quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You skipped the third part. And saying that is like saying that I only eat because it makes me feel good. It's absurdly reductionist.
I help because empathy and altruism are part of my core nature. If you want to label that as selfish, then everything is selfish and the term loses all discrimatory meaning. I help because it's what I do, not because I'm looking to get something out of it.
Actually, I don't think it's reductionist at all. It says that aiming for selflessness is a mistake. That teaching people to strive for selflessness is teaching them to strive for the impossible (and undesireable).
There's selfish, though, and there's selfish. That's why the term "rational selfishness" exists. To be graspingly and mindlessly selfish is very different than being wisely and justly selfish.
Saying that you do something because it's part of your nature isn't completely tautological, but it does beg the question. Questions, rather. (a) Why is it part of your nature? (b) Should it be part of your nature? (c) Is it really part of your nature? (d) Are there other parts of your nature that can, do, or should take precedence, and if so, why, and if not, why not?
Raising selfless up as a value strikes me as a weapon. A way of telling people that they can never really live up to the gold standard. And it's internally contradictory. If it's better to give than to receive, for example, then the people you give to are inherently flawed. Because they're receiving.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It was never my goal to label humanity as evil. A more objective reading of my post would reveal that my posts argue that through humility, selflessness, grace, love, and faith, a better way can be found. I don't believe I used the word evil. But perhaps I did. If so, then you are right and I shall remain the evil person, doomed to a life of villainy. Thank you for informing me thusly.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, this thread was intended to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not "pure science" b/c there is no such thing. Whether you accept God is not my place, and whether or not you are evil is not up to me.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I'm not really sure where all that came from. Either I apparently said an awful lot more than I thought I did, much of which I don't agree with, or you're addressing a whole bunch of things I didn't say.
For one thing, I'm not sure that I'm talking about "aiming" or striving for selfishness. I addressed it more as a non-teleological expression of an underlying nature.
I also don't know where you got the beter to give than to receive thing from. (Actually that's not really true. I suspect it's part of the Objectivist canned arguments. It sounds also pat.) Is it better to talk than to listen? To me, you have to have both, on the part of all parties for something to be a converstation. Likewise, community is largely defined by [ii]reciprocal[/i] interactions between its members.
The middle section seems to be connected to what I'm saying. If you'd like to see my answer to many of those questions, I recommend the thread that I linked to for CT.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether you accept God is not my place, and whether or not you are evil is not up to me.
That's not quite the question I asked. In your opinion, are people who do not accept your God natively evil?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hari, It seemed to me that you were saying that Asimov, despite his claims to the contrary, must have believed in a higher power because he had human beings being good and at times selfless, which you seemed to imply was impossible without God or some equivilent.
I believe you expressed it like this:
quote:After reading of his life, it is clear that Asimov was an athiest, and yet he saw an inherent 'goodness' in humanity, a 'natural morality' if you will. Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
If your intent here was not to classify human nature as evil and wholely selfish, I'd be interested to know what it was.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by those terms. What does it mean to be a "man of faith" as opposed to one of pure science?
I'm a scientist who studies human nature and I find much to be optimistic about. Certainly, I seem to find more good in human nature through scientific study than some people, yourself included, seem to find in their faith based view.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Actually, this thread was intended to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not "pure science" b/c there is no such thing.
Wait Hari, I'm puzzled again. Your newly stated purpose for this thread, "to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not 'pure science'" is very much in keeping with the title of this thread, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", but seems to me to be in direct opposition to your claim that you "did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it". Either you're all over the place on this one or I'm misreading you completely. Could you clarify a bit?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I knew you were sarcastic, but a lot of people do trot out that tired argument, so I figured I'd address it. Professionally, that's up there with the "There's no such thing as intelligence. It's just a social construct." as the most annoying brainless bs I have to put up with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think those who make such statements are using "faith" to denote religious faith and "evidence" to denote scientific evidence.
Yes, but the problem is that then they will often follow "Religion is not based on evidence" with a statement like "I don't believe in religion because I need evidence to believe something." The first statement is true if "evidence" refers only to scientific evidence. But the second statement deceptively shifts to a more broader meaning of evidence - because the vast majority of everyday things you believe are not based on scientific evidence. For instance, I believe it is almost 2:00 right now because I observe a clock (which I trust to be correct), not because of any scientific evidence. Nobody believes ONLY what they have scientific evidence for. So when someone says they need evidence to believe something, they must be referring to evidence in more broad a sense than just scientific evidence.
So to be more accurate, one should say "I don't believe in religion because the evidence that supposedly supports religion is not of the sort that I find convincing." But this is more difficult to show, because then it opens up the issue of why that evidence is not convincing. It is easier to simply say there is no evidence at all for religion - but that is also not accurate and not fair to any arguments in favor of religious belief.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, It's actually pretty clear if you understand epistemology. There are significant and generally unbridgible differences between evidence when you're talking about a scientific versus a religious context. The same can be said for the faith required by trusting in your senses and in decriptions of science that you haven't observed and faith in religion.
