Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

124678

Comments

  • #152
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


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

    Doesn't it? Self belief goes a long way :)


  • #153
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #154
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    ☺

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

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

    We must therefore persevere. I think not.

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

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

    Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

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

    As if.


  • #155
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote:

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

    Would you include philosophical beliefs in there as well.

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

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


  • #156
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Would you include philosophical beliefs in there as well.

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


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

    Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

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

    As if.
    Have you considered becoming a post-modernist poet?


  • #158
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Doesn't matter a damn

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



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

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



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

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

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


  • #159
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


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


  • #160
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


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

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


  • #161
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


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

    Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

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

    As if.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    smacl wrote: »
    Mod warning: Keep it civil please. Thanks.

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


  • #163
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


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

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

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

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


  • #164
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


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

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


  • #165
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭volchitsa


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

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

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

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #166
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


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


  • #167
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


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

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

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


  • #168
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

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

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

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

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

    a.k.a. antagonism


  • #169
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


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

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


  • #170
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #171
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    smacl wrote: »
    Doesn't it? Self belief goes a long way :)

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


  • #173
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


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

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


  • #174
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭IAmTheReign


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

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

    a.k.a. antagonism

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


  • #175
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The hypothetical had zero by way of characteristics. Might as well be this one, a nonsense, given he has no suitable characteristics.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

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

    As if.

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

    Problem:

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

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

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

    -

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

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

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


  • #176
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

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

    a.k.a. antagonism

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

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

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

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


  • #177
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

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

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


  • #178
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

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

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

    Each is individually responsible for what they believe.


  • #179
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

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

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

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


  • #180
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Hedgelayer


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

    Each is individually responsible for what they believe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


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

    Nature abhors a vacuum. A vaccum created by yourself.

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

    As if.
    Have you considered becoming a post-modernist poet?

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

    Praise indeed from the Creative Writing Meister himself!


  • #182
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭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.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #183
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #184
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #185
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #186
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #188
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭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.


  • #189
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭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 :D


  • #190
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭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.


  • #191
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #193
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭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!"


  • #194
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #195
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #196
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #197
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #198
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #199
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭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.


  • #200
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭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?


  • #201
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement