You'll get the title in a second...
Check out Karen Armstrong's piece in the Guardian, "Bush's fondness for fundamentalism is courting disaster at home and abroad". It may contain a spurious quote.
I also wanted to share a resource that clears up the misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang in layman's terms and with adequate detail, via Angry Astronomer.
Finally, check out these two hilarious Youtube movies to start out your week:
1) Daily Show Report (in the "Constitution Schmonstitution" series): The Faith Based Faith of Stephen With a 'ph'
2) Kids in the Hall present: The Dr. Seuss Bible
________________
Technorati tags: Humor
Monday, July 31
Friday, July 28
Oderint dum Metuant
I don't typically do politics. However, after reading Steve Hays' post expressing his wish that Israel had bombed the UN HQ rather than the outpost, quote,
I think some of the major questions to ask are:
1) Does the UN actually bring about peace, and/or serve any other grand purposes?
2) Does violence beget violence?
Regarding (1), I would point to the futility of the UN troops in Somalia and Kosovo in actually getting some of the things done that needed to be done. However, I would also point out that it is not the sole responsibility of the US (although we provide a hell of a disproportionate amount of UN resources) to maintain global peace and monitor/decide global political issues. And due to this fact, if we (US) can't do it alone, then by default, it will fall to a global coalition to do so. I do not know the statistics on this, but I would be willing to wager that UN troops get attacked much less, on average, than a unilateral military force occupying a foreign country.
Regarding (2), I made a comment about the movie Munich, and how it awakened me to the futility of retribution as a means to peace:
1.We don’t have the luxury of choosing our battles. Our enemies don’t give us a range of preferred options.
While it is certainly true that "enemies" don't give us such a luxury, it is also true that our response to said enemies is certainly a range of options. The problem with responding to suicide bombers and other such terrorists is that they are a relatively small faction, living amongst a civilian population, whose ideology is furthered when we kill them (and produce so-called martyrs).
2.No, we can’t kill every jihadi on the planet. But that’s not the point.
The police can’t apprehend every criminal or preempt every crime. Should we therefore disband the police force?
The huge difference here is that police respond with tactical precision -- they kill the criminals. If there were some way to ensure the same for the jihadis, my point would be rather moot, and we could, theoretically, wipe them out over and over again.
This was never about winning once and for all. It’s about risk management. Cutting your enemies down to size. Keeping the threat-level on a scale that permits some semblance of normality.
But as we occupy foreign lands, and as Israel bombs civilians (Qana), the thread only increases. No risk is being "managed" here, fuel is only being added to the fires.
3.As I said in my piece on just-war criteria, the way to end the cycle of violence is through the application of overwhelming force rather than proportional force.
If we had used proportional force in Japan, Japan would still be a warrior culture.
Japan was a clear enemy, coalesced around a national identity. Terrorists are not, and coalesce around religious ideologies which cannot be altered. So long as the religious message exists, these terrorists will follow it. We simply cannot apply such force to terrorists, because in so doing, we invariably destroy a large number of civilians, and we turn every moderate family member of a "martyr" into willing holy war combatants in so doing. For every one we kill, we make 4 more.
4. Not all Muslims nurse a death-wish. They may support the suicide-bomber, throw him a stag party before he leaves to do his homicidal thing, but they don’t strap themselves into the explosive vest.
I didn't say that. What I said is that this violence is circular and unending, not that the current or present supply of willing participants in said violence is unending.
It’s better to make your enemies love you than fear you—but if you can’t make them love you, then I’ll settle for fear.
And that's the idea here--that if we make them fear, they'll not attack? No. They do not fear DEATH. How can you make someone who does not fear death fear your "overwhelming force"?
Steve then closes out the post with a rejoinder to my mention of Munich, and specifically how it made me seriously consider whether the vicious cycle of violence can ever be ended in itself (via more violence). He mentions this article on Townhall, where our writer remarks:
The reason that Osama is still alive is that our very own CIA taught him survivalist training in Afghanistan, when the occupying force of the time were the Soviets. The reason that we are occupying Iraq is because we were stupid enough to arm Saddam years ago against the Iranians, and provide him with the ways and means to produce chemical and biological weapons. We sow our own harvest, when we leave seeds of violence in foreign fields, and we then reap the whirlwind of our foreign policies.
I support the right to exist of both Israel and Palestine. I also strongly oppose the policies of both. So long as each side undermines the possibility of peace by responding to violence with violence, the cycle of poverty and martyrdom will continue there.
If their hate will not dissipate even when we all sit down to talk about our basic rights to life, and our mutual commitment to ensure basic human rights and needs are protected, then perhaps at least the hate the breeds violence will. One thing is for certain -- tyranny and fear never produced a cowering populace for long: the USA, the French Revolution, and numerous civil wars are historical testimony to that fact. And the fear breeds a certain desperation which naturally dispenses violence out of survival instinct. If fear were just an emotion in a vacuum, then we would prefer it over hate. But when hate and fear combine into desperation, then violence is inevitable, and it will never end until neither side fears for their own life.
Steve's motto appears to be, "oderint dum metuant": let them hate so long as they fear (originally from Caligula). Unfortunately, fear only fuels desperate violence.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
It's a pity that Israel accidentally bombed the UN bunker yesterday...a pity Israel didn't bomb the UN headquarters instead!I had some further thoughts, particularly in light of Steve's response to my comments on the original piece above.
I think some of the major questions to ask are:
1) Does the UN actually bring about peace, and/or serve any other grand purposes?
2) Does violence beget violence?
Regarding (1), I would point to the futility of the UN troops in Somalia and Kosovo in actually getting some of the things done that needed to be done. However, I would also point out that it is not the sole responsibility of the US (although we provide a hell of a disproportionate amount of UN resources) to maintain global peace and monitor/decide global political issues. And due to this fact, if we (US) can't do it alone, then by default, it will fall to a global coalition to do so. I do not know the statistics on this, but I would be willing to wager that UN troops get attacked much less, on average, than a unilateral military force occupying a foreign country.
