nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

Mark Hamill

This thread is from an off-topic discussion that spun from the "Have we reached peak LGBT nonsense" thread.

The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypotethical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm asking some questions about this impartial onlooker. Your magic wand version, about which you have said nowt, has problems.

I said "hypothetical" so that would get away from whether or not an impartial onlooker is actually possible and just get to your method of justification to them. Responding with other examples of totally irrelevant hypothetical questions is just a diversion tactic, they have nothing to do with you answering my question.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've this irritating habit of jumping out of the boat you are sailing along with me in. You have the same problem as me - you are one of those "other" people. How can you tell. Well, our supposed impartial onlooker is going to decide that

And you have this irritating habit of just asking my question back to me. Answer my question first (seeing as I asked it first and all) and I will answer yours.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what that means.

It means that you can say that all religions are about fundamentally different Gods or they are all just fundamentally different interpretations of the same God doesn't change my hypothetical. You still need to answer the question - How can you whose conviction is actually correctly placed?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or that..

Perhaps you meant to install an "other" before "being"?

No one is sure of themselves other than being sure of themselves. If you accept, for example, the finding of a scientific experiment, you (and I emphasis you) are stating something about your being sure of yourself that scientific experiments lead to solid knowledge or whatever.

You are the judge of all that you are sure of. Even if you farm out your confidence to others it is you who is deciding you are assured that they will correctly inform you. Suredness, for you, rests with no one but you. It's like sticky toffee paper - there's no way to prevent it ending up sticking to your own fingers

Apologies, I did mean to say "Is there anything, other than just being sure of yourself, that makes you so sure of yourself? "

My basis of using science and empiricism is not just based on me just being sure of myself. I will point to other aspects of these methods that go beyond just me being sure of myself. You may disagree about them being reliable or even existing, but they are part of what makes me sure. I am happy to discuss these aspects after you answer the question: What do you have beyond just being sure of yourself?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The set up is that an impartial onlooker was going to decide. There's no point in me talking to you when my view holds that your view is blind to what I say.

The setup is me asking you how you are going to convince the onlooker. What would you say to them to convince them, I would like to know. Maybe I am "blind" to what you say and will never be able to agree with, but how is that potentiality any different to anything you post in this forum? Just answer the question.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because that would let you off the hook about the problem you face creating this impartial onlooker of yours. Which would return us immediately to the problem identified in your mere suggestion of the idea. That without an impartial onlooker, I'm left with you, a partial onlooker.

I will explain how I would do it and you can dispute my methods too, once you answer the question first. There is no hook, no need to be so defensive. You answer my question, I will answer it, and we can discuss about the effectiveness and implications of our respective methods.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Justification implies defence. I prefer your impartial onlooker who isn't looking for a justification but is assessing impartially.

In general, when a claim is made, supporting arguments are made to explain them. A justification is just another word for a supporting argument.
If you could be a little less defensive and answer the question, then maybe we could actually start this discussion?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment.

If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

With respect, I think the only person speaking an alien language here is your good self. You would seem to have failed to effectively communicate your worldview to other posters here, yet at the same time, all other posters here seem to have no difficulty in comprehending and working with the hypothetical scenario in the opening post which you seem to struggle with. If you can't communicate your worldview to others here after endless pages of text it would seem unlikely you could do so to this imagined impartial onlooker.

There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here (other than the impediment it causes to experiment progression).

Others can't seem to leap beyond the position that "hypothetical" is some sort of magic word. As if by mere mention of it every problem is solved. They are happy to assign it all kinds of characteristics to this hypothetical - without saying they do that.

You don't seem to be able to do much better than them. A few peanuts thrown in doesn't alter anything much.

The alien reference hit the nail on the head - quite accidently. Deal with the problem that presents to the assumption regarding the impartials characteristics?

Fat chance. But you're welcome to try.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment.

If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

With respect, I think the only person speaking an alien language here is your good self. You would seem to have failed to effectively communicate your worldview to other posters here, yet at the same time, all other posters here seem to have no difficulty in comprehending and working with the hypothetical scenario in the opening post which you seem to struggle with. If you can't communicate your worldview to others here after endless pages of text it would seem unlikely you could do so to this imagined impartial onlooker.

