It wasn't clear because your premise isn't clear. I've asked you questions on numerous occasions, the idea behind which was to clear a pathway so we can have a productive dialogue. But you don't seem to want to partake. Well here goes again. Why do you think that God needs to be worshipped by us, or He needs religion to defend Him?? jan.
I've always thought I was doing my best to answer you, but sometimes the thread moves and I might miss your question. In response to your question... Haven't you been defending your faith choice and God, this entire time? I don't think it, as much as you and others seem to display it by defending your positions to atheists. If you believe that a god/gods doesn't need defending to others, why are you, then?
Because the people who created (the) God(s) (of the Bible) were humiliated by their Babylonian overlords. They therefore created God in the image of edgy humans, and endowed him with qualities that were sufficient to trump the likes of Ba'al. But to assure that their version would gain acceptance over the worshipers of Elohim (the Creator-Gods of Gen 1:1), they rolled out a new model--Yahweh--in the image of a needy, vengeful person. In this way, people were scared into joining their faction . . . and that pretty well covers the Pentateuch.
I'm getting tired of telling you with supporting evidence, but briefly again: Moral rules, arise in ALL social animals ,at least down to honey bees, when their evolution has progressed to the point where they live in social groups as that increases the survival / procreation / changes. These morals evolve at least 10,000 times faster than physical characteristics do with environmental changes. I illustrated this by note that 4000+ years ago it was a moral duty to kill any invader of your valley who entered from the next valley, but now that is against socially "evolved morals." Now that "kill others" moral duty mainly applies to people with oil who live on the other side of the Earth. For example from post 2172 and the links in it:
That seems to leave logic and mathematics in an uncomfortable position. I don't believe that science and philosophy can be cleanly divided into separate disjoint realms. Science is shot full of mathematics, logic, methodological procedures and conceptual assumptions. Historically, natural science is natural philosophy grown large. I'm very interested in the philosophy of religion and love discussing it.
While I've learned so much from everyone here, I had hoped this thread would have encouraged more members here to share their stories of why/when they turned from a faith life, to an atheist or agnostic view -- and more importantly, how they dealt with the different emotions and changes such a transition caused in their lives. I'm hopeful that more folks here will wish to share their stories. I'm still very much interested to read them, because I find them personally helpful. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have to commend you Wegs on this thread and how you have consistently handled it with grace and courage. I've never seen a thread gain so many posts so quickly! It obviously strikes a chord with many people. People love to process their experiences. And you have opened up a free space for them to do that here. Kudos!
Not so. Math is a form of logic and both are tautologies - self contained systems that don't speak at all about real world things. Closed system, but they can be used to DESCRIBE real things.
Jan, unless you wish to of course, you don't need to reply to this question of mine. I used to spend a lot of time 'defending' my faith, and defending God. I'm not sure if 'witnessing' is mainly a Christian concept or not, but it would stand to reason that maybe it isn't, because others in the course of my lifetime, and on this site, have been ''defending God, ''who are not Christian. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with defending one's stance in faith, and likewise, many atheists defend their positions, as well. But, that begs the question then...are religious people defending their faith/their god/gods, or are they feeling personally persecuted/attacked, and defending themselves? (or both) When someone questions or doubts our beliefs or positions on any particular subject, we sometimes come away feeling offended. It's a natural human quality to want others to hear us out, and then agree with our (some, at least) points, in the end. But, religion is one of those areas (and politics, to a lesser degree) that causes people to feel personally insulted by not having their views accepted by others. I wanted to just put that out there to you, because I remember defending my faith, and now I look back and ask myself, why did I do that? Was that something Christianity caused me to feel I needed to do, in order to be accepted as a Christian? Why was I defending a supposedly almighty and all powerful God? Did I hope people would choose to know God, as I once did, because at one time, my faith meant something of value to me? I have some answers to those questions now, but those are questions I'd offer to anyone who is following a particular faith. It's been a long and winding road for me, and these are just some detours that I've personally taken in finding my way. FWIW, that's my take on it for now. Thank you for this kind note, Magical. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's caused me to consider points I might not have, otherwise...from both religious and non religious people here, alike. Any way you slice it, religion, faith, and the concept of god/gods, is a very personal and unique experience for everyone.
