Almost two weeks ago now, a rapture-ready Christian (Which is probably my own made up term, but it seems to fit, and I apologize if it seems derogatory. That's not my intention.) challenged me in a blog to read The Gospel According to John, one chapter a day for 21 days, and then come back to him and tell him what I thought.
I assume he expected me to disappear for 3 weeks and then return, converted or on the verge of doing so.
Rather than do that, I decided to make a YouTube video series about it. And I decided that I would even follow his rules. I read 1 chapter a day, give whatever my first impression of it is, and then post the video.
I figured some of you might find it interesting, so I thought I'd share it.
Fair warning: I occasionally swear. Only in a few videos, but if you have a problem with bad language I should let you know that.
I also do my best to avoid ridiculing the text or Christians, although some of my exasperation at parts could be perceived as mocking, that was not my intent.
I've got chapters 1 through 12 posted, and loading 13 as I type this.
Let me know what you think, be critical, and feel free to tell me I'm wrong. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Crap! I just realized that buy listening to even 5 seconds of your youtube video that all future text your write out on Hatrack or anywhere else will now be read to the sound of your voice.
I rather liked the voice I had crafted for you initially.
edit: As for responses to chapter 1, I may comment on every chapter but maybe not.
Historically it has been held that John wrote his gospel after Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In fact it's quite possible he had those gospels in front of him while he wrote it. Some historians have also provided evidence that the Gospel of St. John was written after the Book of Revelations. The point I think, is that John wrote his gospel with an air of, "I need to write some of the important things the other writers missed."
Jesus to me could be telling Nathaniel, "Just because I could see you under a fig tree doesn't mean I am a messiah, but you shall see greater signs that verify this claim. Jesus says several times that signs will follow those who are sent by God. Signs however are not the proof in the pudding so to speak.
Rather signs will follow the servant of God, but it's the Holy Ghost that verifies the truth of all things. So Jesus can and will perform miracles because he administers God's will. Also remember miracles in many instances convince nobody, in fact many Jews drew the conclusion that Jesus had demonic powers hence he was able to do these sorts of things.
Chapter 2: It doesn't seem like Jesus called attention to his miracle, he merely instructed a servant to fill pots with wine and to serve them. I suppose he could have silently filled the pots with wine and people would have marveled, but then the miracle would have had little point I suppose.
Also you need to realize that when the Pharisees(?) question Jesus by what authority he cleared the temple grounds, it seems to be more a challenge based on their anger that Jesus had done something that THEY should have never allowed to happen. Instead they quibbled about a technicality instead of recognizing the rightness of Jesus' actions.
Jesus says quite a few times in the gospels that he often speaks in riddles (metaphorically) so that only the sincere will understand him as the sincere will be given God's spirit so that they comprehend the truth. It also keeps the stubborn and wicked from understanding the truth so that they don't stand condemned by it. Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil. Better to be ignorant and not commit more grievous sins then to be informed and that much more committed to evil.
I am reminded of when Jesus resurrected Lazerus. At that point the Pharisees had seen and heard of several miracles, yet all they could think of was how to kill Lazerus so that he wouldn't bear witness to Jesus' divine mandate.
[ October 02, 2008, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Well lucky for you, I have a FANTASTIC voice. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Every friday I currently go into an informal debate with a friend of mine, purely on philisophical grounds he is trying to prove that God must exist. I am arguing that as an agnostic and logically I will concede the possibility that God exists as I will concede that the natural laws of the Universe it s plausible that there was a crafter but I refuse to believe in Miracles as being scientifically untestable and unobservable, I refuse to believe in organized religion as it contradicts the argument of the omnipotence paradox.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Well lucky for you, I have a FANTASTIC voice.
I completely agree, I'm listening to ye right now. Gonna show it to my friends. I think your being very clear and well spoken and coherent in your arguments and observations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also your pronunciation of Nicodemus was quite unique. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also your pronunciation of Nicodemus was quite unique.
My way sounded better. Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I thought you were a girl, so this is quite a shock.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's Javert Hugo, another person entirely.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Good for you. I remember a certain frustration with some of my college classes when most of the other people in the class didn't "get" basic Bible references. "Oh, c'mon. Noah? Built a big boat? Two of every animal?" When you're discussing American History and some of the influential philosophies of the eighteenth century, that can become a real handicap.
I don't by a longshot insist that everyone treat the Bible as gospel, but I *do* wish everyone knew some basics of it, if only as one more compelling and culturally important mythology.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I thought you were a girl, so this is quite a shock.
Sorry, I'm a dude.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also I neglected to mention things you said that were interesting, I'll try to do that in subsequent posts.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil.
I disagree.
That's certainly how people would and do act in the Bible. But I don't think it is how people would act in the real world.
Never having seen a miracle or having had anyone tell me they were god, however, I can only speculate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That's certainly how people would and do act in the Bible. But I don't think it is how people would act in the real world.
My experience does not coincide with your opinion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:That's certainly how people would and do act in the Bible. But I don't think it is how people would act in the real world.
My experience does not coincide with your opinion.
So you have seen people experience miracles and then act more evil? Please, details.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As far as I can tell, the belief that sure knowledge of God's will would only produce worse evil among fallible humans is practically doctrinal among Mormons. I think it's highly implausible, myself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So you have seen people experience miracles and then act more evil?
That's not what was being discussed-- specifically, no one used the modifier, "more," to the adjective "evil."
Here's what was being discussed:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil.
I disagree.
That's certainly how people would and do act in the Bible. But I don't think it is how people would act in the real world.
Never having seen a miracle or having had anyone tell me they were god, however, I can only speculate.
Do you see the difference in what you were asserting before and what you're asserting now?
quote:As far as I can tell, the belief that sure knowledge of God's will would only produce worse evil among fallible humans is practically doctrinal among Mormons.
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Mormons don't believe that miracles alone can change a wicked person's heart. To some extent, lots of modern-day missionaries have experience with this: when a person has an extremely intense, fast conversion, along with charismatic experiences (visions, healings, etc); and then a couple weeks pass, and they're suddenly angry about the Church's stance on tithing. (Definitely saw this on my mission)
I've had a few experiences that I think are miraculous. While they help strengthen my faith in the short term, and while they help bolster it when I'm feeling doubtful, the joy and clarity those miracles impart fade to memory after a while. That's why an understanding of repentance and forgiveness and the atonement of Christ is so necessary, in my opinion: those are the things which one builds their faith upon, not the intense brief encounters with the miraculous.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Mormons don't believe that miracles alone can change a wicked person's heart.
That's what I was trying to say, I just didn't do a very good job.
There are several contemporary examples of early Mormon leaders falling away from the church while never denying the validity of the miracles they had witnessed. They simply found a way to reconcile that they had seen miracles with the idea that a prophet can become fallen.
The only person I can think of in my life who has a similar situation is a very good friend of my mother's who converted quite fast to Mormonism, and had a very powerful experience in the temple the day of her marriage to her husband. A month later somebody at church insulted her and she refused to ever attend church there. Eventually this translated into never attending church period, even after moving. Today she still insists that she believes in the gospel but not necessarily in going to church.
I know this isn't exactly what you asked for, and while it sounds like a cop out it's sorta hard to provide contemporary examples of a wicked person being shown signs and becoming more evil as it specifically says in the scriptures that God does not show signs to the unbelieving. So you're are sorta asking for examples of something God says generally doesn't happen.
edit: changed the "don't" at the end to "doesn't."
[ October 03, 2008, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
In chapter 5, you point out that Jesus' words are red and hold up the Bible to show us that there's a lot of red on that page, but it's in black and white....
My roommate and I are enjoying listening, though.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Oh, I see, you refer to that in chapter 6. =D
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As far as I can tell, the belief that sure knowledge of God's will would only produce worse evil among fallible humans is practically doctrinal among Mormons. I think it's highly implausible, myself.
My impression of the doctrine was that greater understanding led to greater accountability. So, for example, if you knew say speeding was a sin and then did it, your action would be worse then someone who doesn't think speeding is a sin (even if it was identical speed and circumstances).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil. Better to be ignorant and not commit more grievous sins then to be informed and that much more committed to evil.
Actually, one of the most oddly funny segments of the New Testament is when one of Jesus' disciples cuts off the ear of one of the men who have come to imprison him and Jesus almost casually heals the man while saying to his follower, "Now, now, none of that..."
If that occurred, one has to imagine at least some of the guards going, "Whoa. Ah, maybe I'm on the wrong side, here..."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I was actually looking forward to this as the approach sounded interesting. Opinions from a different view can help increase understanding things not considered before. Sadly, this is not one of those cases. I got bored by it quickly because it was clear (nothing personal) this was read in ignorance. There is some good comments in it, but mostly it comes off as lacking the education needed to understand not just religious theology, but literature.
The minute poetry was mentioned as a negative (not that I am a great fan of that myself) I felt the discussion wasn't going to go anywhere significant. I would suggest reading some Joseph Campbell and Harold Bloom and then going back and reading St. John again. This isn't because I think you will be converted. It is because you might come away with better understanding of what the writer is trying to accomplish.
[ October 05, 2008, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I was actually looking forward to this as the approach sounded interesting. Opinions from a different view can help increase understanding things not considered before. Sadly, this is not one of those cases. I got bored by it quickly because it was clear (nothing personal) this was read in ignorance. There is some good comments in it, but mostly it comes off as lacking the education needed to understand not just religious theology, but literature.
The minute poetry was mentioned as a negative (not that I am a great fan of that myself) I felt the discussion wasn't going to go anywhere significant. I would suggest reading some Joseph Campbell and Harold Bloom and then going back and reading St. John again. This isn't because I think you will be converted. It is because you might come away with better understanding of what the writer is trying to accomplish.
Occasional, I appreciate your honest criticism.
At no point have I claimed that I am an expert in, well, anything. I'm just an average guy who is trying to read and understand. And while that turns you off to it, I think that is what is attracting people online to watch it.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Chapter 4: You seem to skip over much of what is in this chapter, but maybe that's the point; only commenting on things that strike you. Remember that when Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that she has spoken truthfully in that she has had many husbands and the man she stays with is not her husband, she says that he must be a prophet, not necessarily a God. She then proceeds to draw Jesus into a debate by mentioning several times concerning Samaritan vs Jewish worship practices and how their mountain is a better place of worship than Jerusalem. Jesus discusses the point and effectively convinces her that God isn't the trademark of the Jews but at least the Jews read and adhere to the scriptures whereas the Samaritans are discarding His revealed word. She then says, clearly missing the core of what Jesus is saying, "When the messiah comes he'll clear this all up." Jesus then in plain language states who He is. She runs off to inform the people of Jesus and his words. Jesus uses the approaching masses to teach his Jewish desciples that God has revealed his word to the Jews but that the Samaritans are also important to him. Jesus then tarries with the Samaritans and with good reason because they say, "Now we believe in you not because of the woman's words but because of who YOU are." Again Jesus isn't interested in just showing off his powers and using that to convert others. His teachings are of far more worth and value.
As for the man with the sickly son, I've always read Jesus' words, "Except thou seeth signs thou shalt not believe..." as a rebuke. The man shows a glimmer of faith by not being rebuffed and insists Jesus come. Jesus doesn't come but merely states the boy has been healed and gives the man the opportunity to demonstrate his faith by leaving it at that. The man does not question what Jesus has said, and remember Jesus can't be THAT famous this early on. I can see many folks saying, "How can you just say that he is healed, shouldn't you come in person and administrate to him?" But the man accepts that things are as Jesus has said and believes. His faith is rewarded. As for why doesn't God heal amputees, how do you know He hasn't? We don't have every record of every purported miracle in God's Repertoire. There is no record of God instantly extinguishing fire, but I have no doubt he could do it. God has supposedly raised the dead and is not that a greater miracle in terms of difficulty then regenerating a limb? Some animals can regenerate, but none can simply live again, so which is more difficult?
Chapter 5: I think Jesus' point is saying that he does whatever God who is Lord of the Sabbath, asks him to do. Suggesting that the Sabbath while important is not some sort of foundation by which the rest of the gospel rests upon. Helping your fellow man is far more important that sabbath observance and so when compelled to help others on the sabbath even if it involves work, Jesus complies with the commandment, and all of us should as well.
The jews of course think that God would not command somebody to break the sabbath even to help another and when Jesus responds by saying that God His father commanded it they believe Jesus has committed the capital sin of blasphemy. Jesus then at length explains the relationship he has with the father, very clearly placing himself in submission to His father, but nonetheless fully empowered to do ALL his Father commands him to do. He then once again states that the signs that follow him bear witness to His divine parentage, and that the Jews failure to recognize Him as the messiah is a consequence of their ignorance of the scriptures and their doubt.
Chapter 6: Somebody else in your youtube commentary made this point, but Jesus is saying, "You don't believe in me because of my miracles, you think I'll provide you a lifetime of free meals." They then ask him to explain what it is God wants. Jesus responds by saying they must believe in him. They ask for a sign, which is odd because Jesus just fed 5,000 people with food enough for maybe 5 people. They even counter with, "Well Moses fed our fathers with mana for years, this miracle you have performed is pathetic in comparison. I think this demonstrates that signs really don't inspire true belief, most of these people are not interested in being true disciples. The people are mad that Jesus isn't some trained monkey. So they say, "Your Jesus the son of Mary and Joseph how can you be "from heaven?"" Why should Jesus explain in detail how he is the son of God? If he had said, "I am because God actually put me in Mary's belly and I was born 9 months later. Would that really have proven the truth of his words? I don't think so, so Jesus simply said, "I came down from heaven." That's how it is, if it were not so he could not do the works they had already seen.
He then proceeds to contrast the living bread which is the words God has given him to speak, with the manna bread that does not stave off death. Whereas Jesus' gospel frees one from death, as in spiritual death, real bread merely temporarily staves off temporary physical death.
If you want the life saving bread Jesus has to offer, you must keep the commandments God reveals through him, no matter if they sound unconventional, rattle your logic, or are extremely difficult. Many people just don't want to commit to that and so those who simply saw a sign and believe leave for the most part, while Jesus' twelve disciples stick around, because their belief is based on Jesus' words not his miracles.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for why doesn't God heal amputees, how do you know He hasn't? We don't have every record of every purported miracle...
Weak.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Weak.
Seriously.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:The jews of course think that God would not command somebody to break the sabbath even to help another
I usually avoid participating in these threads. I have had enough debates with Christians about what Jews believe to last me several lifetimes.
However, two things:
Please capitalize "Jews".
Jewish law has made exceptions to the Sabbath laws to save life and/or limb since the Law was first given. It is not clear to me whether that is relevant to the writings in question, but it is to the post I quoted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:The jews of course think that God would not command somebody to break the sabbath even to help another
I usually avoid participating in these threads. I have had enough debates with Christians about what Jews believe to last me several lifetimes.
However, two things:
Please capitalize "Jews".
Jewish law has made exceptions to the Sabbath laws to save life and/or limb since the Law was first given. It is not clear to me whether that is relevant to the writings in question, but it is to the post I quoted.
Will do Rivka, I understand that there have been exceptions since the law was given, but at least for the Jews being portrayed in the NT whether factually this way or not, they are not willing to take the same liberties that Jesus does.
quote: Weak.
Since you felt inclined to respond so eloquently here are two responses of my own, you may select either one or both.
1: Oh well now that you've said that, I am completely taken aback by you astounding logic. My statement is now so obviously weak as to shame me for even saying those words in the first place. Whats more, I was so glad that you took the time to look through the whole explanation I gave and rightly ignore it, merely focusing on that particular bit as it surely invalidates everything else I said.
2: Tom would you be so kind as to elaborate on why you felt my statement was weak. Presenting a less than strong front on my own views is certainly not my intention.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:You seem to skip over much of what is in this chapter, but maybe that's the point; only commenting on things that strike you.