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

-
"Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

RIP thead.

This is just silly. Assuming that the two people can speak the same language is hardly a killer for a thought experiment. For instance.

Your claim that all this cannot exist because one has to already be "the same" as you in some undefinable way to understand your opinion makes no sense, unless you are an alien species.

You are in fact performing the "trick" that someone else was already mentioned as doing upthread, ie saying that he can prove that God exists to anyone who first takes the simple step of accepting that God exists.

And you think you've managed a stalemate? Really?
TBH I think realitykeeper, with fewer than half a dozen posts, has done a far better job. Because s/he has been willing to engage with the questions posed.

Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment. Ignore the simple stuff and your experiment doesn't get off the ground.

When building the hypothetical you start from the ground up. Sure, we can often leap forward without giving thought to the obvious. We take things for granted. Which is fine, so long as all parties are agreed on what's granted

Point was, "same language" is one of the 'eyes to see' that in intrinsic to Mark's hypothetical. In picking something apparently whimsical, I was underlining that 'eyes to see' is a base requirement in order to be able to 'look upon'. Taking it for granted doesn't mean it isn't critical.

You are absolutely correct as to "alien species" here. That happens when you encounter a class of person fundamentally different to you. The Bible does describe born agains as aliens in this world, as it happens.

Mark's presumption is that there is no fundamental difference between the folk holding different worldviews, therefore the eyes that serve him via the impartial onlooker will necessarily serve everyone. That take stems from his worldview and is projected onto his 'impartial onlooker'.

An impartial observer -on this point- wouldn't know whether the problem is me not being able to define (because there is nothing to define) or Mark not being able to see such as to understand the definition.

Contrary to your idea: I can't necessarily prove God exists to someone who accepts God exists. Plenty of people accept God exists but by way of mental/logical assent. That doesn't make them born again. They don't accept on the basis of spiritual eyes open. And are as lost and blind as the athiest.

-

The dilemma: a person with spiritual eyes open, i.e. suitably equipped, just as Mark's impartial has been equipped, won't be impartial. That's not my problem. It merely means Mark's experiment isn't possible.

If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

Mark Hamill

Can I also remind you to to answer my post from the other day?

Particularly the following part, as it is a question not impacted by the plausibility of the existence of the hypothetical onlooker:

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?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

But you early said:

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't need to convince someone if their eyes were already opened by God.

So what you are really saying, as volchitsa and others earlier said is that you cannot explain or justify your beliefs unless the person already believes in god.
So why wasn't this a problem in the "peak LGBT thread", when you were trying to convince robindch and smacl? Or any of the other times on this forum you argued your worldview?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

Why do you think that you are only person here saying the hypothetical device is nonsense? No one else sees an issue with it, another theist even answered the question posed by it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

Because doing so undermines your worldview, which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable and self-evident?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

It sure is easier to justify a religious world view to someone too young or uneducated to be able to reason.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

-
"Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

RIP thead.

This is just silly. Assuming that the two people can speak the same language is hardly a killer for a thought experiment. For instance.

Your claim that all this cannot exist because one has to already be "the same" as you in some undefinable way to understand your opinion makes no sense, unless you are an alien species.

You are in fact performing the "trick" that someone else was already mentioned as doing upthread, ie saying that he can prove that God exists to anyone who first takes the simple step of accepting that God exists.

And you think you've managed a stalemate? Really?
TBH I think realitykeeper, with fewer than half a dozen posts, has done a far better job. Because s/he has been willing to engage with the questions posed.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

My answer stalemates the discussion.

That's over-egging your omelette by an egg or two.

On the contrary, your answers make discussion impossible as you are not taking part in a discussion, but delivering what could be a post-modernist sermon which would leave Deepak bewildered, but knowing he's in the presence of a master.