Regarding (2), I made a comment about the movie Munich, and how it awakened me to the futility of retribution as a means to peace:
I'm not a leftie in the sense that you mean it, but I suppose I see this cycle of violence as cruel in its unending circularity. Watching Munich was a beautiful narrative for convincing me of that.Steve responded with the following points (italicized) and my responses are appended:
How many people think this doesn't just motivate the crazies further, and encourage their efforts to acquire serious weapons, as well as make those with access to such weapons more likely to sympathize with them and give them over?
1.We don’t have the luxury of choosing our battles. Our enemies don’t give us a range of preferred options.
While it is certainly true that "enemies" don't give us such a luxury, it is also true that our response to said enemies is certainly a range of options. The problem with responding to suicide bombers and other such terrorists is that they are a relatively small faction, living amongst a civilian population, whose ideology is furthered when we kill them (and produce so-called martyrs).
2.No, we can’t kill every jihadi on the planet. But that’s not the point.
The police can’t apprehend every criminal or preempt every crime. Should we therefore disband the police force?
The huge difference here is that police respond with tactical precision -- they kill the criminals. If there were some way to ensure the same for the jihadis, my point would be rather moot, and we could, theoretically, wipe them out over and over again.
This was never about winning once and for all. It’s about risk management. Cutting your enemies down to size. Keeping the threat-level on a scale that permits some semblance of normality.
But as we occupy foreign lands, and as Israel bombs civilians (Qana), the thread only increases. No risk is being "managed" here, fuel is only being added to the fires.
3.As I said in my piece on just-war criteria, the way to end the cycle of violence is through the application of overwhelming force rather than proportional force.
If we had used proportional force in Japan, Japan would still be a warrior culture.
Japan was a clear enemy, coalesced around a national identity. Terrorists are not, and coalesce around religious ideologies which cannot be altered. So long as the religious message exists, these terrorists will follow it. We simply cannot apply such force to terrorists, because in so doing, we invariably destroy a large number of civilians, and we turn every moderate family member of a "martyr" into willing holy war combatants in so doing. For every one we kill, we make 4 more.
4. Not all Muslims nurse a death-wish. They may support the suicide-bomber, throw him a stag party before he leaves to do his homicidal thing, but they don’t strap themselves into the explosive vest.
I didn't say that. What I said is that this violence is circular and unending, not that the current or present supply of willing participants in said violence is unending.
It’s better to make your enemies love you than fear you—but if you can’t make them love you, then I’ll settle for fear.
And that's the idea here--that if we make them fear, they'll not attack? No. They do not fear DEATH. How can you make someone who does not fear death fear your "overwhelming force"?
Steve then closes out the post with a rejoinder to my mention of Munich, and specifically how it made me seriously consider whether the vicious cycle of violence can ever be ended in itself (via more violence). He mentions this article on Townhall, where our writer remarks:
Though the film attempts to portray the Israeli response as morally useless -- with "cycle of violence" and "it accomplishes nothing since they just substitute a new terrorist for the one last killed" arguments -- the film is nevertheless a tremendous compliment to the Israelis.The writer here does not address the root argument -- whether or not violence begets violence. He simply justifies Israel's response, and uses the conscience of the Israeli fighters as evidence that they are "better people" than the Muslim terrorists. I would ask Steve how this addresses the real root issue?
The reason that Osama is still alive is that our very own CIA taught him survivalist training in Afghanistan, when the occupying force of the time were the Soviets. The reason that we are occupying Iraq is because we were stupid enough to arm Saddam years ago against the Iranians, and provide him with the ways and means to produce chemical and biological weapons. We sow our own harvest, when we leave seeds of violence in foreign fields, and we then reap the whirlwind of our foreign policies.
I support the right to exist of both Israel and Palestine. I also strongly oppose the policies of both. So long as each side undermines the possibility of peace by responding to violence with violence, the cycle of poverty and martyrdom will continue there.
If their hate will not dissipate even when we all sit down to talk about our basic rights to life, and our mutual commitment to ensure basic human rights and needs are protected, then perhaps at least the hate the breeds violence will. One thing is for certain -- tyranny and fear never produced a cowering populace for long: the USA, the French Revolution, and numerous civil wars are historical testimony to that fact. And the fear breeds a certain desperation which naturally dispenses violence out of survival instinct. If fear were just an emotion in a vacuum, then we would prefer it over hate. But when hate and fear combine into desperation, then violence is inevitable, and it will never end until neither side fears for their own life.
Steve's motto appears to be, "oderint dum metuant": let them hate so long as they fear (originally from Caligula). Unfortunately, fear only fuels desperate violence.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
The Myth of the Hero
In talking about the existential dilemma the other day, I found myself willing to go read The Myth of Sisyphus, by Camus, when it was suggested by a friend that I see what I can take away from it.
The theists have argued with me that a finite purpose, or a temporal life, is the same thing as nothing. But what they do is equivocate something with nothing. They are confused.
If this life is but a mere shadow, and the rest of eternity a bright light, then finding purpose in this present darkness is futile and absurd. Christians (and other theists) admit as much -- they call themselves "pilgrims" and "aliens" in the world in which they live, and call their "home" and their "citizenship" heaven. What they do is ignore the rock at their feet, and the power they have to move it upward, and stare towards the top of the summit. But the summit is obscured with clouds -- the zenith cannot be seen from the foot of the mountain. It is in the struggle that one can see further, though perhaps never to the top, because it is not a given that the mountain upon which we labor has a finite end.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Sisyphus
When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy rises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory, this is the rock itself. The boundless grief is too heavy to bear. These are our nights of Gethsemane. But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged. Thus, Oedipus at the outset obeys fate without knowing it. But from the moment he knows, his tragedy begins.Do we, at the moment of admitting that deterministic physical laws control our universe, willingly embrace tragedy? That is one of the crux issues of the modern existential dilemma.
Yet at the same time, blind and desperate, he realizes that the only bond linking him to the world is the cool hand of a girl. Then a tremendous remark rings out: "Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well." Sophocles' Oedipus, like Dostoevsky's Kirilov, thus gives the recipe for the absurd victory. Ancient wisdom confirms modern heroism.Let us say that our consciousness is but a subjective experience of physical realities over which we have no real control. But let us say that we do have some capacity to turn our conscious minds towards values, purposes, and goals. Can we be virtuous? Is that enough? The nobility of Oedipus' soul was enough for him. And that is my view of the heroic -- one who encumbers the burden of virtue for virtue's sake alone: to say, "this is my life, and I can use it to cultivate goodness or evil in myself and others, and with all the absurdity and futility of life, I will still cultivate goodness." Not just "despite" the absurdity of the world, but because of it.