Exactly. I also have only a limited amount of time as YouTube only lets you post videos up to 10 minutes in length, and I want to make only one video per chapter.
quote:As for why doesn't God heal amputees, how do you know He hasn't? We don't have every record of every purported miracle in God's Repertoire.
We know he hasn't because it would almost certainly be HUGE news. Not just for the media, but for the scientific and medical community as well. And why would any religion want to hide it if it did happen? (edited)
quote:God has supposedly raised the dead and is not that a greater miracle in terms of difficulty then regenerating a limb?
Of course, but we have just as much evidence for people being raised from the dead as we do for limbs regrowing. Which would be no good evidence.
quote:They ask for a sign, which is odd because Jesus just fed 5,000 people with food enough for maybe 5 people.
And I think this is a brilliant move by the writers.
If my view of the world is correct, then the writers could very well have known that these miracles didn't and don't happen. So the best way to avoid having to show them is to portray the people in the story as not believing even when miracles take place. I still don't think that people would actually act this way if presented with real miracles.
Very crafty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom would you be so kind as to elaborate on why you felt my statement was weak. Presenting a less than strong front on my own views is certainly not my intention.
It's weak because we certainly should have some evidence of God healing an amputee if it had happened even once in the last six hundred years. Your argument -- that it could have happened, but nobody noticed it -- could just as easily be applied to the claim that God's going around shooting candy corn vendors in the head.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I still don't think that people would actually act this way if presented with real miracles.
You'd be surprised. Look at it from another viewpoint:
Does the presentation of fact change behavior? Clearly, not always, and sometimes, not often. Consider the campaign against smoking: despite the very tangible adverse benefits of not smoking, smokers have a hard time kicking the habit. Despite the magnitude of health defects resultant from smoking (emphysema, bad breath, yellowed teeth, phlegm), smokers still smoke.
The presentation-- even convincing evidence-- of fact does not always change behavior.
Also: it has been shown that global climate change occurs in large part because of human influence. Reliable scientific studies have shown that unless the trend is changed, we will experience dire environmental consequences. And yet people continually fight against changing their energy consumption habits, despite the powerful evidences provided to them by the majority of the scientific community that the burning and production of fossil fuels contributes enormously to the worsening climate change.
Humans don't treat fact as significantly as you seem to think, Javert.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:we certainly should have some evidence of God healing an amputee if it had happened even once in the last six hundred years.
Why should we?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
This is an interesting discussion. I'm enjoying reading/watching it.
One thing I'd like to interject about miracles is there are always various levels of interpretation. I'm Mormon and we don't believe in the supernatural, but we do believe God knows more about physics than we do. When miracles occur, they're acts of God, or manifestations of his power, that nevertheless are brought about inside the natural law of the universe.
Say I happened to be looking up at the sky and praying intently for understanding about a particular subject, and say the clouds just then, which I wasn't particularly focused on, resolved themselves plainly in a way that spelled out a word which could be a prompting or clue that might put me on the right path toward the answer I sought. If that were the case, then it wouldn't mean that the clouds or the air or even my brain did anything outside the normal physical behavior of the weather or neurons. Anyone who didn't believe in prayer or in God would easily be able to dismiss it as some sort of dream or fancy on my part, or simply a random occurrence on the part of clouds. Nevertheless I would have been answered, I would have my clue, and that clue might be productive in the sense of leading me to a higher level of understanding on the subject in question.
So every miracle also is a natural occurrence. It's real on many levels at once. And we're always free to see it and interpret it on any or all levels.
I think in one very real sense, every instant of the existence of the universe is nothing but a huge crazy miracle. When I think about what is actually going on at the deepest level we understand physically, at the level of quantum mechanics, I totally sit slackjawed in fascination and awe. The universe itself is a miracle, as is every phenomenon contained within. The mistake we make is not in seeing miracles where they don't exist, it's in thinking there's anything at all normal or humdrum about being alive moment by moment.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Humans don't treat fact as significantly as you seem to think, Javert.
Both of your examples are of gradual things that people can ignore. This is not the nature of a miracle, at least as it seems to have been presented in the Bible.
If people who were smoking started bursting into flames, and others noted this and then kept on smoking, I think you'd have an argument.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If people who were smoking started bursting into flames, and others noted this and then kept on smoking, I think you'd have an argument.
Seat belts.
Life vests.
Helmets.
Child seats.
etc., etc.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Will do Rivka, I understand that there have been exceptions since the law was given, but at least for the Jews being portrayed in the NT whether factually this way or not, they are not willing to take the same liberties that Jesus does.
Since Jesus is one of the Jews portrayed in the NT, this statement is inaccurate.
A particular group of people, who were Jews, disagreed with Jesus, who was also a Jew, about Sabbath observance. As it happens, those people were not interpreting the restrictions in accordance with what the majority of Jews, then or since, have said is the clear command to act to preserve life and limb on the Sabbath.
To interpret that as "the jews of course think . . ." is poor biblical scholarship as well as being offensive.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If people who were smoking started bursting into flames, and others noted this and then kept on smoking, I think you'd have an argument.
Seat belts.
Life vests.
Helmets.
Child seats.
etc., etc.
And none of those are immediate.
My point stands.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for why doesn't God heal amputees, how do you know He hasn't? We don't have every record of every purported miracle in God's Repertoire. There is no record of God instantly extinguishing fire, but I have no doubt he could do it. God has supposedly raised the dead and is not that a greater miracle in terms of difficulty then regenerating a limb? Some animals can regenerate, but none can simply live again, so which is more difficult?
The problem with this argument is that it only establishes that it is possible for God to have healed amputees. It does not address the probability that God has actually healed amputees. If we assume that God exists then I'm pretty sure that Javert would grant that it's possible that God has healed amputees but he would not grant that it is likely. If God actually does heal amputees then why haven't we seen it? It's safe to assume that the probability that God heals amputees is low.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And none of those are immediate.
My point stands.
I think you underestimate the enormous power of rationalization.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:And none of those are immediate.
My point stands.
I think you underestimate the enormous power of rationalization.
And I think you overestimate it.
So there we are.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, but you're wrong.
Like I said, I've seen people experience the miraculous and turn around and behave poorly a few hours later.
Heck, I've been that person. It's not that much of a stretch for me to believe that miracles don't mean conversion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yeah, but you're wrong.
Like I said, I've seen people experience the miraculous and turn around and behave poorly a few hours later.
Heck, I've been that person. It's not that much of a stretch for me to believe that miracles don't mean conversion.
But until given evidence, I can only guess that what you and they saw wasn't miraculous, which explains why they turned around and behaved poorly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why should we?
Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news. If your next door neighbor with the two missing legs suddenly started walking again, you'd notice.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think I saw that in the X-Files. I think the guy had cancer. Either that or he was cancer. One of the two.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news.
"Jesus gave me my arm back!"
I'm sorry-- I don't see it gathering national attention.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A confirmed case of a regrown limb? That would be one of the biggest news stories of the century (edit: I'll compromise on decade), probably briefly wiping the current financial problems off the front page. It would be a major part of medical journals for years. Experts from around the world would clamor for the opportunity to examine.
CNN covers people who grow huge amounts of warts and need surgery to remove them. Medical events that hold the potential to allow human regeneration would be a giant headline.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news.
"Jesus gave me my arm back!"
I'm sorry-- I don't see it gathering national attention.
Just like that, no.
But backed up by thorough scientific documentation (he was really an amputee, there are numerous witnesses both medical and laymen, there's photos and video, and he now currently has a normally operating arm, and perhaps even had documented the instant where it grew back) then it would garner national attention.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Touching smoking, certainly it has become a lot less popular over the last five decades. Just as the facts in question are slow and subtle - a 50% death rate at some unknown point in the future - so the response has been slow. But it definitely exists.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
I'm with EG actually, sorry.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
I'm with EG actually, sorry.
Then you're wrong too. Sorry. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
I'm with EG actually, sorry. While I think it's an interesting concept, you seem to be doing little more than justifying your preconceived notions about the writer and people of faith in general. Which seems very different from seeking understanding, to me.
I personally think the book of John, at face value, is kind of hilarious, because he has no sense of foreshadowing. "And then Judas, who was a JERK DORK, took care of the money because he was GREEDY, said a smart alec remark to Jesus, and by the way would BETRAY HIM later on". He also always seems to refer to himself in the third person as "he who Jesus loved, and was awesome".
My husband and I have a bunch of medievalist friends (all BYU students and most all Mormons) who get together to read a chapter in the NT and discuss medieval religion, and the "Jerk Dork" meme is very much ingrained into our vernacular.
Edit: sorry about the double-post.
[ October 06, 2008, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
I'm with EG actually, sorry.
Then you're wrong too. Sorry.
Weak.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think some people are mistaking a lack of reverence with a lack of desire to understand.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I was trying to point out that I've been irreverent plenty of times regarding reading the book of John. Maybe sometime I'll explain the "Saxon Jesus Equals Plasma God" meme.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps there is also some hidden disagreement on what it means to understand this text. For a Christian, presumably, understanding the words of Jesus means "How does this apply to my life, how can I become a better person by taking this advice". But for a non-Christian, understanding is more on the order of "How does this fit into the historical context of that time, how has this shaped Western civilisation, how do Christian think about this." I do not think Javert is trying to do the first. Perhaps his detractors have not considered the second.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
I'm with EG actually, sorry.
Then you're wrong too. Sorry.
Weak.
I responded with exactly as much to back up my statement as you initially did with yours.
I'm sorry if I read and come to different conclusions than you have. I'm sorry if I'm not overly respectful to something just because others respect it.
I read, I try to understand, I ask questions, and I try to understand what I think makes sense.
If I wanted to just rag on the Bible, I would do a much better job and be much more forward about it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
sarcasticmuppet, I see you're right - you're not expecting/requiring reverence in the sense of being serious and staid. However, I think someone can seek understand the text from a non-religious, unbelieving viewpoint, and that this can be a valid exercise. Is Javert not assuming the viewpoint of believers why people think he isn't trying to understand? It might be that he's not trying to understand believers, but that's a different thing.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I think it's completely awesome for someone to regard John or any/all books in the Bible as a piece of literature. I think that it's great that Javert is in process of reading part of a work that has influenced western thought for quite a long time. I'd think it were equally great if he were reading War and Peace, the Diary of Anne Frank, or any other "great works" type literature. I'd think it degrees of magnitude better if he were going into it with a bit of humility and desire to learn something about God (as I think was probably his friend's intent in challenging him to read it), but since Javert himself admitted at the beginning that this is the complete opposite of his intent, I am not expecting it.
Javert as much as admitted to Orincoro that he is not actually trying to analyze it in a scholarly way. KoM brought up historic context, but again, there doesn't seem to be any real research other than the very occasional trivia (and you're talking in some ways about an ancient text, but in many other ways it is a medieval text, so it's quite a bit of history to contextualize). So going off of no more than the contents of Javert's I'm sure very capable intellect (I'm not being snarky here, past posts seem to indicate that he is an intelligent human being), he makes sweeping comments about authorial intent, metaphorical meaning, and history which are, of course, colored significantly by Javert's own bias against religion. Which I'm not saying is inherently bad -- no matter what we do, we can never separate our most deeply held thoughts and beliefs from what we write/speak/perform for the world to see, because doing so is deleting ourselves from our work. The best we can do is have a little intellectual honesty about it.
Good literature changes you. Perhaps the only incitement to change in the Book of John is to change from a nonbeliever to a believer, but could it not change you in other ways as well? It is a story of a radical breaking up the status quo, of standing out from a crowd and facing severe opposition and even death because of it. But all I see is Javert using the text to reinforce his exact same world view. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I can't get over my inherent biases, but that's what I see.
*I suppose now I've just invited numerous responses over whether or not the Bible is 'good literature'. I think you're missing my point.
[ October 06, 2008, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I'd think it degrees of magnitude better if he were going into it with a bit of humility and desire to learn something about God
That's the problem...I can't read something about a god and trick myself into believing that it is an actual god I am learning about. Which is probably why I make such a big deal about miracles.
I need evidence. It's just the way my mind works. I can't help it.
I do my best by occasionally saying "if this were true, this is how I would react." But that's as far as I can go. I can't believe something before I believe it. I can imagine hypothetically if it is true, but what I can't do is believe it first and then read it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: [QUOTE]Originally posted by BlackBlade: [qb] Will do Rivka, I understand that there have been exceptions since the law was given, but at least for the Jews being portrayed in the NT whether factually this way or not, they are not willing to take the same liberties that Jesus does.
quote:Since Jesus is one of the Jews portrayed in the NT, this statement is inaccurate.
A particular group of people, who were Jews, disagreed with Jesus, who was also a Jew, about Sabbath observance. As it happens, those people were not interpreting the restrictions in accordance with what the majority of Jews, then or since, have said is the clear command to act to preserve life and limb on the Sabbath.
I think you are giving this school of thought that was current amongst the Pharisees and the Saducees too little credit. Jesus repeatedly answers to their charges of Sabbath desecration. It even says that after yet another debate on healing on the Sabbath, the Pharisees met together to council as to how they might kill Jesus. If general sentiment was that Jesus' interpretation of Sabbath observance was correct why would the Pharisees an apparently out of touch group try to push Sabbath desecration as the vehicle turn public opinion against Jesus. My knowledge of just how extensive the Pharisee groups influences extended is admittedly unexpansive, but I am under the impression that while the Sadducees likely dominated the priestly class and the wealthier Jews, the Pharisees were considered the chief interpreters of the law at the public level. I see their influence as being quite expansive throughout the Jewish religion.
quote: To interpret that as "the jews of course think . . ." is poor biblical scholarship as well as being offensive.
I do apologize for using that phrase in the context of which I was speaking. I meant it in reference to the Jews Jesus was addressing, very few things can be said of all Jews, or indeed any large group of even a homogeneous nature. I also apologize for not putting quite as much time carefully crafting my words as I ought to in discussing a topic this important to me. I will do better in the future, please be patient with mistakes I make, and do me the service of helping me understand where I might have misspoken or been offensive.
Javert
quote:We know he hasn't because it would almost certainly be HUGE news. Not just for the media, but for the scientific and medical community as well. And why would any religion want to hide it if it did happen? (edited)
Well perhaps the miracle was for that person specifically, and would do little to benefit the general public. I mean I can see the lack of certain high profile miracles these days in two ways.
1: People today are so technologically oriented and centered on physical evidence that miracles can't perform the exact same function they did before. Somebody catches a miracle on camera people immediately focus on whether the footage was doctored, whether the person filming it is trustworthy, what alternate explanations can be summoned to explain the footage, if God is apparently caught on film why can't we just repeat it, why can't he do other more worthy miracles?
2: Those miracles didn't really happen, the fact that we have the apparatuses to prove any miracle's validity and now no miracles of that kind occur demonstrates that miracles either never happen, or no longer happen in which case God is a changeable being. This invalidates at least some Christian theory on who God is.
quote: If my view of the world is correct, then the writers could very well have known that these miracles didn't and don't happen. So the best way to avoid having to show them is to portray the people in the story as not believing even when miracles take place. I still don't think that people would actually act this way if presented with real miracles.
This certainly seems to color much of your commentary. I guess we will have to disagree on the intent of the writers.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: If my view of the world is correct, then the writers could very well have known that these miracles didn't and don't happen. So the best way to avoid having to show them is to portray the people in the story as not believing even when miracles take place. I still don't think that people would actually act this way if presented with real miracles.
This certainly seems to color much of your commentary. I guess we will have to disagree on the intent of the writers.
