality. This example illustrates that there are no absolute moral rules. Yet, we still have morality and objectivity via Normative Ethical Theories that do not require a god, such as Utilitarianism, which means doing what increases the overall good.

Variable-weight factors, in contrast to fixed-weight factors, are those whose weight varies from context to context. Such rules do not have the problem presented above for absolute specific-fixed-weight rules. In the example above, for instance, the weight of not committing murder outweighs honoring thy father.

In the beginning of the pride post, I used Aristotle's definition of virtue. To illustrate that the Christian conception of pride leads to misuse, ambiguity and equivocation. However, that is not my view of the Normative Ethical Theory of virtue. Note, that a virtue that required a certain type of behavior, would be an absolute, and as I have illustrated above, absolute rules do not work. Likewise, I would argue, absolute virtues do not work either. From a Christian standpoint, one might argue that a virtuous man would never lie, get angry, hate, and so on. However, as in the above example, under certain circumstances there are justifiable conditions for lying, anger, hate, and other so-called vices, and in such circumstances, these vices would be virtues. How would I determine what are virtues and vices, and under what conditions a virtue might be overridden by another virtue. One method that could be used is JS Mill's indirect rule utilitarianism. The indirect rule is as follows:

If any proposed direct moral rule, when generally acted from, increases the overall good, then it is a correct direct moral rule.
In this case, we can substitute virtue for direct moral rule. So, it would lead:
If any proposed virtue, when generally acted from, increases the overall good, then it is a virtue.

Now I can handle the example where the father is angry. Given the circumstances where "I am the father of a daughter who is raped, a daughter I love more than life itself."--then I would be justified in hating the rapist and I showing him my wrath, and I would be virtuous in doing so. Therefore, if I were the father in Ron's example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him to prevent him from raping my daughter. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and my conclusion was supported by Biblical scriptures and Normative Ethical Theories.

Nietzsche goes further and actually argues that under certain circumstances, some characteristic that is a virtue can actually be a vice; and some characteristic that is a vice can actually be a virtue.  For example, in the time of war, being a "good thief" and thus being able to steal supplies from the enemy would be a virtue--stealing in this case would be a virtue. Likewise, hate would be virtue if it provided the motivation and energy to defeat the enemy.















11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh, you've completely misunderstood me. We had been conversing about God being a jealous / angry God. Your contention is that contradicts Him being a God of love. I was simply illustrating how a loving God can and should be angry. You were the one contending that scripture was contradictory in that it says God is loving and can also be angry and I see that you came to the same conclusion. We agree on something, that's great. :)

Take care,
Ron

A is for Atheist said...

@ Ron

Oh my gosh, but I have not misunderstood you. You are like the fool that Buddha spoke of:

"A fool who recognises his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man, but a
fool who considers himself wise -- that is what one really calls a fool. - Gautama Buddha"

You are the fool who does not recognize his own ignorance. Part of my argument is a Reductio ad absurdum. When I assume what a Christian says is true, I do so in order to deduce the contradiction or absurdity of the Christian position in question. In this case, the contradictions and absurdities abound. First, Christians say god is "perfect" which would mean he has no vices. But Christians also say that he is angry, jealous, vengeful--all of which are considered vices by Christians--see the absurdity. Thus, I led you down the rabbit hole. You, being the "fool" followed the pied piper. You point out that god gets angry, and uses his wrath. I further showed you that sometimes we are justified in committing vices, but then, according to Christians, one would not be perfect. I went on to point out that perhaps Nietzsche is right, in that what is a virtue is sometimes a vice, and a vice is sometimes a virtue. I showed that when using the NET of Utilitarianism, there is no problem with this. But for the Christian, there is, because of the Christian notion of ABSOLUTISM. According to absolutism, a direct moral rule, or in this case a virtue, is unconditional. It is a fixed weighted rule, as I pointed out to you. Absolutism has proven to be a weak position, as I gave you examples to illustrate that we are often times justified in breaking an absolute rule. Furthermore, we can have objectivity without absolutism. As you point out, sometimes being angry is justifiable. Now, is it the case that I can be angry, and still be perfect? Now, is it the case that I can be jealous and still be perfect? Now, is it the case that I can be vengeful and still be perfect? See how deep you fall into the rabbit hole when you try to make something that is inconsistent, contradictory and absurd be "perfect" when in fact it is inconsistent, contradictory and absurd! Only a fool who does not recognize his own ignorance would attempt such a folly.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm, you know, you always put a smile on my face. I used to be like you in many ways. I can predict your response before you send it; other than your quotes of a lot of dead people.