THe words may be the same, but the underlying concepts are, epistemologically speaking, very different.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Actually, this thread was intended to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not "pure science" b/c there is no such thing.
Wait Hari, I'm puzzled again. Your newly stated purpose for this thread, "to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not 'pure science'" is very much in keeping with the title of this thread, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", but seems to me to be in direct opposition to your claim that you "did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it". Either you're all over the place on this one or I'm misreading you completely. Could you clarify a bit?
If Hari is anything like me, sometimes he only really finds out what he was trying to say in the beginning by working through a discussion about it. (That's happened to me a few too many times. ) But if so, that can be an awkward situation to be in.
I can't follow Hari's argument through its various permutations in this thread as a single cohesive whole, but maybe it makes more sense as a journey of coming to understand something. (Does that make sense?)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still waiting to hear whether you think someone can be a good person without God in their life, Hari.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I have already answered the question Squick. If you need to pigeon hole me as evil, and simplify my argument to that, then go right ahead, but I have made more than the single post that you are referencing, and while I have been up and down and all over the place, I'm pretty sure I've said more than just humans are evil.
If you would like to press the issue that is fine, but I'm not sure what else to say about it.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hari, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm having a hard time following what your opinion is right now. This may be why you are getting some many questions. From my perspective, it might help if you answer these questions as opposed to saying that you already have, because much of what you've said is, to me, unclear and much that seemed clear you appear to now be explicitly or implicitly claiming to no longer believe.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom, I already answered you, but I'll answer again, since you've been waiting so patiently.
I think by a secular standard, sure, a person can be good without God in their life.
By a Biblical standard, without God, no a person can't. But if one doesn't believe in God, then that really doesn't matter does it? And when I say by a Biblical standard I don't simply mean following the 10 commandments b/c that is simply legalism.
You see, I didn't want to get preachy, but since the point has been forced, I will expand on this.
Being good and following the law should not be seen as one in the same thing (by law I mean Mosaic, not Federal). To be good in a Christian sense begins first with a love for Christ. Once that is established 'good' acts are a result, as a 'fruit' of one's faith. - you see a Christian does not do good in order to be a Christian, they do good BECAUSE they love Christ. This is not to say one always does good when they accept Christ. They are still human, and they still screw up.
So, sure, a human can be good, in the eyes of the world, but in the eyes of God, that isn't always so simple.
But let me ask you Tom, do you believe in God?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots... you are exactly right. Thank you for correcting me. That is always the beginning, regardless of what we do, what we say, who we are, it starts with God's love for us, which leads to an inflowing of the Holy Spirit which allows us to understand better, and love Christ.
posted
Hari, I'm not sure I get the distinction. Are you saying that, taking their acts into consideration, Christians and non-Christians have at least the same potential to do good, but that the good acts of Christians come from a different place?
Also, I think you may find that Christians are not called to follow most of the Mosaic laws.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, MrS, a careful reading of scripture does actually show the importance of the Mosaic laws, just not in the same way they were regarded prior to Christ's resurrection. The so called 'golden rule' that everyone knows so well is a summary of the Mosaic law. The first rule is that thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy spirit. - this tenet summarizes the first part of the 10 commandments. The 2nd tenet is thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself - the other half of the commandments - it continues - on these hang both the law and the prophets.
before I answer your other part MrSquicky, might I ask you a question? Do you believe an act is good regardless of its motivations?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hari, A careful reading of scripture will also encompass Acts 15, detailing the Council of Jerusalem, where the issue of holding Christians to the Mosaic laws (which are significantly more than just the 10 Commandments) was debated and, except for certain specified types of laws, rejected.
In the sense that I suspect you mean, I don't believe an act is good regardless of its motivations, with the caveat that it's much more complex than that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS, You are exactly right. Christians are no longer beholden to the Mosaic law. Simply for the fact that they have been released from bondage to this law through Christs death and resurrection. Christ drank the cup of suffering for his people so that we might look to the cup of blessing. But nowhere does it say the law is to be thrown out or rejected. It remains a useful guide for all Christians. If it were not so, it would not be a part of God's infallible word to his people. As Christians, the Bible is not some outdated manual where we can chose what we would like to believe from one part and ignore other parts. It is all the word of God and as such must be taken as a whole. I hope that clarifies things for you a bit. I know that was a bit of a digression.
In terms of goodness, as a believer, God doesn't simply look at your acts. He also looks at the motivation. For the thought of killing another is as bad as having carried out the act. And when I say motivation, it is difficult to explain if one doesn't believe. To me, a good motivation is doing something for God's glory. Now I know that my acts are rarely properly motivated, and that pains me to realize, but it is the truth, and it is what I strive for. To me that is my definition of good.