It does, but only because I see no evidence for it not too. And I'd love to see some evidence, BB. But I never have.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: If my view of the world is correct, then the writers could very well have known that these miracles didn't and don't happen. So the best way to avoid having to show them is to portray the people in the story as not believing even when miracles take place. I still don't think that people would actually act this way if presented with real miracles.
This certainly seems to color much of your commentary. I guess we will have to disagree on the intent of the writers.
It does, but only because I see no evidence for it not too. And I'd love to see some evidence, BB. But I never have.
Have you considered the concept of how many of the acts of Jesus are more likely to have happened because the gospel writers reports events that don't necessarily present Jesus as a one sided individual?
By that I mean for example, your reading of Jesus fashioning a scourge and driving the money changers out of the temple grounds. There are precious few examples of Jesus getting angry but there are others. Jesus cursing the fig tree, Jesus cursing Jerusalem and Capernaum. Now take the fig tree example, if the gospel writers were trying to spread the myth of Jesus and his power why take the time to write about some little fig tree that he cursed? In terms of being memorable the fig tree does not hold up to feeding 5,000 people or walking on water in terms of capturing the imagination.
People have often debated the propriety of Jesus expelling the money changers from the temple. Now maybe the gospel writers were trying to make Jesus more accessible to the early readers of the NT by coming up with events that portray him as a man with an assertive side. But even the whole story reads as a sort of spontaneous sudden incident. There isn't any hidden praise in the description of the events. There is no commentary on how this act was reacted amongst the common folks, things you'd think we'd at least get hints of if the gospel writers were merely trying to make Jesus seem awesome.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, or it could be that the gospel writers knew who their audience was, and didn't need to preach to the choir.
-Bok
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
BB, in that era there were many warring groups of Jews -- the Prushim (Pharisees), Tzedokim (Saducees), Essenes, and probably half a dozen others. In the end, the Prushim won. In essence, Orthodox Jews are Prushim.
However, the NT on multiple occasions asserts that the Pharisees said/did/etc. things that have never been accepted practice among that group. I leave determining the various possible reasons for that discrepancy as an exercise for the reader.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps there is also some hidden disagreement on what it means to understand this text. For a Christian, presumably, understanding the words of Jesus means "How does this apply to my life, how can I become a better person by taking this advice". But for a non-Christian, understanding is more on the order of "How does this fit into the historical context of that time, how has this shaped Western civilisation, how do Christian think about this." I do not think Javert is trying to do the first. Perhaps his detractors have not considered the second.
If that is the case, Javert needs more information than just what is found in the text. One needs to understand that the Gospels weren't written for a 21st century audience. What seems straight forward, often isn't. It is important to read them with an eye to how they would have been understood by the people for who they were written. Context is important. I can recommend a couple of good books, if you like.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: BB, in that era there were many warring groups of Jews -- the Prushim (Pharisees), Tzedokim (Saducees), Essenes, and probably half a dozen others. In the end, the Prushim won. In essence, Orthodox Jews are Prushim.
However, the NT on multiple occasions asserts that the Pharisees said/did/etc. things that have never been accepted practice among that group. I leave determining the various possible reasons for that discrepancy as an exercise for the reader.
Noted! That is a topic that I would be interested in researching further into.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news.
"Jesus gave me my arm back!"
I'm sorry-- I don't see it gathering national attention.
Hey, look, it's the enormous power of rationalization in action! Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Another interesting take on miracles, that perhaps someone might be interested in considering, is that of C.S. Lewis. He pointed out that the miracles Christ worked during his ministry were all of the sort to highlight or point out the everyday miracles which God works all around us constantly, at which we don't usually remember to be astonished.
For instance, the first miracle, when Christ turns water into wine, is a type (or symbol) of the miracle of fermentation, of turning grape juice into wine, which God performs through nature. The various healings are types of the healing miracles that our bodies work after illness or injury. The loaves and the fishes are types of the miracles of growth and harvest that occur each year as the seasons pass, and so on. C.S. Lewis pointed out that all Christ's miracles were types. Lazerus was a type of the resurrection of us all. I found that a very interesting point of view. The miracles weren't just fireworks and bedazzlement. They were teaching us a deeper story, those of us who have eyes to see.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I'd think it degrees of magnitude better if he were going into it with a bit of humility and desire to learn something about God
That's the problem...I can't read something about a god and trick myself into believing that it is an actual god I am learning about. Which is probably why I make such a big deal about miracles.
I'm not sure you read past that statement, especially the part where I said I *wasn't* expecting it, due to your own admission on the matter. My point was that it's always good to immerse oneself in good literature, but it's *better* to seek after knowledge of God's will in our lives. The bible can serve either or both purposes, as much as its intended one leans towards the latter.
And what kmbotts said.
Edit: upon second reading, I was a bit rude, and corrected.
[ October 07, 2008, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Touching the Pharisees and gleaning on a Sabbath, it seems to me that it could just be an issue of the strictness of the 'life and limb' clause. Jesus and his followers were hungry, certainly, but I don't think it likely that they were on the verge of death by starvation. It probably would not have killed them to wait for the next day. So the Pharisees might have been saying (with some parts lost in the propaganda) "Life and limb, yes, but you are just hungry. God's law is not to be broken for the sake of your stomach, but only for your life."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My point was that it's always good to immerse oneself in good literature, but it's *better* to seek after knowledge of God's will in our lives. The bible can serve either or both purposes, as much as its intended one leans towards the latter.
*claps hands together* Testify!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Just because I rank something higher than literature, doesn't mean I think literature is bad. I'm trying to approach it with some honesty that my ranking system *exists*. So if you're trying to shame me, do try a different approach.
And maybe address my actual point, rather than simply making fun of my faith.
[ October 07, 2008, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I love this Godless Bible study! Maybe we should make it a regular thing. There are a lot of different philosophies here showing their different approaches to thought and life. I think the meta-study of all these methods makes very good food for pondering existence and reality. It throws open wide the gates and gives us insights into points of view that are very different from our own.
For instance, I recently read about author David Foster Wallace (who committed suicide) mentioning that ultimate modern secular sin of uncoolness. This sort of popped my eyes open because of being so very foreign to my point of view. First of all, I thought people stopped worrying about uncoolness when they left middle school. But maybe after all it's just that I think the essence of cool is being so involved and interested in everything around us that we have not one moment to spare in which to consider our own coolness status. I'm not sure.
Anyway, the concept of sin is one that I think needs review in modern mainstream society. If we no longer believe in the old-fashioned concept of sin (though, of course, many of us still do), then what are our modern sins? Is the concept of sin entirely obsolete now? Are there new sins today, such as uncoolness, that didn't exist in Victorian times?
My own thought is that the word "sin" really means mistake or error, and always has. Over time the smug self-righteousness that got associated with the word "sin" in my mind sort of ruined it for me forever. "Sin" implies to me a witch hunt, judgmentalism, etc. It reminds me of people like Reverend Phelps. It's tied up for me with old fashioned words like "miscegenation" or "quarteroon". So I'd like to propose a change of terminology among my religious brethren. Let us henceforth speak of mistakes or errors, rather than sins. I think we'll communicate better that way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Just because I rank something higher than literature, doesn't mean I think literature is bad. I'm trying to approach it with some honesty that my ranking system *exists*. So if you're trying to shame me, do try a different approach.
Even reading the Bible as literature doesn't work very well without context. One wouldn't read Shakespeare with any kind of understanding without some knowledge of the culture in which he was writing or that he was writing plays that were meant to be performed. Reading the Bible without understanding of context is a lot like trying to read Shakespeare as if it were supposed to be 20th century prose. Only more so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Random sidenote, only tangentially related: In English you can take something "on faith" or "as Gospel". In Norwegian you take it "for good fish". Possibly this tells you something about which nation had the more physical resources.
I'm not sure why this thread reminded me of this.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Just because I rank something higher than literature, doesn't mean I think literature is bad. I'm trying to approach it with some honesty that my ranking system *exists*. So if you're trying to shame me, do try a different approach.
Even reading the Bible as literature doesn't work very well without context. One wouldn't read Shakespeare with any kind of understanding without some knowledge of the culture in which he was writing or that he was writing plays that were meant to be performed. Reading the Bible without understanding of context is a lot like trying to read Shakespeare as if it were supposed to be 20th century prose. Only more so.
I completely agree, especially since the KJV (which I'm assuming is what Javert's reading) is written in a similar vernacular as Shakespeare (supposedly Shakespeare even had a part in transcribing it) so the metaphor is even more apt.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You aren't trying to understand it. You are looking for things to rag on.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
I'm with EG actually, sorry.
Oh come on, you have to apologize for agreeing with me?
If you are really studying something, doesn't matter what it is, you will find things you like about it. I didn't hear anything positive said about it. That's why I think you are just ragging on the bible, not studying it. Not that I disagree with you.
About the whole amputee thing. What kind of moron really thinks that God is going around healing amputees? You don't think that news might spread? God only helps people who promise not to tell anyone? That was seriously one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And maybe address my actual point, rather than simply making fun of my faith.
I'm not making fun of your faith. I'm gently pointing out that preaching is forbidden under the TOS.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While I agree that she is skirting the line, I think it is clear enough that she is offering an opinion (rather than pushing advice on someone) that you are wrong in your characterization of what she said, Tom.
Also, take this from someone who has frequently had their sarcasm taken the wrong way: that was definitely not gentle. Nor was your intent remotely clear.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And maybe address my actual point, rather than simply making fun of my faith.
I'm not making fun of your faith. I'm gently pointing out that preaching is forbidden under the TOS.
You're also not addressing my point. I was trying to talk about literature while at the same time trying to not hide what I think the actual purpose of the bible is. Because if I were to say there was no greater purpose in reading the bible other than as a piece of literature, I'd be lying. I made it very clear that I did not expect any other reading from Javert, but I tried to make it equally clear that such a reading exists on my personal scale higher than any other one, and I'm not going to hide it if it comes up.
If you want to attack my argument, feel free to tear it to pieces, but leave out the 'gentle reminders' that any time I bring up the fact that I have faith, I must be put in my place.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Summer, Donna...?"
Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I refuse to believe in organized religion as it contradicts the argument of the omnipotence paradox.
I know you said this forever ago, but since I mostly lurk, I was hoping someone else would ask back then. I'll have to ask and go back to lurking Just wondering: How does something "contradict" a paradox? Paradoxes already contradict themselves, so I'm kind of confused as to what you mean. Also, what does organized religion have to do with impossibly giant boulders? I was just confused by that.
On God healing amputees: Was there really a lot of amputees wondering around ancient Israel? No, really. This is a serious question. I would have thought it was a modern-thing, but I've never really thought about it until now.
One amputee I can think of: John the Baptist had his head cut off. Latter-Day Saints believe he visited Joseph Smith and gave him God's authority to baptize. Nobody mentioned him being headless at the occasion.
Maybe I should just say "What part of all-powerful don't you understand?"
Yes, you are right, though. If it happened today, it would be huge news. It would be heralded as the biggest hoax of our time.
Which brings me to miracles. You really think people will believe in miracles if they see them? No rationalizing it away whatsoever?
So if you were unemployed for months looking for a job and you/someone prays you get a job and then you do the next day is that a miracle? If while reading John, you decide to pray for some extra understanding and a stranger immediately comes to your door offering religious advice, you'll treat this as an answer? Or what about you seeing said religious stranger(s) coming your way, and you try to leave but your car has a flat tire? Do you drive away anyway?
I honestly don't expect y'all to take any of the above as miracles. But I do. I've seen them happen. I'm not saying I believe because of these things, because I don't. All I am trying to say is mankind has a strong ability to rationalize anything. Believers/Unbelievers alike. I have confidence that whatever miracle anyone names, someone else can say why it would be a coincidence.
And I sure hope you do wear your seat-belt when driving and a helmet when biking.
I haven't watched your videos yet. But I probably will later, and if I want to comment, then I'll do so on your actual video. I'm glad you are taking the time to read John, even if you may not appreciate it the same way I do. I really like his Gospel. And not many people accept challenges from "rapture-ready Christians." So I really respect that.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I'd just like to say that I'm enjoying the series of videos — I'm on number 14 — and it's interesting to see the differing assumptions that people from different backgrounds are making in this thread. That is all. For now.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: That is all. For now.
Muahahaha!
Finished your thought for you. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And maybe address my actual point, rather than simply making fun of my faith.
I'm not making fun of your faith. I'm gently pointing out that preaching is forbidden under the TOS.
You're also not addressing my point.
Unless something sudden has happened in the last few hours, both Utah and Wisconsin are still in America.
Tom doesn't have to address your point if he doesn't want to. Pointing out that you're either in violation of the TOS or close to it is a perfectly legit response any post.
Although, Tom, I have to say I agree with rivka that that wasn't that gentle nor the intent that clear.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
A touch of input here...
I jumped right into the middle of the first video and heard you make one point, and then jumped ahead a bit further and heard another. I obviously didn't get a sufficient sampling to make an accurate judgment of your commentary as a whole, but the two were enough to convince me that I don't need to watch any more. Both points were made from a standpoint of a nearly complete lack of understanding of Christian faith.
The Book starts with a bunch of flowery, obviously metaphorical language, and this is where you think many Christians go wrong because we take it too literally? In actuality, John is describing the universe as it actually exists, and not merely how it exists to our limited human understanding. The beauty of the language used is a natural consequence of the accuracy of his words. In other words, the closer one gets to truth, the prettier the view.
Jesus tells his disciples that "even though you already believe in me, you will see signs and miracles that will be irrefutable proof of who I am" (paraphrasing, obviously) and this undermines the idea of the importance of faith? No, it strengthens the common assertion (I'm sure you've heard it before) that once you believe in Him on faith and faith alone, the whole of existence soon reveals itself as evidence of the truth of God's existence. But the faith must come first.
An interesting experiment. It is too bad that your ignorant criticisms will have the ring of truth to others who are equally ignorant and will work toward closing the door toward their own future enlightenment. You will not accept this, but you endeavor to further mental darkness, and it is a shame.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One amputee I can think of: John the Baptist had his head cut off. Latter-Day Saints believe he visited Joseph Smith and gave him God's authority to baptize. Nobody mentioned him being headless at the occasion.
No, but neither was John the Baptist mortal any longer when he bestowed the priesthood on them.
That is, it wasn't that he'd just grown a new head; it was that he'd been resurrected.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I honestly don't expect y'all to take any of the above as miracles. But I do.
Which is why the amputee thing is a valid, telling point. If you're willing to believe in sucky, equivocal miracles, then miracles happen all the time. If you look for things worth calling unquestionable miracles -- like the restoration of an amputated limb -- they don't happen, ever.
Now, you can argue that God doesn't do that kind of showy stuff anymore. Lots of people have made that argument -- and they've made that argument because it's necessary to explain why God doesn't seem to intervene in the clear and unmistakable ways that the Bible says He used to use.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And maybe address my actual point, rather than simply making fun of my faith.
I'm not making fun of your faith. I'm gently pointing out that preaching is forbidden under the TOS.
You're also not addressing my point.
Unless something sudden has happened in the last few hours, both Utah and Wisconsin are still in America.
Tom doesn't have to address your point if he doesn't want to. Pointing out that you're either in violation of the TOS or close to it is a perfectly legit response any post.
Although, Tom, I have to say I agree with rivka that that wasn't that gentle nor the intent that clear.
I was doing nothing against the TOS, only addressing an opinion that Tom disagrees with. The fact that he's *not* addressing my point and is only harping on an opinion I hold shows me that Tom cares very little for actual discussion, and only wants to tear others down.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It sure looked like you were testifying. But I'm certainly willing to be wrong.
Your point -- that you think people should read the Bible to encourage them to become Christians, whether or not they read it as literature -- is specifically what I am addressing. But I wouldn't worry about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I honestly don't expect y'all to take any of the above as miracles. But I do.
