Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

volchitsa

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

Seems like you haven't read the link all the way through yourself.

Not only is "total depravity" (which as an aside I googled with some trepidation, fearing it might earn me a knock on the door from the police some morning!) officially a heresy for the Catholic Church, but most modern Protestants no longer fully accept it.

It is not sufficiently known, we opine, that Methodists—the genuine Arminians of the present—do not entirely agree with this view of depravity. To what has been said, as being the Calvinist view of the total depravity of our nature, we do heartily assent, with the following exceptions:
—First. We do not think that all men continue totally depraved until their regeneration.
Secondly. We think man, under the atonement, is not, properly speaking, in a state of nature. He is not left to the unalleviated evils of total depravity. The atonement has not only secured grace for him, but a measure in him, by virtue of which he not only has moral light, but is often incited to good desires, and well-intended efforts to do what is perceived to be the divine will.[8]

So no, your reason for refusing to respond is in fact merely an out-of-date and now almost universally rejected, interpretation of Christianity.

A fig leaf, in other words, for your inability to engage with a simple question.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Of course not. Empiricism demonstrably holds true for the observable physical world so there really isn't any argument against it. Nor for that matter is it incompatible with many religious beliefs systems, excluding the likes of biblical literalists, creationists and flat earthers who insist on truths that can demonstrably proven false. Once you move into pure abstracts, such as is does God or Thor or Kali exist, empiricism doesn't have much to say on the matter and is largely moot. It also struggles with other concepts that most people would accept exist, such as love, which are better described in non-empirical terms. I think the big flaw in your argument is that you've created a false dichotomy between an empirical worldview and a religious worldview, whereas for the vast majority of people, empiricism is simply one component of their worldview which corresponds to observable reality. This does not preclude other beliefs or philosophies when dealing with abstracts.

So if you like, Mark has an easy sell here whereas you do not. Our hypothetical person can have empiricism explained and demonstrated to them. Religious belief is something else entirely.

smacl

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.

Neither Communism nor Conservative Christianity have anything to do with self belief though. They relate to society, i.e. the group rather than the self.

smacl

Hedgelayer wrote: »

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...

Nothing incompatible with atheism and meditation. As an atheist I practice taiji / tai chi most mornings and mindfulness is also now part of the national school curriculum AFAIK.

Much the same can be said of prayer, homeopathy, reiki and all sorts of other belief based rituals. The question here isn't so much that these things are beneficial as why they are beneficial. Benson's The relaxation response covers this topic quite well although arguably not devoid of its own quackery. Worth a punt and a relatively short read.

Hedgelayer

smacl wrote: »

Nothing incompatible with atheism and meditation. As an atheist I practice taiji / tai chi most mornings and mindfulness is also now part of the national school curriculum AFAIK.

Much the same can be said of prayer, homeopathy, reiki and all sorts of other belief based rituals. The question here isn't so much that these things are beneficial as why they are beneficial. Benson's The relaxation response covers this topic quite well although arguably not devoid of its own quackery. Worth a punt and a relatively short read.

I suppose moderation is the key, there's far too many people who are obsessional about their convictions, which invariably leads to mental health problems and missing out on all the good things Life has to offer.

Since I left the whole religious and spiritual obsession life had improved immensely.

Compartmentalisation is the key it ain't easy sometimes a good therapist can help unknot the pile of ****e which build's up from obsessive and emotional attachment to the whole God thing.

I've a friend on the other side, he's absolutely obsessed with atheism and the Catholic church, Donald trump and all the opposition to Catholic doctrine.

That's just as nuts as religious fundamentalism, not a day goes by when he let's off some rant on twitter..

He's very sick...not because he's an atheist but because he's obsessed about it...

The obsession can go both ways

smacl

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I suppose moderation is the key, there's far too many people who are obsessional about their convictions, which invariably leads to mental health problems and missing out on all the good things Life has to offer.

Since I left the whole religious and spiritual obsession life had improved immensely.

Compartmentalisation is the key it ain't easy sometimes a good therapist can help unknot the pile of ****e which build's up from obsessive and emotional attachment to the whole God thing.