Your words circle each other like family members at a christmas dinner, an hour after the patriarch was found in the cold, damp and snowbound family pile, murdered. You join these innocent, but guilty words, into phrases with the specific gravity of lead and the crispness of porridge. Your phrases jostle against each other like logs in whitewater river, but without the energy or the spectacle, leaving only the clunking sounds and an air of damp. And these wooden phrases and damp flotsam merge into unhappy sentences, sad paragraphs and dismal posts - all with the penetrative power of a cream-cheese dildo.

Good heavens, do you speak to people in real-life like you do here?

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

The OP posed a hypothetical situation, aka a thought experiment. It's a well known, and very useful philosophical technique. It doesn't actually have to be possible for it to work, In fact that's exactly what it's for, to remove real life constraints so as to see the underlying issues more clearly.

So no, I don't agree that your refusal to even consider such a hypothetical situation on the grounds that it is impossible does anything other than make you look unsure of your own views and disingenuous about acknowledging this. No stalemate IMO.

But sure, declare victory (or stalemate!) and run away if you wish - that's another well known technique too, albeit a less respectable one.

I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

-
"Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

RIP thead.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

The OP posed a hypothetical situation, aka a thought experiment. It's a well known, and very useful philosophical technique. It doesn't actually have to be possible for it to work, In fact that's exactly what it's for, to remove real life constraints so as to see the underlying issues more clearly.

So no, I don't agree that your refusal to even consider such a hypothetical situation on the grounds that it is impossible does anything other than make you look unsure of your own views and disingenuous about acknowledging this. No stalemate IMO.

But sure, declare victory (or stalemate!) and run away if you wish - that's another well known technique too, albeit a less respectable one.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thats pretty much a reply without any substance to it. Timberrrrr indeed.

Well that's pretty much every post you have written in this thread, you post an awful lot without actually replying to anything.

Keep avoiding the questions, it's plain fir all to see.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

Thats pretty much a cop out reply.

Thats pretty much a reply without any substance to it. Timberrrrr indeed.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

Thats pretty much a cop out reply.

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

So would it be fair to sum up your response to the OP's question of how you would justify your world view as "I can't" then?

After all, you say that the reasons you've given apply to everyone, ie there is no impartial observer. Therefore you can't justify your views to ordinary mortals - is that it?

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

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.

Wonder why that is.

That we now can consider this from a rational standpoint is also progress.

So let's consider, rationally, our ever increasing lifespan from the viewpoint of finite resources and the effect on those further down the line.

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.

We have resource shortages because resources are finite and we constantly consume. Whether we consume at a slower rate or a faster rate isn't relevant. What's relevant is that resources are finite.

And a time will come (because it happens already) when someone will find their lives are a struggle for resources (and you know what that means, typically .. war) because ever longing living people wanted to, well, live ever longer.

I mean, folk are downtrodden,killed, impoverished and diseased as we speak .. so that we can enjoy comparatively lavish lifestyles. Add 10 years to my life and that goes straight to those peoples bottom line - since I consume more in those 10 years. They've to cough up, perhaps with their blood, because I live longer. It's like .. maths.

And you see longer life (for it is us in the West who are gaining the longer lives) as a good thing. Can you see the problem?

sustainable renewable resources.

Not all resources are sustainable renewable resources. Not by a long way. And whilst you might hope for a smooth, seamless transition to a brave new world the reality is that resource scarcity is a now-thing and means theft of resources - frequently involving enormous cost to the theftees.

In the context of current reality, adding ever increasing lifespan doesn't strike me as a good thing. Seeing it as a good thing whilst gazing longfully into a utopian future is bit too cake and eat it for me.

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.

No particular gripe other than to point out that a human rights cause celebre du jour - posited as an example of great advancement kind of pales into insigificance when compared with the loss of the right not to be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust or drink unadulterated drinking water.

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.

You're not the only one struggling. Like I say: the transition to a Utopian world where population balances resources that can't be consumed (since they are all renewable) strikes me as somewhat fairytale-ish. It relies on a forward trajectory (based on loose hopes regarding the progression (and application) of technology, politics, law, etc) that has zero historical precedent.

Reality has been (and can be expected to continue to be) is far messier than any such construction.

