I was trying to figure out how to word this exact question. Thank you.
Point of dispute (larger than this particular thread) is that that is your opinion. While maybe I shouldn’t have expressed mine, since it is indeed irrelevant to whether or not the points themselves hold up, you cannot claim that your interpretation of conduct is actually more factual just because it happens to be more cordial. In any case, I apologize for picking a personal fight in a GD, my criticisms were not in the appropriate venue.
If you can’t demonstrate that these things have a cause, how can you sustain the premise that all things must have a cause? How would you know? Metaphysically, we can’t even conclusively prove that ANYTHING has a cause: we can only infer it.
This is the problem that’s been pointed out to you over and over but you keep avoiding the criticism. Either we simply premise that everything must have a cause, or we don’t. If we do, then God cannot be an exception. If we make any exceptions (as you wish for your particular theory), then at that point there is no basis to the strong “everything must have a cause” claim, and any number of things of which we know almost nothing about and may never be able to know, such as the universe itself, might just as easily have no causes.
Your argument either flatly contradicts its own necessary premise, or it has no premise at all. You can’t do the former that and claim to be making a logical argument, and the latter leaves you with nothing to argue with.
Furthermore, as has also been pointed out over and over, even if the universe had a cause, that doesn’t make the cause a creator or a god, anymore than the cause of volcanoes is a god.
In short, there’s no there there to these arguments.
Ironically, avoiding arguments based on personally disliking someone is, in fact, the ad hominem fallacy.
Because God sums up all of those things. Those are nice words as individual words. God is bigger than any one of those concepts.
It depends on the believers vision of God doesn’t it? We’re talking the spiritual realm not the physical one. I read an article by Dawkins I think where he recognized that some see God as a separate all powerful entity but some don’t. Some see God as love, or nature, or that inner connecting unifying force. In the article Dawkins implied that unless the term God does mean that separate all powerful creator being in some sense, then the term is meaningless. I see the point and may agree but the reality is that many believers do not have that vision of God. Jesus said the kingdom of God is within and the NT is full if scriptures about the inner spirit transforming us. Using my ocean analogy it’s like a drop deciding it was totally separate from all the other drops and it had to assert and defend it’s notion of being separate. Gradually the drop sees that it is part of some thing far greater than it ever imagined. The Ocean. To realize this the drop doesn’t appeal to an outside entity but awakens to it’s own true essence that it shares with all the other drops.
We often refer to God as something separate and out there somewhere just as the drop might, while it was clinging to it’s notion of being separate, refer to the greatness of the ocean.
No offense intended. I have heard this concept several times from several sources. I’m not sure but I think Sam Harris mentions it in his “The End of Faith”
Well maybe some example of the principle at work. Got a couple or even one?
I have no idea why that seems like common sense.
The KKK is a group of Americans who think America is a great nation. Does that mean anyone who thinks the same think somehow tacitly supports the KKK and it’s hateful prejudice?
Would you like a few more similar examples or is that clear enough?
Here’s what you said before
The truth is that many religious moderates are taking action to specifically denounce some of the hateful beliefs and actions of the far religious right. When you stand up and clearly denounce the actions of others I’m at a lost to see how that can be seen as giving them cover.
I agree their are real benefits to an honest “I don’t know” I think it’s wisdom and an important component of any commitment to truth. Paul even mentions it in Corinthians. There’s a huge difference between what I believe now, and what I know to be true. If we accept that learning and understanding will continue throughout our lives then most beliefs should be {say it with me Voyager} provisional.
Believers don’t have to surrender their belief in God to admit they don’t understand exactly how things work.
The argument as to how and why they are being given cover has already been made. Regardless of what you think of that argument, don’t you think it would be better to address it rather than dismissing the very idea that it’s possible out of hand based on the fact that moderates denounce those ideas? The argument was never about the fact that moderates and extremists share the same ideas in the first place. Heck, many extremists don’t agree with each other, and denounce each others specific beliefs.
For better or worse, the claim was about the nature of religious belief itself: that moderate believers legitimatize the methods by which those people justify their beliefs: they make the methodology of faith beliefs not only legitimate but constantly lauded as if it were a commendable thing for a person to do. Once that is on the table, all that is left is squabbling over the precise correct theology or attitude, and this is a discussion on which there is no longer any standard by which any one side can be measured to come out ahead.
I responded to very specific posts that presented the argument you dismiss here. If your take on it is different that’s another matter.
You’ll have to explain that again. It appears to me to be a rephrasing of the argument you just said wasn’t correct.
You seem to be saying the support is offered by similar methodology. Again, I fail to see how that is support.
When a fundie says “I justify my beliefs by the Bible because I believe it is the literal word of God” and a liberal says " I believe the Bible inspired and valuable but not the literal word of God because it was written by man" how is the liberal supporting the fundies methodology?
Because it sets up the idea that reading a particular religious text for learning truth is a valid method. The liberal says “I believe the Bible is a valuable text, and there are things in it which are worth learning”. And we may say that yes, that’s fair; that’s a reasonable methodology of learning truth. So when the fundie comes along, we don’t question that he’s using a thousands year old text - we say his interpretation is wrong, or that he’s picking and choosing. His underlying methodology - using a religious text to learn truth - isn’t questioned as much.
cosmodan–
I’m afraid I’m losing my grip somewhat on this subject. My response to the questions you directed at me might not have been very constructive or appropriate. In any event, Apos and Revenant Threshold answered with the same basic line of reasoning I had intended, they just worded it a lot better than I would have.
