 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 8:26:39 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jean
E-mail: d
The vast majority of the world's Christians would accept choice #3 in all cases. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 8:33:42 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Sajid
"The vast majority of the world's Christians would accept choice #3 in all cases."
So would a large percentage of Muslims in America. But what exactly does that prove? |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 10:27:15 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Francis Luong (Franco)
E-mail: dispensable(at)definefunk.com
URL: http://justaddrationality.blogspot.com/
re #1 and #2:
I think it indicates at least that American muslims and christians don't accept the tenets of their creeds lock, stock, and barrel. America and Objectivism are made for each other whether people know it or not. And this sense of being American, which most have only a foggy sense, a well-integrated Objectivist grasps and accepts consciously and completely.
I think it's a damn good thing if most Christians would choose #3. Now if only they could identify how the tenets of their creed would not have them choose #3.
-F |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 11:07:43 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
"So would a large percentage of Muslims in America. But what exactly does that prove?"
That the point of the post, which presumably seeks to posit the non-atheist approach to these three views, in order to show how ridiculous they are, does not in fact accurately represent the majority of non-atheist views.
In other words, yet again a straw-man has been erected, and then bravely attacked. There's something so childish about making a farce of an opposing view, and then pointing to the self-created farce and giggling about how stooopid those other people must be!! Har har har! We're SO smart, because we don't think like those wotten wascals!
This, plus the creepy liking of death to solve life's thornier problems, is why I need not fear that Objectivism will ever be anything but a minority, fringe philosophy. Most -- though not all -- outgrow it, thankfully.
|
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 11:54:09 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Francis Luong (Franco)
E-mail: dispensable(at)definefunk.com
URL: http://justaddrationality.blogspot.com/
re #4:
most religious people I know have a mess of contradictions in their belief systems and a confused and inconsistent psychological state as a result. some of them are awesome people in spite of some mistaken premises.
what most people outgrow the childish need for a god or some authority to tell them what they ought to do with their lives. the ones that grow figure out for themselves what is right and wrong and why. the ones that don't never develop self-esteem and, instead of learning how to live for themselves, have to find a substitute (usually, some variant of self-sacrifice for others resulting in a lifetime of resentment). |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:19:14 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: rational_dave
E-mail: davidlewis(at)stny.rr.com
>>>B) Knowledge is impossible. Our imperfect senses and flawed minds inherently prevent us from ever knowing the truth.<<<
Ahhhh self-exclusion. I love this one. I have, for a long time, always giggled a little at this. Especially when I see it coming from a real life person. As their lips move, I start wondering if they are actually listening to the self-contradiction they are in the process of saying. I start wondering if I should point out the obvious. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:33:38 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: O'newbie
"That the point of the post, which presumably seeks to posit the non-atheist approach to these three views, in order to show how ridiculous they are, does not in fact accurately represent the majority of non-atheist views."
Wrong. It shows that theists are not being loyal to their worldview - that they are being inconsistent. Religion can not be practiced consistently. It must be cheated on in order to survive. That goes for its epistemology as well as its ethics.
"In other words, yet again a straw-man has been erected, and then bravely attacked."
No strawman was given. Paul accurately portrayed the epistemological essence of the mystics (the theists) and the skeptics (the subjectivists). The point of this post was to show the intrinsicist, subjectivist and Objectivist views and contrast them. Paul succeeded brilliantly at this.
"This, plus the creepy liking of death to solve life's thornier problems, is why I need not fear that Objectivism will ever be anything but a minority, fringe philosophy."
