Philosophy in the Bible

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yup, this one is about to get interesting.

 

[LadySmith]

IBTL 

[mellestad]

In other words

There are no "inalienable rights". There is only what the mob, oligarchy or tyrant decide you have.

There is no "Love" it is all a chemical trick to get you to couple and breed.

There is no "Truth" per say, even what little can be proven true by the scientific method is dependent upon presuppositions.

There is no "you", thou has said...

Partially.  You use a little but too much hyperbole for emotional effect though.  

Your first point fails to take into account democratic systems of government that are very effective at promoting a group agenda while protecting minority rights.

Your second point is valid, although here again, calling it a "trick" is a deliberate appeal to emotion.

I do believe there is truth.  In fact, you could say my only presupposition is that the universe, at some level, is rational and everything is capable of being explained, even if we might not be able to explain everything at this very instant.  I think it makes more sense than relying on what is essentially magic to explain what we do not currently understand.  I think what you mean is there is no "moral" truth.  I would say that depends on what you define morality to be.  In my personal opinion, you could define morality as that which is good for your social group and eventually what is good for all of humanity.

You are trying to bring up these points to shock me on a instinctual level, but believe me, those points are nothing I have not considered at great length!

Good comment though, I think it is important to explain my stance on those issues, and show that I do not need to believe those points are true to have a happy, fulfilling life.

[mellestad]

We're on the same page....and the Bible has proven to be more accurate than any of its detractors....either as history or as a set of moral guidelines.

In other words, is there any moral stance in the Bible that doesn't hold up to scrutiny?  And, in fairness, has there been any other moral teaching (Islam, Buddhism, secularism, etc.) that has held up to the same intensity of scrutiny that the Bible has?

I think not...

That depends on what you mean by falsifiable biblical claims.  Do you believe in the literal meaning of the old testament?  Jonah literally was swallowed by a whale, or that a literal flood covered to top of every mountain on the planet?  In that case, I believe those points are very falsifiable, and have a preponderance of negative evidence against them.  The miracle stories in the Bible are no more believable than the miracle stories of other mythologies.  If you are talking about morality in the old testament, I would be interested to know how ejaculation outside of a woman's vagina can have a negative societal impact.

If not the old testament, then what specific claims are falsifiable?  I am willing to accept that a religious prophet named Jesus existed, but I would need some level of evidence to consider him a divine being capable of bringing corpses back to life.  The same can be said about Muhammad.

I was raised in a religious environment that could be considered fundamentalist.  I was taught literal creation theory and fundamentalist conservative values for 2 hours a day six days a week from the time I could read until I moved our of my parent's home.  I understand the arguments for Protestant Christianity, they were drilled into me for a very long time.  But once I got out on my own and was able to investigate religious thought without the sheltering influence of church, school and family the evidence simply did not exist.  This did not happen without years of research and soul searching.

My final thought on the matter is that after studying other world religions I could find no single thing in the supernatural aspect of Christianity that was any more believable than all the other creation and miracle stories I was taught were ridiculous.  Oh, Hinduism believes that the world is on the back of a turtle!  haha!  But a literal believer thinks that the female of our species was created when a being of magic removed a rib from the only human on earth and wished her into being.  I fail to see which is more incredulous.

I do think the New Testament has many good things to say about tolerance, compassion and love, but Buddhism has the same ideas without so much baggage, so your point about the moral superiority of Christianity is not convincing to me without more detail.

[mellestad]

Agreed....so, why hasn't anyone been able to disprove those facts (like, where's Jesus' body) ?

So you think the fact that no-one has found a particular corpse of a Roman crucifixion victim as some sort of evidence either way?  Someone who may or may not have existed, may or may not have been executed, and who's only direct evidence of location is a two thousand year old story?

If anything I think it should be the other way around when it comes to proof.  I'm not the one claiming that a Jewish necromancer existed.  (See, now I am using hyperbole to make a point )

[Ron]

I do believe there is truth.  In fact, you could say my only presupposition is that the universe, at some level, is rational and everything is capable of being explained, even if we might not be able to explain everything at this very instant.

I have the same unfounded in reason faith as you in this regard.

I choose to have faith in Christ because in my observation the gospel (man is morally broken, a sinner and in need of salvation outside of his own works, ie Gods mercy) fits the reality.