I'm humored by how well you think you know Christians though you are not one, with your regular quips like "for the Christian" or "according to the Christian". I'm quite sure I am in a much better position to comment on what Christians believe than you are.

You can argue ad nauseam if you like about whether or not anger and jealousy are vices. That's fine with me. Any person with a small degree of wisdom understands they can be good or bad. If you understood that yourself you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to wax eloquently about something that is quite obvious to most people.

I spend most of my free time helping people; feeding them, clothing them, counseling them and on and on, whatever I can. Most Christians I know do the same. Most atheists I've known are selfish and hateful people; perhaps yourself excluded, I don't know.

What you speak of in theoretical terms I know of to the contrary through experience. You think Christians are feeble, demeaning, weak people and to the contrary I know of them to have great strength in difficult times and great compassion for others. You think we accept (and teach) that we are incapable of becoming better but to the contrary most Christians I know are daily striving to grow and learn and better themselves. Rather than being bitter and angry people they are positive, pleasant and always seeking to help.

No doubt you would like to eradicate Christianity from the planet. You would also have accomplished wiping out about 90% of all organized benevolent activity in the world. Bravo, great accomplishment. Now that's a deep rabbit hole! Ignorance is blind indeed my friend.

Take care,
Ron

A is for Atheist said...

@ Ron,

Thanks for your comment. I do not have the time for a thorough response at the moment, but I will post one shortly.

A is for Atheist said...

@Ron

With regards to anger and jealousy, you say that:

"Any person with a small degree of wisdom understands they can be good or bad."

Obviously, Jesus, or the Bible writers did not understand this. According to the Bible and the Christian conception of morality, anger and jealousy are vices. According to absolutism, a direct moral rule, or in this case a virtue, is unconditional. It is a fixed weighted vice--i.e., that is, according to Christian ethics, always bad!

So, according to you, Jesus, the Bible writers, and those Christians who espouse Christian absolutism--LACK EVEN A SMALL DEGREE OF WISDOM.

As I argued, there are instances where being angry or jealous are justified. I also mentioned Nietzsche who argued that what is a virtue in some instances, might be a vice in other instances, and , vice-versa. I explained the differences between absolutism and non-absolutism and objective morality and presented you with arguments on this subject to illustrate to you the absurdity of your position and the Christian conception of absolutism and objective morality.

Now, perhaps you understand the significance of my reductio ad absurdum. Let me explain it to you again: I assumed the Christian conception of absolutism and conception of morality in order to deduce a contradiction or absurdity of that position. In this case, the contradictions and absurdities abound. First, the Bible and Christians say god is "perfect," or all good, which would mean he has no vices. But according to the Bible and Christians, he is angry, jealous, vengeful--all of which are considered vices according to the Bible and Christians--GET THE CONTRADICTION AND ABSURDITY NOW.

Since you can not defeat my arguments you have resorted to one of the weakest and easily defeated arguments--the experience argument.

Firstly, I never said nor implied that all Christians are bad. In fact I have argued that it is possible for anybody to be perfect. I have argued that the Christian conception of morality, original sin, and grace leads to a tendency of "moral laxity"--this was also noted by the ancient Christian philosopher, Pelagius.

Secondly, your use of the weak experience argument is sad. For if we assume that the experience argument works then we have another contradiction and absurdity for you. There is much evidence and experiences of many Christians who lack great compassion, who are bitter and angry people who are not positive, not pleasant and not always seeking to help. So your experiences are neither here nor there in this case.

A is for Atheist said...

@ Ron part 2

Thirdly, according to the Bible, all humans, that would also include Christians, are imperfect and incapable of being good, for they are always sinning, and that would also include the Christians you know too. (Note, I am working on a post that will illustrate that the Bible also states that it is possible to be perfect,--just another contradiction and absurdity.)

Now, let me help you with your attempt to put forth your other weak and unformulated argument.

I will set it out for you:

P1. If I am x and you are not x, then I know more about x than you.

P2. I am x and you are not x.

Therefore, I know more about x than you.

Well now. You have demonstrated that while this argument is valid, it is not sound. You have shown in this discussion that you do not know more about Christianity than I do--and I am not a Christian!! Therefore, premise one is false. Your weak argument fails. Now think about it, there are many examples where P1 can be demonstrated to be false. For example, a soccer coach who has never played soccer before can know more about playing soccer than a soccer player. Likewise, a professor who used to be a Christian, who is a professor of philosophy and religion, who has specialized in OT and NT theology and has taught university courses and lectured on the subject--may know more about Christianity than the majority of Christians do!