Jean, from what you've demonstrated on this forum, I would say that fearing the spread of Objectivism is the least of your problems. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:57:11 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Jason
E-mail: jgold22(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.thoughtsofanegoist.blogspot.com/
Excellent post Paul. If you weed out peoples' equivocations (as you've done), and look at the fundamentals of their ideas, A and B of each group are surely accepted (or some combination of the two) by the average person. The sad thing is that it is the fault of the leading intellectuals who develop and defend such destructive ideas. Understanding how man's mind works, the necessity of a moral code to guide man's choices, the role and importance of art, how to judge, why one must judge, and other fundamental principles about life and reality are incredibly complex questions--and the average person, including myself, could never initiate the understanding or explanation of such questions on their own. It takes a brilliant and honest philosopher like Ayn Rand to understand and fully explain the role of reason in man's life, as well as to define and prove a morality of egoism. The Founding Fathers did their job in creating a political system based on individual rights, but the intellectuals since then who have championed the morality of altruism and a philosophy condemning reason have failed Americans, and only new intellectuals championing and explaining reason and egoism can save the country and give individuals the philosophical tools necessary to ensure a free society, prosperity, true safety from criminals and dangerous aspects of nature, and long range happiness. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 13:22:26 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny3000(at)comcast.net
O'Newbie,
I see you're out of school....
"Wrong. It shows that theists are not being loyal to their worldview - that they are being inconsistent. Religion can not be practiced consistently. It must be cheated on in order to survive. That goes for its epistemology as well as its ethics."
No, it doesn't show any such thing. Saying it does doesn't make it so. Making up a position that you want to think your opponents believe, and then railing against that, does not constitute an argument. I may not be religious, but I know many people who live their religion consistently. I also know some screwed up Objectivists -- but I do not draw the conclusion from that that the philosophy of Objectivism cannot be lived consistently.
"Paul succeeded brilliantly at this."
That struck you as brilliant? Says a lot about your standards! I think Paul is a very smart fellow regarding health issues, but in this post he has unfortunately succumbed to the emotionally saisfying (if not intellectually edifying) experience of merely sneering at those he considers to be inferior. Grow up, O'Newbie. You're simply too young and immature to see this as anything but a schoolyard fight. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 13:37:30 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Francis Luong (Franco)
E-mail: dispensable(at)definefunk.com
URL: http://justaddrationality.blogspot.com/
Don't Feed The Troll. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 13:53:19 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
Jean: "I see you're out of school..."
Just so you know, Jean, as soon as you write things like that, you lose all your credibility with other readers -- even those who might otherwise advocate your position.
Additionally, this is a comment board that is known for a higher level of discourse -- it is disappointing to see that you are unwilling to recognize the local etiquette.
Paradoxically, you have taken O'Newbie's handle to be indicative of youth/naivete/inexperience and crafted your insults accordingly, whereas in Objectivist circles, to admit one is an "Objectivism Newbie" is actually a very honest and admirable thing, and is a critical step along the path away from whim-worshipping libertarianism and nihilistic anarchism toward a principled philosophy built on an epistemology of reason. He who would command reality must first obey it, and for many, a posture of humility is necessary before honest self-reflection finally overcomes the human tendency toward evasion. Thus, your criticism of O'Newbie in a manner consonant with the more common use of the word in his handle is particularly discordant in this venue.
For my part, I have been studying Objectivism for six years and still consider myself very much a Newbie in terms of genuinely understanding its epistemology. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 13:57:54 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: rrlv_frsh
I see something else in these trichotomies: DIM, i.e., (A) misintegration, (B) distintegration, and (C) integration.
|
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 14:05:04 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: PDS
Food for thought: the handle "O'Newbie" is actually meant to be ironic. He/she is not a newbie at all. In fact, close readers of his/her comments might actually be willing to speculate that he/she has a black belt in Objectivism, and has probably published articles on Objectivist websites in the past, including those relating to the existence and proof of God.
With that said, I think the key words in Paul's post are contained in the phrase, "is not automatic." This implies the presence of free will, which further implies to the need to consciously focus one's mind on existence, whether the task is food, shelter, or knowledge. David Kelley once said that the exercising free will is akin to hearing a noise outside your window, focusing your mind on what that noise might be and then exercising your judgment based upon the evidence of your senses. In other words, nothing automatic. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 14:53:57 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Jean
My judgement that O'Newbie was a youngster had nothing to do with his chosen name -- it had to do with his level of discourse. You'll have to look at our earlier exchange to see the whole of what I am referring to, I'll give you one example: O
Newbie couldn't understand why, if I was not a Christian, I would defend Chriatianity against distortions. That's a child's reaction. A mature adult would wish for no distortions of people's positions, in order for ideas to be more realistically supported or refuted. It might be emotionally satisfying to make up goof-ball positions that Christians might hold, but those are not persuasive. It certainly does take the hard work out of any debate, though -- and that, too, is quite common among the young (since I teach high school, I can say this with some experience to back it up. Obviously there are exceptions, but it's generally true.)