There is but one world, however. Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd discovery. It happens as well that the feeling of the absurd springs from happiness. "I conclude that all is well," says Oedipus, and that remark is sacred.Some might argue that happiness is a mental state to which some peoples' chemistry will not allow access. I don't deny this possibility. For those of us who can access this state of mind (and being), though, ought we not? Is it not all that we can do? What if the other finds his rock too heavy to roll? What can I do for him? Nothing, save rolling my own.
It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile sufferings. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.And this is what renders the human a potential hero -- in the way that she may settle with her own fate, in how she deals with it.
All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is his thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols.Sisyphus chooses to see the same beauty and scope of being in his newfound purpose -- in rolling the rock for eternity, that he found when he was allowed to return from the underworld and experience life again. I am reminded of how the beauty of the universe I saw as a theist at first was crushed when I no longer believed. Now that beauty is returned to me, because it is contained within me. That beauty is no longer some inaccessible external Entity from which it cannot be extricated or internalized. That beauty is now the self, the human, and the potential hero (and the potential madman).
In the universe suddenly restored to silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. there is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his effort will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable.What I did as a theist was define "the highest destiny" to be that which had been given to me by God. What I did not do is recognize that no gift is greater than something earned and learned. It is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, to say that I can exist happily and freely, and yet have been put inside of an inescapable and unyielding cosmic plan, in which I was yet a cog, and towards which we traversed I knew not. The highest absurdity.
For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that silent pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.I hope I never lose the eagerness to see, and I hope that the night has an end. I hope I have the courage to continue with that eagerness even should daybreak never give me the merest glimpse. Should the universe in which I live be blind and careless until I die, it is still within my power to see, and to live. I do not have to close my eyes and lay down before my rock has been rolled as far as I can take it.
I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again.My own burden at the moment is in maintaining rationalism -- a commitment to reason, and optimism -- a commitment not to only see things as better, but to be better and in so doing, this purpose makes "all well".
But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.The stone is something. It is not nothing. Rolling the stone is doing something. Finding purpose in the struggle. Something that is not only not added to when we add "plus God" to the equation, but is in fact completely negated of all purpose.
The theists have argued with me that a finite purpose, or a temporal life, is the same thing as nothing. But what they do is equivocate something with nothing. They are confused.
If this life is but a mere shadow, and the rest of eternity a bright light, then finding purpose in this present darkness is futile and absurd. Christians (and other theists) admit as much -- they call themselves "pilgrims" and "aliens" in the world in which they live, and call their "home" and their "citizenship" heaven. What they do is ignore the rock at their feet, and the power they have to move it upward, and stare towards the top of the summit. But the summit is obscured with clouds -- the zenith cannot be seen from the foot of the mountain. It is in the struggle that one can see further, though perhaps never to the top, because it is not a given that the mountain upon which we labor has a finite end.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Sisyphus
Thursday, July 27
Robert O'Brien and TMI
Brennin, aka Robert C. O'Brien, has now joined my hit list. As such, I decided to repost a forum topic he started and his hilarious admission:
I feel sorry for the guy, given the obvious fact that he is still smitten with the chick. I suppose I don't quite understand the concept that "she was the one" when she broke up with him shortly thereafter...?
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Discovery Institute, Eby, Nerd
I have been intimate only with my former gf and even though it was a long, sexually frustrating wait (I am well into my twenties) I am glad that my first time was with someone I loved (and still love) because it was incredible and after experiencing that sort of intimacy and bonding I can't imagine settling for someone I did not love just to fulfill a physical urge. I was not her first but I am glad she was experienced because it helped that she knew what she was doing.
When I was younger I planned on waiting until I was married to have sex but I do not regret losing my virginity to my ex-gf because she was the one. And even though she subsequently broke up with me she will always be a part of me and I believe I will always be a part of her.
I feel sorry for the guy, given the obvious fact that he is still smitten with the chick. I suppose I don't quite understand the concept that "she was the one" when she broke up with him shortly thereafter...?
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Discovery Institute, Eby, Nerd
Boils My Blood
If you ever want to see me transform, Bruce-Banner-style, from mild-mannered chemist to raging, boiling-blood, violent animal, this is one way to do it. In Poland, throwing an adult St. Bernard out of your 2nd-story apartment will not only land you in jail for 3 years, but you will also receive a first-class face pounding, courtesy moi, if I happen to be around and witness it (after I catch the furry angel and ensure its safety). Apparently its owners are drunks and worthless, as if you can't tell that just from the story.
Why can't all people treat these animals as they ought to be treated...as spoiled children...or not own them at all?
These f&*kwit meat sacks don't deserve the air that their Saint breathes, or the food it eats. I am sure they've been beating it for a while now, and hopefully it'll land in a good home after this.
________________
Technorati tags: Saint Bernard, Animal Cruelty
Why can't all people treat these animals as they ought to be treated...as spoiled children...or not own them at all?
These f&*kwit meat sacks don't deserve the air that their Saint breathes, or the food it eats. I am sure they've been beating it for a while now, and hopefully it'll land in a good home after this.
________________
Technorati tags: Saint Bernard, Animal Cruelty
R.E.M. Knew It
It's the end of the world as we know it...and R.E.M. knew it long ago.
Lots of bloggers have been commenting on CNN's choice to interview rapture nuts and eschatological enthusiasts in light of the events in Israel as of late. Media Matters and PZ, along with assorted small fish, have lambasted the network for giving airwaves to the whackos.
What I find more telling than the decision of CNN to air these sorts of sensational and infotaining clips is the way that Paula Zahn's coverage was so biased. Note that her interview with the one reasonable Christian (eg the one who isn't kooky and uneducated enough to buy into the Jerry Jenkins BS), the Rev. Kevin Bean, of St. Bartholomew's, was short and sandwiched between multiple interviews with the wingnut "value voters" currently steamrolling reason and science as they ecstatically plunge into (what they believe is) the end of days.