It turns out that I'd already read all of the relevant posts from that point on. And my opinion is basically the same as JamesR's. I don't think that you have ever really explained your position. You've just repeated that the Euthyphro problem only applies to what you call 'demi-gods', but doesn't apply to a properly-conceived monotheistic 'God'. Both JamesR and myself asked you why that is. I expressed the opinion that the dilemma appears to apply to any commander, however conceived, provided that this commander defines right and wrong, good and evil, in a command-ethics. Since you haven't spelled it out, I'm going to try to reconstruct what I'm guessing you are thinking, based on the clues you've left. The Euthyphro problem suggests that there's a dilemma between: 1) X commands A because A is good, and 2) A is good because X commands it. You may or may not be saying that this is a false dilemma, because 1) would suggest that X is a demigod. Since the properly conceived monotheistic God isn't a demigod, 1) isn't a real option. If 1) isn't a real option for correct-thinking monotheists, Plato's Euthyphro dilemma doesn't arise for monotheism. Which leaves 2). God's commands are good because God commands them. Plato's (or Socrates') point in the Euthryphro seems to have been that problems arise regardless of which horn of the dilemma one chooses. So arguing that proper-thinking monotheists must by definition choose 2) doesn't make the problems associated with 2) go away. One of the problems with that option is that if there is no reason for saying that A is good and B is bad, apart from God having chosen to command that they be so, then seemingly there's no reason for God to have commanded A rather than B in the first place. It's nothing more than a random expression of will, entirely arbitrary, like flipping a coin. Again I may be projecting ideas into your head, but you seem to be gritting your teeth at that point, biting the bullet, and announcing that it doesn't matter to the proper-thinking monotheist that God's commands are irrational and arbitrary, because they are God's commands. God is the creator of the universe and the source of all value. The monotheistic God, properly conceived, is Lord and Master. Mankind is in no position to ask why the highest God does what he does, our task is to 'bend a knee' and to obey as wholeheartedly and completely as we are capable. I agree that many theists would argue in this kind of way. They do it all the time. I don't think that it really answers Plato's (or Socrates') objections though. It just shrugs them off and chooses to ignore them. I commented on that Middle Eastern-style of ethics in post #2169. Unlike the Greek-derived tradition where the emphasis is on finding rational reasons why we should or shouldn't do things, the emphasis here is on who properly issues the kind of commands that must not be questioned and can't be overruled. Is it the tribal chieftain or an ancient Egyptian pharoah, a divinity resident on earth? Is it some god (or God) up there in heaven, Yahweh or Allah perhaps? Or as we've seen more recently in Europe, is it a Nietzschian ubermench, recreating morality as he sees fit? Is is the German Fuhrer (who seems to have tried to fill that role himself)? Or is it, as the libertines would have it, a situation where every one of us should become a law unto him or herself? My personal sense is that there's something mindless and pathological in all this.
You have already replied to a post where I talked about people being beaten in the name of God. I have told you, more than once, the sad tale of my growing up bullied by theists. You yourself provide ample examples of psychological abuse. And I don't want to stoop so low as to list here in open forums the ugly things of your spiritual teacher. Go fuck yourself.
It is sometimes said that there are primarily two topics that one should not discuss in polite society: politics and religion. Some people keep to it, some don't. It seems to me that the modern trend is to discuss anything with anyone at anytime, and there's a real push to do so, as the threat of being stigmatized as "irrational," "not being able to justify one's beliefs," "refusing to think critically about things" is hanging in the air. I don't think this modern trend is healthy, and it can take a lot of effort to develop and defend the boundaries of one's spirituality.
That alliance has only ever existed in your mind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, it's a false dilemma. What problem? Sure, there's a problem with option 2 in mainstream Abrahamic theisms, but not in all theisms. And that's a typical mainstream Abrahamic take. Take away the threat of eternal damnation, and the idea that there is only this one lifetime in which we can act, that then seals our eternal fate, -- and the numerous problems that arise for Abrahamists, are gone. Indeed. Fortunately, the mainstream Abrahamic theisms are't all that theism has to offer. Agreed, because there's that threat and fear of eternal damnation lurking behind all this, along with the problems that arise from the only-one-life-to-act conception. On the other hand, go further East, and such concerns seem strange and artificial. However, this is a vast topic and you'll have to read up on it yourself, it's too much to try to present it meaningfully in a few forum posts. (And chances are that some of the problems you mention will persist for some time, notably because there will still be the issue of which guru or school to trust.) In short, the most relevant factor I think here is that the biggest difference between the mainstream Abrahamic theisms and some Hindu theisms is this: the mainstream Abrahamic theisms hold that mistakes can be fatal, have eternal, irrepairable consequences; while some Hindu theisms do not hold that mistakes are fatal, nor have eternal, irrepairable consequences (ie. if you don't "get it right" in this one lifetime, you'll have a chance the next time around, and the next etc.).
If they do it will be because, for the survival of the human race, our morality will have evolved to accept it as right. Evolution... but rather than merely biological, it is a matter of evolution of ideas, more specifically ideas of what is necessary for the survival of the species. At present, and possibly so far never, has murder been necessary for the survival of the species, and is actually more likely detrimental - and thus we, and our thinking, have evolved to include this almost inherently within our nature.
There are real limits as to how far and how openly this can be discussed in public open forums. Murder is a largely tabooed topic.
Billy T, May I ask how you know this? For one this mentality is alive and kicking in almost every country in the world. And secondly I don't think that an obeyed law of the land, necessarily mean that those who obey it has good morals. jan.
Sarkus, What decides what is right? What does it matter to nature whether it survives or dies? Destruction is part and parcel of nature, and murder is part and parcel of destuction, so while it's not ''necessary'' per se, it is part and parcel of nature. So from a naturalist perspect, one where nature is the origin of everything, no other nature exists, why is it detrimental to nature (not just humans who are a minute, insignificant part of the grand scheme of things. A point made by atheists). jan.