Which is why the amputee thing is a valid, telling point. If you're willing to believe in sucky, equivocal miracles, then miracles happen all the time. If you look for things worth calling unquestionable miracles -- like the restoration of an amputated limb -- they don't happen, ever.
Now, you can argue that God doesn't do that kind of showy stuff anymore. Lots of people have made that argument -- and they've made that argument because it's necessary to explain why God doesn't seem to intervene in the clear and unmistakable ways that the Bible says He used to use.
Tom: Even when the largest of miracles chronicled in the Bible took place, the vast majority of the world's population was completely ignorant of them.
Moses parting the Red Sea and the Egyptians drowning subsequently must have involved tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. But once the miracle was over, there was simply the written record and the testimony of those who were there. Give or take about 70 years, and virtually all those involved are dead. Today one person with a cellphone can capture a miracle, and the visual record of it can't be lost.
This lends the miracle to constant scrutiny and speculation. "LOOK! It appears to me that these Egyptian soldiers in THIS part of the video were not attempting to engage the Israelites, but God allowed them to be killed anyway!" Why didn't God simply have the wheels fall off the Egyptians chariots so that nobody needed to die? Although we as human beings don't know everything, we'd certainly apply our apparatus of imperfect reason and attempt to second guess God in every detail. People would get so caught up on media discussing, "The controversy of The Parting" that what was once a miracle useful for showing the Israelites that God was with them, and that Moses was not leading them astray, becomes a stumbling block for millions of people who'd rather discuss logistics than doctrine.
Besides for at least Mormons, God still engages in large scale miracles, The Book of Mormon is one such miracle, the preserving of the saints as they migrated West to escape oppression was another. And there are many more miracles that have been prophesied long ago, and when they happen, many of us will say, "It is as it was written," but many more will simply say, "That's no miracle," or "Oh my gosh it's a miracle!...hey I'm not suddenly a believer in Christ...odd."
-------
Javert:I'll try to comment on more of your chapters later today.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But once the miracle was over, there was simply the written record and the testimony of those who were there. Give or take about 70 years, and virtually all those involved are dead. Today one person with a cellphone can capture a miracle, and the visual record of it can't be lost.
And...? So is your argument that God doesn't do this today because we can't plausibly lose the record of it? As I've noted, that is an excuse I've heard before.
quote:The Book of Mormon is one such miracle, the preserving of the saints as they migrated West to escape oppression was another.
These are, as I've pointed out, pretty equivocal miracles. They're not nearly to the same standard as, say, the restoration of a limb.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Let's look at the TOS:
quote: You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.
While Tom may argue that I am trying convert others to my own religious beliefs, my intent was to do no such thing. I was trying to point out that religious literature has value as literature, but in my opinion it still has *more* value as religious literature (it is what it was meant for, after all).
If my comment was against the TOS, report me like a normal person, and avoid breaking the rules yourself (disparaging much?) in order to prove your point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So. Does God cause limbs to grow back?
We certainly don't have any records of verifiable limb-regeneration that I know of. (Although, there is a story about a Mormon boy at the Haun's Mill massacre who had his hip joint and socket shot off; according to the story, his mother blessed him, and through the boy's faith, his bones were knitted together, and he lived to go West with the rest of the migration, and serve a mission to Hawaii)
The question asked earlier was why not heal amputees?
Well...why not cure poverty? Why not heal all sickness? Why does my unborn child have heart defects?
I don't have a problem with a non-omnipotent God. Maybe there are some conditions that are really beyond His power to completely heal. Maybe He chooses not to heal certain things so that we can learn to lean on Him in our weaknesses.
What do you think the purpose of a miracle is? I pointed out in my first post that a miracle serves to strengthen faith in the short term; it may, depending on the character of the individual, become a life-altering event.
I know that most people who experience miracles-- of the unequivocal type-- aren't keen to share them. I understand that impulse, being somewhat skeptical myself of every report of angelic ministration that gets reported on from the pulpits. People don't want others to vomit cynicism on what was, for them, an extremely sacred event.
So...I can understand why, if there have been instances of miraculous limb regeneration (or other, similarly evocative miracles), we may not have heard of them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the question is more, "why no longer heal amputees?"
And unless someone lived in a very out of the way place, I can't imagine how they would keep a limb that was not there being healed a secret.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Once you understand why they might try to keep it secret from the world at large, the how to do so becomes a little easier to imagine.
Also, keep in mind that MOST of the world's population lives in "out of the way" places.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"why no longer heal amputees?"
Are there any accounts (beside the bit with the soldier's ear) of God healing amputees in scripture?
I can't think of any where a person had lost a limb completely, was walking around without an arm, and Jesus caused it to grow back or whatever.
Maybe it's something God can't (or won't-- the end is the same) do. So, the question may not be "why doesn't he do X any longer," but "why hasn't He ever...?"
But I'm not nearly the scriptorian that some other folks are...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Also, keep in mind that MOST of the world's population lives in "out of the way" places.
Even Bangladesh, India, and China have national media. And I assure you, a regenerated limb would be national news in the Orient, too.
quote:So, the question may not be "why doesn't he do X any longer," but "why hasn't He ever...?"
That's certainly a possibility; perhaps God can only reattach limbs, for example.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Bangladesh, India, and China have national media. And I assure you, a regenerated limb would be national news in the Orient, too.
Not unless some very serious preconditions were met. The regenerator has to want to tell his story; and the media has to research and publish his story.
Speaking of story, this idea of miraculous limb regeneration is the topic of my next short story. Thank you, Hatrack!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would think that from God's perspective, everyone who had lost a limb gets it back when they die.
As for our earthly time, I think two things seem likely: Firstly, if God exists He seems to not want to make it indisputably provable that He exists. Secondly, if God exists He seems to be willing to allow some degree of pain to exist in the world. I'm personally inclined to think both of these can make sense, because neither our earthly happiness nor attaining knowledge are the highest good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The regenerator has to want to tell his story...
Or anyone he knows has to want to tell his story.
I'm trying to imagine why you wouldn't want to tell this story.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ... The regenerator has to want to tell his story; and the media has to research and publish his story.
Erm, those seem like the same preconditions that would exist here. How does being "out of the way" matter? (Also, "out of the way" is kind of a matter of perspective.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, this is the media that goes searching for the world's tallest man (and the like) in tiny villages in central asia.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm trying to imagine why you wouldn't want to tell this story.
I've listed a couple reasons.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Slim: So if you were unemployed for months looking for a job and you/someone prays you get a job and then you do the next day is that a miracle? If while reading John, you decide to pray for some extra understanding and a stranger immediately comes to your door offering religious advice, you'll treat this as an answer? Or what about you seeing said religious stranger(s) coming your way, and you try to leave but your car has a flat tire? Do you drive away anyway?
Just because A occurs before B does not mean that A causes B. Your conclusions are question begging because they rest on the assumption that prayer causes God to interfere with the world. For you to validly draw the conclusion that a miracle occurred in any one of those scenarios you would need repeated examples of the same thing occurring. For example, you would need to show that prayer increases the likelihood of getting a job sooner.
quote:Originally posted by Slim: I honestly don't expect y'all to take any of the above as miracles. But I do. I've seen them happen. I'm not saying I believe because of these things, because I don't. All I am trying to say is mankind has a strong ability to rationalize anything. Believers/Unbelievers alike. I have confidence that whatever miracle anyone names, someone else can say why it would be a coincidence.
The theory behind prayer is a good example of rationalization. It's like Carl Sagan's invisible dragon. You would expect that prayer could be falsified by showing that it has no effect on the outcome of events but nope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've listed a couple reasons.
Neither of which make any sense to me. I mean, it's not likely that anyone's going to accuse you of faking the original amputation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In a world where people believe that the moon landing, Elvis' death, and airplanes crashing into the pentagon were faked, I wouldn't be too sure of that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:People don't want others to vomit cynicism on what was, for them, an extremely sacred event.
Cynicism toward religious things takes more than just one avenue, Tom.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The question asked earlier was why not heal amputees?
Well...why not cure poverty? Why not heal all sickness? Why does my unborn child have heart defects?
The healing of amputees is singled out because:
a) People frequently ask God to heal other injuries and illnesses. Mormon priesthood holders (most adult males), for instance, can give a formal blessing on a sick person and such blessings often include a confident assertion that the illness *will* be cured.
b) People frequently credit God for recovery from other injuries and illnesses.
c) Amputations are inexplicably excluded from the the above. This raises huge questions how much God actually intervenes in healing matters. Most other healing attributed to God has plausible explanations other than divine intervention. Someone given a 5% chance of survival for some horrible disease may interpret their survival as miraculous, but the families of the other 19 may disagree.
Amputations, being unambiguous and having a 0% chance of recovery through any plausible natural mechanisms, are an ideal place to focus on the nature of miracles.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So you think that someone whose arm miraculously reappears on its stump is more likely to spend the rest of his or her life concealing that fact from people, because they're afraid somebody might make fun of their legitimate medical miracle?
Why doesn't this stop all those people who claim, quite ridicuously, that they got into college only through God's intervention, or that God cured their cancer? Is there no intersection between people of this sort and amputees God wishes to cure?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So you think that someone whose arm miraculously reappears on its stump is more likely to spend the rest of his or her life concealing that fact from people, because they're afraid somebody might make fun of their legitimate medical miracle?
I can see that as a logical reason, yes. I would not have chosen to phrase it as you have done.
quote:Why doesn't this stop all those people who claim, quite ridicuously, that they got into college only through God's intervention, or that God cured their cancer? Is there no intersection between people of this sort and amputees God wishes to cure?
Quite ridiculously?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Maybe God does cure amputees but he veils our eyes so we cannot perceive it. (And ears and manipulates our tactile sensations as well.)
Unambiguous miracles simply don't exist except in the minds of those who experienced something they consider an unambiguous miracle. Why not assume that includes regeneration of limbs?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Quite ridiculously?
Or appropriately, if you'd prefer. There are people out there who say they only got into college or survived cancer because God helped them. These people give God the credit for this all the time, without worrying about ridicule suppressing their claim; you don't see many miraculous cancer survivors, for example, pretending to be dead to avoid the press. Why are there no ex-amputees among the group of people willing to talk about their miracles?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If God wanted the amputee to have that limb, why wouldn't he just prevent the loss in the first place?
What was the Futurama quote- when you do your job right, no one is sure you did anything at all?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why are there no ex-amputees among the group of people willing to talk about their miracles?
I don't know. Maybe God hasn't healed any amputees. It's not a point against Him in my book, so I don't worry about it.
Maybe it's socially more acceptable to claim that God cured cancer for you-- because lots of people have claimed that. National media does not focus on someone who claims their cancer was divinely chemo'd to death; it happens all the time.
Maybe that kind of media attention isn't what someone wants-- neither God nor the regenerator. I can imagine the type of circus that Tom and fugu envision-- but knowing people and who have had these types of miracles happen to them also lends credence to the idea that they WOULD keep it as quiet as they could, because of their respect for the sacred nature of the miracle.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If God wanted the amputee to have that limb, why wouldn't he just prevent the loss in the first place?
What was the Futurama quote- when you do your job right, no one is sure you did anything at all?
Come on. The discussion is miracles, and what the Bible says about them. God in the Bible explicitely says he does miracles because he wants to people to see them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:God in the Bible explicitely says he does miracles because he wants to people to see them.
Sometimes, but there are several Biblical examples where that appears to not be the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:when you do your job right, no one is sure you did anything at all?
Then why did God let someone get cancer in the first place, if He's just going to heal it?
quote:National media does not focus on someone who claims their cancer was divinely chemo'd to death; it happens all the time.
That is, as I've pointed out, because it's a very equivocal miracle.
quote:knowing people and who have had these types of miracles happen to them
You know people who've regrown a limb?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I've seen miracles. They exist. God exists. Their existence is woven deeply into the heart of the hardest of hard sciences. We overlook them because we've grown to think of them as non-miraculous. We've basically forgotten that they're miraculous. I'll write more about this later when I get back from Georgia.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I've seen miracles, too.
In fact, just this week I went to Wendy's and my food order was correct. It's a miracle! Proof that god is alive and well in the world!
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I've seen miracles, too.
In fact, just this week I went to Wendy's and my food order was correct. It's a miracle! Proof that god is alive and well in the world!
That's proof enough for me! Sign me up!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I've seen miracles. They exist. God exists. Their existence is woven deeply into the heart of the hardest of hard sciences. We overlook them because we've grown to think of them as non-miraculous. We've basically forgotten that they're miraculous. I'll write more about this later when I get back from Georgia.
Just because you don't understand how something happens does not make it a miracle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The converse is also true, however, depending on how you define "miracle." Kate Boots would certainly argue that this is the case.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I've seen miracles, too.
In fact, just this week I went to Wendy's and my food order was correct. It's a miracle! Proof that god is alive and well in the world!
Seriously, that IS a miracle. I want NO tomatoes on my Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger. Is that such an unreasonable request? I know it's only a dollar, but it's not like I'm asking you to add something. I want less for my money!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The converse is also true, however, depending on how you define "miracle." Kate Boots would certainly argue that this is the case.
There ya go! If we God to regrow limbs, we had better get a move on.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You know people who've regrown a limb?
Sorry; I meant "these types of miracles" to mean, "miracles that are unequivocal miracles." Not necessarily limb-regrowing as a specific type of miracle.
That's not clear by the use of the plural, and the general understanding of the word "types?"
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I either don't believe you or disagree with your definition of 'unequivocal'.
No offense.
Miracles are like unicorns. You want to believe in them because they sound so freaking cool, but they just don't exist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:when you do your job right, no one is sure you did anything at all?
Then why did God let someone get cancer in the first place, if He's just going to heal it?
Because sometimes the experience of having cancer is a growth experience? Or has the potential to be so, anyway.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Miracles are like unicorns. You want to believe in them because they sound so freaking cool, but they just don't exist.
Actually, miracles are more like platypuses...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Cancer is pretty much always a growth experience. Too much growth in fact.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The converse is also true, however, depending on how you define "miracle." Kate Boots would certainly argue that this is the case.
Yes, but she doesn't believe in the existence of external facts, so I don't consider her a valuable contributor to the discussion. If an explanation not using divine intervention exists and is more likely than the divine one, then it's not a miracle.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Define "divine" for me, KoM.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's not clear by the use of the plural, and the general understanding of the word "types?"
I'm having some trouble imagining a miracle as unequivocal as the regrowth of a limb that you might know about and yet which has been successfully kept private. Would you share the general category of this miracle with me?
quote:Because sometimes the experience of having cancer is a growth experience? Or has the potential to be so, anyway.
And amputation never is? Remember, the argument I'm rebutting is that God wouldn't allow someone to lose a limb if He were just going to heal it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Define "divine" for me, KoM.
No. You deliberately reject the minimum standard of rationality needed for meaningful discussion of this subject.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Remember, the argument I'm rebutting is that God wouldn't allow someone to lose a limb if He were just going to heal it.
*shrug* I'm not going to defend something I neither said nor believe to be true.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think people should be more cautious before classifying a recovery from a terminal illness as a miracle. To accurately make such a classification we would have to know the survival rate for the illness with relatively high precision and we would have to know how many people survive as a result of miracles versus how many people survive naturally. High precision is needed in the survival rate because a small change in the survival rate can lead to many times more people surviving (ex: a change from a death rate of 99.8% to 99.9% would lead to half as many survivors). For example, if there were a 99.8% chance of dying from a disease and 10000 people got that disease each year then we would expect 20 people to survive each year. People tend to throw around miracle claims willy-nilly so I suspect that each one of those individual cases would be declared a miracle even though, in reality, nothing abnormal happened. Even if we could show that prayer had an effect it would be difficult to distinguish between cases of survival from natural causes and survival from supernatural causes.