This makes no sense -- Catholics comprise, worldwide, over half of all Christians. They do not buy into the polyester leisure suit-theology of Tim LaHaye, and most of them are intelligent (and honest) enough to know and admit that the Revelation dealt with the events of Rome. Why do they not show the great disparity between this much more reasoned and evidenced view of the Revelation of John against the kooks? It doesn't sell as well, of course. But it also smacks a little of the bias in America towards Protestant (and general "common man") theology.
Rev. Bean's interview begins at around 3:40 in, and he only gets a few sentences in, and then gets sandwiched against some lady and her idea that the signs are all pointing to the end of the world. Now, compare his coverage to the full 5:11, in which 90% is devoted to the Rapture/End of Days ideas.
Rev. Bean:
I couldn't have said it better myself, and I second the feeling of R.E.M.'s last line, in considering this crock of horse manure:
Technorati tags: Eschatology, Rapture
Lots of bloggers have been commenting on CNN's choice to interview rapture nuts and eschatological enthusiasts in light of the events in Israel as of late. Media Matters and PZ, along with assorted small fish, have lambasted the network for giving airwaves to the whackos.
What I find more telling than the decision of CNN to air these sorts of sensational and infotaining clips is the way that Paula Zahn's coverage was so biased. Note that her interview with the one reasonable Christian (eg the one who isn't kooky and uneducated enough to buy into the Jerry Jenkins BS), the Rev. Kevin Bean, of St. Bartholomew's, was short and sandwiched between multiple interviews with the wingnut "value voters" currently steamrolling reason and science as they ecstatically plunge into (what they believe is) the end of days.
This makes no sense -- Catholics comprise, worldwide, over half of all Christians. They do not buy into the polyester leisure suit-theology of Tim LaHaye, and most of them are intelligent (and honest) enough to know and admit that the Revelation dealt with the events of Rome. Why do they not show the great disparity between this much more reasoned and evidenced view of the Revelation of John against the kooks? It doesn't sell as well, of course. But it also smacks a little of the bias in America towards Protestant (and general "common man") theology.
Rev. Bean's interview begins at around 3:40 in, and he only gets a few sentences in, and then gets sandwiched against some lady and her idea that the signs are all pointing to the end of the world. Now, compare his coverage to the full 5:11, in which 90% is devoted to the Rapture/End of Days ideas.
Rev. Bean:
There's a fiction being created here, like a Stephen King horror movie...we don't read it [the Revelation] the way that a lot of people do, which is to make that false correlation with present day events. That is a crock. [emphasis mine]
I couldn't have said it better myself, and I second the feeling of R.E.M.'s last line, in considering this crock of horse manure:
It's the end of the world as we know it.________________
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...fine...
(It's time I had some time alone)
Technorati tags: Eschatology, Rapture
Faking Moral Philosophy
I am grateful to Steve Hays for making me carefully think about my ethical framework. We have had a positive and (at least for me) enlightening discussion about the age-old question, "if not God, why/how be moral?" Not being a moral philosopher (or any sort of one), I have been faking my way through (wink-wink). It has occupied the following threads (newest first):
1) Christian Altruism
2) Who Goes Down with the Ship?
3) Regarding Steve's Post to Danny on the Value of Values
4) The Value of Values
(there are some other threads regarding epistemology, but I'll write on those later)
I have tried to argue along utilitarian lines, specifically survival consequentialism, using as referents both social contracts and egoism, to justify my values and explain how my behavior is not irrational. Steve has referred a lot to "evolutionary ethics", but I fail to see how the method by which human beings are generated immediately necessitates a certain ethos. Read below, or on this thread, for the current discussion.
I have numbered the points to facilitate commentary. Steve's words are italicized.
1) Your argument was predicated on noble values/virtues. What you did was to posit noble values/virtues as second-order values, then argue since these second-order values could not exist absent the first-order value of survival, that the second-order values validated the first-order value.
But one problem with this line of argument is that you failed to validate the operating premise: are there second-order values?
I did misunderstand what you were asking before.
Do we agree that as humans we have many basic needs and desires? This seems self-evident. I would argue that because we cannot fulfill all of our needs and desires simultaneously, or equally, that we must arrange our needs and desires into priorities, or order them, according to our values. It seems an unavoidable part of being human to have "first-order, second-order, etc., etc.," values.
In the same way that the Christian says that her own first-order value is serving God, and then in serving the needs of the state (eg a conscientious objector), I am simply saying that if you want to flip virtue/character/goodness around from being a first principle to being an extension of survival (which seems quite unassailable in its logic, when one lives within a society), thus survival becomes an inextricable part of virtue/character/goodness -- you do what is good in order to survive. You don't rape, pillage, and steal because you recognize that you are less likely to be successful, and to pass on your genes, if you live in such a chaotic society, or if you are ostracized from it, or punished within it.
I'm not very articulate here, but I hope this makes sense of my position.
2) What is your secular argument for the existence of these higher virtues?
Are you asking me how I define them? In the same way Marcus Aurelius did, and many others before and after him.
Are you asking me why they exist? They exist as a part of the spectrum of human behavior. Humans can act in many ways, and acting virtuously is one way humans are capable of acting.
Are you asking me why I should act virtuously?
Because we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation -- we all must work together in a societal structure, or we may as well have a "free-for-all" morally and otherwise. Assuming we will work together (which history has shown works 95% of the time), then exercising virtuous character contributes to the stability of society, and society, just like virtues, becomes a means to an end -- success in health, wealth, and reproduction.
3) SH: Okay, but to play along with your parallel, a Christian apologist would need to establish the value of Sabbath-keeping for the end to justify the means.
If we do not care to survive, then ethics are futile. Why do we care what is "good" for us, if we don't care if we live or die? If we don't use our own life, and if we don't value our own life, and the lives of others, in determining what we ought to do generally, then I would argue that ethics are absurd. We have to start with some primary value around which we frame our ethics. Yours is "what [you think] God said/does/wants".
4) No, the survival of the present generation doesn’t depend on the existence of a future generation. But the survival of the species does depend on reproduction.