I've a friend on the other side, he's absolutely obsessed with atheism and the Catholic church, Donald trump and all the opposition to Catholic doctrine.

That's just as nuts as religious fundamentalism, not a day goes by when he let's off some rant on twitter..

He's very sick...not because he's an atheist but because he's obsessed about it...

The obsession can go both ways

Just my opinion, but I don't think most people whether religious or atheist are anywhere near these extremes.

I don't agree with the notion of compartmentalization so much either, as Zappa said 'You are what you is' and for me that permeates across all of what I do in one way or another.

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

I disagree, I think the issue of what you believe in is very relevant, considering that is the very subject of the thread.

You claim to believe in the concept of total depravity, which is definitely not a mainstream idea for people brought up in country dominated by the catholic church. In fact your entire argument for why you refuse to imagine an impartial observer is based on a belief that is not shared among all Christians.

I also think it's ironic that earlier in the thread you were deriding cultural Catholics even though you claim not to follow any fixed views set by a particular church.

Hedgelayer

smacl wrote: »

Just my opinion, but I don't think most people whether religious or atheist are anywhere near these extremes.

I don't agree with the notion of compartmentalization so much either, as Zappa said 'You are what you is' and for me that permeates across all of what I do in one way or another.

I see where you're coming from, I used to follow a spirit path which was of the Idea you are what you are or I am what I am so that's just the way it is.
That's not always easy, being empathic and conscientious is very important.
But maybe you're able to be who you are and have less character defects than someone like myself lol

I'm a bit of a divel and don't always think before I leap

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Just my opinion, but I don't think most people whether religious or atheist are anywhere near these extremes.

Indeed. And of course one problem of forums like this is people tend to use them to pursue a particular interest. And readers might assume this is representative of the rest of their life.

Take me for example. 90% of my posts on this forum are related to religion. If one were to assume that is representative of my life in general they would quite understandably think I am entirely obsessed with religion.

In fact when I am NOT on this forum I barely think or involve myself with the subject at all anymore. Religion therefore takes up not 90% but about 5% of my day. Maximum.

Yet if people using boards.ie can not see that.... I would entirely understand them coming to the erroneous conclusion I am obsessed.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

[SNIP]


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.

It doesn't matter which worldviews are or could be true, all that matters is how would you convince someone that yours is true, hence that very question being the question I asked. I didn't ask if you believed you could convince them, I just asked how would you try to do it.

Now, the second question I asked covered this eventuality you are describing here, that they have to have their eyes opened by god and that would not be effected by any argument you could make. Fine, you don't believe that you could convince them. Why are you convinced? There are people who hold that their eyes were "opened" by the their god and their beliefs are inherently contradictory to yours. You can't both have had your eyes opened, one of your must be wrong. How do you know you are not wrong and everyone else is?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Q1. Johnny is holding 14 cabbages and gives Mary 7 cabbages, how many cabbages does Johnny have left?

Most people could answer that simple maths question as it's worded, I would think. Exactly how much more information would you need? Johnny's shoe size? The nature of Johnny and Mary's relationship? The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) educated by whom and what worldview does this person have?

b) the person is assumed to have a sinful nature and is spiritual rebellion (everyone is spiritual in other words, but rebellion means an intrinsic antagonism to God). Hardly impartial

c) Another consequence of the sinful nature is that a person is blind. They literally lack one of their senses. Sure, they can listen to the argument I might make but they will utilise rationalist and empiricist tools in their attempt to assess and evaluate only, since they are the tools they have at their disposal.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Q1. Johnny is holding 14 cabbages and gives Mary 7 cabbages, how many cabbages does Johnny have left?

Applying antiskeptic's criteria, one would need to know who educated the person carrying out the calculation, and whether this person (and the educator?) were religious or not; the person doing the calculation would have to realize that they are sinful and that this might alter the magnitude of the numbers involved; finally, and most crucially, the person would be blind and - being an onlooker - possibly unable to believe that Johnny had handed over any cabbages to Mary in the first place - leaving the onlooker with the (blind) view that Johnny retained fourteen cabbages and not the seven that a more conventional thinker might mistakenly infer.

nozzferrahhtoo

^Should we also not be calling into question the realistic nature of the numbers given the difficulty the average human has in holding even three cabbages competently let alone 14? That is after all a balancing act of some note.