This is one of the main reasons why I immediately doubt claims of miracles.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...
I don't believe in healing miracles. I have heard stories and I have seen other kinds, but I don't believe in healing miracles. Not for the nonsense reasons listed above, but because if there were healing miracles, my mother would not have died. If you're saying that some people get healing miracles and there was some divine reason my mother had to die, I call bullshit. There's no scenario where the world is better without my mother in it, and the next one can wait.
That doesn't disturb my faith much because I don't believe that God is Santa Claus and, well, my faith was never based on the existence of healing miracles in the first place. If it were, then it would disappear the first time anyone I loved got sick or died. What a tenuous basis for such an important concept. No wonder the Lord does better by us than giving such a pointless and anti-our-mortal-existence foundation. Unless everyone is resurrected tomorrow, real faith has to be based on something else.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But once the miracle was over, there was simply the written record and the testimony of those who were there. Give or take about 70 years, and virtually all those involved are dead. Today one person with a cellphone can capture a miracle, and the visual record of it can't be lost.
And...? So is your argument that God doesn't do this today because we can't plausibly lose the record of it? As I've noted, that is an excuse I've heard before.
That's one reason, and God doesn't need me to excuse his behavior, so I'll thank you not to treat Him as a defendant on trial.
I think in the past far more people were willing to believe in the supernatural than they are today, and so a miracle did not have as strong an impact as it would today. Elijah calls fire down from heaven and people simply see fire from heaven sent from the Hebrew God. Doesn't mean Bael isn't still around, doesn't mean you have to obey the Hebrew God.
Today in our world of labs and skepticism a heavy duty miracle is far more invasive than it use to be. As I've already said we'd get hung up on explanations and how, not what it means.
quote:The Book of Mormon is one such miracle, the preserving of the saints as they migrated West to escape oppression was another.
quote:These are, as I've pointed out, pretty equivocal miracles. They're not nearly to the same standard as, say, the restoration of a limb.
Tom just what makes the restoration of a limb a much higher tier of miracle than say providing a book over the course of thousands of years to come out in such a time that it can undo much of the confusion people have concerning the nature of life?
We've had a conversation on this topic before, and as I recall you yourself said that God would have to do alot of explaining before you'd acknowledge Him as worthy of worship. We're God to simply toss you a miracle, it seems to me that all you'd do is wonder, "Why now, why not years ago?!"
An attitude of, "God needs to bend to my understanding" simply does not work when dealing with a being who supposedly knows all things, even what's best for us as individuals.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Tom just what makes the restoration of a limb a much higher tier of miracle than say providing a book over the course of thousands of years to come out in such a time that it can undo much of the confusion people have concerning the nature of life?"
It's easy to imagine how the book could have been produced and used without involvement from a superhuman/supernatural entity.
It's not really easy to imagine how an amputated limb could be restored without involvement from a superhuman/supernatural entity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Especially when there are several mutually exclusive books/teachings asserting they are capable of that feat.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But once the miracle was over, there was simply the written record and the testimony of those who were there. Give or take about 70 years, and virtually all those involved are dead. Today one person with a cellphone can capture a miracle, and the visual record of it can't be lost.
And...? So is your argument that God doesn't do this today because we can't plausibly lose the record of it? As I've noted, that is an excuse I've heard before.
That's one reason, and God doesn't need me to excuse his behavior, so I'll thank you not to treat Him as a defendant on trial.
Whom should we expect to defend god's behavior?
quote:I think in the past far more people were willing to believe in the supernatural than they are today...
Well, yeah, of course they were. This is the whole basis of the 'god of the gaps' argument.
What difference does that make?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: An attitude of, "God needs to bend to my understanding" simply does not work when dealing with a being who supposedly knows all things, even what's best for us as individuals.
With that type of attitude God can never be held accountable for what he does. Anything is within his bounds since any evil can be explained away by an appeal to his authority. His plan must be good because he's always good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Tom just what makes the restoration of a limb a much higher tier of miracle than say providing a book over the course of thousands of years to come out in such a time that it can undo much of the confusion people have concerning the nature of life?"
It's easy to imagine how the book could have been produced and used without involvement from a superhuman/supernatural entity.
It's not really easy to imagine how an amputated limb could be restored without involvement from a superhuman/supernatural entity.
Whether it can be explained or not has no bearing on the miracle's significance or import.
I don't think it's improbable that in 200 years or less we will have figured out how to reattach all limbs perfectly and even regenerate organs completely. I also think it's likely we will be able to tell the brain to regrow limbs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: An attitude of, "God needs to bend to my understanding" simply does not work when dealing with a being who supposedly knows all things, even what's best for us as individuals.
With that type of attitude God can never be held accountable for what he does. Anything is within his bounds since any evil can be explained away by an appeal to his authority. His plan must be good because he's always good.
This would be true if God had no interest in helping us learn. Fortunately in Christian theory God works in mysterious ways, but delights in the progression of His children.
So while our understanding may never be full in this life, there is still plenty of opportunity to start learning.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But once the miracle was over, there was simply the written record and the testimony of those who were there. Give or take about 70 years, and virtually all those involved are dead. Today one person with a cellphone can capture a miracle, and the visual record of it can't be lost.
And...? So is your argument that God doesn't do this today because we can't plausibly lose the record of it? As I've noted, that is an excuse I've heard before.
That's one reason, and God doesn't need me to excuse his behavior, so I'll thank you not to treat Him as a defendant on trial.
quote:Whom should we expect to defend god's behavior?
Sorry for triple posting but there shouldn't be any prosecution or defending going on in the first place. There are questions and right and wrong answers. There aren't good and bad ones. So we deal with possible explanations not with excuses and accusations.
quote:I think in the past far more people were willing to believe in the supernatural than they are today...
Well, yeah, of course they were. This is the whole basis of the 'god of the gaps' argument.
What difference does that make? [/qb]
Say my explanation doesn't make sense, or is inadequate, but please don't act as if I didn't offer any clarification beyond simply stating an idea. I think the concept that a miracle was less intimidating then as it would be now, coupled with the idea that men now don't wish to believe in things they can't fully understand at least starts to explain the difference.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Do I need to explicitly state your explanation doesn't make sense? I thought I covered that by asking 'what difference does that make'? I understand your point, but I fail to see how it applies to the fact that we have scientific proof of exactly zero miracles in all of human history.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: An attitude of, "God needs to bend to my understanding" simply does not work when dealing with a being who supposedly knows all things, even what's best for us as individuals.
With that type of attitude God can never be held accountable for what he does. Anything is within his bounds since any evil can be explained away by an appeal to his authority. His plan must be good because he's always good.
This would be true if God had no interest in helping us learn. Fortunately in Christian theory God works in mysterious ways, but delights in the progression of His children.
So while our understanding may never be full in this life, there is still plenty of opportunity to start learning.
That doesn't really address what I said. I'm supposed to ignore the vast amounts of evidence against God's supposed omnibenevolence because he "works in mysterious ways"?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Fortunately in Christian theory God works in mysterious ways, but delights in the progression of His children.
Funny, when I read Exodus, "delight" is not exactly the vibe I get from God when he's killing the firstborn of the slaves and prisoners.
And was God itching to witness and be delighted by the progression of Job's wives and children? Guess not.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news.
"Jesus gave me my arm back!"
I'm sorry-- I don't see it gathering national attention.
Just like that, no.
But backed up by thorough scientific documentation (he was really an amputee, there are numerous witnesses both medical and laymen, there's photos and video, and he now currently has a normally operating arm, and perhaps even had documented the instant where it grew back) then it would garner national attention.
What, you've never read a report in the new media of spontaneous limb regeneration. You just aren't looking in the right places. Spontaneous limb regeneration is almost as common as women who give birth to alien babies and based on the headlines I see at the Grocery store that happens every other week. It hardly seems worth reporting any more unless the woman is over eighty or has oct-tuplets.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What, you've never read a report in the new media of spontaneous limb regeneration.
It'd be a bit different if even a local paper -- as opposed to a tabloid -- picked up the story. Let's face it: it wouldn't be very hard to fact-check.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think Rabbit was being tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm having some trouble imagining a miracle as unequivocal as the regrowth of a limb that you might know about and yet which has been successfully kept private. Would you share the general category of this miracle with me?
That you can't imagine something happening is as good a reason as any to believe it never does.
Which doesn't touch on reality at all.
JT hit the nail on the head-- this conversation is stymied by a lack of trust.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:JT hit the nail on the head-- this conversation is stymied by a lack of trust.
Specifically, it's stymied by your lack of trust. I trust you just fine, but can't imagine a miracle equivalent to limb regrowth that could remain unremarked-upon. You, however, do not trust me enough to share with me an example.
I'm okay with that, but I wanted to make clear that the problem here is that you don't trust me, not the other way around.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yep. That is correct. By "you," though, I really mean "just about everyone."
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Here's a bit of a change of subject. I was talking with a friend earlier and the conversation led us to a question that I found especially interesting: Why do atheists generally try to lead good lives, and what do they personally think about their reasons (if they think about them at all)? Is it selfishness (i.e; leading a good life leads to tangible rewards, and promotes survival)?
Or do they believe they are they are following some instinctual impetus, and continue to do so because regardless of the shallow material reasons, it just feels right and so why fight it? If so, does this contradict the idea of the human tendency toward selfishness?
I guess my real question is: do atheists believe that an inherent "goodness" exists in the Universe?
I am obviously asking about each and every atheist's common belief, as there is no variation between any of them. They may be addressed altogether as a singular persona. Please avoid making comments that refer to atheists as "individuals." [/explanatory sarcasm]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's a bit of a change of subject. I was talking with a friend earlier and the conversation led us to a question that I found especially interesting: Why do atheists generally try to lead good lives, and what do they personally think about their reasons (if they think about them at all)? Is it selfishness (i.e; leading a good life leads to tangible rewards, and promotes survival)?
Or do they believe they are they are following some instinctual impetus, and continue to do so because regardless of the shallow material reasons, it just feels right and so why fight it? If so, does this contradict the idea of the human tendency toward selfishness?
I guess my real question is: do atheists believe that an inherent "goodness" exists in the Universe?
I am obviously asking about each and every atheist's common belief, as there is no variation between any of them. They may be addressed altogether as a singular persona. Please avoid making comments that refer to atheists as "individuals." [/explanatory sarcasm]
Speaking for all atheists everywhere...
I think it's a bit of a mixture. Certainly selfish. It's apparent just from looking at the world that when people act 'good' in general that everyone receives more tangible benefits.
In the last few years, a tiny part of me spurs me to be good just to throw it in the face of people who say 'you can't be good without a god'.
Do I think that there's an inherent goodness in the universe? No. But I don't think the universe is inherently bad either. It just is. Cold and indifferent.
I think, generally speaking, there is an inherent good in most people. And that does come from our evolutionary past (or so it seems) as social animals.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
But if there is no inherent good in the universe, how can there be an inherent good in people? Is "good" just a human concept applied to an indifferent drive to survive as evolution demands?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But if there is no inherent good in the universe, how can there be an inherent good in people?
As an atheist who doesn't believe there's an inherent, objective "good" in the universe, I also don't believe that people are inherently, objectively "good."
On the other hand, I think people are generally good, and on the balance will work for the common good.
How can this be?
Because I think what we consider "good" is actually a social construct that's evolved to comprise certain commonly expected behaviors, and humans -- as social creatures -- generally share the expectation of those behaviors because it's to the benefit of our species that we do so. In some cases, individual societies may define specific behaviors as "good" which other societies do not consider "good" -- but, in general, humans in general assign a positive value to social cooperation. (In fact, we usually consider those who don't to be aberrant in some way.)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Resh, I think you're conflating two problems/questions that are best dealt with separately: (a) Is morality "real" in some sense; that is, are there moral facts that are as true? and (b) What motivates people to behave in a moral manner.
I suspect you'll get a lot of differing answers to those two questions from atheists, but here's my response:
I'm a moral realist and believe moral truths exists in roughly the same metaphysical space as logical and mathematical truths. You can read more about that sort of thing here. My husband (a Hindu atheist/pantheist) is a moral relativist, for which I gently rag on him.
As far as what motivates me to act morally? A combination of childhood programming, self-interest (both in this world and a bit in a "karma" sense), empathy for others, and the belief that, since "good" is a real moral concept, it's best to behave in a good manner, in the same way it's best to behave in a logically consistent matter, and to not violate the rules of mathematics. It's not a "best" in the sense of "in my best interest" - I get a nails-on-a-chalkboard feeling when someone says something blatantly logically inconsistent, a "that's not right!" feeling, and have the same sort of reaction when it comes to moral truths.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Jhai, what if any objections do you have to relativism in the forms described by Javert and Tom?
Just curious.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But if there is no inherent good in the universe, how can there be an inherent good in people? Is "good" just a human concept applied to an indifferent drive to survive as evolution demands?
Because we're talking about two different things.
There's no good or bad in the universe itself. But in biological beings who have, for the most part, determined amongst themselves what 'good' and 'bad' means, there is a general trend to be 'good' as defined by themselves.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think there is any reason that atheism necessarily contradicts the idea of an inherent "goodness" in the universe. There are many explanations of how things can be inherently good or bad that do not need to invoke God.
I think the reason that atheism is perceived to be in conflict with the ideas of morality and goodness is because some stereotypical atheists tend to take a very extreme scientific-materialist approach to the universe. That is to say, in order to justify atheism, some argue along the lines that we should only believe in things that are objectively measurable, in the sense that science could study it to define it in an exact, impartial way. If you actually do approach the world in that manner, then I'd think that logically morality and "goodness" don't make sense - because goodness is not something that can be studied in an exact, impartial, scientific way.
But there is nothing about atheism that requires one to take such a viewpoint - and I suspect the majority of atheists do not fit such a stereotype. (Edit: Moral realists are one example.)
In addition to all that, even for the minority who do fall under that stereotype, I think most people (atheists and theists) tend to do what they feel is right, regardless of what their stated beliefs logically imply. For good or for bad, personal character tends to trump logical deduction when it comes to everyday actions. Or, in other words, if you were raised to feel that cursing is wrong, you probably won't often curse, even if you can't really logically deduce any reason not to. People often tend to do the right thing because they feel it is right, even if they aren't entirely sure why. (This is possibly even more relevant for religious folks, who in many cases have claimed to accept religious authorities telling them to act one way, but then instead act a different way in real life.)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm a moral realist and believe moral truths exists in roughly the same metaphysical space as logical and mathematical truths. You can read more about that sort of thing here. My husband (a Hindu atheist/pantheist) is a moral relativist, for which I gently rag on him.
I'm in between classes so I don't have time to read the link right now but just a quick question. Aren't logical and mathematical truths just a result of the way we have defined operators?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The question can just as well be applied to those who believe that moral truths exist. Suppose it is really written in the stars and the mountains that "Thou shalt not kill", that this is just as true as "2+2=4". Fine. Why do you follow that law?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Jhai, what if any objections do you have to relativism in the forms described by Javert and Tom?
Just curious.
I don't think Javert's explained his position deeply enough for me to be able to evaluate it, but from what he's currently stated (universe indifferent, inherent good in most people via evolution), I suspect its either incoherent or we're defining terms differently. Most likely the second one.
I think Tom is making an argument for moral relativism, but I'm not certain from what he's stated. Tom, do you believe that moral judgments ("Doing X is wrong") lack truth-value altogether, or lack objective truth-value, but are true when considered in relation to a particular individual, society, or species (humans)? If it's the first, I'd need to inquire as to some of Tom's metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. If it's the second - which is a classic version of moral relativism - then I think with probing his beliefs would be shown to be incoherent. There's a number of difficulties of moral relativism (nicely shown here), and I've never seen an argument for it that is coherent.
quote:I'm in between classes so I don't have time to read the link right now but just a quick question. Aren't logical and mathematical truths just a result of the way we have defined operators?