This is why true scholars go by arguments and the dialectical process, but one does not require a degree in order to be a true scholar. John Stuart Mill is my favorite example of a true scholar who did not have a degree in philosophy. In fact, he refused to study at Oxford or Cambridge because he did not want to follow "anglican" orders. Nevertheless, he was a brilliant philosopher and scholar.

Lastly, I presented you with the Buddha quote on the fool to help promote and entice you to become a better scholar. I hope that this helps you too. For note, that you gave the above argument and then proceeded to tell me about atheists, even though you are not an atheist! How foolish...

Anonymous said...

So you are saying that experience plays no role in the learning process. Is that right? I bet that soccer coach changes many of his perceptions of how the came is played the longer he coaches; likewise the NFL quarterback who likely thinks he's mastered the game after great success in college and then plays at the professional level and is humbled by how much more he has to learn. Practical experience is a great teacher.

While I would not consider myself to be a scholar I have been studying the Bible for 20 years. I study and I live what I read. I don't study for mere intellectual ascent. What's the point in that? I study to grow, mature and be a better man. The more I live out what I read the stronger my faith is. Why? Because it works. Scientists experiment. Their theories are of little value until proven. The human mind is very limited so we often have to learn through trial and error. I’ve seen miracle after miracle, transformed lives, addictions broken, marriages saved and on and on. Call it a poor argument if you want but for me and millions of other people it makes all the difference in the world.

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." Albert Einstein.

Though Albert Einstein wasn't a Christian, he believed there must be a God. He was humble enough to acknowledge his lack of understanding when it came to the creator of the universe.

Over 20 years ago one of my college professors told me that due to the advances in computer technology we would, within 5 years, have to work only 3 days a week. What a colossal error in judgment. Rather, we've become more competitive, working even more hours to keep up with other companies ......

I apologize for my comment on atheists. You were right to call me on that. And yes, there are a lot of hypocritical Christians out there, no doubt.

Yes, you read the Bible and as such you think you understand it. You miss the wisdom in it. You are blinded to it by your zealousness to prove it wrong. With every interpretation of Scripture that you've presented, you've demonstrated to me your lack of understanding regarding the meaning of the passages.

The truth is, as much as you think I can't know for sure there is a God, you can't know for sure there isn't. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist!

Take care,
Ron

A is for Atheist said...

@ Ron (Anonymous) August 29, 2011 12:53 PM

Part 1

Ron, you said:

"So you are saying that experience plays no role in the learning process. Is that right?"

Actually, that is not right, I never said that experience plays no role in the learning process, nor is it implied by my soccer example. As a pragmatist, I think that almost, if not all of knowledge comes from experience. The soccer coach has experiences related to soccer, he has just never been a soccer player.--Nevertheless he may know more about playing soccer than the soccer player. In my case, I also have the experience of being a Christian for about 28 years. At that point, I heard something that was said about another religion that made me think that if that is the case, then my own religion is terrible and is the cause for a great deal of suffering and unjustness in the world. I was a university student and decided to take as many religion courses that I could so that I would have a better understanding of religion. I fail in love with this area of study and took almost every religion course offered. When I ran out I started to take philosophy courses and took almost all of them too. I studied with all the different denominations of Christianity, including Jehovah's Witnesses, Seven Day Adventists, and Mormons. I studied at various seminaries, and similar institutions and attended and participated in the lecture series that these institutions had. I also studied Judaism with Jews and visited their synagogues. I did all of this and also studied all the world religions as well and the so called minor religions, and studied with as many of these as I could find.--all in an effort to know more about religion. In the end I choose become a philosopher because it is broader in scope, and as a professor of philosophy I would have more opportunity teach both philosophy and religion than the other way around.

To be a scholar does not mean that one must make a "mere intellectual ascent," as you assumed. I would argue it is quite the opposite for a true scholar like my self--as I described above.

Ron you said:

"The more I live out what I read the stronger my faith is."

As Nietzsche pointed out, a person's total committed faith to any ism leads to the overwhelming tendency not to recognize the truth, if that truth would undermine their faith.

A is for Atheist said...

@ Ron (Anonymous) August 29, 2011 12:53 PM

Part 2

Ron you said:

"I don't study for mere intellectual ascent. What's the point in that?"

As I stated above I do not study for mere intellectual ascent. As I stated above, I had a problem and sought a solution for it. Through my research I discovered that the positive results of the majority of religions and belief in those religions was far outweighed by the negative results. I say the majority because some religions, such as orthodox Buddhism and Taoism promote far more positive results than religions like Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.

As The Christian philosopher Pelagius argued, the conception of original sin, grace, and salvation leads to moral laxity.