I see nothing new under the sun (and nothing new to come under the sun). You see miraculous transformation looming. We worship very different gods.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

The offer of the OP was for an impartial onlooker. Remember. Producing that onlooker is a problem that lies in the OP's court. I've no need or desire for a 'we're' desired change of tack.

Rigour, my friend.

So would it be fair to sum up your response to the OP's question of how you would justify your world view as "I can't" then?

After all, you say that the reasons you've given apply to everyone, ie there is no impartial observer. Therefore you can't justify your views to ordinary mortals - is that it?

antiskeptic

IAmTheReign wrote: »

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?

I think you'll find you baited and switched. I didn't say that total depravity was a "mainstream idea". I did say it appeared in some recognised brands and in other subsets.

I countered the suggestion that modern (i.e. today's) Christianity had moved on from Total Depravity, since the suggestion was based on a quote from a branch of Christianity, dated mid 1800's

You would have to do something like find out how prevalent the view was then and how prevalent the view today in order to comment on what modern Christianity has done (whether moving on or otherwise). I'd emphasis 'you' since 'you' was making the claim about its fall from grace in modern times.

A little bit of rigour goes a long way in these discussions. It avoids accidental bait and switches.

As for your demand? Another bait and switch. I didn't enter this thread to address 'we're'. 'We're' is a group of atheists and agnostics with an antagonistic view towards all things theism. Pearls before swine (no offence but that's what I'd be doing since the evidence direction path demanded by "we're" would be .. drum roll ... empirical).

The offer of the OP was for an impartial onlooker. Remember. Producing that onlooker is a problem that lies in the OP's court. I've no need or desire for a 'we're' desired change of tack.

Rigour, my friend.

antiskeptic

Nobelium wrote: »

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 ?

Your question is a bit garbled so I can't answer it.

Your plank seems to rest on the view that all people who say they are Christians are Christians (contrary to my view). I doubt you can substantiate that.

antiskeptic

Iamthereign wrote:

You obviously feel that there is such a thing as a 'not real' Christian, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up.

Obviously I do think there are real Chtistians and folk who identify as Christians but who aren't really.

You said I was deriding . Can we take it that wasn't shown by you. That that was an unsupported claim?

So tell me what exactly is it that you think does make someone a Christian?

They are born again by act of God. He takes that action when someone surrenders themselves to him a.k.a hoists the white flag on the rebellion against they were born into by very nature. The shape of that surrender will very tremendously from person to person, so there is no fixed formula for it, other than the person surrender. Surrender is the common ancestor as it were.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

The irony is that in a thread about your worldviews you've continually dodged the question of what it is you believe. When I asked what to most Christians would be a relatively simple question of what denomination you belong to you couldn't even answer that. You said you were loosely evangelical and didn't follow fixed views from a central body. This is exactly the kind of handwavy response I would typically get from someone who claims to be Christian but never thinks too hard about it. You though do seem to be someone who has thought about it so I have to wonder why you are so reluctant to explain.

Saying I'm loosely evangelical isn't a dodge. How can it be if thats what I am?

The reason I don't follow a mainstream or take my views from mission control is that I don't share the views of any central body. I don't see a particular problem with that whereas you do. Do you follow a mainstream belief system? Do you take your instruction from a central body (eg "the peer review journals says it, I believe it, that settles it" a la southern US Christians to think of but one section of Chrisitianity)

As for dodging the thread. Well, we've seen its not so straightforward. Indeed, handwavvy seems to be about the core of the response to the problem of this impartial onlooker.

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

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).

You obviously feel that there is such a thing as a 'not real' Christian, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. So tell me what exactly is it that you think does make someone a Christian?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

The irony is that in a thread about your worldviews you've continually dodged the question of what it is you believe. When I asked what to most Christians would be a relatively simple question of what denomination you belong to you couldn't even answer that. You said you were loosely evangelical and didn't follow fixed views from a central body. This is exactly the kind of handwavy response I would typically get from someone who claims to be Christian but never thinks too hard about it. You though do seem to be someone who has thought about it so I have to wonder why you are so reluctant to explain.

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?

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 ?

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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.