My son is 5 and gets a real kick out of performing a joke with me where I convince people he is amazing at maths. Then to prove it I ask him "If I have 237 apples in one hand and 454 apples in the other hand, what do I have?"

And he answers loudly with some glee "Big hands!"

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And he answers loudly with some glee "Big hands!"

I think that's the kind of splendid out-of-the-box thinking which we, as a nation, should be encouraging in schools.

antiskeptic

volchitsa 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

Seems like you haven't read the link all the way through yourself.

Not only is "total depravity" (which as an aside I googled with some trepidation, fearing it might earn me a knock on the door from the police some morning!) officially a heresy for the Catholic Church, but most modern Protestants no longer fully accept it.

It is not sufficiently known, we opine, that Methodists—the genuine Arminians of the present—do not entirely agree with this view of depravity. To what has been said, as being the Calvinist view of the total depravity of our nature, we do heartily assent, with the following exceptions:
—First. We do not think that all men continue totally depraved until their regeneration.
Secondly. We think man, under the atonement, is not, properly speaking, in a state of nature. He is not left to the unalleviated evils of total depravity. The atonement has not only secured grace for him, but a measure in him, by virtue of which he not only has moral light, but is often incited to good desires, and well-intended efforts to do what is perceived to be the divine will.[8]

So no, your reason for refusing to respond is in fact merely an out-of-date and now almost universally rejected, interpretation of Christianity.

A fig leaf, in other words, for your inability to engage with a simple question.

"Seems like you haven't read the link all the way through yourself"?

A bit more closely than you, it would seem. The quote you rely on to support your contention that modern Christianity has rejected the total depravity view and has moved on was published in 1847

How very modern.

-

That said, your "we've moved on"-ology is but part of a mankind on an ever onwards and upwards belief system.

One of the more interesting insights I've had as a Christian is that 'old stuff' can be more vibrant and alive than 'new stuff'. Which would be a predictable observation when if dealing with truths that are true for all time. Sight of that truth might ebb and flow (if there is no ever onwards and upwards movement of humanity) so times past might have more insight than we do now.

Suffice to say: your onwards and upwards / majority rules presumptions remain just that, unless demonstrated sound.

They are not assumed by me.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It doesn't matter which worldviews are or could be true, all that matters is how would you convince someone that yours is true, hence that very question being the question I asked. I didn't ask if you believed you could convince them, I just asked how would you try to do it.

Now, the second question I asked covered this eventuality you are describing here, that they have to have their eyes opened by god and that would not be effected by any argument you could make. Fine, you don't believe that you could convince them. Why are you convinced? There are people who hold that their eyes were "opened" by the their god and their beliefs are inherently contradictory to yours. You can't both have had your eyes opened, one of your must be wrong. How do you know you are not wrong and everyone else is?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Q1. Johnny is holding 14 cabbages and gives Mary 7 cabbages, how many cabbages does Johnny have left?

Most people could answer that simple maths question as it's worded, I would think. Exactly how much more information would you need? Johnny's shoe size? The nature of Johnny and Mary's relationship? The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

I missed the top bit of your post on my phone so will get back later.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suffice to say: your onwards and upwards / majority rules presumptions remain just that, unless demonstrated sound.

I would say that there are very many strong indicators that humankind is in fact moving 'onwards and upwards' as you put it. Average life expectancy, average global education levels, massive advances in technology and medicine, global standards in relation to human rights, etc....

Yes there are plenty of ups and downs and massive collateral damage to the environment en-route but we are slowly beginning to think collectively in terms of our place as a species on this planet. Could be we'll mess up and see near or total extinction before getting our act together but I personally don't think so.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I would say that there are very many strong indicators that humankind is in fact moving 'onwards and upwards' as you put it. Average life expectancy, average global education levels, massive advances in technology and medicine, global standards in relation to human rights, etc....