IOW, I’m letting them do my intellectual work for me on this one. I should be ashamed, but I’m not.
I guess that means when an atheist says, :Hey the Bible has some great stuff in it, I enjoy the words of Jesus from a philosophical standpoint" they are also supporting the fundies.
I’m sorry but it just doesn’t seem to follow to me. It doesn’t seem any more logical than the KKK example I used.
In thinking about it, there is a way in which the religious or anyone else for that matter, can offer tacit support to bad behavior. I have observed that some Christians who may not agree with the likes of Falwell and Swaggart will still refrain from harsh criticism because after all “he’s still a Christian” If there is some perceived kinship then anyone from any collective might excuse bad behavior and in that way offer their tacit support. This would be on more of an individual basis rather than a blanket support.
Yes, it would. But an atheist is unlikely to say that the Bible has truth above and beyond all other books. I’m not sure yourself would say that, actually, but then you do yourself admit you have nonstandard beliefs.
Your KKK example doesn’t work because the underlying premise is reasonably sound. Patriotism is a decent reason for doing things (IMHO). The KKK may indeed not be attacked for their patriotism; but then, generally people aren’t. The difference is that when it comes to religion, the use of a very old, much changed book to divine truth is a potentially contentious issue.
I don’t see how you aren’t following it. You don’t think people are less likely to attack fundies for using the Bible than they do for picking and choosing or for their interpretation or their particular beliefs?
Couldn’t another person say that hate, decay, poverty, ruin, pain, war and desperation could be summed up by the same word? It seems to me that if we allow ourselves to define the word so freely, it does become rather meaningless, as Cosmosdan mentioned in reference to the Dawkins article.
Quite nonstandard but I did pass through Christianity on my way here and I don’t think I was wrong in doing so. That was my path. For me the mystery and the beauty of it is that as each person follows their own unique path , what they perceive as truth, we slowly converge on the same destination.
The interaction, the disagreement and contention is all part of it. It’s the process of examining our own beliefs and considering others. But I digress. I agree that it is a false belief that the Bible is somehow God’s divine word and will but many liberal moderate Christians do not believe that and others are beginning to modify their understanding. Most Christians and even many nonstandard believers like myself believe it is only through the Holy Spirit that we gain any value from the Bible or any other book. That is an underlying belief that is unfalsifiable.
Ah but it is the interpretation of patriotism that leads to both good and bad behavior just as in religion trying to interpret God’s will through various means.
I think I understand the argument a little better now but I’m afraid I don’t agree. Is there a major difference you or me saying the Bible is just a book and cannot be used to justify violating the rights of others, or a liberal Christian saying I strongly disagree with their interpretation of specific Bible passages?
IMHO it is correct to challenge beliefs for which we have specific hard evidence against. The Bible as God’s literal and divine word is a biggie. I’d like to see people turn more to that inward search and see the Bible or any other book as just one available tool which we decide how to use.
I think there is some tacit support for bad behavior which I described above.
That is a valid and important point IMHO. Perhaps those of us who don’t believe in angry sky being God need some new term or we need add a qualifier.
Yes, that’s true. But if people did not use patriotism as a motivation, interpretation would not be involved at all. If we say that patriotism can be a bad motivation to do something, then we can argue against someone who uses it on that very basic level* as well as* their interpretation.
Yes, and it’s a very important difference. If I say the Bible may not be more worthy in content than any other book, then I can argue that point against a fundie who uses it too. A person who believes using the Bible that way is normal can’t. And that’s the thing; the use of the Bible as a text from which truth may be learned is normalised, so generally we don’t attack that. We attack the interpretation.
Think of the argument like a pyramid. Belief that the Bible can be used to learn truth is a bottom stone. Belief in a certain interpretation is a higher stone. We can all say “That interpretation is wrong, in my opinion” and so remove a higher stone; the pyramid may still stay together. But if we were to suggest that the basic belief is wrong, we can remove a lower stone and so have a greater chance to demolish the argument pyramid. What moderates do by making that bottom stone seem normal, reasonable, is make the whole argument seem more reasonable, and less vulnerable to criticism.
Because in both cases, what’s begin legitimized is the idea that faith and belief about factual claims can respectably be at the core of a worldview. It has nothing to do with the specifics of the claims one goes on to make from this premise. That’s the whole problem even: one can then go on to make virtually any belief claim at all.
I don’t think 'Ironically" means what you think it means. But no matter. Look, I don’t know you. I don’t know if I’d like you. We’re on a debate board and your participation is all I have to go by. I just refuse to use my time debating with someone who does so in a less than honest or honorable way. It’s as simple as that. Now, if you care to substantiate or retract and apologize, we may continue. If not, that’s fine, too.
Onward.
Jumping in here, the most important word in the above is “inspired.” This implies a special weight to the Bible. An atheist might well say there are good parts, but all of it needs to be judged using secular metrics. If the liberal tells us what the inspired parts (vs the uninspired parts) are, he is saying that we need to give these parts special weight. The Fundamentalist thinks more of the Bible is inspired, and it gets more weight, but that is a matter of scale - especially when the liberal has a hard time expressing how to tell the inspired parts from the uninspired parts. They usually do it using their personal moral reasoning.
The liberals support (unintentionally) the fundies methodology by accepting inspiration, and not providing a clear metric to divide inspired from non-inspired writing.