PDS, I would agree with Paul that nothing is automatic. So would any Christian. Paul's post was clearly meant to mock non-atheists by attributing attitudes or views to them which most don't hold (I'm sure you'll find exceptions, but that's true of any group, including Objectivists -- I don't hold the nutburger Objectivists I know to be representative of all)and then gleefully pointing fingers at the stooopid non-atheists! Wow -- and someone said the level of discourse is high here? |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 14:54:33 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Dave
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
Francisco: I think that trolls can be quite humorous at times; they seem to prove the point of Diana's post of almost an hour ago (Refutation by Subjectivism). They always come back with something equivalent to "that's what YOU say!". |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 15:01:53 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Sajid
"There's something so childish about making a farce of an opposing view, and then pointing to the self-created farce and giggling about how stooopid those other people must be!!"
There is nothing childish about it. Its just a light, funny and entertaining post. What is also really really funny is that no where in the above post is there any indication that a large number of Christians or deists agree with options A or B. So why so defensive, Jean? |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 15:10:33 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: PDS
Jean:
Don't read too much into what I am about to say, but your comment that "any Christian" believes nothing is "automatic" is belied, at a minimum, by the Christian doctrines of predestination in general, and the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination in particular, each of which makes the issue of important issue of salvation very much "automatic", i.e., predestined (!). Both of these doctrines are central to mainline Protestant Christianity, although most Christians would not likely want to think through their implications.
I agree with you that there is no need to construct straw men to argue against Christianity, or theism generally. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 15:25:42 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: O'newbie
"Newbie couldn't understand why, if I was not a Christian, I would defend Chriatianity against distortions."
No. I expressed disapproval of you as a non-Christian defending Christianity. But even deeper - I asked you if you agreed with the fundamental Christian premises (I even laid them all out for you) and then I asked you to explain the cognitive means of how you reached your conclusion if you did agree. I calmly asked you to reveal your cognitive methodology. You didn't do this and instead chose to respond in a belligerent, insulting manner; ie you went all attack-dog.
My argument has always been that Christianity is life-hating philosophy that rests on epistemological errors - gross ones. I called on you as the pro-Christian apologist to own up to those supernatural elements (the points I laid out for you) and to defend them intellectually. You did none of this. So this whole discussion has descended into pure nonsense. The only value of it is this - when you call out Christians or their apologists to really deal with the supernatural, mysticism-drenched, blatantly irrational elements of their worldview (and understand this, Christianity is the belief that a man walked on water and resurrected himself from the dead - that mythology is CENTRAL to the entire Christian worldview - if that is not true then Christianity is false and useless) they usually shrink from this or fallback to a defensive posture (usually reflexive ridicule as in "my high-school students can make better arguments than you") in order to avoid sounding crazy. Predictable patterns of "argumentation" usually follow. Jean has once again demonstrated this.
As for the O'newbie title. I am relatively new to Objectivism coming from a background of somewhat extreme skepticism. I was formerly a Humean skeptical atheist (and a pretty Leftist one at that), but it took about 5 years of wrestling with Ayn Rand's ideas to eventually "see the light" and change my epistemological orientation. Peikoff's OPAR and Kelley's writings on epistemology were very helpful with the transition. So I have experience debating with theists or their apologists, even though I was taking the materialist/skeptical positions before. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 15:32:17 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Jean
Sajid,
I agree entirely with what you say about some Christians' ideas regarding double predestination, Calvinists of course being representative of that loathesome idea (which eliminates free will entirely). I've come across some Baptists that teach the same...Most Protestant denominations, however -- Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc -- don't hold the doctrine of double predestination, so I would disagree with your assertion that double predestination is a central doctrine. In general, though, I've come to the conclusion that Protestant Christianity is terribly subjective. Still, they are not the majority of Christians world-wide. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 15:37:17 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Jean
Mike,
"Just so you know, Jean, as soon as you write things like that, you lose all your credibility with other readers -- even those who might otherwise advocate your position."