I don't know if you hold yourself up to that test MrSquicky. I don't want to assume anything. But that is what I hold myself too. Do you find something implicitly or explicity wrong with that?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, thank you for the fine debate MrS. But I must be off now. The BBQ is calling my name, and words, while they are interesting, simply cannot fill my stomach like a good rack of ribs can....mmmmmmmm ribs.
Have a great evening.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But nowhere does it say the law is to be thrown out or rejected. It remains a useful guide for all Christians. If it were not so, it would not be a part of God's infallible word to his people. As Christians, the Bible is not some outdated manual where we can chose what we would like to believe from one part and ignore other parts. It is all the word of God and as such must be taken as a whole.
The BBQ is calling my name, and words, while they are interesting, simply cannot fill my stomach like a good rack of ribs can....mmmmmmmm ribs.
Is it wrong of me to laugh at this?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that this proves Hari or Squicky's points one way or the other, but the Acts 15 reference was interesting. From what I understand, the debate was mostly regarding Gentile (non Jew) converts to Christ, not Jewish. The debate was mostly concerning circumcision of the converts, which was not relevant to the Jews at the time.
The reason this is interesting is because although the symbolism changed, the reason for the symbolism didn't really. From what I understand, any Jewish converts were required to be circumcised, symbolizing their allegiance with the covenant people of God. Likewise, Christians must be baptized to enter into their covenant with God.
So when Hari brought up the 10 commandments being implied in the 2 greatest commandments, and you responded with Acts 15, that's what came to my mind. Not that it's incredibly relevant or anything, I just thought I'd share.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certain parts of the Bible are outdated and/or basically savage laws and customs (say keeping Kosher). They were recognized (and often reviled) as such by many of the Gentile followers of Jesus, which brought them into conflict with the Jewish Jesus followers. The resolution of this conflict was one of the main motivating factors behind the convocation of the Council of Jerusalem, which recognized that the central Christian religion was a new thing and not just an outgrowth of Judaism. Many of the Gentile Christian communities had little use for the Jewish Scriptures for the first couple of centuries, although there was a strong and occasionaly violent movements for their inclusion into canon.
There's a necessary component to Jesus's admonition that you're missing there. Love of your neighbor is said to be "like unto" or the same thing as love of God. By Jesus's teaching, you can't do one without the other. If you follow Jesus's teaching by focusing on God's glory without including genuine love of your neighbor, you're aren't doing it right. Conversely, those who act out of a love for their neighbor must necessarily being showing love for God, even if they they are not Christian.
On a non-theological note, if you do things and interact with people to fulfill some external requirement, not only are you missing the point, but you are also unlikely to actually keep to those things. Love of your neighbor is a natural thing, but when you approach it as something you have to do as an imposed external rule, you alienate it from yourself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: On a non-theological note, if you do things and interact with people to fulfill some external requirement, not only are you missing the point, but you are also unlikely to actually keep to those things. Love of your neighbor is a natural thing, but when you approach it as something you have to do as an imposed external rule, you alienate it from yourself.
I don't think it's strictly a non-theological point you've made there MrSquicky.
I think that the method of the Jews in observing the Law of Moses is in part what motived Christ to make the statement that he did. They had become so focused on keeping the numerous external laws that they failed to recognize the import behind them.
In the 10 commandments example that Hari used, if you are keeping the greater two, then by default they will be keeping the 10.
Note: This is a Christian POV. I acknowledge that people of the Jewish faith see it differently.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we are arguing the same point now but from different POVs MrSquicky. I have already mentioned that obedience to God's law is not done out of some external motivation, but is essentially a fruit of ones faith. Let me simplify that for you. A Christian doesn't follow the law because they are forced to, no they follow God's law to show love for God. So, you are not doing things and interacting with people to fulfill some external requirement. That would be legalism, and Christ was quite clear how he felt about this in dealing with the Pharisees. No, you do things and interact with people to demonstrate Christ's love for you. This involves humility, sacrifice, even suffering in the name of service.
Also, Thank you BaoQuing for your interpretation of Acts 15. That is what I read it as too. Not as a denial of the law, but a transformation.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hari, You do realize that the Kosher laws are part of the Mosaic laws, right?
Also, I don't think you're getting it. As long as you are not living people for the sake of loving people, no matter what your other reasons are, even if they be to demonstrate Christ's love for you, your follwing of the law is at best imperfect.
And there's the flip side to that, which is that those who love others for the sake of loving others are fulfilling the law even if they are not Christian. What say you to this?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of goodness, as a believer, God doesn't simply look at your acts. He also looks at the motivation. For the thought of killing another is as bad as having carried out the act.
