A Modest Proposal for Empirical (A)Theology

Glitch:

Whoah! Not so fast. You don’t get out that easy. :slight_smile:

I might not find your spirit “beautiful” per se, but heaven knows that I hold you in the highest esteem as a man of good principle. I find your analysis of ethics to be superior. You were the first atheist whom I ever saw in a new way, which got me to looking at the others in new ways too.

So, in your case, I give you the moral imperative from Jesus for the benefit of your continuing contemplations of ethics. “Be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” Do you like it?

Guadere: Just so that you know, You can follow the Bushido but you cannot be a Bushido. Bushido is the Way (do) of the Bushi (Soldier/Warrior). Correctly, you could say you want to be a bushi or samurai. My understanding of the difference between bushi and samurai is that samurai is a title of office, whereas bushi is simply a generic term for warrior. I am not an expert on Japanese so I could be wrong. One can be a bushi without being a samurai but one cannot be a samurai without being a bushi.

Gaudere:

Oh, don’t worry. I haven’t put you on a pedestal. I just kneel when I’m near you and look up. [tip o’ the hat…]

Ok, a bushi then. (Doesn’t sound as cool, though.)

David said:

Yeah. But the question before the house seems to be not, Could one? but Did one? :eek:

Boy, usually when men do that they’re trying to look up my skirt. I guess I can breathe a sigh of relief that we are on the net (and you are engaged).

http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif

meara: Let me also welcome you to the board! I enjoyed your post very much.

Gaudere:

Good one! (How did you do the ol’ timey smilie?)

Remember the Gibran book? One of the stories was by Mary Magdelene. (Please, for the moment, forget modern notions that she was not a prostitute.) I paraphrase it here:

One day, as she looked out her window, she saw Jesus leaning on the well. She’d seen him speaking to the crowds before, but only from a great distance. She described him as devistatingly handsome, with dark olive skin and the brightest black eyes she’d ever seen. She quickly adorned herself with as many jewels and trinkets as she could find, and sprayed herself with perfume.

She ran outside and offered her assistance to him. “Can I help you get some water, Master?”

“I can give you water from my well,” he answered.

She said she looked deep into his eyes and saw in them a terrible beauty that caused her to swell with anticipation. “Oh, Master. I would drink of the water from your well. Won’t you come into my home, where we can lean into one another’s arms by the warm fire?”

She said that at that moment his eyes changed, and she saw in them the look of a man betrayed. Suddenly, inexplicably, she felt dirty and ashamed.

He gently took her hand, and caressed it tenderly with his own. “Miriam,” he said to her, “other men love only themselves in their nearness to you. I love you more than I love myself. Drink the water that I give you, and you will never thirst again.”

From that moment, she said, she understood his teachings. As he turned to walk away, she looked back once more at her house, and left it as it was to follow him.

For the old smilie: paste in <img src=“http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif”> I has so incensed by the appearance of the new smilie that I hunted down the old one and put it on my server just so I can use it still. The old one seems more of an expression of joy, whereas the new one looks like a big smug grin. Ick.

Now, now. There’s a lot to be said for big smug grins. :smiley:

Nice saying, but I don’t think it is much of a moral imperative. It makes a fine secondary rule to moral Christians, since it operates as a reminder to pursue God-like behaviour.

However, as a primary rule, it has a serious problem namely what is God’s perfect nature? As I have covered before, the sources of God’s nature are threefold:

  1. Bible
  2. Personal Contact
  3. Other Christians

The Bible is a subjective source with the exception of a few specific decrees, like the ten commandments. The various tales; however, being storylike leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Personal contact is also subjective since an objective contact would violate free will. You must be free to reject any message received by personal contact, and therefore, any message received must be processed and evaluated by human reasoning, which is subjective. God cannot be allowed to simply dump obvious truths into your head about his nature because afterwards you would stand no chance of rejecting Him.

Other Christians receive their directives from 1 & 2 so they are subjective.

So, if you try to apply this rule the answer you will get from it is whatever you happen to believe is the nature of God’s perfection. It is a tautology machine (hmm… I like that phrase). If you think that God sends wallets without ID for you to keep the money and it isn’t stealing than this rule very accurately tells you that it is okay to keep the money in the wallet (I still think it is stealing). If you think God thinks murder is wrong, then this rules accurately tells you that murder is wrong.

I am still pondering the Categorical Imperative but I think I will be making a post on it tonight.

I have a question for you, Lib. Does the categorical imperative show up anywhere in scripture? I have no idea since I don’t know that Bible THAT well, but I am hoping you might. Please provide the section that you feel can be interpreted as the categorical imperative.

Please define “personal contact” with a deity in an objective sense.

Before that can be done, the stated purpose of this thread is, as I mentioned earlier, not its real purpose.

Lib: On the way home, it occured to me that actually that passage is very valuable in a sense. It instructs the Christian to pursue moral thought! Although this doesn’t guarentee that a person will develop good morals, it is better to pursue it then to stagnate with regards to moral thought.

The reasoning to come to this is simple enough:

  1. You are instructed to pursue in yourself God’s perfection.
  2. Since, as a human, by definition flawed you do not have God’s perfection.
  3. Therefore, your interpretation of the three source of God’s nature must be flawed.
  4. Therefore, you are commanded to attempt to bring them closer in line with God’s nature.