Yes, but consider that overpopulation leads to starvation. Consider that there are "premium times" to harvest, and the same applies to having babies -- certain environmental and societal conditions that are more conducive to raising children, and thus we are considering our survival as a species in choosing when and how to have children -- so that they will be most healthy and likely to survive.
5) Yet the force of that argument assumes an obligation to reproduce in order to have agents that exemplify these second-order values.
It is indeed necessary to reproduce, but not necessary to reproduce at all times, since giving birth does not always guarantee the collective survival of the species, and at times may endanger it (overpopulation). Thus, we can choose when and how, in order that the second generation is able to exemplify those values as well (maximally so).
6) But in what sense do we have an obligation to nonentities? Given the existence of moral agents, said moral agents enjoy mutual obligations, including the exemplification of second-order values.
Right.
7) But absent their existence, nonexistent agents have no obligations, and we, as existing agents, have no obligation to nonexistent agents.
One of our obligations is to ensure the survival of our collective species, another to the survival of our society (which is a means to the first), and that the virtues and values we hold dear don't die with us (which we hold, again, virtue to be a means to survival, and survival as our primary value).
8) Your second-order values are not free-floating obligations which compel the existence of property-bearers. Rather, they only kick in given the existence of a suitable property-bearer.
I don't disagree. I am not sure what the real issue here is, to be honest, Steve. Of course it is somewhat tautological, but not all tautologies are invalid. Consider "it is good that humans survive, and ethical behavior is a means to further that survival" and "goodness is itself defined by virtues, when we discover, through learning, what the virtues are, and we extol them, we ought to do what is good; then survival is necessary to extol the virtues and practice them, and pass them on to the next generation".
It is absurd to assume that either survival or virtues or society (the two latter as means to the former) are not already forgone conclusions. We exist. Our species exists. Our species is capable of both virtuous and unvirtuous behavior. We have learned what these mean, within the context of how they promote the welfare of the species, and seen them both played out in history many times over in civilizations.
The question is not whether property-bearers exist, for they already do, but how these property-bearers should act, what they should value. If they do not value their own survival, then ethics is itself undermined -- how can we determine the goodness or rightness of an action if we do not care whether it brings about life or death?
I am not sure what the categorical difference here is, or why you think it invalid to use our survival as a primary value, and ethics as a means to further it. Do we disagree that ethical behavior in society leads to the most healthy and successful society, which in turn gives rise to the most healthy and successful progeny?
9) SH: And what’s your secular justification for social contractualism?
Humans either go it alone or form societies. If they go it alone, they are much less likely to survive, or to live healthy, than if they form societies. Social contracts are one valid way to establish societies in which everyone agrees (a sort of prisoner's dilemma) to hold to ethical precepts to ensure the success of the society, and by proxy, the individual.
10) SM: That doesn’t harmonize self-interest over altruism.
It does. Consider two things:
i) you are more likely to be on the receiving end and receive benefits from living in a society that agrees to put the "many" above the "few" at any given time, by virtue of statistics. Thus, it certainly is in your self-interest to pledge in to such a society, and pledging to it is necessary to maintain its function, that if you should need to sacrifice yourself for the good of the many, you will.
ii) We have to look at self-interest from the perspective of every individual in the society. If you are X, and the question is how many X's must die, then you certainly view as "self-interest" what appears to Y as "altruism". Obviously, we consider it "unselfish" to sacrifice our lives for many other lives, should such a dilemma arise, but from the perspective of the utilitarian, it is acting in the interest of our own society/species/kin, which retains selfish motive -- we want to further their survival because they are us: our children, cousins, whatever. Even other animals show kin altruism (which makes it significantly less altruistic).
What is interesting is how humans show "clan altruism" and, historically, are very selfish when it comes to "non-clan" humans. This is esp true of the Hebraic peoples, but no more so than any other race or tribe.
11) The trolley care [sic] problem doesn’t pose a choice between my survival and the survival of the many.
In the formulations I have seen, it wouldn't alter the problem's significance to put you aboard the trolley, and the switch aboard the trolley as well.
12) The question I’m posing for secular ethics is different. Let’s say I’m an atheist. Let’s say I’m put in a position where I must choose between either saving my own life, or sacrificing my life to spare many others from destruction.
How should a secularist choose?
I just went through that a bit above with kin altruism, but this could also be formulated within the context of viewing your action's morality by its consequences: consider that if you do NOT do X, you are, effectively, killing many people, while if you DO X, you are killing only one. Part of our morality is to minimize the loss of life, so the ethical choice here is clear.
Consider a social contract as well -- that while a priori the society cannot take a life (unnecessarily -- considering the trolley problem and other sorts of dilemmas), an inbuilt clause and understanding is that the success and stability of the survival promotes the greater good -- as it promotes the survival of the many -- and thus if one can choose to take their own life in order to contribute to this society's stability, they ought to do so. Obviously, this ethical onus would be followed only by those persons acting responsibly for the greater good. There is no guarantee that our inbuilt survival instinct could be overcome by all persons at all times, but the ethical choice remains clear.
13) There is only one of me, and while I’m expendable in the great scheme of things, I’m not expendable to myself.
Am I, as an atheist, under some obligation to forfeit my life for the common good?
With arguably more "obligation" than you're under as a Christian -- if I command an ant to obey me and it doesn't, does it render me any harm? In the same way, if your God is not obeyed by humans, is it weakened or lessened by it? No. Conversely, if we do not choose to put the greater good (maximum survival) above our own, when the time calls for it, we are clearly and obviously hurting/harming others. Now, whether or not that matters to you is another question.
As with Christianity, ethics are a choice you make, whether to be selfish and thus cause harm (or death) to many, which is immoral, or to act unselfishly and thus alleviate harm and promote survival to many, which is moral.
14) Why can’t I just be a selfish SOB? It’s not as if a godless universe is going to reward me for my altruism.
You can be selfish. You will get no reward for not being so. However, your fellow kin, society, and the species in general will. That is what makes it an "ought" situation.