So, where were you in the earlier discussion when O'Newbie made unsupported assertions and generally acted like a hyperactive kid? No one on stepped in to say to O'Newbie, "you're losing credibility when you write things like that". |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 15:49:09 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Jean
O'Newbie,
"I asked you if you agreed with the fundamental Christian premises (I even laid them all out for you) and then I asked you to explain the cognitive means of how you reached your conclusion if you did agree."
But I answered your questions. Anyone looking at the exchange can see that I did.
"I called on you as the pro-Christian apologist to own up to those supernatural elements (the points I laid out for you) and to defend them intellectually."
Since I'm not a "pro-Christian apologist", how can I "own up" to them and defend them??!! I'm a defender of reasonable discourse, with no distortions. I am seeing the Christian position largely distorted here, and so it is clear that no integrity is possible in the discussion. Your desire to make me a heretic and burn me at the stake, in your religious zeal, trumps any rationality.
I have gone to various Christian forums and have debated various issues with the people on them. Some of my assumptions about Christianity have been shown to be in error. This was only possible because I did not rudely insist on telling them what they believe. Here's a good site : catholic.com. If you want a good discussion, go there, don't ask me to be an apologist for other's views. I just don't like the wierdness and childishness of attacking strawmen. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 0:45:05 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Jean writes:
"I am seeing the Christian position largely distorted here, and so it is clear that no integrity is possible in the discussion."
For this point to hold, you must be familiar with "the Christian position". What do you think this "position" is -- and how do you know it?
You say that you debated Christians and found that some of your assumptions about Christianity have been shown to be in error. How did you know this? How do you know which beliefs professed by any particular Christian are **essential**, and which are incidental? Seeing as Christians come in a wide variety, thoroughly inconsistent with each other and often themselves, you cannot be unaware of the necessity to draw such distinctions.
As has been made clear to some of your much less persistent compatriots in earlier threads over the past week, ordinary Christians are not consistent Christians; the ideas that can be seen in their arguments contain many elements that find their origins in Enlightenment philosophy, among other sources. Not unlike the socialists (and the conservatives), Christians are all over the map when it comes to nailing down just what Christianity is.
To get clear of that influence, one must examine the end to which the Christian road came when there were no competing or opposing influence permitted. Historically, that would be the post-Roman medieval period. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 0:54:28 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Now to get down to essentials: the three alternatives are, in order:
1. Intrinsicism
2. Subjectivism/skepticism
3. Reason.
What I found funny was that while conservatism is necessarily bound to religion, the second two "B" choices are straight out of conservatism, per Thomas Sowell with his "tragic" view of life ("The Vision of the Anointed"), and Russell Kirk... while I've known many Leftists who adhere to the second two "A"'s. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 11:30:46 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
There have been many good replies to you. If you were open to reason you would consider a number of things:
*There are over 3000 [!!] Christian sects. Christians themselves differ substantially on every branch of philosophy. To defend Christianity would require to understand that phenomenon and to understand why it has to be that way given the fundamental epistemology of religion.
*Though Christianity has its sects and debates there are fundamental metaphysical assumptions which are inherent to religion. There are also fundamental epistemological elements. This is why I asked you the questions I did. To draw your attention to the fact that to defend Christianity is to defend the logically impossible and the cognitively destructive; a point you absolutely refuse to consider as you will not look at the forest only a select few trees.
*Jim May's point about the end of the road to which the pure, unchallenged Christian "position" came to is an excellent one. When Europe took Christianity seriously what where the consequences? The same methodology is true for communism, socialism, anarchy, environmentalism or any other thought system as John Adams pointed out in another comments section. John Adams also brilliantly described why all the new "iterations" achieve the same results. You would do well to read his explanation of why this is so. It gets to the essential epistemological concern of Objectivism.
