# Question about Matthew for Christians **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984 "2014-12-23T02:26:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/141 "2014-12-29T02:54:11Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Perhaps we’ve strayed from my point. My point was not “all morality is based on rationality”. This is clearly not true. My point was simply “morality without rationality and empiricism is blind.” And this demonstrates it beautifully. Making the well-being of homosexuals into an issue of the “other” is morally repugnant. Acting like it’s fine to discriminate and hate and judge because you don’t know any homosexuals is awful. Emotions helped bridge this gap, but rationality would have closed it to begin with - if people were rational, that is. And morality without emotions is heartless, of course. You cannot have one without the other. But it seems that these discussions run into the idea that rationality has to destroy emotions. You lead to ideas of why is it rational to care for people who cannot care for themselves? It’d be more economically efficient for them to simply perish, no? Though emotionally we reject that concept. I mean, heck, Ayn Rand’s entire political philosophy was based on being objectively rational and forget about anything emotionally based, like collectiveness. You may claim that she was misapplying logic, but I’m sure she’d say the same thing about you. How do we actually determine who is wrong or right on who is misapplying logic? You ask two people and they may give you two answers (FWIW, why do you think in most countries with a two party system, you have a relatively equal distribution among the population? Claiming that the folks who don’t disagree with you are the ones that misapply logic tends to be highly convenient, no? > [@](#): > > But again, I ask the simple question. In reasoning, when we come to different results, we can check the pathway. Where’s the analogy in faith? Why does it need one? Besides, what does checking the pathway of reasoning matter when at some point it comes down to: “that makes no sense” “yes it does”. > [@](#): > > Why do we elevate the rational over the emotional… Hmm, I don’t know. _Maybe because actually thinking about things is better than blindly guessing?_ > > Even when it comes to empathy, guess what? Empathy is great at manipulating us into doing stupid shit. It’s only when we take our empathy, our ability to feel for others, and we check to make sure that what we’re doing is actually in line with that _rationally_ that we get good results. Otherwise, you end up with stupid shit like parents begging the FDA to let them waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on a quack therapy that doesn’t work, and the public standing behind them. Because who else is gonna cure little Suzy? Or you end up with fantastic efforts in helping the homeless, the poor, the needy in your neighborhood and across the world. What rational reasons are there for helping folks in, say, Africa? The only ones that really come close are: they may bring Ebola to us, though that’s one case. People in sub-Saharan Africa being impoverished and in famine has no real effect on us (in fact, it may actually lead to us being richer in some ways). It is empathy, that they are fellow humans like us and are suffering, that lead us to help. Reason would lead us to evaluate if it made sense in weighing the pros and cons (mostly economic really) as to whether we should help. Is that any better than spending money on stupid shit based on empathy every once in a while? I’d say no. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/142 "2014-12-29T02:57:33Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And it also hurts a hell of a lot of people. It glorifies abandoning rationality and the only functional epistemologies we have. I hope it’s worth it to you, because it’s horrifying to me. It is more than worth it to me. I look back and realize how small my understanding of the world was back when I was an atheist. I also, through the direct reasoning of being a religious person, give a good deal of money to charity and the homeless where as I hardly gave anything to charity in my non-faith days (it made little sense to me to do so back then). It was only when I was able to let my rationalist prison go did I enter into the larger world of faith and love. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/143 "2014-12-29T03:02:50Z")
I realize the above could be taken in a way I didn’t intend - I don’t mean to assert that atheists are heartless and don’t care for others. My position is that atheists, who are just as, if not more, capable of empathy and charity as religious folks are not basing on a rationalist policy, they are basing it on an emotional policy and then using reason to bolster that emotion (which is my basic position, not that reason is useless, but that it is merely a factor, not the be all end all). ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/144 "2014-12-29T03:37:40Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > As pointed out above thread, science had no issues with defining the inferiority of certain races, whether by measuring skulls, or by using Bell Curve type analysis. Right. And the greatest physicist of the 19th century proved that the sun couldn’t be more than a few million years old, otherwise it would have exhausted any possible means of combustion. But then nuclear processes were discovered, and we learned that the sun’s energy comes not from burning fuel, but by (mostly) hydrogen fusion. Similarly, although there is no way to prevent a nut from earning a Masters in Science, the consensus scientific position is that there is only one species of human, and “race” is not scientifically meaningful. The straw man thrown up time and again in this thread is that anyone is claiming that science is always right, or knows everything. Nobody with any sense claims that. But it gets closer to the truth with every iteration. We know much more about the universe than we did even 20 years ago, and we will know much more in another 20 years, thanks to science. Faith, on the other hand, takes pride in clinging to the beliefs of Bronze Age shamans, and considers it a virtue not to deviate from them – unless they become uncomfortable, in which case believers suddenly discover that the offending passage is a metaphor. > [@](#): > > Why is the default position regarding what goes on in someone’s bedroom none of your business. That sounds more of a non-scientific moral position rather than something you have backed with ‘science’. I’m not saying that I don’t agree, but I agree fully on emotional moral purposes, not as a result of some scientific inquiry. Of course not; it’s not the job of science to create moral codes. Moral codes, for both atheists and Christians, are arrived at by picking and choosing what seems to work the best for the greatest well-being. The “objective” morality that many Christians claim is provided by the Bible is a joke; people emphasize or ignore whichever parts of it they like or dislike. I wish I had a nickel for every Christian who ridicules aspects of Sharia Law which come straight from the Law of Moses, of which Jesus said, “Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Mat 5:19 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: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/145 "2014-12-29T03:48:15Z")
That assumes faith itself does not grow or change over the centuries as people struggle and discuss the text. The entire evolution of the Old Testament argues against that. Read the Prophets and compare them to the Pentateuch as the view of God starts becoming more and more about what Jesus would ultimately teach about love for neighbor, esp the poor, and love for others and not just a few people (that’s not even getting into the debates between various respected rabbis which were considered an essential part of understanding the Scriptures and included together in writings). It is a strawman itself that faith is never changing except when it is shown wrong by scientific inquiry. And so I think I have to gather out **tomndebb** ’s post earlier up thread. > [@tomndebb](#): > > a series of arguments against positions that I do not hold and have never expressed. I would not accuse you of building a straw man argument because there are certainly people who hold some of those positions, but they really have nothing to do with me. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/146 "2014-12-29T09:42:26Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > And morality without emotions is heartless, of course. You cannot have one without the other. But it seems that these discussions run into the idea that rationality has to destroy emotions. You lead to ideas of why is it rational to care for people who cannot care for themselves? It’d be more economically efficient for them to simply perish, no? I’m getting really fucking tired of this. What do you even think “rational” means? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/147 "2014-12-29T14:02:29Z")
Why would it be rational to care about people? It might lead them to care about _you_, making your life a bit more tolerable in the long run. Sounds rational to me. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/148 "2014-12-29T14:25:57Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > In Matthew 10:8, fairly early in his ministry, Jesus sends his disciples out to perform miracles. He tells them (KJV), “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” Jesus is quite obviously giving them a pep talk, and pep talks often contain advice about doing things you really can’t (or shouldn’t) like “knock them dead!” or “show 'em hell!” Being as it’s the bible, Matthew doesn’t go on to describe how they rolled their eyes at Jesus for saying such trite stuff to inspire them. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/149 "2014-12-29T14:41:10Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I’m getting really fucking tired of this. What do you even think “rational” means? In accordance with reason or logic… so this… > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why would it be rational to care about people? It might lead them to care about _you_, making your life a bit more tolerable in the long run. > Sounds rational to me. Is a rational argument, but only for the people in your relative circle. I mean is it likely, reasonably speaking, for folks across the world in the Congo, say, to be able to do something that would make your life more tolerable? Seems a bit tenuous does it not? So rationally speaking, wouldn’t it make sense to not care terribly much for folks who probably can’t benefit you? And as pointed out, Ayn Rand dedicated her philosophy to reason (Hell, she even called her philosophy - Objectivism) - which resulted in basically saying screw you to folks who are the losers in capitalism because of a notion that it is better for most people to value individual liberty to the extreme (I guess in some respects one can say that makes some sense based upon the United States’s level of per capita income compared to other Western democracies and also its level of inequality in comparison as well - and heck, if you are rich you mostly have to worry about is revolution; as long as you deal with that, you can just pay your folks just enough so they can buy your goods). ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/150 "2014-12-29T18:19:16Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > I realize the above could be taken in a way I didn’t intend - I don’t mean to assert that atheists are heartless and don’t care for others. My position is that atheists, who are just as, if not more, capable of empathy and charity as religious folks are not basing on a rationalist policy, they are basing it on an emotional policy and then using reason to bolster that emotion (which is my basic position, not that reason is useless, but that it is merely a factor, not the be all end all). In what sense does that argument not also describe your own standpoint, though? I mean, if empathy makes you feel for other people, it’s rationality that makes you realise your ability to help, and the form and extent of that help. I would make a guess, too, that your increased generosity (which I commend you for, btw) after your conversion is also a matter of rationality. You acted in accordance with the way you perceived the world worked prior to it; you act in accordance with the changed way you perceived the world worked after it. I confess I don’t see in what way you’ve escaped a rationalist prison; what “bounds” have you loosened? ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/151 "2014-12-29T18:44:46Z")
The underpinning is based on emotions, even if the execution following is based on a rational way to undertake that emotional premise. The idea being that the underpinning of action being based on emotion is not a bad thing (in fact can be quite good) is the loosening of bonds from the notion that all actions should be underpinned by cool logic rather than emotions (the notion that emotions are de facto suspect as a reason for undertaking an action). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/152 "2014-12-29T19:06:15Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > The underpinning is based on emotions, even if the execution following is based on a rational way to undertake that emotional premise. The idea being that the underpinning of action being based on emotion is not a bad thing (in fact can be quite good) is the loosening of bonds from the notion that all actions should be underpinned by cool logic rather than emotions (the notion that emotions are de facto suspect as a reason for undertaking an action). It’s interesting how some religionists like to frame the argument: logic is “cool” and “cold”, while emotion is “warm”. By the way, who here is saying “that all actions should be underpinned by cool logic rather than emotions”? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/153 "2014-12-29T19:13:46Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Here’s a short story. > > > [@](#): > > > > Judas bought a field from Joe using 30 silver shekels. The jewish counsel bought the same field from Joe using the 30 silver shekels Judas gave them. I don’t understand why this is a ‘gotcha’ at all. Here’s my short story: last week I bought a new coat for $60. My wife ordered the coat on Amazon using my debit card I had given to her. I guess that coat’s going to disappear in a puff of logic now. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/154 "2014-12-29T19:15:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It’s interesting how some religionists like to frame the argument: logic is “cool” and “cold”, while emotion is “warm”. > By the way, who here is saying “that all actions should be underpinned by cool logic rather than emotions”? It’s the impression that I get, especially when we have folks who indicate that logic is the only way we can determine truth. Emotional underpinnings would therefore be less valuable, if at all, in that case, would it not? FWIW, I don’t think religious folk are the ones who came up with “cold logic” as a phrase. It isn’t even really a pejorative. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/155 "2014-12-29T20:18:34Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > It’s the impression that I get, especially when we have folks who indicate that logic is the only way we can determine truth. Emotional underpinnings would therefore be less valuable, if at all, in that case, would it not? FWIW, I don’t think religious folk are the ones who came up with “cold logic” as a phrase. It isn’t even really a pejorative. Logic and rationality is how we get the _facts_. The “Truth” as it is used by religionists has no set meaning as far as I can see. Much of what is mislabeled “truth” is in reality “opinion”. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/156 "2014-12-29T20:24:23Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > That’s not why (I think) he’s bowing out. He’s bowing out because those replying to him aren’t really addressing what he’s saying at all. For example, I really enjoy the work of Mark Rothko. I don’t enjoy his work due to art history criticism or rational debate on his work - I enjoy it due to the emotions it stirs in me. And I’d argue that most people enjoy art in this way. Its due to forces they can’t really explain and they have no intention of trying to explain it in a rational way. But the responses have all been, well we can decide rationally what is good or bad art or things like that which really doesn’t address what he’s talking about. In this talking past each other, what’s the point of continuing the conversation? Sure, and if **Ulfreida** ’s point hadn’t gone beyond, “I believe in God because it makes me feel better to do so,” that’s not really an assailable argument. But **Ulfrieda** was arguing that her religious experiences gave her access to a knowledge that was not available to those who had not had her experiences: that it was offering her access to an objective truth. If I say, “I like Mark Rothko because his paintings look nice,” I don’t really have to defend that statement. If I say, “I like Mark Rothko because he provides this particular insight into the fundamental nature of human existence,” then that’s debatable on the grounds of, first, whether that idea is actually being communicated by the work, and secondly, whether the idea itself is valid. If I step into a conversation about art, and say, “Mark Rothko is great because his paintings prove X,” and when people doubt me about X, I flounce off with, “You can’t _possibly_ understand what I’m talking about!” then (putting it as charitably as possible) I’ve just been wasting everyone’s time. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/157 "2014-12-29T20:38:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Sure, and if **Ulfreida** ’s point hadn’t gone beyond, “I believe in God because it makes me feel better to do so,” that’s not really an assailable argument. But **Ulfrieda** was arguing that her religious experiences gave her access to a knowledge that was not available to those who had not had her experiences: that it was offering her access to an objective truth. If I say, “I like Mark Rothko because his paintings look nice,” I don’t really have to defend that statement. If I say, “I like Mark Rothko because he provides this particular insight into the fundamental nature of human existence,” then that’s debatable on the grounds of, first, whether that idea is actually being communicated by the work, and secondly, whether the idea itself is valid. If I step into a conversation about art, and say, “Mark Rothko is great because his paintings prove X,” and when people doubt me about X, I flounce off with, “You can’t _possibly_ understand what I’m talking about!” then (putting it as charitably as possible) I’ve just been wasting everyone’s time. She was attempting to use art to demonstrate a version of truth (emotional) that can’t simply be reduced to logic based claims. The responses ended being a version of art is enjoyable, that’s why its done - when **Ulfrieda** was referencing why folks speak so reverently of particularly art, and not spiritual art mind. Referencing the awe and wonder that someone may run into at viewing some piece of art. Simply saying, well we make art because people enjoy it misses the subjective point. What is it about art that stirs up such things in us? Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my previous response, but simply enjoying a painting isn’t going to make me stare rapturously at it for half an hour. We feel as if we are in the presence of something amazing that reveals something to us, whatever it may be. And it isn’t like that is a rare experience for individuals. How we do logically discuss something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/158 "2014-12-29T20:59:48Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > She was attempting to use art to demonstrate a version of truth (emotional) that can’t simply be reduced to logic based claims. Those are what we common folk call “opinions”. This is what I meant in my last post about the meaning of “truth” being laid to waste. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/159 "2014-12-29T21:06:00Z")
Yes, you are free to call it what you wish. In the matters of art, and yes religion, plenty of folks, common as well as otherwise, see truth as not merely tied to facts (as if philosophers haven’t been discussing truth since Socrates and before), and we are free to call that as we wish as well. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/160 "2014-12-29T21:13:59Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Yes, you are free to call it what you wish. In the matters of art, and yes religion, plenty of folks, common as well as otherwise, see truth as not merely tied to facts (as if philosophers haven’t been discussing truth since Socrates and before), and we are free to call that as we wish as well. Then what meaning, or for that matter, worth, does Truth have if it is tied not to fact but to fancy? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984.md?page=9)