Ah, but you see, this is where the atheist's ethics are so much different than the Christian's -- we choose to do the right thing only because it is the right thing, not expecting a cosmic reward or fearing a cosmic punishment. If you choose not to cause the death of many by allowing your own life to be extinguished, and the atheist knows that this is all they have (no afterlife), how much greater a sacrifice is this than dying for only three measly days (and knowing this beforehand), before being raised to life eternal? Who couldn't take that kind of "fall" for others
15) SH: No, you don’t have to reinvent utilitarianism. But your challenge is twofold:
i) How do you derive utilitarian ethics from evolutionary ethics?
This is a point that needs clarification. Why is it that the process by which humans arose determines how they ought to act? Why is it that "evolutionary ethics" even relevant, if someone starts with survival as a primary value, without saying "evolution dictates that we must survive"? Imagine, if you must, that this person is a theist, but not a Christian, and says, "God dictates that we must survive" if you can't get past something undermining the primacy of survival.
16) ii) How do you derive egalitarianism from utilitarianism?
It is not a derived function, it is taken as an a priori commitment -- to the survival of our species, irrespective of race, IQ, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, etc. Since we are using human life as a primary value, there is no way to logically or rationally devalue some lives and add value to others. [and no, embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not elevated in value to the status of human beings -- they are potential human beings, but let's lay aside the issue of abortion as to not chase after red herrings]
17) SH: At this stage of the argument, I don’t see that we need to get specific. Is there any case in which, from a secular standpoint, I should put altruism ahead of self-interest? Collective survival above (my) personal survival?
In the outline above, self-interest demands that you agree to utilitarianism, because more often than not, your own life is furthered by the collective good, and thus statistically speaking, you agree to the potential need for self-sacrifice, as in the trolley car dilemma, ironically out of self-interest. Consider that statistically speaking, it is much more likely for you to be a part of the "many" the the "one/few" when it comes to dilemmas in which there is no way to avoid casualties. You sign in to the agreement/contract out of self-interest, and agree that just as you will more likely receive benefit from it the majority of the time, there is a potentiality for altruism.
18) Is there ever such an obligation in secular ethics? If so, why?
Hopefully I've made it clear by now.
19) On a side note, readers should observe, in the recent exchanges with Danny, that it’s quite possible for a believer and an unbeliever to have a civil exchange of views.
And I hope to see it continue. Both ways.
_**END QUOTE**_
I am certainly (and obviously) no moral philosopher, but I am trying to defend what I see to be a very basic observation: that humans can either choose to behave in such ways as to foster survival and a higher standard/quality of life, or choose to act otherwise. Morality seems to simply be the question of how best to do this former thing. Christians believe it is to follow the commands of God, while as an atheist, I see humans as quite capable of developing secular humanistic ethics that are far superior and more rational (consistent) than the theists' ethical framework.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ethics
1) Christian Altruism
2) Who Goes Down with the Ship?
3) Regarding Steve's Post to Danny on the Value of Values
4) The Value of Values
(there are some other threads regarding epistemology, but I'll write on those later)
I have tried to argue along utilitarian lines, specifically survival consequentialism, using as referents both social contracts and egoism, to justify my values and explain how my behavior is not irrational. Steve has referred a lot to "evolutionary ethics", but I fail to see how the method by which human beings are generated immediately necessitates a certain ethos. Read below, or on this thread, for the current discussion.
I have numbered the points to facilitate commentary. Steve's words are italicized.
1) Your argument was predicated on noble values/virtues. What you did was to posit noble values/virtues as second-order values, then argue since these second-order values could not exist absent the first-order value of survival, that the second-order values validated the first-order value.
But one problem with this line of argument is that you failed to validate the operating premise: are there second-order values?
I did misunderstand what you were asking before.
Do we agree that as humans we have many basic needs and desires? This seems self-evident. I would argue that because we cannot fulfill all of our needs and desires simultaneously, or equally, that we must arrange our needs and desires into priorities, or order them, according to our values. It seems an unavoidable part of being human to have "first-order, second-order, etc., etc.," values.
In the same way that the Christian says that her own first-order value is serving God, and then in serving the needs of the state (eg a conscientious objector), I am simply saying that if you want to flip virtue/character/goodness around from being a first principle to being an extension of survival (which seems quite unassailable in its logic, when one lives within a society), thus survival becomes an inextricable part of virtue/character/goodness -- you do what is good in order to survive. You don't rape, pillage, and steal because you recognize that you are less likely to be successful, and to pass on your genes, if you live in such a chaotic society, or if you are ostracized from it, or punished within it.
I'm not very articulate here, but I hope this makes sense of my position.
2) What is your secular argument for the existence of these higher virtues?
Are you asking me how I define them? In the same way Marcus Aurelius did, and many others before and after him.
Are you asking me why they exist? They exist as a part of the spectrum of human behavior. Humans can act in many ways, and acting virtuously is one way humans are capable of acting.
Are you asking me why I should act virtuously?
Because we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation -- we all must work together in a societal structure, or we may as well have a "free-for-all" morally and otherwise. Assuming we will work together (which history has shown works 95% of the time), then exercising virtuous character contributes to the stability of society, and society, just like virtues, becomes a means to an end -- success in health, wealth, and reproduction.
3) SH: Okay, but to play along with your parallel, a Christian apologist would need to establish the value of Sabbath-keeping for the end to justify the means.
If we do not care to survive, then ethics are futile. Why do we care what is "good" for us, if we don't care if we live or die? If we don't use our own life, and if we don't value our own life, and the lives of others, in determining what we ought to do generally, then I would argue that ethics are absurd. We have to start with some primary value around which we frame our ethics. Yours is "what [you think] God said/does/wants".
4) No, the survival of the present generation doesn’t depend on the existence of a future generation. But the survival of the species does depend on reproduction.
Yes, but consider that overpopulation leads to starvation. Consider that there are "premium times" to harvest, and the same applies to having babies -- certain environmental and societal conditions that are more conducive to raising children, and thus we are considering our survival as a species in choosing when and how to have children -- so that they will be most healthy and likely to survive.
5) Yet the force of that argument assumes an obligation to reproduce in order to have agents that exemplify these second-order values.