That would be for starters and you would benefit if you considered those points. Or you can persist in calling me names. Either way, you have been treated more than fairly on this forum. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 12:45:47 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Jean
Jim,
"For this point to hold, you must be familiar with "the Christian position". What do you think this "position" is -- and how do you know it?"
The positions are the ones given in the posts I have responded to: Diana, for example, posited that "Christianity regards suffering like that of Mr. Judt as not merely noble and elevated, but positively divine. It's not good to live fully, happily, robustly according to Christianity: it's good to suffer and die." Paul listed three approaches, or positions, that were to be taken as the Christian position. As for how I know the Christian position, it's not hard -- one can look up the catechism of the Catholic church, for example, on line.
"You say that you debated Christians and found that some of your assumptions about Christianity have been shown to be in error. How did you know this?"
Again, by actually looking at what the source material stated.
"How do you know which beliefs professed by any particular Christian are **essential**, and which are incidental?"
Because most Christian denominations have a creed which outlines essential doctrine. One creed in particular (Nicene Creed) is common to many of them.
"Seeing as Christians come in a wide variety, thoroughly inconsistent with each other and often themselves, you cannot be unaware of the necessity to draw such distinctions."
The same can be said of atheism, with which I am more familiar. There are atheists who maintain that there is no such thing as free will, for example, while Objectivists maintain that there is. There are others who maintain that, while we have free will, our value judgements are completely subjective. There are athiests who maintain that there is no objective reality at all....so inconsistency is not synonomous with belief in a deity.
"When Europe took Christianity seriously what where the consequences?"
Science flourished, universities were founded, etc. The list of Christian scientists of that period is a long one, and the founding of the great universities came during the medieval period. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 13:56:42 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: John Adams
E-mail: johnscriveneradams(at)hotmail.com
In his 1984 Apostolic Letter, Salvifici Dolorisi (On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering), Pope John Paul II reflects on the nature of suffering. Suffering is not only “inseparable from man’s earthly existence,” it is somehow “essential to the nature of man” and “belongs to man’s transcendence.” As man’s earthly life is always “on the long path of suffering,” and as the Church was “born of the mystery of Redemption in the cross of Christ,” suffering is a privileged meeting place between man and the Church so that man-in-his-suffering “becomes the way for the Church.”
www.macathconf.org/GiftofSuffering.doc
Given the authoritarian (epistemologically, in this case) nature of the Catholic Church and that the apostolic letter is a emanation of the pope, it appears that Diana's point about the importance of suffering in the christian ethos wasn't far off the mark.
I can't find the sourcing for the quote but I remember Archbishop John Cardinal O'Connor stating (in the euthanasia arguments from the mid 1990's that "there is redemptive value in human suffering."
But here is a source that takes the notion, if you pardon the phrase, as gospel.
"Suffering and death entered the world with the sin of our first parents, but Christ's obedience to the Will of His Father can now infuse these afflictions with redemptive power. "
-National Catholic Bioethics Center
http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=347
And to those familiar with christian theology of all stripes, they are speaking the truth as they understand it. As this quote from the NCBC makes clear, this literally IS the gospel (good news) that man, while fallen and suffering, is redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ. Suffering is integral to their notion of salvation. This was also one of the "reasons" put forth by the apologists of the Inquisition; that evildoers are made malleable to the mercy of Christ by the tortures visited upon them. (This is also why devotees to sacred orders practiced mortification of the flesh) This is why, in the church theatre that was the auto de fey, the victims of the Inquisition were allowed their last chance to recant and confess before being consigned to the flames. If they confessed, they could still burned, but would suffer the fires in hope of salvation.
Nor did the Catholics have the monopoly on this policy. For just one example, look at the proceedings of the Salem witch trials particularly the procedure referred to as "stonepressing" or "pressing."
But, once again we're in the problem of iterations. No matter how many times the thought and conduct of the various sects are shown to be as advertised there will always be the "SAYS YOU!" refutation waiting in the wings. Some of this is dishonest. But I think a lot of this comes because they don't integrate the concrete instances with an eye to understanding their genesis. So, like the American Left they conintually live in hope that this assertion, or isolated concrete or floating abstraction will somehow pass muster. And while it's intellectually stimulating to brushup one's polemic skills from time to time it doesn't usually effect any change in thought. Which is why I only indulge in it occasionally.