[mellestad]

I have the same unfounded in reason faith as you in this regard.

And that is fair enough, I won't try to talk you out of it, besides saying that at least my "faith" can be tested.

Just do a double blind test about the effectiveness of prayer in terminal cancer patients.  Or just go here and pick one: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html  I am easy to convert!

[Ron]

And that is fair enough, I won't try to talk you out of it, besides saying that at least my "faith" can be tested.

Just do a double blind test about the effectiveness of prayer in terminal cancer patients.  Or just go here and pick one: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html  I am easy to convert!

So if God doesn't jump when we ask he doesn't exist?

You admit your belief is built on nothing. Rational reasonable thoughts? Your philosphy admits to nothing except the interaction of matter and energy.

Where does "being" come from? Another parlor trick of evolution?

Materialism is a non philosophy that fails in face of the reality human existence. I may have a religion or metaphysical philosophy that falls short on empirical evidence but you have nothing in your belief, nothing that resembles what it is to be human at least.

[mellestad]

So if God doesn't jump when we ask he doesn't exist?

You admit your belief is built on nothing. Rational reasonable thoughts? Your philosphy admits to nothing except the interaction of matter and energy.

Where does "being" come from? Another parlor trick of evolution?

Materialism is a non philosophy that fails in face of the reality human existence. I may have a religion or metaphysical philosophy that falls short on empirical evidence but you have nothing in your belief, nothing that resembles what it is to be human at least.

Your point rests on the concept of "the reality of human existence".  I fail to see what particular features about my existence need a mystical, magical or supernatural explanation.  (a small edit to clarify: by "being" I assume you mean soul.  What I mean is that I do not know what would differentiate me from any other animal besides my intelligence.  I don't know why I should even feel I have a soul.  I would be interested to know what realities of human existence need a religious explanation, so I can think about it!)

As I said in an earlier post, just because we do not understand every single interaction in the entire universe is not a sufficient reason to fall back on superstition.  Human history is absolutely stuffed with new advances that invalidate dearly held assumptions and "truths".

At its core we have an a difference that, in your case, is irreconcilable.  You accept as fact, without proof, that there are things in the universe outside the realm of science.  Demons, angels, spirits, miracles.  And because your belief is based on the assumption that these things are not physically explainable, I have no recourse to convince you in debate.  Your mind is shut against the very idea that I might be right.  However, there *are* things a religion could do to convince me.  "god" would only have to "jump" once every five hundred years (edit: perhaps every hundred years.  Although now with the information age he/she/it could probably just do one big show and leave it at that!) to make his existence very clear, and I do not see that as unreasonable.

Finally, I feel I should point out my specific thoughts on the existence of "God".  This discussion so far has been about the assumption that morality is governed by a deity.  My discussion with you has been moved to the existence of deity.  I am not what is called a "hard" atheist.  I am a "soft" atheist.  I do not believe that a supernatural being exists outside of the realm of the explainable physical world, and I think you can make a very convincing argument that the supernatural is not, and has not interfered with human history.  However, I do not claim to have proof that a god or gods do not exist in any capacity.  That particular avenue of debate does not pose much interest to me.  It is complex, highly theoretical, sometimes even mathematical (on both sides) and, I believe, somewhat futile.  Once I came to the point in my searching where I did not think there was any evidence of a miraculous god, I was not terribly interesting in going the next step and studying the arguments against any divine being.  I do not feel it is a constructive use of my time.  Once I determined the evidence does not point toward an active deity in direct contact with humanity I think naval gazing about the origin of the universe really doesn't make any difference in my daily life.

I only mention this so you can understand the scope of my interest in the field, and so you do not expect too much from me :)

[zahc]

However, there *are* things a religion could do to convince me.  "god" would only have to "jump" once every five hundred years

No, if God "jumped" every 500 years, people would still not believe. He would still be denied and explained away because He is incompatible with $secularhumanistdogma.

To some of us it is evident that God "jumps" every day of our lives. But for some people, not even the daily miracles and marvels of our awesome universe is enough.