It is indeed necessary to reproduce, but not necessary to reproduce at all times, since giving birth does not always guarantee the collective survival of the species, and at times may endanger it (overpopulation). Thus, we can choose when and how, in order that the second generation is able to exemplify those values as well (maximally so).
6) But in what sense do we have an obligation to nonentities? Given the existence of moral agents, said moral agents enjoy mutual obligations, including the exemplification of second-order values.
Right.
7) But absent their existence, nonexistent agents have no obligations, and we, as existing agents, have no obligation to nonexistent agents.
One of our obligations is to ensure the survival of our collective species, another to the survival of our society (which is a means to the first), and that the virtues and values we hold dear don't die with us (which we hold, again, virtue to be a means to survival, and survival as our primary value).
8) Your second-order values are not free-floating obligations which compel the existence of property-bearers. Rather, they only kick in given the existence of a suitable property-bearer.
I don't disagree. I am not sure what the real issue here is, to be honest, Steve. Of course it is somewhat tautological, but not all tautologies are invalid. Consider "it is good that humans survive, and ethical behavior is a means to further that survival" and "goodness is itself defined by virtues, when we discover, through learning, what the virtues are, and we extol them, we ought to do what is good; then survival is necessary to extol the virtues and practice them, and pass them on to the next generation".
It is absurd to assume that either survival or virtues or society (the two latter as means to the former) are not already forgone conclusions. We exist. Our species exists. Our species is capable of both virtuous and unvirtuous behavior. We have learned what these mean, within the context of how they promote the welfare of the species, and seen them both played out in history many times over in civilizations.
The question is not whether property-bearers exist, for they already do, but how these property-bearers should act, what they should value. If they do not value their own survival, then ethics is itself undermined -- how can we determine the goodness or rightness of an action if we do not care whether it brings about life or death?
I am not sure what the categorical difference here is, or why you think it invalid to use our survival as a primary value, and ethics as a means to further it. Do we disagree that ethical behavior in society leads to the most healthy and successful society, which in turn gives rise to the most healthy and successful progeny?
9) SH: And what’s your secular justification for social contractualism?
Humans either go it alone or form societies. If they go it alone, they are much less likely to survive, or to live healthy, than if they form societies. Social contracts are one valid way to establish societies in which everyone agrees (a sort of prisoner's dilemma) to hold to ethical precepts to ensure the success of the society, and by proxy, the individual.
10) SM: That doesn’t harmonize self-interest over altruism.
It does. Consider two things:
i) you are more likely to be on the receiving end and receive benefits from living in a society that agrees to put the "many" above the "few" at any given time, by virtue of statistics. Thus, it certainly is in your self-interest to pledge in to such a society, and pledging to it is necessary to maintain its function, that if you should need to sacrifice yourself for the good of the many, you will.
ii) We have to look at self-interest from the perspective of every individual in the society. If you are X, and the question is how many X's must die, then you certainly view as "self-interest" what appears to Y as "altruism". Obviously, we consider it "unselfish" to sacrifice our lives for many other lives, should such a dilemma arise, but from the perspective of the utilitarian, it is acting in the interest of our own society/species/kin, which retains selfish motive -- we want to further their survival because they are us: our children, cousins, whatever. Even other animals show kin altruism (which makes it significantly less altruistic).
What is interesting is how humans show "clan altruism" and, historically, are very selfish when it comes to "non-clan" humans. This is esp true of the Hebraic peoples, but no more so than any other race or tribe.
11) The trolley care [sic] problem doesn’t pose a choice between my survival and the survival of the many.
In the formulations I have seen, it wouldn't alter the problem's significance to put you aboard the trolley, and the switch aboard the trolley as well.
12) The question I’m posing for secular ethics is different. Let’s say I’m an atheist. Let’s say I’m put in a position where I must choose between either saving my own life, or sacrificing my life to spare many others from destruction.
How should a secularist choose?
I just went through that a bit above with kin altruism, but this could also be formulated within the context of viewing your action's morality by its consequences: consider that if you do NOT do X, you are, effectively, killing many people, while if you DO X, you are killing only one. Part of our morality is to minimize the loss of life, so the ethical choice here is clear.
Consider a social contract as well -- that while a priori the society cannot take a life (unnecessarily -- considering the trolley problem and other sorts of dilemmas), an inbuilt clause and understanding is that the success and stability of the survival promotes the greater good -- as it promotes the survival of the many -- and thus if one can choose to take their own life in order to contribute to this society's stability, they ought to do so. Obviously, this ethical onus would be followed only by those persons acting responsibly for the greater good. There is no guarantee that our inbuilt survival instinct could be overcome by all persons at all times, but the ethical choice remains clear.
13) There is only one of me, and while I’m expendable in the great scheme of things, I’m not expendable to myself.
Am I, as an atheist, under some obligation to forfeit my life for the common good?
With arguably more "obligation" than you're under as a Christian -- if I command an ant to obey me and it doesn't, does it render me any harm? In the same way, if your God is not obeyed by humans, is it weakened or lessened by it? No. Conversely, if we do not choose to put the greater good (maximum survival) above our own, when the time calls for it, we are clearly and obviously hurting/harming others. Now, whether or not that matters to you is another question.
As with Christianity, ethics are a choice you make, whether to be selfish and thus cause harm (or death) to many, which is immoral, or to act unselfishly and thus alleviate harm and promote survival to many, which is moral.
14) Why can’t I just be a selfish SOB? It’s not as if a godless universe is going to reward me for my altruism.
You can be selfish. You will get no reward for not being so. However, your fellow kin, society, and the species in general will. That is what makes it an "ought" situation.
Ah, but you see, this is where the atheist's ethics are so much different than the Christian's -- we choose to do the right thing only because it is the right thing, not expecting a cosmic reward or fearing a cosmic punishment. If you choose not to cause the death of many by allowing your own life to be extinguished, and the atheist knows that this is all they have (no afterlife), how much greater a sacrifice is this than dying for only three measly days (and knowing this beforehand), before being raised to life eternal? Who couldn't take that kind of "fall" for others
15) SH: No, you don’t have to reinvent utilitarianism. But your challenge is twofold:
i) How do you derive utilitarian ethics from evolutionary ethics?