For those following the objectivismseminar you might want to take note of these various links. It's an illustration of why unit-economy is important for epistemological function. Without concept formation one's mind get lost in the multiplicity of concretes to the point that you cannot make sense of them. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 14:51:38 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Jean
John,
Unfortunately the quotes you gave still don't support Diana's assertion that "Christianity regards suffering like that of Mr. Judt as not merely noble and elevated, but positively divine. It's not good to live fully, happily, robustly according to Christianity: it's good to suffer and die."
For example: suffering is “inseparable from man’s earthly existence,” -- how can you argue with that? That appears to be quite true. That doesn't mean suffering IS a good.
Another example: suffering is "“essential to the nature of man” -- that also would seem to be obviously true: animals may feel pain, but suffering seems to include a degree of mental anguish that seems to be the province of man. That is not to say that suffering is a good.
"As man’s earthly life is always “on the long path of suffering,” -- again, a true statement. I don't know if anyone gets through life without suffering.
"suffering is a privileged meeting place between man and the Church so that man-in-his-suffering “becomes the way for the Church.” --- If one accepts the premises of the Catholic church, then I can see why this, too, would be true: in the case of my friend who died of cancer recently, the priest was there to give him "last rites", and to support the family (he was a young man with seven kids) with financial help. It was definitely a "meeting place" between the sufferer and the church. But that does not make suffering a good.
The quotes on the redemptive value of suffering are interesting (this is something I will have to look into more), but I still don't see them proving Diana's assertion that Christians think that suffering is a good. They do seem to imply that some good can come from suffering, which is not the same thing. I don't know yet what is meant by "redemptive", but I can say (probably most people can) that sometimes good does come from suffering: sometimes illness brings a family closer, and oftentimes great hardships, if endured, can lead to better things in business and in marriage.
As for the Inquisition, I'm not sure (I am not a historian)if your information is accurate or if it reflects myths. Here is a medieval historian's view: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/holin ...
Another historian's take: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 15:22:31 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: O'newbie
"Science flourished, universities were founded, etc. The list of Christian scientists of that period is a long one, and the founding of the great universities came during the medieval period."
This is Rodney Stark's thesis in his (misnamed) book 'The Victory of Reason'. Andrew Bernstein destroys that thesis in this essay:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-t ...
The rise of Western Europe after the fall of Rome is a very complicated subject. Rome had become such an oppressive force that just by falling pockets of freedom became possible and technological progress, stifled by Roman oppression, became possible once more. But attributing science to Christianity is a gross error, one which Christian apologists are desperate to spread. Christianity is at its epistemological roots opposed to a naturalist worldview which is the precondition of science. There were many great scientists that were Christian (what else could they be besides another religion?) but their scientific genius was possible because they did not adhere to a religious epistemology. Andrew Bernstein in his article shows how science must proceed from a this-worldly metaphysics and concludes that the growth of Western Science was made possible only by a reintroduction of a Hellenistic worldview. Consistent Christianity is a poison which kills everything in its wake. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 15:49:20 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
O'newbie: It is fortunate then that some medieval Christians were inconsistent.
My Encyclopaedia Britannica gives an account of Thomas Aquinas's participation in a debate at Paris. Aquinas maintained that the sun rises in the East because God has ordained that it should follow a regular course through the heavens, which can be known and predicted; his opponents maintained that that claim was a blasphemous denial of God's omnipotence, and that all we can say without heresy is that the sun rose today because God willed that it should do so. Aquinas won. The same issue was debated in the Near East between the Mutazili, who were of Aquinas's view, and the Sunni, who were not; the Sunni won, and in Islam today the idea of natural law is considered blasphemous. The consequences are apparent.
For many hundreds of years, more or less everyone in the West was a Christian. And yet they achieved things of lasting value. I see no problem with saying that they were able to do so because they did not follow Christianity consistently; I think it's a mistake either to deny that they were Christians because of inconsistency, or to deny that what they did had value. In the last analysis, I would suggest that it is not possible to be consistently Christian and that therefore all Christians are inconsistent.