The quick and dirty answer to this question is that, having defined the operators as we have, there's no way that 2 plus 2 cannot equal 4. If you have a true and complete understanding of the meaning of 2, the meaning of "to sum", the meaning of "equal", and the meaning of 4, you cannot help but know that 2+2=4. Similarly, if you truly understand: If A then B A then you can't help but conclude "Therefore, B". And yes, you could use different words, or define things differently, but in the end, if you have an understanding of these concepts, you know these facts. It's not always easy to have an understanding of these concepts - I've tutored plenty of calculus student - but once you do understand them, it's quite clear that they must be true.
These type of ideas are often talked about as things that "a brain in space" could know. They're along the same lines as Descartes' "I think, therefore I exist" conclusion. You just know. Of course, someone might say that they just don't know these basic mathematical and logical facts. If someone says that, then I just count them as varelse and try to avoid discussing anything with them. Luckily, I haven't run into many people like that.
KoM, I agree that the "why be good" question is a very difficult one to answer, even if you believe in moral truths.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Just to be clear (if I can be), my idea of morality isn't necessarily relative. More situational.
If that helps.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I guess I might as well lay out the basics of what I think. I think that moral judgments lack truth value and would rather view actions as rational or irrational. I think rationality is subjective in the sense that it depends on what utility function you use in making judgments but objective in the sense that there is only one correct evaluation of an action given a certain utility function. An action can either be rational, irrational, or have no utility but which one it is is not open to debate provided that everyone shares the same premises. I don't see any way to derive a utility function as a "brain in space" but I think the common morals that most humans share are explained by evolution (both biological and cultural). Ultimately, I think humanity will converge to the optimum utility function for our nature regardless of whether or not there is absolute morality.
I might have misused some terminology but I hope my intent is clear. Most of my knowledge comes from internet reading but I'm now taking a course on discrete structures and one on free will so I am starting to get some "real" exposure. I'm willing to expand on any of the claims I made above (I know that they're pretty general).
Jhai, I think I understand what you're saying about logical and mathematical truths. I have to think about it more but no objections come to mind after reading what you wrote.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Jhai, Thanks. That's an excellent link. I'm going to read through it and some of the related sections more thoroughly when I get home, but I definitely have some thinking to do now.
Threads, How do you apply your thinking to actual moral statements? For example, how does "punching babies for fun is wrong" lack truth value?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Threads, How do you apply your thinking to actual moral statements? For example, how does "punching babies for fun is wrong" lack truth value?
As far as I can tell the statement is a category error. Before we can start discussing whether something is right or wrong, we should have a pretty good idea of what it actually means for something to be right or wrong or if the property even makes sense. I'm not sure that we can make either of these claims. As KoM pointed out, it's not clear that declaring something to be right or wrong is at all meaningful. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that the property even makes sense. An appeal to intuition or common belief is completely unconvincing and probably question begging since we would have the exact same moral intuitions regardless of whether or not there is objective morality.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
So then do you personally avoid the terminology all together, or do you make a mental substitution when making such statements?
edit: Trying to find the best way to phrase my question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, do you believe that moral judgments ("Doing X is wrong") lack truth-value altogether, or lack objective truth-value, but are true when considered in relation to a particular individual, society, or species (humans)? If it's the first, I'd need to inquire as to some of Tom's metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. If it's the second - which is a classic version of moral relativism - then I think with probing his beliefs would be shown to be incoherent.
I think it's possible, given a specific definition of "bad," to come up with a handful of objective "goods." But not too many; the more you add, the more you're leaning towards metaphysics instead of anything useful.
I think the vast majority of commonly-used judgments ("Doing X is wrong") are in fact mostly relativistic in nature, but I think there are a few that can be based pretty soundly on a couple of necessary first principles. Expanding the list beyond that set gets tricky, though.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I hadn't actually thought about it but I must just avoid the terminology because I can't remember the last time I ever said something like "that was evil." Even when I believed in subjective morality (which was basically up until I came to college two months ago) I always found statements like "that man was evil" or "stealing is wrong" to be vacuous.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Threads, it seems to me that what you're saying is that the moral statements (such as "stealing is wrong") lack truth-value. That means that they basically don't contain any meaning in and of themselves - although they might tell you something about the speaker. When someone says that "X is wrong" they aren't actually saying anything other than "I believe that people shouldn't do X" or "X icky" or something along those lines.
This belief is pretty much the basic definition of non-cognivism. (When in doubt about a philosophical concept, topic, or school of thought, always go with the SEP.)
Congratulations, you have a moral epistemological category!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
What an awesome conversation. I'm glad I decided to pop back in.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Godless bible study is great, isn't it? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:An appeal to intuition or common belief is completely unconvincing and probably question begging since we would have the exact same moral intuitions regardless of whether or not there is objective morality.
Why do you think this?
quote:I guess I might as well lay out the basics of what I think. I think that moral judgments lack truth value and would rather view actions as rational or irrational. I think rationality is subjective in the sense that it depends on what utility function you use in making judgments but objective in the sense that there is only one correct evaluation of an action given a certain utility function.
Okay, but are you willing to act accordingly? If I steal something from you, and you can't get it back, are you going to accept that I was right to do it if stealing from you was consistent with my personal moral utility function?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Okay, but are you willing to act accordingly? If I steal something from you, and you can't get it back, are you going to accept that I was right to do it if stealing from you was consistent with my personal moral utility function?
You're assuming he believes "stealing from me" has truth value. Rather, I think, he has reasons for believing you should not have stolen from him.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:An appeal to intuition or common belief is completely unconvincing and probably question begging since we would have the exact same moral intuitions regardless of whether or not there is objective morality.
Why do you think this?
Some of our basic moral intuitions are almost necessary results of evolution given the way our bodies operate. For example, murderous personalities would have been devastating to our species in the way past because our survival rates were low and reproduction was very slow. Similarly, robbery was counterproductive since survival was a community effort. Lone people were extremely vulnerable to predators. We hardly even made it as it is. I think the total human population on earth once dropped below 1000 or 10000 (I forget which).
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I guess I might as well lay out the basics of what I think. I think that moral judgments lack truth value and would rather view actions as rational or irrational. I think rationality is subjective in the sense that it depends on what utility function you use in making judgments but objective in the sense that there is only one correct evaluation of an action given a certain utility function.
Okay, but are you willing to act accordingly? If I steal something from you, and you can't get it back, are you going to accept that I was right to do it if stealing from you was consistent with my personal moral utility function?
I don't believe that actions are right or wrong so I would not accept that you were right. I might call your action rational depending on what your goals in life were but I doubt it. The gain from robbery is generally too small to justify risking jail time and a criminal record. Maybe that wouldn't be a deterrent for you, but I'm not too worried about that since it clearly is a deterrent for most people.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So, following the reasoning of that position it wouldn't be wrong to steal from you, and it wouldn't be wrong for a terrorist to blow up a building, and it wouldn't be wouldn't be wrong for a world leader to commit genocide? And in addition, under that position, all of these things could be rational if one could get away with them without suffering any deterrent? Is that at all accurate?
If so, here's my problem:
I think logic is like a scale - it forces you to choose between accepting a conclusion (C) or rejecting a set of premises (P) from which C follows. So we have to weigh accepting C against rejecting P to see which of the two seems more plausible. If C is weightier in our mind and we conclude C must be false, then we are forced to reject P. If P is weightier in our mind and we conclude P must be true, then we are forced to accept C.
In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational. This is so far against what people normally observe to be true, that it greatly weighs down the scale against C. There'd have to be some pretty powerful evidence (P) proving C in order to tip the scales of logic in favor of us accepting C.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Threads, I think Tres is somewhat missing your point, but at the same time I think you're running into problems by rejecting "right" and "wrong" as useful terms. At the very least it makes justifying your reasoning a bit awkward.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational.
Threads seems to be pretty clear that "wrong" is an artificial construct. Something can be rational independant of whether or not any given individual or group considers it to be "wrong."
Many criminals are acting rationally when they commit their crimes. Some of them believe what they are doing is wrong, other's don't. What keeps crime from becoming the norm is that pervasive criminal activity is not evolutionarily advantagous, from a perspective of biological evolution or cultural evolution (which I believe are closely linked).
People are generally good because the behaviors that we identify as good are, in general, beneficial. If some other type of behavior were beneficial, we'd probably be calling that good instead.
[ October 10, 2008, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Perhaps another way to put things is that fundamental rules of morality are more descriptive than prescriptive.
When we say it's right to be kind to others in our group and that we should do so, we're merely acknowleding an innate attribute of our species, even if we think we're prescribing a novel behavior.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational. This is so far against what people normally observe to be true...
People are often incorrect. It's very possible that things which seem plainly and obviously "wrong" to you and others are also the most rational course of action for someone to take.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Seems to me that some of the people in this thread are - or wish to be - sensible knaves.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems to me that the discussion of rationality is a bit orthogonal to morality. If you really, really dislike Jews, it is rational to <Godwin handwave>. That does not make it moral. To remove 'moral' as a category seems to put you in a rather difficult position when discussing that sort of thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If you really, really dislike Jews, it is rational to <Godwin handwave>.
Only if one agrees that disliking Jews is rational.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jhai, I think anyone who claims to be anything but a sensible knave is either lying or a hermit.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
*raises eyebrow*
Tom, you truly believe that people cheat, lie, steal, etc whenever they're 100% absolutely sure that they won't be caught and they will never suffer any negative consequences from their "morally wrong" deeds?
'Cause that's what Hume's sensible knave would do.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: So, following the reasoning of that position it wouldn't be wrong to steal from you, and it wouldn't be wrong for a terrorist to blow up a building, and it wouldn't be wouldn't be wrong for a world leader to commit genocide?
This is where semantics becomes important. Saying "genocide is not wrong" is like saying "poker is not blue." I'm saying that "right" and "wrong" are not properties of actions.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And in addition, under that position, all of these things could be rational if one could get away with them without suffering any deterrent? Is that at all accurate?
It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Genocide could be a rational method for achieving some larger goal.
It's important to note that even if you believe in objective morality, saying that something is "rational" does not imply that it is "good" or "right."
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Threads seems to be pretty clear that "wrong" is an artificial construct. Something can be rational independant of whether or not any given individual or group considers it to be "wrong."
Many criminals are acting rationally when they commit their crimes. Some of them believe what they are doing is wrong, other's don't. What keeps crime from becoming the norm is that pervasive criminal activity is not evolutionarily advantagous, from a perspective of biological evolution or cultural evolution (which I believe are closely linked).
People are generally good because the behaviors that we identify as good are, in general, beneficial. If some other type of behavior were beneficial, we'd probably be calling that good instead.
I think this is a good explanation.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Jhai, I don't think that being a sensible knave at all follows from what I've said. Could you explain how it does?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If you really, really dislike Jews, it is rational to <Godwin handwave>.
Only if one agrees that disliking Jews is rational.
The utility function was being taken as a given.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't agree that most likes or dislikes are rational. "Taking it as a given" does not make it so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, you truly believe that people cheat, lie, steal, etc whenever they're 100% absolutely sure that they won't be caught and they will never suffer any negative consequences from their "morally wrong" deeds?
Absolutely. Because if they believed there were no negative consequences, they would not consider it morally wrong.
Merely by considering their actions morally wrong, they are suffering a negative consequence: admitting to themselves that they are the kind of person willing to do wrong for another gain.
I think the vast majority of people attempt to justify their actions to themselves. Even in those situations where they do believe the action is morally wrong, they still find a way to convince themselves the action is rational and is of enough benefit to be worth whatever the personal cost is to themselves to perform a wrong action.
The number of people consciously willing to engage in behavior they consider irrational and unjustified is very small. People have a tendency to overlook the consequences of their actions, or else to justify them using other criteria.
Those people who do NOT steal someone from someone when it is otherwise beneficial for them to do so, in my belief, do not because they believe that there are still other negative consequences inherent to the act itself. Perhaps they aren't confident in their assessment of the risk; perhaps they have an emotional investment in the well-being of the would-be victim; perhaps their self-image would be damaged if they knew they had harmed someone in a way they would not personally like to experience themselves. In all these cases, these are rational costs that are applied to the decision.
In other words, merely knowing one's capable of doing something "bad" is, for some people, enough of a potential negative consequence to make an otherwise beneficial theft seem not worth it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Saying "genocide is not wrong" is like saying "poker is not blue." I'm saying that "right" and "wrong" are not properties of actions.
This is even more counterintuitive than simply saying "genocide is not wrong" though. Billions of people use the concepts of "right" and "wrong" - you are suggesting that all of those people are speaking gibberish, yet don't realize it, even while they appear to understand one another. That is a bold conclusion, to say the least.
I'm not saying such a conclusion is impossible. But on the scale of logic, what evidence exists that is so powerful that it would ever make us feel the need to accept such a conclusion?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think logic is like a scale - it forces you to choose between accepting a conclusion (C) or rejecting a set of premises (P) from which C follows.
It's not an either/Or. There are the premises, the reasoning from premises to conclusion, and the conclusion itself. If the reasoning is unsound, you can reject the conclusion, while still holding the premises to be true. And if the reasoning is unsound, that doesn't preclude the conclusion from being true regardless
quote:So we have to weigh accepting C against rejecting P to see which of the two seems more plausible.
Well, it seems really implausible to me that the planet is spinning and rotating through space. So I guess you think I am justified in rejecting the theory of gravity. My tiny fairy rubber band theory is way more plausible, according to me.
quote:If C is weightier in our mind and we conclude C must be false, then we are forced to reject P. If P is weightier in our mind and we conclude P must be true, then we are forced to accept C.
But this "weightier" has nothing to do with logic. Lots of people think that their favorite ideas are "weightier" than all the evidence in the world. It's a basic human fact that people are prey to thinking like that.
quote:In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational.
No, I think he is desiring a concrete, objective definition of "wrong", and there really isn't one. We can define "right" for instance as being "what agrees with the Golden Rule". We cn also use the much older definition of "might makes right".
There's no objective way to distinguish which of those two is more accurate, or more correct. The question is meaningless.
And are you really arguing that, say, in the medieval world, it's not rational for a band of maurading knights to bully a town into handing over all their money to them to avoid being sacked? Sounds like rational behavior to me, and it's even 'right' under the 'might makes right' rule.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Billions of people use the concepts of "right" and "wrong" - you are suggesting that all of those people are speaking gibberish
Billions of people say "this shirt is red." Does the color red look the same to all people?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Tom, you truly believe that people cheat, lie, steal, etc whenever they're 100% absolutely sure that they won't be caught and they will never suffer any negative consequences from their "morally wrong" deeds?
Absolutely. Because if they believed there were no negative consequences, they would not consider it morally wrong.
Merely by considering their actions morally wrong, they are suffering a negative consequence: admitting to themselves that they are the kind of person willing to do wrong for another gain.
I think the vast majority of people attempt to justify their actions to themselves. Even in those situations where they do believe the action is morally wrong, they still find a way to convince themselves the action is rational and is of enough benefit to be worth whatever the personal cost is to themselves to perform a wrong action.
The number of people consciously willing to engage in behavior they consider irrational and unjustified is very small. People have a tendency to overlook the consequences of their actions, or else to justify them using other criteria.
Those people who do NOT steal someone from someone when it is otherwise beneficial for them to do so, in my belief, do not because they believe that there are still other negative consequences inherent to the act itself. Perhaps they aren't confident in their assessment of the risk; perhaps they have an emotional investment in the well-being of the would-be victim; perhaps their self-image would be damaged if they knew they had harmed someone in a way they would not personally like to experience themselves. In all these cases, these are rational costs that are applied to the decision.
