Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you saying, just to be clear, that what a person believes determines their destiny?

Doesn't it? Self belief goes a long way

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

We are to imagine a hypothetical deaf, mute, brain dead impartial observer who doesn't speak English lying in his hospital bed with myself and Mark sitting either side outlining our positions.

I think the suspension of disbelief required to imagine a person with this impartial worldview is negligible. If you look at the OP's criterion, 'a hypothetical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise', anyone raised on the basis of a non-religious philosophy would fit the bill nicely, e.g. someone from a closed humanist community. Whether or not they do exist, they most certainly could exist from a hypothetical standpoint. No need to be deaf, mute, brain dead or have any other disability you might inflict on them in order to attempt to ridicule the OP's argument.

If you can imagine that Christian mythology might be true it should be well within your capacity to imagine the above.

Hace they been brought up in an empirical world? One where, by their personal life experience they have witnessed cause and effect, experimentation, noticed that their subjective observations aren't a sure fire represtation? Do they measure twice and cut once, for instance.

If so, they have the basic equipment to begin to appreciate Mark's position - which builds on such things.

Now, relevant experience to build on what I am saying - given my position isn't one built solely on the methods Mark uses.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

☺

We are to imagine a hypothetical deaf, mute, brain dead impartial observer who doesn't speak English lying in his hospital bed with myself and Mark sitting either side outlining our positions.

Above his bedstead, nailed to the wall is this framed quote.

We must therefore persevere. I think not.

As has been repeatedly explained, that is not the hypothetical that started the thread, so please stop lying about it.

The hypothetical had zero by way of characteristics. Might as well be this one, a nonsense, given he has no suitable characteristics.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

You won't fill it. You can't fill except to load it in your favour with characteristics you deem sufficient to assess my position.

As if.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote:

For me a basic principal of secularism is that a persons religious beliefs cannot be used to excuse trampling all over the human rights of someone else

Would you include philosophical beliefs in there as well.

Obvious trouble if you don't (some belief trump other beliefs)

Obvious trouble if you do (how do you decide whose beliefs are trampling on who's beliefs - eg the Folau thread)

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you include philosophical beliefs in there as well.

Obvious trouble if you don't (some belief trump other beliefs)

Obvious trouble if you do (how do you decide whose beliefs are trampling on who's beliefs - eg the Folau thread)

Doesn't matter a damn, ops hypothetical was a blank slate WRT religion and empiricism. Other philosophical beliefs are neither here nor there. Reliģion and empiricism are both taught abstracts, if you haven't been taught them you're a blank slate. You would seem to be floundering in your attempts to dismiss the OPs entirely reasonable hypothetical scenario.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The hypothetical had zero by way of characteristics. Might as well be this one, a nonsense, given he has no suitable characteristics.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

You won't fill it. You can't fill except to load it in your favour with characteristics you deem sufficient to assess my position.

As if.

Have you considered becoming a post-modernist poet?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't matter a damn

I just thought it strange that you would exclude some belief systems (namely your own). Perhaps it's because you don't suppose your system a belief system.

, ops hypothetical was a blank slate WRT religion and empiricism. Other philosophical beliefs are neither here nor there. Reliģion and empiricism are both taught abstracts, if you haven't been taught them you're a blank slate.

Perhaps according to your belief system. Not according to mine.

You would seem to be floundering in your attempts to dismiss the OPs entirely reasonable hypothetical scenario.

In what way? Not accepting your view of what being born again of God might entail (were such a thing to occur)? You seem to have it pegged as something you can learn about in Religion class.

Try telling that to a parent (let's assume you're not for the purposes of the point). "Hey, I know what it is to love a child to the ends of the earth - I learned about it in an evening course"

smacl

All of the above is just strawmanning though in an attempt to dismiss the hypothetical scenario in the opening post. i.e. that we can reasonably imagine a person who is a blank slate to religion or empericism. That you might find the actual existence of such a person improbable is also a strawman. This is a fictitious character. Are you seriously suggesting you cannot imagine the existence of a fictitious character?