[Racehorse]

I find arguments on the existence/non-existence of God to be largely pointless. Faith is a choice. It is how we choose to interpret the evidence (spiritual and tangible) that we are given. My interpretation of the evidence in my own life has led me to choose to believe God exists. A rational person could take the exact same evidence and conclude that the spiritual experiences were the result of overwrought emotion, random coincidence, pre-conceived notions, etc.

The evidence for either conclusion is ample. What we actually believe and put faith in is a choice.

[Perd Hapley]

Just to make things completely break-down, Racehorse, I accuse thee of a gospel of works.  Faith is a gift of God.  You think you can take credit for "choosing" to believe in God? 

[Note:  I'm actually lampooning our determinist friends, for they so richly deserve it.    ] 

[mellestad]

No, if God "jumped" every 500 years, people would still not believe. He would still be denied and explained away because He is incompatible with $secularhumanistdogma.

To some of us it is evident that God "jumps" every day of our lives. But for some people, not even the daily miracles and marvels of our awesome universe is enough.

I told you plainly that I would believe, and now you say it doesn't matter what I will accept as evidence?

This is exactly my point, reconciliation is impossible if one side refuses to accept any possible argument on principle.

Please elaborate on how it is evident that God works in your (and I assume my) daily life.

[Perd Hapley]

If you are talking about morality in the old testament, I would be interested to know how [crass details that need not be repeated] can have a negative societal impact.

So you have chosen "societal impact" as your test for morality?  (Or am I not being persecuted again?  )

[mellestad]

I find arguments on the existence/non-existence of God to be largely pointless. Faith is a choice. It is how we choose to interpret the evidence (spiritual and tangible) that we are given. My interpretation of the evidence in my own life has led me to choose to believe God exists. A rational person could take the exact same evidence and conclude that the spiritual experiences were the result of overwrought emotion, random coincidence, pre-conceived notions, etc.

The evidence for either conclusion is ample. What we actually believe and put faith in is a choice.

I appreciate your honesty and candor!  I can easily agree to disagree with your belief, and no-one is offended.  This is another reason I do not consider myself a hard atheist...I do not claim to be more intelligent than every religious believer on the planet, and accept the possibility, however remote to my thinking, that I may be wrong.  

It would be a fascinating surprise if I was!

[mellestad]

So you have chosen "societal impact" as your test for morality?  (Or am I not being persecuted again?  )

I think that is a place to start...although I will point out that the very concept of morality is very loaded.  Ethics would be a more appropriate term, but I tried to keep terminology similar.

I also understand that the problem with this position is that you can easily use societal impact to rationalize some very selfish behavior.  Since I am not a student of ethics, again, I want to make sure no-one expects too much from me if the discussion follows down that road!  But if you want to, go ahead, I am sure I will learn something interesting!

I am afraid I don't know what you mean about your persecution comment, so I don't know how to respond.

(edit: Bedtime!  I'll check in on this tomorrow and see if I can add anything constructive.)

[LadySmith]

I'm really liking how Mellestad is handling this debate and keeping it extremely civil. 

[Perd Hapley]

Earlier, you assured me I was not being persecuted. 

I also find that "morality" is a loaded term, as is ethics.  I am not convinced of any real distinction between those words.  Both words are loaded with the implication of a transcendent moral code, which implies a moral law-giver.  Many (myself included) have tried to conceive of a morality that doesn't require a divine source.  I don't think any have succeeded. 

(I'm not saying atheists necessarily behave immorally.)

[Perd Hapley]

I'm really liking how Mellestad is handling this debate and keeping it extremely civil. 

He's doing about as well as the rest of us.  I wouldn't say "extremely civil."  Better than a great many other discussions, though, certainly. 

[mellestad]

Earlier, you assured me I was not being persecuted. 

I also find that "morality" is a loaded term, as is ethics.  I am not convinced of any real distinction between those words.  Both words are loaded with the implication of a transcendent moral code, which implies a moral law-giver.  Many (myself included) have tried to conceive of a morality that doesn't require a divine source.  I don't think any have succeeded. 

(I'm not saying atheists necessarily behave immorally.)

I suppose I mean ethics and the philosophical study...it is the least loaded term I can think of, although I agree there is much room for "loading".