Yes there are plenty of ups and downs and massive collateral damage to the environment en-route but we are slowly beginning to think collectively in terms of our place as a species on this planet. Could be we'll mess up and see near or total extinction before getting our act together but I personally don't think so.

Is life expectancy increase such a good thing (considered broadly)? Would you see it as a good thing if we could slow down the ageing process and replace worn bits (90 is the new 60) and live relatively healthy lives up to a life expectancy of 120?

Wouldn't we simply be consuming the resources of someone else down the line, even if those resources are found on Mars? I don't see that as an upwards movement (except in the number of years lived). It's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I posted to you on the onwards and upwards view of human rights before.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110102119&postcount=1170

Sure, advancement has been made in some areas of human rights. But we've lost the right not to have humanity annihilated at the push of a button. Trampling on the right to life in such spectacular fashion simply wasn't a possibility before. Which is the bigger shift: LGBT rights advancement or the loss of the right not to have the threat of a nuclear firestorm hanging perpetually over our heads.

What about the right to have some resources to consume when you're born. Those are being trampled on by consumption levels as never before - aided and abetted by your increasing life expectancy.

What about the threat of Global Warming. At the moment you've a hope that mankind will face into this "in a spirit of unity and cooperation". Slow progress there - as I said, Boards.ie doesn't even have a forum dedicated to this area. Yet the right not to have your crops shrivelled or your house torn down in a cyclone has already bolted for many. Which the greater: LGBT rights advancement for a few people vs the lost rights for lots of people due to global warming?

What about the right not to be turned into a consumption addict? Is it the natural state of humanity to queue around the block overnight to get your hands on the latest micro-iteration of the iphone? Is it really necessary (in the US) to have a typical Tesco-sized aisle dedicated to just peanut butter? What does Fast Fashion tell us about what we have become? And wireless phone charging! Oh, the technology!




Technology is very alluring. But it has helped bring about all the above trampling on rights. It has enabled the headlong consumption of resources. It has brought the planet to the edge of ecocide and changed our very climate.

Doubtlessly the person who views technology in a largely positive light will have the view that technology will be the thing to get us out of our trouble. Like the Irish politician said: we can have both (ever present) growth AND sustainability. Cake AND eat it.

Personally (and I formed this view in the mid-90's when I realised the level of resource consumption + the exponential rate of increase in consumption vs. the amount of resources remaining) I think we're already over the side of the cliff.

but we are slowly beginning to think collectively in terms of our place as a species on this planet

Slowly beginning to think about applying the brakes on the way down.

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

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?

That may be because Christianity makes a country strong, just like capitalism. There are plenty of exceptions of course. We Irish were into faction fights instead of hard work which is why the pagan vikings raided our country before being driven out by Brian Boru. Then it was straight back to faction fighting so the Normans came next, and the Brits later. When I see the goings on in the Dail, I have to question whether we Irish would be better off under German, Dutch or Swiss rule.

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Seems like you haven't read the link all the way through yourself"?

A bit more closely than you, it would seem. The quote you rely on to support your contention that modern Christianity has rejected the total depravity view and has moved on was published in 1847

How very modern.

-

That said, your "we've moved on"-ology is but part of a mankind on an ever onwards and upwards belief system.

One of the more interesting insights I've had as a Christian is that 'old stuff' can be more vibrant and alive than 'new stuff'. Which would be a predictable observation when if dealing with truths that are true for all time. Sight of that truth might ebb and flow (if there is no ever onwards and upwards movement of humanity) so times past might have more insight than we do now.

Suffice to say: your onwards and upwards / majority rules presumptions remain just that, unless demonstrated sound.

They are not assumed by me.

If you're claiming that that quote is out of date and is no longer correct I'm assuming you have some sort of evidence showing that churches worldwide are actively moving towards acceptance of the concept?

It raises an interesting question though, if total depravity is not a belief shared among all Christians why do you believe it to be true? What is your justification for believing your particular flavour of Christianity above others?

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

That may be because Christianity makes a country strong, just like capitalism. There are plenty of exceptions of course. We Irish were into faction fights instead of hard work which is why the pagan vikings raided our country before being driven out by Brian Boru. Then it was straight back to faction fighting so the Normans came next, and the Brits later. When I see the goings on in the Dail, I have to question whether we Irish would be better off under German, Dutch or Swiss rule.