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

This is a fictitious character. Are you say you seriously suggesting you cannot imagine the existence of a fictitious character?

His belief in god and jesus is proof positive he is capable of imaging the existence of a at least two fictitious characters, so thats clearly not the issue

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The hypothetical had zero by way of characteristics. Might as well be this one, a nonsense, given he has no suitable characteristics.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

You won't fill it. You can't fill except to load it in your favour with characteristics you deem sufficient to assess my position.

As if.

Again, still lying, and demonstrably lying as the first post in this thread states:
"The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypothetical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true."
The hypothetical has exactly as many characteristics as required to answer the answer the question.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Mod warning: Keep it civil please. Thanks.

The poster mocked what I said (with no other input to the thread at all) and so I ask for clarification and I am told to keep it civil?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hace they been brought up in an empirical world? One where, by their personal life experience they have witnessed cause and effect, experimentation, noticed that their subjective observations aren't a sure fire represtation? Do they measure twice and cut once, for instance.

If so, they have the basic equipment to begin to appreciate Mark's position - which builds on such things.

Now, relevant experience to build on what I am saying - given my position isn't one built solely on the methods Mark uses.

We're all brought up in the same world, unless you're harbouring some extra-terrestrials in your basement that is. We all experience cause and effect because such things exist and we can't but observe them. From memory, you're an engineer yourself, so this is your world too. Whether or not you refer to this as empiricism is a matter of education. If you throw a ball against a wall it will bounce regardless of your beliefs and education.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The poster mocked what I said (with no other input to the thread at all) and so I ask for clarification and I am told to keep it civil?

Mod: Yes, your post read as intimidating. Please use the feedback thread or report the post if you have an issue with this rather than discussing moderation in thread. Thank you.

volchitsa

Antiskeptic claims that the reason they can't envisage an impartial observer is because in their theology everyone is born antagonistic to God and not simply neutral. I asked where this theology came from, as I'm not familiar with it, and haven't got an answer, so I hunted around a bit, and the only thing I can find is a theory called misotheism.

But it's mostly associated with anti religionists or tiny (mostly non Christian) sects. In fact it doesn't seem to be a part of mainstream Christian religions at all.

So I think we have to conclude that Antiskeptic is just making it all up as a way of avoiding engaging with the OP while pretending to be prepared to if only they could.

Cabaal

Honestly, I'm starting to doubt that Antiskeptic is actually any sort of a christian.
Would certainly explain a lot.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

Honestly, I'm starting to doubt that Antiskeptic is actually any sort of a christian.
Would certainly explain a lot.

I'm of the opinion that there are lots of sorts of Christians and other than referring to themselves as Christian, many have very little in common with one another. Some even have diametrically opposed views to others in many aspects of their belief, to such an extent that they refuse to recognise those that don't share their specific notion of Christianity as Christians. Nothing new here of course, as can be seen with the Cathar massacre in the past and ongoing sectarian violence more recently.

I don't doubt that Antiskeptic is one sort of a Christian but would doubt it is an expression of Christianity that is any way dominant in this part of the world.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

Honestly, I'm starting to doubt that Antiskeptic is actually any sort of a christian.
Would certainly explain a lot.

I'm of the opinion that there are lots of sorts of Christians and other than referring to themselves as Christian, many have very little in common with one another. Some even have diametrically opposed views to others in many aspects of their belief, to such an extent that they refuse to recognise those that don't share their specific notion of Christianity as Christians. Nothing new here of course, as can be seen with the Cathar massacre in the past and ongoing sectarian violence more recently.

I don't doubt that Antiskeptic is one sort of a Christian but would doubt it is an expression of Christianity that is any way dominant in this part of the world.

Read up 'Total Depravity' on Wikipedia. It's not just Calvinism and Arminianism which hold to the idea - there are, as you say, many many subsets in the body Christianity.