I study and implement what I have learned in practice to be a better person and to help make a better world. For example, like Pelagius, I argue against the Christian conception of original sin, grace, and salvation because it leads to moral laxity." I do this to promote a better world.

Ron you said:

"Call it a poor argument if you want but for me and millions of other people it makes all the difference in the world."

It is not a poor argument because I say it is, it is a poor argument because it is a poor argument. Let me illustrate to you that "The Experience Argument" for religion and the existence of God does not work.

A Christain says as you have:

"I’ve seen miracle after miracle, transformed lives, addictions broken, marriages saved and on and on."

and concludes that Yawheh is God and the only true God.

A Hindu says as you have:

"I’ve seen miracle after miracle, transformed lives, addictions broken, marriages saved and on and on."

and concludes that Brahman is truly God.

Now, if we except "The experience argument" we have two Gods, Yahweh and Brahman which contradicts the Christian claim that there is only one true God, Yahweh. So, if we accept the experience argument it leads to inconsistency and contradictions and absurdity. We can demonstrate this over and over with various religious experiences of all religions and faiths. Therefore, "The Experience Argument" for religion and the existence of God is a poor argument and does not work.

A is for Atheist said...

@ Ron (Anonymous) August 29, 2011 12:53 PM

Part 3

Ron we both can cite many intelligent human beings who believe and who do not believe in a God. We can find quotes from many of them. Therefore, these quotes are neither here nor there.

Ron, like many Christians, you quote Albert Einstein in an effort to support your belief in Yahweh.

Ron, you said:

"Though Albert Einstein wasn't a Christian, he believed there must be a God. He was humble enough to acknowledge his lack of understanding when it came to the creator of the universe."

But, Einstein also said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

So, Einstein rejected the Christian conception of a personal God. While Einstein claimed to recognize the remarkable design and order of the cosmos, he could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. Einstein reasoned that a personal, all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God would not allow the suffering that exists in the world.

Einstein's experiences of the suffering that exists in the world led him not to believe in a personal, all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God. Therefore, he did not believe in a personal, all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God as conceived of by Christians.

Therefore, for the above reasons, "The Experience Argument" for religion and the existence of God is a poor argument and does not work. It is a good thing for Christians, otherwise "The Experience" argument would discredit Christianity.

Some interpretations of the Bible are better than other interpretations of it. Wisdom and proof of understanding the Bible is demonstrated in the validity and soundness of the arguments. Ron, you are blinded by faith. It seems to be the case that it just depends on which biblical passages you cherry pick to support your faith, and then use "Humpty Dumpty" semantics in order to germander ones that do not support faith. Your faith blinds you to the inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities in the Bible.

For more on "Humpty Dumpty Semantics" you can read my blog post titled: "Humpty Dumpty Semantics--What This Means, and how Christians Use It"

Here is where it can be found:

http://conversationswithchristians.blogspot.com/2011/04/humpty-dumpty-semantics-what-this-means.html

I am an ignostic atheist. I do not claim to know whether there is a God or not. As an ignostic atheist I have no need to use the hypothesis of one or more supernatural beings to explain events in the physical world, or our social, or moral and political relations with others, we use something else. To explain the world in which we live we rely on the best current scientific theories because they do a better job of explaining our world.

A is for Atheist said...

@ Ron (Anonymous) August 29, 2011 12:53 PM

Part 4

Ron you said:

"The truth is, as much as you think I can't know for sure there is a God, you can't know for sure there isn't. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist!"

I have already addressed the "I can't know for sure there is a God, you can't know for sure there isn't" part of your last statement. But I will restate my answer and provide an example. First:

I am an ignostic atheist. I do not claim to know whether there is a God or not. As an ignostic atheist I have no need to use the hypothesis of one or more supernatural beings to explain events in the physical world, or our social, or moral and political relations with others, we use something else. To explain the world in which we live we rely on the best current scientific theories because they do a better job of explaining our world.

Now for an example:

Let us consider the germ theory of disease and the evil spirits theory of disease. We now think that infectious diseases are the result of microorganisms. In the past, people used to think that disease was the result of bad air, usually the night air--or the result of being inhabited by evil spirits. The germ theory does a better job in explaining disease than the evil spirits theory.

For more details on this example and the "Best Explanation Move," go to the following web address:

http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com/2011/04/william-lane-craigs-best-explanation_17.html

Now on the question of faith. Faith is only a virtue if it is in the right thing. To paraphrase you, I don't have faith for mere intellectual ascent, or just for the sake of having faith. What's the point in that? I have faith in reason, logic and the dialectical process, and the hypothetical-deductive method because it works the best. I hope that our discussion helps move you and others to work against moral laxity and for a better world!

Post a Comment