Actually, I think you will find there are a great deal of secular ethical systems that attempt to rely purely on philosophical logic.  If you are an interested reader, Wikipedia has a very nice summary on secular ethics, humanism and general free thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Atheism

I don't expect anyone to really jump into those, but if you are interested I think you might find that people have indeed answered many of the questions and concerns you have about secular ethics!  You can generalize my own ethical theory by using the golden rule (which also transcends societies, and seems to be universal).  At the root level, you are simply trying to establish and encourage a society where you are likely to be treated well and fairly in good times and bad.  If you take advantage of your neighbors for short term gain you will probably suffer for it in the long run, sort of a moral prisoners dilemma!  I don't think you need religious assumptions to make that system work.  Since I don't have a secular version of the ten commandments, grey areas are sometimes difficult to decipher, but I think that is what logic is for.

A summary for those not interested in following the link:

    * Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
    * Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
    * This may lead to a behavior morally preferable to that propagated or condoned based on religious texts.

Thank you Ladysmith.  I can get excitable about this debate, and sometimes I do.  But if I slip into dogmatism I can no longer honestly defend my beliefs as being more rational than others.  It is a struggle though, not to be a smart-ass, since I think that is my natural tendency (some may have even slipped into this discussion, haha).

Now bedtime, I really mean it!  My wife is already going to chew me out for waking her up when I crawl into bed!

[De Selby]

Rand's gripe wasn't with altruism, it was with coerced altruism.

That is simply not true - her gripe was with any idea of charity or free giving to others.  It had to be self-centered, in the same way that an economic transaction is self-centered and self-interested.  The entire corpus of her work is devoted to mocking the idea that you would, say, have to sell all that you have and join a wanderer in serving the poor to find heaven, or that you would benefit from washing the feet of your enemies.

Do a consecutive read of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and then any of Rand's famous novels (Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead).  It would be hard to miss the overwhelming influence.

Her work is basically repackaged Nietzsche, except unlike Nietzsche, it is not brilliant.  Rand's heroes are the reader's digest version of the over-man, missing all of the subtlety and detail that marked Nietzsche's work.

[Ron]

A summary for those not interested in following the link:

    * Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
    * Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
    * This may lead to a behavior morally preferable to that propagated or condoned based on religious texts.

It doesn't surprise those who believe in a creator that humans have shown that they shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.

These universal norms seem to contradict the concept of Tabula Rasa.

[seeker_two]

First off, I'd like to echo LS's observation and gratitude for the civility of this debate to all parties. This has been a great discussion.

mellestad: Thank you for the links you provided. I would like to offer a couple of my own to address your views on secularism....

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=1566
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=1567
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=1568
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=1569
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=1570

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1&pid=1517
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1&pid=1523

These gentlemen explain the flaws in secularism in more detail than what I can type here.

In addition, I'd also recommend C.S. Lewis's MERE CHRISTIANITY....it also addresses many of the points you've indicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity

In short, we've all seemed to observe that humans have many unifying moral laws in common...similar to the laws of physics. These laws address things like murder, theft, rape, and other areas. In addition, most here believe in the concept of "inalienable rights" as addressed in the US Declaration of Independence. Where did these things come from? Mere chance...or design?  Many scientists have said that the chances of the proper amino acids forming in the early Earth's atmosphere randomly is the same as throwing a dart from Earth to a 1" target 200 million light-years away and hitting the target every time. Not to mention the chances of those amino acids forming living organisms or one of those living organisms forming universal moral laws randomly.....

....and I know very few gamblers who would bet on those odds....not even bad gamblers like me....

OK...I'm done....pass the popcorn....  

[Racehorse]

Just to make things completely break-down, Racehorse, I accuse thee of a gospel of works.  Faith is a gift of God.  You think you can take credit for "choosing" to believe in God? 

[Note:  I'm actually lampooning our determinist friends, for they so richly deserve it.    ] 

I never could reconcile the notion of a just, merciful God with determinism. But I suppose that's just because I'm not one of the chosen and never will be.

[MechAg94]

I never could reconcile the notion of a just, merciful God with determinism. But I suppose that's just because I'm not one of the chosen and never will be.

Me neither, but sometimes I think I have as many disagreements with other Christians as I do with non-Christians. 

I agree with the notion that debating this can be a pointless enterprise as debates go.  It is interesting to test my own knowledge, but when two sides are pre-disposed to reject any argument posed against them, any potential proof will be rejected anyway.