Note especially where it says that people (i.e.the lost) "are inclined by nature (a.k.a. the sinful nature) to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule"

a.k.a. antagonism

Nobelium

Cabaal wrote: »

Honestly, I'm starting to doubt that Antiskeptic is actually any sort of a christian.
Would certainly explain a lot.

it's make it up as you go along, and interpret whatever way suits you

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hace they been brought up in an empirical world? One where, by their personal life experience they have witnessed cause and effect, experimentation, noticed that their subjective observations aren't a sure fire represtation? Do they measure twice and cut once, for instance.

If so, they have the basic equipment to begin to appreciate Mark's position - which builds on such things.

Now, relevant experience to build on what I am saying - given my position isn't one built solely on the methods Mark uses.

We're all brought up in the same world, unless you're harbouring some extra-terrestrials in your basement that is. We all experience cause and effect because such things exist and we can't but observe them. From memory, you're an engineer yourself, so this is your world too. Whether or not you refer to this as empiricism is a matter of education. If you throw a ball against a wall it will bounce regardless of your beliefs and education.

Exactly. Not hard to find someone reasonably well equipped to hear Mark out.

I also have views about what everyone in this world is born into. The above mentioned sinful nature.

You'll have heard the term "blind but now I see". Its not peculiar to my view

No one seems particularily concerned that Marks worldview can be catered for by the world everyone is born into and that mine isn't

From worshippers of scientific method (in the sense of wanting well constructed experiments / not imposing your desire for a particular result unto bending the process) this sure is something.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you saying, just to be clear, that what a person believes determines their destiny?

That can have an impact on a person`s destiny. Of course, what a person believes can be wrong or right. Being wrong or right can also depend on the timescale. The forever timescale is shrouded in mystery but nonetheless, forever is forever so it should not be taken lightly.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't it? Self belief goes a long way

I agree but I think Communists think self belief is better than belief in God. Of course, Communism is not a very successful ism. Conservative Christian societies do better.

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

I agree but I think Communists think self belief is better than belief in God. Of course, Communism is not a very successful ism. Conservative Christian societies do better.

Based on our species history, one could argue that what they are better at is invading, murdering millions and killing off other cultures, is that something you celebrate?

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

Read up 'Total Depravity' on Wikipedia. It's not just Calvinism and Arminianism which hold to the idea - there are, as you say, many many subsets in the body Christianity.

Note especially where it says that people (i.e.the lost) "are inclined by nature (a.k.a. the sinful nature) to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule"

a.k.a. antagonism

So then could you tell what subset of Christianity it is exactly that you believe in? It's very hard to understand your worldview when you won't tell people that much.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

The hypothetical had zero by way of characteristics. Might as well be this one, a nonsense, given he has no suitable characteristics.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

You won't fill it. You can't fill except to load it in your favour with characteristics you deem sufficient to assess my position.

As if.

Again, still lying, and demonstrably lying as the first post in this thread states:
"The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypothetical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true."
The hypothetical has exactly as many characteristics as required to answer the answer the question.

Problem:

Can any of the worldviews be true?Whereas I hold mine is true, I don't know whether you hold yours as true?

In any case, an assessor needs to be able to assess the truth - given either worldview possibly is true. A worldview that was true but couldn't be assessed as such by the assessor would make the assessment useless. They wouldn't have 'exactly as many characteristics required to answer the question'. They would simply give their best assessment (which might well be flat wrong) based on a deficient set of characteristics. I presume the role of the assessor is to pronounce on which position he finds justified upon listening to them?

The thing about Christianity is that you are either lost or found. Blind can't assess it because it is blind. See can't but find for it because it can see it as true. Neither blind nor see can be impartial from the Christian perspective.

-

Saying 'exact characteristics' merely kicks the characteristic can down the road. It waves a magic wand a different way to achieve the same end: a vague and wooly kind of impartiality. It doesn't overcome the suggestion that not every hypothetical makes sense, just because the word hypothetical is nailed onto the idea.