Oh dear... as a historian this made me weep as to the standards of our education system but then I remembered that it was controlled by the RCC for so long that their mangled (and demonstrably incorrect) version has managed to become all that most people are familiar with... so familiar that they will trot it out to support some point without ever reading any academic history book that wasn't on the school curriculum.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is life expectancy increase such a good thing (considered broadly)? Would you see it as a good thing if we could slow down the ageing process and replace worn bits (90 is the new 60) and live relatively healthy lives up to a life expectancy of 120?

Dying naturally of old age rather than through infant mortality, disease or malnutrition would seem like an advancement. During the times of Jesus, life expectancy was about 25, would you consider that better or worse than where we are now?

Wouldn't we simply be consuming the resources of someone else down the line, even if those resources are found on Mars? I don't see that as an upwards movement (except in the number of years lived). It's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.


I posted to you on the onwards and upwards view of human rights before.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110102119&postcount=1170

Sure, advancement has been made in some areas of human rights. But we've lost the right not to have humanity annihilated at the push of a button. Trampling on the right to life in such spectacular fashion simply wasn't a possibility before. Which is the bigger shift: LGBT rights advancement or the loss of the right not to have the threat of a nuclear firestorm hanging perpetually over our heads.

What about the right to have some resources to consume when you're born. Those are being trampled on by consumption levels as never before - aided and abetted by your increasing life expectancy.

What about the threat of Global Warming. At the moment you've a hope that mankind will face into this "in a spirit of unity and cooperation". Slow progress there - as I said, Boards.ie doesn't even have a forum dedicated to this area. Yet the right not to have your crops shrivelled or your house torn down in a cyclone has already bolted for many. Which the greater: LGBT rights advancement for a few people vs the lost rights for lots of people due to global warming?

What about the right not to be turned into a consumption addict? Is it the natural state of humanity to queue around the block overnight to get your hands on the latest micro-iteration of the iphone? Is it really necessary (in the US) to have a typical Tesco-sized aisle dedicated to just peanut butter? What does Fast Fashion tell us about what we have become? And wireless phone charging! Oh, the technology!

Technology is very alluring. But it has helped bring about all the above trampling on rights. It has enabled the headlong consumption of resources. It has brought the planet to the edge of ecocide and changed our very climate.

Doubtlessly the person who views technology in a largely positive light will have the view that technology will be the thing to get us out of our trouble. Like the Irish politician said: we can have both (ever present) growth AND sustainability. Cake AND eat it.

Personally (and I formed this view in the mid-90's when I realised the level of resource consumption + the exponential rate of increase in consumption vs. the amount of resources remaining) I think we're already over the side of the cliff.

Slowly beginning to think about applying the brakes on the way down.

To my mind, probably one of the most important social advances in recent times has been family planning. While pro-lifers witter on about the right to life, with its ever underlying misogynistic agenda, they fail spectacularly to discuss global population increase and its attendant resource requirements. Rather than following the 'go forth and multiply' imperative handed to society by Christianity, and spreading like a plague of locusts as a result, we are finally approaching a position where we can control our own numbers without being dependent on major culling events such as plague, famine, war or government enforced eugenics.

Of all the many failures of the Christian tradition, the persistent peddling of the idea that we should continue to increase our numbers in the context of living on a planet of finite size and resources has to be one of the most damaging. In my opinion, the current younger generation is the most acutely aware of resource squandering and protecting our environment. The decision when or if to have children and how many is clearly part of that. Their questioning of archaic religious values that are entirely inappropriate to modern society is also a benefit.

The religious notion of some kind of an afterlife doesn't help here either, in that it encourages the specious notion that in some way the destruction of our planet is somehow survivable by the chosen few. And of course every religious person considers themselves part of that number and anyone who disagrees excluded.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

That may be because Christianity makes a country strong, just like capitalism. There are plenty of exceptions of course. We Irish were into faction fights instead of hard work which is why the pagan vikings raided our country before being driven out by Brian Boru. Then it was straight back to faction fighting so the Normans came next, and the Brits later. When I see the goings on in the Dail, I have to question whether we Irish would be better off under German, Dutch or Swiss rule.