In other words, merely knowing one's capable of doing something "bad" is, for some people, enough of a potential negative consequence to make an otherwise beneficial theft seem not worth it.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're misrepresenting Hume's sensible knave in this characterization. It's similar to my belief that everything everyone does is self-interested/selfish; if they didn't get something out of any particular action, they wouldn't be doing it. While that's technically correct, it washes away the value of the term "self-interested", and makes for conversations where people are typically speaking past each other.
Your characterization of the sensible knave, while also technically accurate, doesn't really speak to the fundamental idea that Hume was trying to play with through this character. Follows the letter but not the spirit and all that jazz.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Jhai, I don't think that being a sensible knave at all follows from what I've said. Could you explain how it does?
I actually wasn't speaking directly to what you've said, just the general feel of the conversation.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Billions of people use the concepts of "right" and "wrong" - you are suggesting that all of those people are speaking gibberish
Billions of people say "this shirt is red." Does the color red look the same to all people?
'Red' is not subjective. Red refers to a specific wavelength of light. Now, there are shades of red. But there was a study (which I can't seem to find online) done years back where a culture that had words for no colors beyond black and white could still identify red objects as red.
[ October 10, 2008, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't agree that most likes or dislikes are rational. "Taking it as a given" does not make it so.
Nobody was arguing that the utility function is rational.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Saying "'red' is this specific wavelength of light" is like saying "'evil' is hurting someone else." It's a definition that, once agreed-upon, can be used to reach other objective conclusions. But that doesn't mean that everyone using the word "evil" is using it in this same way.
I believe that most people casually use the words "right" and "wrong" in a very broad way that covers a wide swath of subjective uses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think you're misrepresenting Hume's sensible knave in this characterization.
Oh, I know I am. Or, at least, I know I'm not treating him the same way Hume did.
quote:it washes away the value of the term "self-interested"
Not necessarily. I think in situations like this one -- where someone is forced to determine whether a given action is to their rational benefit -- the value of their self-respect to themselves must be considered as a valid factor in that decision. It is rational to be a "good" person, even if you can steal from someone without getting caught, because you place a value on "goodness" that exceeds your profit from the theft.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I believe that most people casually use the words "right" and "wrong" in a very broad way that covers a wide swath of subjective uses.
I agree. I just don't think it's a strong analogy.
Better, I think, to say that people all over the world say things like, "It sure is bright today".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But we could just as easily define the word "bright" in terms of candlepower as we could "red" in terms of frequency. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
We could, but we haven't. Which is why 'bright' is subjective while 'red' is not. Or at least why 'red' is less so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Nobody was arguing that the utility function is rational.
Then it's rather odd to use it when discussing whether something is rational or not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The question is, "given goal X, is action Y rational?" Arguing about the rationality of X is missing the point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not if one thinks that the rationality of X as a goal affects the rationality of Y.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The phrase was 'given X'. Would you please take it as given?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Javert:
Chapter 7: I'm not sure where you got the impression that Jesus lied in saying he would not go up to the feast of the tabernacles. I'm looking at the verse right now and Jesus says in verse eight, "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. (emphasis mine)
As for the matter of the officers being somehow unable to lay hands on Jesus though they sought to, you stated that this violates freewill. I'm not sure where you came to this conclusion either. Rain, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, sunshine, moon phases all happen without man having the slightest control over them, and yet they all effect men in very real ways. If a person is murdered in their sleep, how can we say they had free will? The free will of another human seems to have overrode the free will of the slumberer.
Men cannot summon or dismiss God, so why should they be able to man handle his emissary if God does not will it? If a man got it into his mind to slay the entire human race and then commit suicide, and somehow accomplished it, I think that would prove that free will is absolute as it's doubtful anyone could argue that God would allow that to happen. But God preventing His children from committing certain acts does not immediately throw us into Calvinist predestination territory. God for the most part does not interfere with actions we decide to take, but it is just as correct for Him to accelerate or prevent what we are doing as it was for Him to do nothing.
There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon, (Sorry to force your eyes upon another book of scripture) that I think outlines the matter quite effectively. It was stated by a prophet discussing the nature of choice concerning good and evil. "Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience.
Taken one way this could mean that God allows us to do anything, and in a way he does for the most part. I see it more as an ultimate result rather than an immediate one. If we desire evil, for a time we will be permitted to indulge in that desire and then we will be given the reward that awaits all those who truly desire evil.
In any-case the officers attempting to lay hands on Him explain for themselves why they could not take hold of him. It's in verses 45-47, where the officers say that Jesus words were so effecting that they could not summon the will to lay hands on him. This is hardly any different than when a person is commanded to do something they considers very wrong, and cannot bring themselves to do it. But there are indeed several examples of this phenomena where men seek to lay hold of Jesus and find themselves unable to carry out their purpose.
[ October 12, 2008, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The phrase was 'given X'. Would you please take it as given?
We get it. X is given. Let's write it out as you presented it:
X: I dislike people of type A. <some other premises which have not been identified as given> Y: Therefore, it is rational for me to kill people of type A.
If one of my premises is "It is irrational to kill people I dislike unless my dislike of them is rational," then even if I accept X as given, Y is not true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes. If you want to add terms to the utility function, you can come up with whatever outcome you like. The point is that there exists some utility function to make any given action rational.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for the matter of the officers being somehow unable to lay hands on Jesus though they sought to, you stated that this violates freewill.
Because it does. God stepped in to prevent them from executing their will, which they could have executed normally had He not intervened. Using the same approach to intervention -- physically preventing soldiers from doing what they want -- He could have prevented the Rwandan genocide.
Your real assertion is this: God denies people Free Will when they attempt to interfere with His plans for His emissary.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This is even more counterintuitive than simply saying "genocide is not wrong" though. Billions of people use the concepts of "right" and "wrong" - you are suggesting that all of those people are speaking gibberish, yet don't realize it, even while they appear to understand one another.
I understand what people are talking about when they use the concepts of "right" and "wrong". I just reject the premises that are implied in their usage.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Because it does. God stepped in to prevent them from executing their will, which they could have executed normally had He not intervened.
Not necessarily. Maybe Jesus was just too fast for them. The text does not specify.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suppose that's true. I'd argue that this isn't what's implied, but "Jesus hightailed it after juking left" would certainly preserve the sanctity of Free Will.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I generally agree with Tom's statement that good and evil aren't useful words to define morality with, because you can't prove anything about them - you can only hope that everyone in your community shares the same basic gut feelings about stuff.
I'd like to think that setting aside those gut feelings and figuring ethics out logically would be the best thing for humanity, because many people with different gut feelings can still learn the rules of logic and use it find something satisfying for both of them.
Unfortunately, oftentimes, it just doesn't work that way. Lots of people just don't give a damn about rationality and working through an ethics system step by step from the ground up. They feel things in their heart so strongly that no amount of logic matters one way or the other. Sometimes this comes in the form of "God said so, it must be true," but it doesn't have to be that way at all.
I have a friend who is essentially an atheist. She is, in many ways, one of the "best" people I know by my own definition of goodness. The problems of the world weigh heavily upon her and she does whatever she can to help them, to the extent that she's probably going to die young from the stress.
For the most part, it happens that we agree upon what is right. But she has absolutely no interest in ethics "theory." There are certain things she "knows" are wrong and if I try to talk about WHY it's wrong (or, in fact, right), she gets annoyed at me for pointless arguing.
In her case, I don't press the issue because she does far more good for the world than I do.
I have another friend who's a fundamentalist Christian. We disagree on an awful lot. He's also a very logical person and the two of us can easily set aside our beliefs and have a purely hypothetical discussion about ethics, and admit that each other have good points. But when all is said and done, he still believes what he believes and I usually still believe what I do.
I remember hearing in psych class that something like 2-5% of the world falls in the "rationalist" demographic (I may be conflating and/or misinterpreting information here). Sad as it makes me, I have to wonder how "rational" it is to try and use rationality to discuss morality with most people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As for the matter of the officers being somehow unable to lay hands on Jesus though they sought to, you stated that this violates freewill.
Because it does. God stepped in to prevent them from executing their will, which they could have executed normally had He not intervened. Using the same approach to intervention -- physically preventing soldiers from doing what they want -- He could have prevented the Rwandan genocide.
Your real assertion is this: God denies people Free Will when they attempt to interfere with His plans for His emissary.
No it isn't. Did you miss my last paragraph where the officers actually explain the dynamic that was going on here?
There were several instances where this sort of thing happen, and perhaps different mechanics were taking place some or all of those times. God forcing people to do things is not the necessary explanation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I did indeed miss your last paragraph. And I agree that "God talked me out of it" violates no Free Will. It's a good thing we aren't discussing the "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" verse(s), though. *grin*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I did indeed miss your last paragraph. And I agree that "God talked me out of it" violates no Free Will. It's a good thing we aren't discussing the "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" verse(s), though. *grin*
Indeed! Especially since Joseph Smith's supposed corrections on that verse are not assumptions you and I can begin with.
Also your statement, "Jesus hightailed it after juking left" made me laugh out loud. Clearly my stoicism needs some work.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have serious question for those of you who think limb regeneration would be proof of God's power.
If there were a well documented case of a person regenerating an amputated limb which do you think would be your most likely response.
1) You become a firm devout believer in God.
2) You'd want to see detailed scientific study of the person to figure out how the limb regenerated.
I recognize that is a false dichotomy because one could do both but I'd still like some serious consideration. You see even though I am already a devout believer in God, I am also a scientist. And if there was evidence that someone had spontaneous regenerated an amputated limb, I'd want to study the heck out of it to find out what biochemical and cellular processes were involved with the hopes that we might be able to use the findings to help other amputees. If nothing obvious showed up in the initial tests, I'd keep pushing for a scientific explanation not because I doubted the miraculous nature of the event but because I believe that God operates by manipulating natural process not magic and that if we can understand those natural process we will be better able to love and serve each other.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A friend's dad used to make the old joke "Whenever I have a headache, I pray and take an aspirin. God clears it up every time."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's about my attitude towards healing miracles and modern medicine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd be all over #2, Rabbit.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The only reason number #1 would be an option at all was if A) it was well documented that the person in question had specifically prayed to have their arm come back and B) there was some set of circumstances that could possibly explain why God had chosen to heal this one particular person's arm as opposed to all the thousands of other people of every religion who lose their arms and pray for it back to no avail.
Even then, it would awaken a curiosity, not make me a firm believer, and I'd still be heavily into option B until more information suggesting a particular God (as oppose to magic, psychic powers, aliens, etc) was responsible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
dkw, my thoughts, exactly.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I know Rabbit didn't actually say this*, but I'll say it because it's true. It's highly unlikely that an intellectually honest atheist whose atheism has anything to do with the verifiability of God's existence would ever believe that a miracle is legit, regardless of the evidence.
*I realize the question isn't even exclusive to atheists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's highly unlikely that an intellectually honest atheist whose atheism has anything to do with the verifiability of God's existence would ever believe that a miracle is legit, regardless of the evidence.
I've previously described a miracle I'd accept as legitimate. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I must have missed that. How far back?
I can search for it in a bit, but I can't justifiy wasting that much time right now when I'm supposed to be working.
If you're talking about the limb regeneration, though, can you honestly say you wouldn't still be skeptical even if you witnessed the regeneration yourself?
If so, fair enough.
[ October 13, 2008, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's highly unlikely that an intellectually honest atheist whose atheism has anything to do with the verifiability of God's existence would ever believe that a miracle is legit, regardless of the evidence.
I've previously described a miracle I'd accept as legitimate.
Was it you who suggested you would accept a controlled experiment where someone was praying for a coin to come up heads and others were flipping the coin or was that KoM?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not in this thread. For many, many years, I kept a sealed envelope in my closet that contained a piece of colored construction paper. Every now and then, I'd open it and transfer it to a new envelope. I figured that if God wanted to send me a message, He could write it on the construction paper by simply removing the color where appropriate, and ideally preface the first part of the message with a simple prediction of some kind.
That wouldn't prove that a God worth worshiping existed, of course, but I would accept that result as proof that someone was capable of exerting quasi-divine power.
quote:can you honestly say you wouldn't still be skeptical even if you witnessed the regeneration yourself?
You mean if I saw it grow back? *blink* Well, I'd obviously look for a scientific explanation first. And barring any other information, Occam's Razor would suggest aliens or some other form of extremely advanced technology before it'd suggest an omnipotent God. But it'd go a long way.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Okay. I was talking about conviction, but I can agree that such experiments would "go a long way."
Though I must say witnessing limb regeneration would be a tad more convincing for me than your test as you've described it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Javert.
Chapter 8: I agree with you that Jesus does not seem to be saying that stoning adulterers was wrong. But I think Jesus was trying to promote a passage that is also in the Old Testament.
God is more interested in repairing a soul diseased with sin, rather than simply ending their mortal sojourn. More importantly these Pharisees who sought Jesus' council in the matter of the woman's adultery had done so purely out of desire to harm. The woman's life was of no concern to them, they merely wanted to use her as a tool to get Jesus cast into prison or likely worse. At best some of the crowd accusing her cared little about the question of Jesus' stance on the Law of Moses and simply wanted to administer capital punishment. When Jesus looks up and gazes into them and says, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," this was not some statement that only the perfect can administer justice. This was an accusation towards all in the room that inside lay great sins of similar weight to the woman. As an aside some have speculated that Jesus' statement, "Let He who is without sin..." is meant to mean, "Let He who is without sin, (meaning Jesus) cast the first stone." Since Jesus declined to do so, nobody else could, being convicted by their own consciences.
As for Jesus' long discussion about how He is subject to the father and yet is the father we might be returning to old territory. Jesus doesn't delight in making things difficult to comprehend, in fact from the start of his ministry from John's account we seem him being extremely open in his declarations about who He is. It is after His initial ministerial forays that he begins to couch his language in mystery. His audience is extremely important when deciphering Christ's meaning. The disciples themselves ask Him why He suddenly begins speaking in parables. I think we should take Jesus at His word in this explanation. The Pharisees, with whom he argues with numerous times are only listening to His words so that they can cherry pick something that sounds wrong. They have no interest in being converted when faced with Jesus' miracles. Because they are corrupt in their hearts they will not believe. If you look at Jesus' arguments with the Pharisees the Pharisees almost always comment on the very last thing He says, and extrapolate it into meaning something contrary to Christ's meaning when his comments are taken as a whole concept.
We eventually find that Jesus when preaching, because there are those who want to believe and those who want to catch Him in a mistake, speaks less directly. When speaking to His disciples however, we find Jesus is often quite obvious in what he is saying. Interestingly enough the disciples often have trouble understanding Jesus because they don't want to believe the truth, for it is an awful realization. It is after the fact that we see the Apostles saying in essence, "It all makes sense now, he said that so many times and I didn't want to believe it because it was painful to think about." Matthew seems to say this the most.
Obscuring the statements in a certain way keeps the hard at heart from understanding, thus keeping them ignorant, but still permits the faithful to figure out what is being said.
The faithful folks that heard these words would have wanted to hear those statements again and tease out the meanings, while the doubters would simply go their way and not think too hard about them.
edit: By the way, the duality of Jesus' role as both the son of God and the Father is something I struggled with when I was younger, if you'd like to understand it I can certainly try to lay it out using the scriptures, (Including the Mormon canon) and my own commentary. I believe that if somebody really wants to understand this concept, and it is an essential one, the scriptures explaining the whole thing are there.
[ October 13, 2008, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Was it you who suggested you would accept a controlled experiment where someone was praying for a coin to come up heads and others were flipping the coin or was that KoM?
Technically, this might rather prove that the people doing the praying have psychic powers, rather than that they have a god doing their bidding. But it would certainly be an extremely interesting experiment.