This is a very powerful statement and rule for the Christian!

Glitch:

Your spirit is beautiful after all. And you have found Jesus’ Categorical Imperative. It is the only imperative that will hold as a perfect (or flawless) morality for all men at all times.

Lib, can you please provide the reasoning by which you equate the passage and TCI? Thanks in advance.

Ah, back to GD at last…

We had ten testimonies of various sorts offered up on this thread, by Tris, Ken, Lib, myself, Mike, Jon, Poly, phouka, Beth, and Phil, in approximately that order. I’d like to do a little bit of very basic analysis on those stories - more pigeonholing than anything else.

I’ll clue you in ahead of time that I don’t see much in the way of significant patterns to be teased out of the stories.

1) Initial conversion/epiphany

Mike and Jon accepted Christ at very youthful ages (11 and 8, IIRC) and don’t give any further details.

Tris, Poly, Beth, and Phil asked God to make his presence felt, in one way or another.

Ken and I were witnessed to, and believed.

Lib and Phouka had epiphanies triggered by events (Lib’s by translating “Before Abraham was, I am” from the Greek; phouka’s by a relationship and dialogue with a man she was close to).

2) Did the conversion/epiphany immediately or eventually lead to a more self-sustaining experience/involvement?

In phouka’s case, the answer is ‘no’, if I am understanding her correctly. For the others, the only question is whether the conversion experience resulted in a more ongoing experience immediately, or whether it took another experience of some sort to trigger that change. For Mike, Jon, and Poly, it took another experience (though not an epiphanic event of any sort, in Jon’s or Mike’s cases) to nudge them into a more ongoing relationship with God. For most (perhaps all; not all the stories are sufficiently detailed) of the others, including myself, the experience/relationship achieved some sort of critical mass more or less immediately.

3) How was God’s presence experienced in the various epiphanies?

We have testimony on this from five of the ten respondents: Tris, Lib, myself, Poly, and phouka.

Tris recalls a sensation of inner warmth, and the replacing of doubt by faith. Lib, a sensation of a ‘spiritual whirlwind’ followed by a joyful sense of dying and being reborn. Me, a sense of warmth, of the world being reoriented, of being able to see the world for the first time. Poly, on his initial experience, had a sense of certainty of God’s reality, and on his later one, a sense of being connected to Something awe-inspiring, yet warm and caring. Phouka reports a sense of being loved and cherished, of everything being connected with everything else, of joy and light.

4) Did those experiencing these things still believe in their reality?

Phil: no. Everyone else: yes.

Other things worth pursuing, IMO:

It would be worth asking how the lives of those involved changed around their experiences, to the best of their ability to be objective. And (for those reporting a Christian conversion) it would be worth hearing their observations (as Polycarp has already provided) of whether or how their comprehension of the Bible changed - not in terms of what they believed the Bible to be, but in terms of whether and how it seemed to make sense when they read it.

Like I said, if there’s any patterns here, I can’t see them. But as Feynman pointed out, if you’re going to do science, you have to report the experiments that tell you nothing, as well as those that tell you something, to keep from biasing how the outcomes are perceived.

Glitch:

Gosh, I’m glad RT posted something. I had missed your question, and it would have just floated away eventually.

It equates, as I see it, because the Categorical Imperative requires that an ethic hold for all men at all times. In my opinion, Be Perfect is not only the ideal ethic for all men at all times, but if actually used by all men at all times it will eliminate the need for any other ethic. It is an imperative in the literal grammatical sense of a command (“Be”), and it is utterly categorical (“Perfect”).

So as I see it, it is the perfect categorical imperative.

RT:

My life changed in a lot of ways. I abandoned Satanism, for one thing. I became more loving and caring of others, including my family. I felt the companionship and fellowship of Jesus in my day to day life. We became friends and did everything together. Even when I did things that some Christians’ might call “sins”, I did not try to hide from Him. It also led me to my, um, other philosophies.

And it definately made me see the Bible differently. Especially John. Before, I looked at all of it as scary stories. Afterward, I looked at all of it as good news.

Thus taking us to an even greater distance from the OP in which the stated purpose of this thread was to find the cause, not the effect, of the religious experience.

Als, I must note, the response to this one is adding more proof to my assertion that the real purpose of this thread is solely witnessing.

Monty, I can’t find anything about ‘cause’ in the OP. Maybe you could enlighten me. I understood that we were looking for anything significant that we could find.

Gaudere:

I would be interested in your take on “Be Perfect” being the perfect Categorical Imperative.

It certainly can be argued that it is impossible to be perfect, so therefore “Be Perfect” is flawed as a categorical imperative because it cannot be applied perfectly by even one person, let alone all people. However, in my opinion, there isn’t any ethic that any person can perfectly apply. As you have pointed out in several posts, there are always exceptions and ancillary considerations. (Your famous, “Should I tell the serial killer the truth about where my sister is hiding?” comes to mind.)

So, since no ethic can be perfectly applied anyway, it seems to me that you might as well select the ethic that, if applied perfectly, would do the most good. And “Be Perfect” seems to be the one to me, because it would allow you to lie to the serial killer. In fact, I think it would require that you do.