I think that, perhaps unbeknownst to yourself, you are supposing an intelligent enough, educated enough assessor with no particular axe to grind and who is open to a fair hearing, good analytic and questioning skills and an ability to make a sober assessment. Preferably an English speaker to boot.

They'd make a great jury member. But all those characteristics have absolutely zero value, in my worldviews view (if not in yours) if they are spiritually blind.

antiskeptic

IAmTheReign wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Read up 'Total Depravity' on Wikipedia. It's not just Calvinism and Arminianism which hold to the idea - there are, as you say, many many subsets in the body Christianity.

Note especially where it says that people (i.e.the lost) "are inclined by nature (a.k.a. the sinful nature) to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule"

a.k.a. antagonism

So then could you tell what subset of Christianity it is exactly that you believe in? It's very hard to understand your worldview when you won't tell people that much.

The packaging (as life will have no doubt have thought you by now) has absolutely no bearing on the contents inside.

Loosely evangelical would be about the size of it (non US mainstream evangelical). There aren't fixed views there set by a central body like you would get in Catholicism and Anglicalism.

When folk here stumble over a pretty mainline idea, like man born antagonistic to God (ie possesses a sinful nature), then the problem isn't going to be resolved by me naming a particular denomination I belong to.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

realitykeeper wrote: »

I agree but I think Communists think self belief is better than belief in God. Of course, Communism is not a very successful ism. Conservative Christian societies do better.

Based on our species history, one could argue that what they are better at is invading, murdering millions and killing off other cultures, is that something you celebrate?

Don't knock it. You enjoy the benefits of it every day. I mean, where would we be if ' 'Christian' America didn't control the price of oil by force.

antiskeptic

Nobelium wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

Honestly, I'm starting to doubt that Antiskeptic is actually any sort of a christian.
Would certainly explain a lot.

it's make it up as you go along, and interpret whatever way suits you

All interpretation is personal. Whether you do it yourself or chose to sub-contract the work out to a large denomination. If the latter you are making a personal assessment that the product offered is of suitable quality and provenance

Each is individually responsible for what they believe.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think they think their destiny is predetermined because they believe in pre destiny (or something like that). Sounds a bit like chasing your tail to me.

Are you saying, just to be clear, that what a person believes determines their destiny?

I wouldn't have thought that. In Calvinism, a person is predestined to salvation (and by extension, damnation) by sovereign choice of God (even if his criteria for choosing isn't known). What they believe doesn't come into it since his choosing them predates the day they exited the womb.

If they come to believe its because God made that occur without them having any involvement in that belief coming about. Not so much 'their' belief as his belief superimposed onto them (like an auto update you had no hand in opting for)

Hedgelayer

antiskeptic wrote: »

All interpretation is personal. Whether you do it yourself or chose to sub-contract the work out to a large denomination. If the latter you are making a personal assessment that the product offered is of suitable quality and provenance

Each is individually responsible for what they believe.

I'm not religious myself,but if anyone can't understand your post there's seriously something cognitively wrong with them.

Religious belief is a personal thing, everyone has different neuro pathway's and they fire up in different ways.

I myself was very spiritual and leaning towards the old Coptic Christianity style.
I took what I could understand and what I felt was for me.

Nobody can live totally by the holy book, it just isn't possible.
You'd end up suffering from extreme anxiety and depression.

I know atheist's who meditate and don't believe in a diety but they have their own rituals.

I can openly admit that there is power in prayer and reflection, when I was slightly religious I did get that buzz now and again of feeling like I'm being looked after...

I see you're holding up well in this debate, it's hard going being a cat amongst the pigeon's lol

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

The hypothetical had zero by way of characteristics. Might as well be this one, a nonsense, given he has no suitable characteristics.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

You won't fill it. You can't fill except to load it in your favour with characteristics you deem sufficient to assess my position.

As if.

Have you considered becoming a post-modernist poet?

I see your point. A touch of a Radiohead song to it alright

Praise indeed from the Creative Writing Meister himself!