Bill Stoddard |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 15:58:32 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: O'newbie
"The same can be said of atheism, with which I am more familiar."
Atheism is not a positive philosophical position. It just states that one does not believe in a supernatural being. You can not compare atheism with a religion. This is epistemologically unsound and, all too often, deliberately dishonest. You have to analyze each atheistic philosophy separately. Objectivism, for example, is very different that a Hume or Kant inspired atheism. I know, I cursed Ayn Rand for years before realizing she was right and that philosophical skepticism was wrong.
"Again, by actually looking at what the source material stated."
The ultimate source material is The New Testament and the writings of a long list of theologians, most importantly Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, etc. These works have been analyzed philosophically and conclusions reached on their metaphysics, their operative epistemologies, and their ethical systems. Plus we have the historical record of the political/cultural nature of the societies that took these ideas seriously. Plus we also know definitively and without doubt that the West only began to rise in terms of knowledge, wealth, freedom, individual opportunity, sexual liberation, etc only when Christianity was no longer taken seriously and Hellenistically inspired Enlightenment reason started to exert cultural dominance.
You are wasting your time looking at a select few trees when the entire forest of Christianity is drenched with blood. And please, don't hit me with the "atheists killed more people than Christians" nonsense. If the Church had the weapons of the 20th century, God (metaphor) only knows how many they would have killed.
Jean, you refuse to acknowledge that behind every Christian sect is a list of metaphysical assumptions:
*an omnipotent, omniscient universe-creating reality-ruling supernatural being,
*a prophet or prophets who are commissioned by this supernatural being to spread his message,
*natural-law defying miracles performed before *ancient* (this is important because where are those miracles today?) peoples to prove the god's credibility,
*ethical codes which are devised by this supernatural being and impossible without him (so we are told),
*entire systems of guilt and shame (especially involving sex) which are the consequence of violating this being's laws and mandates,
*other-worldly dimensions of hellfire and damnation for displeasing this god and breaking his rules,
*and of course a blissful paradise for all those good souls that adhere to the deities' commandments.
This is religion Jean. This collection of corrupted ontology, primitive mythologies (not even up to the level of Tolkein), anti-sexual attitudes, tribalism -- this is Christianity. Its nothing more than a primitive cult of death worship that revolves around a blood sacrifice to propitiate an angry god. That's what it is in *essence*. That you even take it seriously says *volumes* about your psycho-epistemology. That you would defend this rubbish says volumes about you.
I'm finished with you now as, to be perfectly candid, I find you as a non-Christian defending this primitive nonsense to be highly offensive and corrupt. I have more respect for true believers than someone like you. Plus your entire tone is belligerent and off-putting and thus loaded with bile. Conversing with you is therefore unpleasant. If you are anything like your internet personality you are an unlikable person indeed. You can have the last word as I sense from your fragile psychology, you need it. So make it a good one Jean, this way you will be able to sleep at night. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 16:14:12 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: O'newbie
William,
You write:
"In the last analysis, I would suggest that it is not possible to be consistently Christian and that therefore all Christians are inconsistent."
I agree with this. I think you could go further and say that the best thing about Christianity (especially in comparison to Islam) is that it left more loopholes for rationality. But I would like to add something here. I am pretty well read in the argument for and against the historical Jesus. I've read all the books of Robert Price, GA Wells, Earl Doherty, plus many others. From my study of the first three centuries of Christianity I have concluded that Christianity is in essence Hellenized Judaism. It combines many near eastern mythological fables but they are injected with a worldview heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, etc. I don't have the source readily available but it has been shown that many of Jesus' sayings are rewrites of Cynic maxims (usually involving self-resignation and self-exile from a corrupt world).
What I am getting at is this - Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek philosophical thought from the beginning for better or worse. But it *was* influenced by philosophy. You only need to read the Gospel of John to see how much it was influenced by Hellenistic thought. To me this is why Christianity has been able to change over time and adapt itself (against its will of course) to the modern era. And think of this, Christianity has the duel between Aristotle and Plato built right into it!! Its Aquinas vs Augustine more or less. Islam, for example, has none of this. So its not surprising to me that because of its philosophical nature, Christianity was able to allow for the growth of the modern West.