I tread carefully, given an actual historian in our midst, but can I recommend O'Donnell's Faction Fighters of the 19th century as what is, to the best of my understanding, the most authoritative work on the topic. Best estimates have faction fighting dating from 1805 in Tipperary. No real interaction between this and anything else you've listed though later connected with Irish immigrants as described in 'The gangs of New York'.

From memory, and I stand to be corrected here, there are theories that various forms of Irish stick fighting (bata, shilleliegh, etc...) originated through French fencing instructors being brought to Ireland in the hope raising insurgency against the British. So basically Catholics stirring the shít in the hope of displacing the protestants in a typical ugly display of Christian sectarian violence.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

That may be because Christianity makes a country strong, just like capitalism. There are plenty of exceptions of course. We Irish were into faction fights instead of hard work which is why the pagan vikings raided our country before being driven out by Brian Boru. Then it was straight back to faction fighting so the Normans came next, and the Brits later. When I see the goings on in the Dail, I have to question whether we Irish would be better off under German, Dutch or Swiss rule.

Let's just put these inaccuracies to bed:

Gealic Ireland was a secular society - the laws predated Christianity (tweaking did occur) and lasted until the violent imposition of English Common law in the late 16th/Early 17th century by the Christian monarchs of England (Catholic and Protestant). This makes Gaelic Ireland a uniquely stable society. It retained it's legal and societal system for over 2000 years. It took a full on conquest to destroy it.

In terms of 'faction fighting' - there was no 'Ireland' as we see it. There was an island comprised of different territories controlled by autonomous or semi-autonomous extended patri-linear family groups which shared a common culture, language, and legal system but considered themselves to be individual countries and races. Over the course of 2000 odd years these territories changed, powerful clans rose and fell, alliances changed. But in a European context they remained remarkably stable.

Boru (who did much to upset that power balance as he occupied other clan lands when the norm was to extract tribute from them) allied with Ostmen (of Norse/Irish descent) to drive out a later attempted invasion of Danes.
So Boru fought alongside Norse 'vikings' to see off Danish 'vikings'.

The Normans were mercenaries brought in by one deselected provincial king (Gealic kings were elected from a group of candidates determined by descent from a previous king) in an attempt to a) regain his kingdom contrary to the law and b) advance his aspirations to the High kingship (see ref to Boru's destabilisation of the political system). Strongbow offered to swear Feality to the then High King Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair who declined believing he could defeat them. Henry II of England only directly involved himself as he feared the setting up of an independent Norman kingdom in Ireland by lords who had sworn feality to him - and he hated Strongbow. Henry and Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair signed the Treaty of Windsor in 1175 which agreed that the Normans would hold what they had (around 1/3 of the Island) as the Lordship of Ireland under Henry's youngest son John (the spare to the spare heir) while the remain 2/3rds would remain Gaelic. Henry never expected that John would become king of England and that the Lordship of Ireland would become invested in the English crown. He wished it to be allied but independent. As a by the by -the fiercest opponents to the Tudor conquest were the Mayo Burkes who were of Norman descent.

The Pope sanctioned English rule over Ireland twice - once to Henry II, second time to Mary Tudor. The first time was because the Gaelic church didn't proselytize as it recognised the separation of religious and civil societies - and it didn't send "Peter's Pence" to Rome. The second was confirmation of Henry VIII's breaking of the Treaty of Windsor and illegally declaring himself king of all Ireland - ironically an act he undertook as his break with Rome had voided the Vatican sanctioning of the Lordship of Ireland.

The Swiss, by the way, were originally mercenaries who hired themselves out every year but worked out it was more efficient to stay home and just offer to guard the spoils of war for a monetary consideration. Germany was a collection of often warring states until 1871 - when Prussia officially beat out Austria for position of Top Kraut and Austria refused to join the party. The Dutch spent most of their history trying to gain independence from Spanish control and after they eventually succeeded tried to build an empire on the back of the huge profits from the Slave Trade. William of Orange only agreed to become king of England (his wife Mary was the daughter of James II) so he could use England's Protestant army in his never ending, religiously inspired, wars with Louis XIV of France.