By the way, saying that a god 'healed' condition X by causing human doctors to work on it is just silly. Then you would also have to accept that the god 'caused' the limb loss by, say, getting human soldiers to place a land mine, or whatever the original problem was. This is just a cop-out. It also doesn't explain what was so unworthy about all those people who lost their limbs before science advanced to this stage.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:By the way, saying that a god 'healed' condition X by causing human doctors to work on it is just silly. Then you would also have to accept that the god 'caused' the limb loss by, say, getting human soldiers to place a land mine, or whatever the original problem was.
This is a logical non-sequitur. The thesis that "God can cause people to perform certain acts" does not necessarily imply that God causes all human actions.
quote: It also doesn't explain what was so unworthy about all those people who lost their limbs before science advanced to this stage.
I don't know of any serious theologians who claim that God heals all those who are worthy. In all the theologies with which I am familiar, miracles are rare events which occur to serve God's purposes which we rarely fully understand.
The fact that you (or I) can't come up with a logical explanation for why God does or doesn't do something is not evidence that God didn't do it or evidence that God doesn't exist. Its a cop out.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: rare events which occur to serve God's purposes
Right. So prior to, say, roughly 2008, there was no possible godly purpose to be served by healing amputees. And now there is. Curiously inconsistent for a being outside of time.
quote:This is a logical non-sequitur. The thesis that "God can cause people to perform certain acts" does not necessarily imply that God causes all human actions.
Sorry, skipped a step. To assign credit to God only for the human actions we like is clearly special pleading. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be pleading specially.
quote:The fact that you (or I) can't come up with a logical explanation for why God does or doesn't do something is not evidence that God didn't do it or evidence that God doesn't exist.
It is, actually, replacing your 'that' with 'for'. That is, the absence of such a reason makes the existence less likely, although by itself does not push the probability to zero. Just Bayes' theorem: Given the existence of a rational god, there exists some probability that a rational human would be able to understand its reasons for a given action. Given its nonexistence, the probability of being able to find a rational reason is clearly much smaller - not zero, because humans are quite good at rationalising, but smaller than the chance of finding something which really exists.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It is, actually, replacing your 'that' with 'for'. That is, the absence of such a reason makes the existence less likely, although by itself does not push the probability to zero. Just Bayes' theorem: Given the existence of a rational god, there exists some probability that a rational human would be able to understand its reasons for a given action. Given its nonexistence, the probability of being able to find a rational reason is clearly much smaller - not zero, because humans are quite good at rationalising, but smaller than the chance of finding something which really exists.
This might be a reasonable argument if we were talking about a God who wasn't infinitely smarter and more knowledgeable than all humans.
Consider for a moment the computer program you have been working with. When I've worked with codes written by someone else I frequently find myself scratching my head trying to figure out a logical reason why they did what they did. If I'm very familiar with the purpose of the code and the language and I can't find a rational explanation, its pretty likely that its not a very good piece of code. But those first two assumptions are very important.
If I were to give the code to someone who didn't know the language and didn't know the purpose of the code, the chances that they would be able to come up with a rational explanation for why a particular part of code is written a particular way become completely uncorrelated with whether or not the code was well written in the first place. The chances that they will rationalize a bad piece of coding actually become much greater than the chances that they will correctly identify the true reasoning behind a good piece of code.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This might be a reasonable argument if we were talking about a God who wasn't infinitely smarter and more knowledgeable than all humans.
Which rather assumes your conclusion! But even if that were true, the probabilities are going to be shifted by some amount, because the probability that your god has a rational reason accessible to humans is nonzero.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: quote:It's highly unlikely that an intellectually honest atheist whose atheism has anything to do with the verifiability of God's existence would ever believe that a miracle is legit, regardless of the evidence.
I've previously described a miracle I'd accept as legitimate. [Smile]
I have also. But first a question: If I give God permission to change my mind, and he does so, is that a violation of free will?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
And what, out of curiosity, would be an acceptable miracle for you?
To clarify, when I say 'believe" I mean believe with conviction, as in comparable to your confidence in gravity, your senses, your own ability to reason, etc. And by "legit" I mean that the miracle in question was accomplished entirely or in part through means that defy and cannot be explained by verifiable natural laws*.
As for your question, I'm a bit confused by its relevancy, but I'd say it depends on what you mean by "free will." Either way, though, I think it's a useless concept in such a scenario.
*which may or may not be presently known to us. A little wordy, perhaps, but I wanted to close any loopholes in my proposition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have also. But first a question: If I give God permission to change my mind, and he does so, is that a violation of free will?
No.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would have said yes. Assuming by "change your mind" you mean by rearranging your neurons or something, not by persuasion.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
If I give him permission to change my state of belief, and he did so, then I would believe in God. I have given him permission to do so. It will not offend me if I suddenly believe.
I regard that as an acceptable miracle. But he hasn't taken me up on it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dana, would you consider Prozac a violation of free will?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
You know, I almost would. I was put on steroids once and it altered my personality. I could tell it was happening but I couldn't seem to care at the time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the thing: a definition of free will that suggests that Prozac (and, by extension, chocolate, sex, and coffee, which work much the same way) violates it is not a definition of free will which permits free will to exist.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Tom, You find free will a useful concept from a subjective point of view, right? In fact, don't you believe that we don't really have a choice (for lack of a better word) in the matter?
How would you say Prozac and other mind-altering substances affect free will and personal responsibility?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Dana, would you consider Prozac a violation of free will?
I am not familiar enough with the effects of Prozac to answer that question.
I'm also not sure I consider the concept of "free will" a particularly helpful construction in the first place. Mind-altering and mood-altering drugs do expose some of the problems with it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:'Red' is not subjective. Red refers to a specific wavelength of light.
I do not consider Red to be a wavelength of light. Red refers to a certain experience people have. Often that experience is produced when certain wavelenghts of light enter the eye - but other times it can be produced in dreams, when no light wavelengths are involved. Red also refers to objects that produce that experience. "Red" light is only red insofar as it would produce the experience of red.
Normally, we assume that other people experience red in the exact same way that we do, even though we have no proof of that. If someone else is colorblind and sees red objects differently than we do, we could either say they don't really experience what we are talking about as red at all, or we could say that red looks different to them (meaning that objects that produce the experience of red in us produce a different experience in them.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure that "red" is merely an experience, Tres. After all, we can objectively say "this color is red" even if someone else experiences it as brown, not least because we've defined "red" as a wavelength.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure that "red" is merely an experience, Tres. After all, we can objectively say "this color is red" even if someone else experiences it as brown, not least because we've defined "red" as a wavelength.
If you wanted an objective definition of red, I think the best bet would be to base it off of the frequency response of L Cone cells.
I do slightly agree with Tresopax that we can't ignore the fact that concepts like the perception of colors are inherently tied to the way people perceive them, but I don't agree that this means you can't work towards an objective definition of them.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: If you wanted an objective definition of red, I think the best bet would be to base it off of the frequency response of L Cone cells.
Diferent people will have different alleles of the relevant genes expressed in cone cells. Whose do we count as the standard?
Some red things look red because we see only one wavelength of light coming from them. But lots of things appear red because they absorb certain green wavelengths.
Would the reponse at the cone level be the same between the two kinds of red? Or is the brain doing the heavy lifting ? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that the latter is the case.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: If you wanted an objective definition of red, I think the best bet would be to base it off of the frequency response of L Cone cells.
It's a little more complicated than that. The peak response of L cone cells is actually pretty much exactly yellow. S cones peak at blueish-violet and M cones peak at green, as you would expect. So color perception of light with wavelength of 550nm or longer is determined more or less by the difference in the signals from proximate L and M cone cells.
Javert: It's taken me some time to get back to this thread. I simply forgot about it and from time to time I remembered how I hadn't gone through your whole reading. Here goes with chapter 9.
Chapter 9: There is no indication Jesus intentionally healed on the sabbath. Perhaps it is the fact that certain people took issue with healing on the sabbath that it warranted more mention than other days of the week.
God keeping certain people ignorant again is a measure of mercy for those unprepared to accept the truth. I can see how it might be appealing to have God jerk us around for just a moment so that we can somehow be joggled into obedience. But God does not want to force us all to obey, he want's us all to decide for ourselves what path we wish to tread. I discuss more on this topic later in this post.
Chapter 10: Your reading Jesus' parables as allegories. This is a mistake, parables are meant to be similar to allegories in that multiple things in the stories symbolize something unique. Parables are dissimilar to allegories in that most of the details mean nothing specific. The fact sheep have wool, black or brown faces, make a braying noise, eat grass, like to run and play, etc have no meaning. People who put their total trust in God do not ignore their own capabilities and faculties. They are not, to use a common phrase, "Dumb sheep." Jesus himself who was designed to be a perfect example for us followed his "Father" to the letter. But we don't read about Jesus acting as some sort of ignoramus who seems fake or without his own personality. Jesus was perfectly able to explain the reasoning behind His father's doctrine. He didn't just rat it off from time to time and say, "Obey OK?"
There is plenty of room for Christians to be their own people. But in a very real way if we are unwilling to sacrifice all things for God as He did for us, we can't attain the perfection or happy state he enjoys. Sheep in Jesus' parables are again objects the people around them could relate to. The shepherds taking care of them are far more intelligent than the sheep, and their greatest concern is the sheep's safety. If the sheep stand up and try to intellectualize everything they are directed to do, there is a very real danger they will get killed. If another man attempts to call the sheep to other pastures the sheep will not go, as they are attuned to the voice of "their" shepherd. Jesus clearly does not look at sheep as, "dumb followers," that is merely how the icon has evolved in our society. See Matthew 10:16
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
How's that for an example of animal metaphor? Clearly sheep carry certain attributes Jesus thinks are attractive for us. It does not mean we need to become sheep in all things. Apparently snakes and doves also have some admirable attributes.
You quote from 10:36. I think you misunderstand in part Jesus' words. Jesus isn't saying, "If you don't believe my teachings, check out my miracles." He is saying, "If you don't believe my statement that I am the son of God, look at my works and consider them. Yes miracles fall into the category of works, but Jesus did alot more than perform miracles. His teachings have been endlessly scrutinized, his actions were available for public observation. All that He did testified of who He was. All it would take is the demonstration of Jesus committing a sin, or making a mistake to prove He was not who He claimed to be. A sin testifies just as strongly as a righteous act.
Miracles are certainly instructive, as somebody of Jesus' divine nature sent from an all loving God would certainly concern himself with the performing of acts He was uniquely capable of accomplishing. Jesus put the case before these men, and they demonstrate clearly that works were insufficient to cleanse their hearts of evil. They weren't denying that Jesus was the son of God because they honestly did not believe it. They were denying it because they didn't like the implications of such a truth. They didn't want to believe it, so they preferred to rid themselves of the evidence of that truth rather than conform to it. Look at the Jesus' works yourself. Do Jesus' actions as chronicled in the NT bear witness the truthfulness of His words or not? Was there more or less Jesus could have done in his time on earth in order to prove that he was the son of God?
If God acted in such an intrusive manner on a regular basis, we'd have a world full of people sworn to fight God and a world full of people who concluded that to fight against God is folly. There's no room for ambivalence, or self discovery.
I understand you don't believe that people when faced with undeniable miraculous evidence would ever choose to not believe anyway, but that's what the Bible states happened. I also understand that appears to be quite inconsistent that the NT people are showered with miracles and you and indeed many people are not. But again, if you want miracles from God that advance your happiness, you must first believe. Miracles performed for those who are not ready serve only to reinforce their determination to not believe.
You say that Jesus' words are, "Obfuscating, confusing, and don't make alot of sense." Perhaps you should consider that in this regard you find yourself in the company of Jesus' persecutors. I don't mean to say that had you been there you would have been one of those who wished Jesus dead, but had you been there and actually heard Jesus say those very things and witnessed those very miracles, would the realty of Jesus' instructions been any easier? Would serving your fellow man unbidden be any easier, do you do it now without any sort of miraculous prompting? When you look inside yourself do you honestly see a man seeking good direction wherever it may come from? Only you and God can answer that question. What I can say is so far in all your "Godless bible study," you have very little good to say about it. Perhaps there is an abject lack of quality in the writing, or perhaps you fail to acknowledge any. Perhaps I will see it in the next half of the book. The writings in the Bible have withstood the test of time thus far, and men have found much to admire and discuss in them. When faced with the writings, you are inclined to analyze them and pick them apart for weaknesses. Even the things you "agree" with are presented as arguments against Jesus. There is certainly nothing wrong with critiques, but surely you could have found something worthy of note that you find intriguing and good in the gospel of St John. Were none of Jesus' teachings or acts instructive or of worth to people? Or could they all have been said better and more succinctly by somebody else? I find Jesus' words, even when obscured by multiple translations, to be quite apt in many cases.
Chapter 11: I believe Lazerus is in fact the third person Jesus brings back from the dead. There is the child in the hearse, the girl in her home, and Lazerus. The only thing unique about Lazerus is that he had been dead for several days prior to being raised from the dead. I've heard that it was a superstition then that it took three full days for a soul to completely depart the body. I do not know if that is accurate.
It surprises me that Jesus being murdered for the sake of possibly saving a nation is merely in your words, "morally muddy." These pharisees do not deny that Jesus is performing miracles, and yet the fact he does so is justification for having him killed in their minds. You have said previously and I already noted this that people witnessing miracles would likely eagerly change their ways, or that if God performed more miracles more men would believe. Well here it is, justification for killing a man who is doing nothing but good, and miraculously so. Well perhaps Jesus should have done more miracles, or bigger ones. Healing the blind, feeding the 5,000, and raising the dead are clearly minor league stuff for these Pharisees. Perhaps if Jesus simply summoned a legion of angels it would be worth it for these Pharisees to risk their positions of high status and go up against the Roman empire. Again the retort of, "Moses fed our ancestors on mana for years, and you (Jesus) feed only 5,000 people a meal of bread?" These sorts of people are not honestly lacking in reason to believe in God.
As an aside you should read the short story, "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula LeGuin. It's a short story that discusses this issue of one person bearing all the ills of a society so that it might exist happily quite well.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
And the Racky for Longest Post goes to...
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The fact that you (or I) can't come up with a logical explanation for why God does or doesn't do something is not evidence that God didn't do it or evidence that God doesn't exist. Its a cop out.
I think this depends on the definition of God. If you believe God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good (oopg) then it's not unreasonable to look at the world and its many problems and ask if they are logically compatible with this definition (the much debated Problem of Evil). Over the centuries there have been many responses to this which, I think, share the feature that they only convince those who already believe in said oopg God. Which is not to say that these arguments aren't ingenious, because many of them are.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The fact that you (or I) can't come up with a logical explanation for why God does or doesn't do something is not evidence that God didn't do it or evidence that God doesn't exist. Its a cop out.
Unfortunately, the same argument works perfectly well for Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or anything you can imagine.
Just because you can't come up with a logical explanation why gravity isn't actually just the magical Down Beams of the Invisible Pink Unicorns doesn't mean that isn't why we stay on earth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Here's the thing: a definition of free will that suggests that Prozac (and, by extension, chocolate, sex, and coffee, which work much the same way) violates it is not a definition of free will which permits free will to exist.
pffh everybody knows sex and coffee ain't about free will.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: And the Racky for Longest Post goes to...
Well to be fair, that post would have been broken up into three smaller posts had I been more consistent.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Every time I see this thread I'm reminded of my favorite university class ever, a philosophy class called "Godless Universe". That class rocked my socks - and I highly, highly recommend the book by the same title (written by my professor).
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: And the Racky for Longest Post goes to...
Well to be fair, that post would have been broken up into three smaller posts had I been more consistent.
If that were an annual contest you might win it. Otherwise, I doubt it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Weak.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)