But as Dr. Peikoff has argued, because the West has been built on Christianity it has been built on a foundation of quicksand that will ultimately kill it if there is no answer to it. Modern skepticism at root can't answer Christianity. I think this is the reason you get nominally secular people like Jean who argue that Christianity or something like it is needed for a moral society. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 17:33:14 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
O'newbie: When you say that "If the Church had the weapons of the 20th century, God (metaphor) only knows how many they would have killed," I would go further than this.
We have, shall we say, a Christian myth about how God runs the world and what he intends for it, one that many Christians believed was literally true. And what it says is this:
*God is a self-appointed dictator who cannot be voted out of office, and who makes the law by unilateral decree
*God constantly watches everything human beings do, both directly and through a secret police corps of angels appointed to watch over us
*At any time, we can be taken into God's hands by death and called before him to be judged
*Under his law, we are automatically guilty and cannot defend ourselves against his charges
*When found guilty, we will be sent to a concentration camp where we will be tortured forever, without hope that death will release us
*Those who affirm that these actions are signs of God's justice and love, and plead for mercy, will be let off and assigned to join a propaganda corps that spends eternity praising God, and that is permitted to see the tortures of the damned perfectly in order more fully to enjoy their own salvation
*If someone you loved on Earth goes to Hell, your salvation entails rejoicing both at their being in Hell and at your being in Heaven apart from them
In sum, Christianity envisioned all the horrors of totalitarianism, millennia before human dictators achieved the technological capability to realize them on Earth. And said that they were desirable; indeed, it called them the Good News. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 18:54:09 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: John Adams
E-mail: johnscriveneradams(at)hotmail.com
William,
Excellent precis. Here's another from the center for inquiry.
"A perplexing entity, God
Exhibited properties odd
A generous savior
With wrathful behavior
Both Barney and Marquis de Sade."
Tim Harrod
And, of course, if you prefer the cinema to a poetry reading, well there's always the Appeal to Hank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 21:43:58 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Jean
O'Newbie,
"Atheism is not a positive philosophical position. It just states that one does not believe in a supernatural being."
That's true. However, philosophical considerations flow from that position. It doesn't strike me as terribly different in kind from the Christian position: they would say that they beleive in a supernatural being. Philosphical considerations flow from that position.
"You have to analyze each atheistic philosophy separately. Objectivism, for example, is very different that a Hume or Kant inspired atheism."
That's very true. The same is true for the differing Christian sects.
"Plus we also know definitively and without doubt that the West only began to rise in terms of knowledge, wealth, freedom, individual opportunity, sexual liberation, etc only when Christianity was no longer taken seriously and Hellenistically inspired Enlightenment reason started to exert cultural dominance."
No, we don't know that definitively. History doesn't support that conclusion. And Hellenism was incorporated into Christianity near its beginning.
"If the Church had the weapons of the 20th century, God (metaphor) only knows how many they would have killed."
No, we don't know that. We can speculate. We do know, though, about how many atheist regimes have killed, so we don't have to speculate, do we?
"That you even take it seriously says *volumes* about your psycho-epistemology."
Perhaps. But it is also a case of having unresolved, unanswered problems concerning atheism. There is either a god or there isn't, and so if I'm having difficulty with atheism, I don't have much of a choice but to consider the theist position.
"That you would defend this rubbish says volumes about you. "
I have looked for a fair assessment of the Christian position, but instead I see distortions. That hopefully says that I don't like straw-men: I would argue against a caricature of Objectivism to the best of my abilities, if that were necessary.
"I'm finished with you now as, to be perfectly candid, I find you as a non-Christian defending this primitive nonsense to be highly offensive and corrupt."
Why do feel so strongly about this? As I mentioned before, there is something of the religious fanatic in this reaction of yours. I |
|
| Friday, February 5, 2010 at 17:02:46 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: O'newbie
William,
What an excellent comparison of Christianity and totalitarianism. Brilliant! Thanks. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