Now that we have put all that to bed can we get back to trying to work out what exactly antiskeptic's worldview is?

antiskeptic

IAmTheReign wrote: »

If you're claiming that that quote is out of date and is no longer correct I'm assuming you have some sort of evidence showing that churches worldwide are actively moving towards acceptance of the concept?

I'm claiming the assertion that modern Christianity has moved on from the idea of total depravity (on which there are various views btw)isn't supported by citing the viewpoint of a specific branch of Christianity dating from the mid-1800's.

It raises an interesting question though, if total depravity is not a belief shared among all Christians why do you believe it to be true? What is your justification for believing your particular flavour of Christianity above others?

The same justification you presumably have for believing what you believe to be the most accurate take on something upon which people differ in view. What makes best sense to you, from all the arguments made.

This probably isn't the best place to get into the theological specifics of how sin is thought to infect or influence people

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Dying naturally of old age rather than through infant mortality, disease or malnutrition would seem like an advancement. During the times of Jesus, life expectancy was about 25, would you consider that better or worse than where we are now?

I've never heard of anyone dying of old age. I've heard of people dying of diseases associated with old age alright.

Examples of aging-associated diseases are atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, cancer, arthritis, cataracts, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and Alzheimer's disease. The incidence of all of these diseases increases exponentially with age.

And given folk very often don't want to die and want to squeeze the maximum amount of healthy life they can from their bodies there is good business to be had in staving off the effects of age related disease. Hence a whole raft of ways of pharmacologically achieving that end.

Which extends the life of folk who would otherwise die at less old age than otherwise.

This isn't about infant mortality. It's about the reach for longer (and healthier life).

Which, as my point pointed out, merely consumes resources from those down the line. A somewhat questionable side effect (and there always is side effects) of this onwards and ever upwards advancement you laud.

To my mind, probably one of the most important social advances in recent times has been family planning. While pro-lifers witter on about the right to life, with its ever underlying misogynistic agenda, they fail spectacularly to discuss global population increase and its attendant resource requirements. Rather than following the 'go forth and multiply' imperative handed to society by Christianity, and spreading like a plague of locusts as a result, we are finally approaching a position where we can control our own numbers without being dependent on major culling events such as plague, famine, war or government enforced eugenics.

Of all the many failures of the Christian tradition, the persistent peddling of the idea that we should continue to increase our numbers in the context of living on a planet of finite size and resources has to be one of the most damaging. In my opinion, the current younger generation is the most acutely aware of resource squandering and protecting our environment. The decision when or if to have children and how many is clearly part of that. Their questioning of archaic religious values that are entirely inappropriate to modern society is also a benefit.

The religious notion of some kind of an afterlife doesn't help here either, in that it encourages the specious notion that in some way the destruction of our planet is somehow survivable by the chosen few. And of course every religious person considers themselves part of that number and anyone who disagrees excluded.

You didn't answer my response (in another thread) to your supposition on ever improving ethics (hip hip hooray for LGBT rights / oh dear for the whole of mankinds right to live on a planet that isn't being turned into a greenhouse)

You didn't respond to a questioning of your ever onwards and upwards view in my last post either. Just a rant about Christianity.

Touched a nerve have I?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

I think that's the kind of splendid out-of-the-box thinking which we, as a nation, should be encouraging in schools.

In final year Engineering in the UK, we had a visit by an entrepreneurial engineering company owner to give us a talk about engineering in the real world. Could have been James Dyson now I think back..

Anyway, he described a problem. Lawnmowers. There were rotating drum mowers and hover mowers but they all had problems: they didn't cut wet grass well, they needed constant emptying, they had cables which got cut, they cut people. He wanted us to think of a new way to solve the problem.

Half way through the set up of the problem I figured what he would ask us and set my mind to blue-skying a new design of lawnmower. No sooner was the challenge to us of his mouth than one wag piped up:

"Modify grass seed so that it doesn't grow so fast"

Everyone laughed except him. He responded..