Do you really believe this? Simply thinking about killing someone is equal to actually carrying out the act? I think this is an over-statement of what Jesus was talking about when he said lusting after someone is already committing adultery in your heart. Surely you don't believe this "adultery in your heart" is equal to actual adultery.
I believe that motivation is important to an individual in terms of their own growth, but I don't think a wrong motivation negates a good act. The act itself, in my opinion, is still a good act. The individual may not fully benefit from doing good for the wrong reasons, but the good is still done. Food from a self-aggrandizing pseudo-philanthropist still fills bellies, after all.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know how mice have an instinctual aversion to the scent of cats? Take an ordinary mouse and let it catch a whiff of cat and it'll exhibit all the signs of being afraid. There is a parasite, however, that spends part of its life cycle in mice, and part of it in cats. When infected with this parasite, mice completely lose their fear of cats. I'm sure that it must be nice for them, being liberated from fear that way. Well, nice right up until the point where the cat's paw pins them to the ground, anyway. At that point I expect that it sort of sucks. Fear, in moderation, is an adaptive trait in the material world.
Noemon, I'd never heard this before. I'm curious to know more. Well, so is Fahim, but he's too wussy to ask. Would you mind telling me more about this or telling me what it's called so I can look it up?
Yeah, I know, it's just a really really minor detail that has nothing to do with the rest of the thread... Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you follow Jesus's teaching by focusing on God's glory without including genuine love of your neighbor, you're aren't doing it right. Conversely, those who act out of a love for their neighbor must necessarily being showing love for God, even if they they are not Christian.
A = loving God. B = loving neighbor.
You're saying it's possible to do A without doing B, but not possible to do B without doing A. Yet you're treating "like unto" as meaning identity, not similarity.
That doesn't seem consistent to me. If the two are the same, then a person is doing one when doing the other. Yet you say one can do A without B.
Why is the relationship not symmetric?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A = loving God. B = loving neighbor.
You're saying it's possible to do A without doing B, but not possible to do B without doing A. Yet you're treating "like unto" as meaning identity, not similarity.
That doesn't seem consistent to me. If the two are the same, then a person is doing one when doing the other. Yet you say one can do A without B.
Why is the relationship not symmetric?
I believe it's the old "Abou Ben Adam" theory ... but I'm only guessing At least as far as B goes ... A, I'd think is kind of self-explanatory in the real world.
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of believe in loving God through loving and caring for other people... But I am very weird.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I kind of believe in loving God through loving and caring for other people...
I believe in that as well. But I don't believe either half of love God and love your neighbor is disposable or that either can be performed completely by doing the other alone.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I kind of believe in loving God through loving and caring for other people...
I believe in that as well. But I don't believe either half of love God and love your neighbor is disposable or that either can be performed completely by doing the other alone.
Granted - I feel the same way But there is no accounting for the notions that people get into their heads. Some believe that they can love God and still kill innocents in the name of God. It's all a matter of personal belief and everybody's mileage varies ... or at least, seems to.
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Hari, You do realize that the Kosher laws are part of the Mosaic laws, right?" ---- yes MrS. I do, and you're right, my eating pork completely throws my whole argument out the window - thank you for catching me in such a blatant contradiction, I am at your mercy....
"Also, I don't think you're getting it. As long as you are not living people for the sake of loving people, no matter what your other reasons are, even if they be to demonstrate Christ's love for you, your follwing of the law is at best imperfect"
--- actually MrSquicky, your understanding of Christian love is incomplete. Allow me to fully quote scripture, and perhaps it will become more clear for you Mark 12:28-31 KJV "...Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord; And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first and great commandment. And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
So, as you see MrS., your argument that the two commandments are equal is incorrect. It is quite clear that the first is the greatest, and the second while like unto it, must flow from the first.
Your understanding of the law appears incomplete. You reason that, based on this law, one can love another simply for the sake of loving them, and this is legitimate whether you believe or not. But that only holds if you hold both parts of the law up as equal. However, A does not equal B, as I've noted. A is the first and greatest commandment, and thus loving a person for the sake of loving is not enough by this standard. Now, many will disagree with me, but if we argue based on these 2 commandments, then the argument holds.
And, since I'm quoting scripture and you appear so versed in it, may I remind you of Matthew 5:17-19 - Jesus is travelling through Galilee, and he has addressed a crowd, teaching the Beatitudes, and he says this: "Thnk not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
-This relates back to our discussion regarding the validity of the law. I think it comes pretty coherently from Christs lips what one should make of the law, don't you? But if you don't believe in Christ, then it really makes no difference anyway does it?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, because clearly "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" includes pigs. In fact, there is a lovely family of swine living next door to me and we recently had a roaring good game of bridge.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's gonna be cool to see if Hari, now, will be open to a little perspective change courtesy of hatrack, or if the arguments in which he'll inevitably become entangled here will just serve to dig him deeper and deeper into his current world view.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