"As soon as you've finished with university come and see me and I'll give you a job"

Watch Big Hands..

antiskeptic

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I disagree, I think the issue of what you believe in is very relevant, considering that is the very subject of the thread.

I don't see how but anyway

You claim to believe in the concept of total depravity, which is definitely not a mainstream idea for people brought up in country dominated by the catholic church. In fact your entire argument for why you refuse to imagine an impartial observer is based on a belief that is not shared among all Christians.

So what? Surely you're not suggesting that a majority view is the view that ought hold sway.

Mark set up worldviews. He didn't say the worldview had to be a majority world view. It's not as if the idea of Total Depravity is cultish or insignificantly held to. There is a bigger world out there than Catholic Ireland.

I also think it's ironic that earlier in the thread you were deriding cultural Catholics even though you claim not to follow any fixed views set by a particular church.

I wasn't so much deriding as pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone dying of old age. I've heard of people dying of diseases associated with old age alright.

The exact cause of death is largely moot. People live longer and healthier lives than they did in the past. You seem to think this is not progress and hence a bad thing but I'd suggest you're in a tiny minority there. I agree many forms of natural death in old age are unpleasant and have no issue with people choosing a painless assisted death when they feel the time is right for them. That we now can consider this from a rational standpoint is also progress.

Which, as my point pointed out, merely consumes resources from those down the line. A somewhat questionable side effect (and there always is side effects) of this onwards and ever upwards advancement you laud.

You didn't answer my response (in another thread) to your supposition on ever improving ethics (hip hip hooray for LGBT rights / oh dear for the whole of mankinds right to live on a planet that isn't being turned into a greenhouse)

You didn't respond to a questioning of your ever onwards and upwards view in my last post either. Just a rant about Christianity.

You seemed to have missed my point entirely so, which also answered your questions. We have resource shortages because the amount of resources we consume, the amount of pollutants we create and our overall impact on the environment is largely function of the size of our population. The notion that we should or even can continue to grow the world population indefinitely is clearly idiotic, yet it still remains a central part of Christian dogma. As a species we clearly need to match our population size to a maximum dictated by sustainable renewable resources. Family planning allows us to do this without resorting to war, genocide or waiting on some natural culling event that would wipe out the larger part of the population. Technology is at the stage where we can automate all those tasks in the past that demanded a large workforce. As such we're arriving at a unique point in history where we get to choose our path forward rather than be dependent entirely on the forces of nature.

Not sure what your gripe with LGBT people is either, you might want to explain that one. They do seem to occupy the forefront of your mind rather a lot for some reason.

Touched a nerve have I?

Far from it, I quite enjoy discussing these things. Not being in any way religious myself, I do struggle to find any logic in your line of argument but no doubt it is in there somewhere.

Nobelium

antiskeptic wrote: »

pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

What makes self identify as a "Christian", and which parts of scripture do you either either interpret to suit yourself, or ignore ?
You're one of those people who likes to preach all about what other people should be doing instead of what you should be doing.
- How's that plank in your own eye ?

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm claiming the assertion that modern Christianity has moved on from the idea of total depravity (on which there are various views btw)isn't supported by citing the viewpoint of a specific branch of Christianity dating from the mid-1800's.

You claimed that total depravity, which seems to be part of your core worldview was a mainstream idea. Myself and others on this thread have pointed it out that it is not exactly a widely held belief, and the other posters quote supports that. Now unless you can show that it is a belief that is growing in popularity among Christians I think we can all agree that it is not in fact a mainstream belief.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same justification you presumably have for believing what you believe to be the most accurate take on something upon which people differ in view. What makes best sense to you, from all the arguments made.

This probably isn't the best place to get into the theological specifics of how sin is thought to infect or influence people

This is exactly the place to get into those specifics! We're asking about YOUR worldview after all. Now you're saying this idea of total depravity makes best sense to you based on all the arguments. Can you explain what those arguments are, and why you feel they make the most sense to you specifically? Did you compare different Christian beliefs in order to come to your conclusion? What about the other Abrahamic faiths, did you consider those and their belief systems too?