This is a point that needs clarification. Why is it that the process by which humans arose determines how they ought to act? Why is it that "evolutionary ethics" even relevant, if someone starts with survival as a primary value, without saying "evolution dictates that we must survive"? Imagine, if you must, that this person is a theist, but not a Christian, and says, "God dictates that we must survive" if you can't get past something undermining the primacy of survival.
16) ii) How do you derive egalitarianism from utilitarianism?
It is not a derived function, it is taken as an a priori commitment -- to the survival of our species, irrespective of race, IQ, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, etc. Since we are using human life as a primary value, there is no way to logically or rationally devalue some lives and add value to others. [and no, embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not elevated in value to the status of human beings -- they are potential human beings, but let's lay aside the issue of abortion as to not chase after red herrings]
17) SH: At this stage of the argument, I don’t see that we need to get specific. Is there any case in which, from a secular standpoint, I should put altruism ahead of self-interest? Collective survival above (my) personal survival?
In the outline above, self-interest demands that you agree to utilitarianism, because more often than not, your own life is furthered by the collective good, and thus statistically speaking, you agree to the potential need for self-sacrifice, as in the trolley car dilemma, ironically out of self-interest. Consider that statistically speaking, it is much more likely for you to be a part of the "many" the the "one/few" when it comes to dilemmas in which there is no way to avoid casualties. You sign in to the agreement/contract out of self-interest, and agree that just as you will more likely receive benefit from it the majority of the time, there is a potentiality for altruism.
18) Is there ever such an obligation in secular ethics? If so, why?
Hopefully I've made it clear by now.
19) On a side note, readers should observe, in the recent exchanges with Danny, that it’s quite possible for a believer and an unbeliever to have a civil exchange of views.
And I hope to see it continue. Both ways.
_**END QUOTE**_
I am certainly (and obviously) no moral philosopher, but I am trying to defend what I see to be a very basic observation: that humans can either choose to behave in such ways as to foster survival and a higher standard/quality of life, or choose to act otherwise. Morality seems to simply be the question of how best to do this former thing. Christians believe it is to follow the commands of God, while as an atheist, I see humans as quite capable of developing secular humanistic ethics that are far superior and more rational (consistent) than the theists' ethical framework.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ethics
Wednesday, July 26
Medieval Irish Bible Found
(CNN) :
During construction, a very rare medieval Irish edition of the Bible (or part of it) was dug up recently. Interestingly, it was opened to Psalms 83, hardly what I would call a good example of the ethos that modern Christians want to develop, which they borrow from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment. Let's read it:
Psalm 83 (NIV)
________________
Technorati tags: Theology
During construction, a very rare medieval Irish edition of the Bible (or part of it) was dug up recently. Interestingly, it was opened to Psalms 83, hardly what I would call a good example of the ethos that modern Christians want to develop, which they borrow from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment. Let's read it:
Psalm 83 (NIV)
A song. A psalm of Asaph.Now I don't know about you, but that sure makes me feel Jesus. Kill those bastard enemies of mine, O God...screw that turn the cheek BS! ;) (HT: New Humanist)
1 O God, do not keep silent;
be not quiet, O God, be not still.
2 See how your enemies are astir,
how your foes rear their heads.
3 With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.
4 "Come," they say, "let us destroy them as a nation,
that the name of Israel be remembered no more."
5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you-
6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Gebal, [a] Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.
8 Even Assyria has joined them
to lend strength to the descendants of Lot.
Selah
9 Do to them as you did to Midian,
as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon,
10 who perished at Endor
and became like refuse on the ground.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb,
all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
12 who said, "Let us take possession
of the pasturelands of God."
13 Make them like tumbleweed, O my God,
like chaff before the wind.
14 As fire consumes the forest
or a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
15 so pursue them with your tempest
and terrify them with your storm.
16 Cover their faces with shame
so that men will seek your name, O LORD.
17 May they ever be ashamed and dismayed;
may they perish in disgrace.
18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.
Footnotes:
1. Psalm 83:7[a] -- That is, Byblos
________________
Technorati tags: Theology
Tuesday, July 25
Lurching Along
Boy, do I feel Jeebus now. Over at the Christian CADRE site, I got the following godly love from Lurchling:
Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, so why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.
________________
Technorati tags: Apologetics, Christianity
There is a difference between being critical with Christianity, which I support, and being hatefully paranoid about it (cough cough).As a former youth pastor at two churches, who once faithfully followed after [what he thought as] Jesus, I am hardly hateful or paranoid about Christianity. If I were so, I would hardly be spending so much time conversing with theists as I do.
Either way, I've read it seems like too much on the cultural milieu of the NT, textual criticism, source-crit, alternative theories, authorship, etc. etc. etc.Good for you. Um, so, why do you stand by what modern scholars reject concerning the authorship of many of the epistles?
Soooo, that is how I know when you deny everything in the NT when it comes to authorship besides I'm guessing 7 of Paul's epistles, ignorantly stand by that Paul knew almost nothing about Jesus, and that these Jews believed in a spiritual resurrection (oxymoron), you are driven by something more than a sincere search for the truth. And you, Danny boy, should watch the insults and tone.Insults and tone are being watched, scrutinized, even. I'm also glad that you maintain your lovely tone in the midst of your psychic powers. I would probably get cocky if I could read minds.
By the way, I'm responding to you out of tact, but I know pseudo-sceptics who are willing to take any issue overboard like yourself won't listen for anything I have to say, just try to find something wrong with it.You are indeed quite so tactful. I'm just a lowly "pseudo-sceptic" trying to get by. I'm so glad that you really listened to what I had to say.
If there was no suffering, no hardship, then what the hell is the purpose of Christianity's heavenly afterlife?This is like watching a poor trapped animal struggle in a clamp. You are presupposing that there is a heavenly afterlife in order to explain the hardships of this life (and deal with them).
Why must he do this? And all-good does not equal cuddly cushy creator of some candy land where everything is always sunny. Like I said, we could never know, but evil and suffering could have it's purpose, and that purpose in itself could be for the better.Um, if God exists, and is all-good, then God makes the best of all possible worlds. It's called a logical necessity, by definition of "all-good".
Once again, we all gotta die sometime, why is it evil how each of us goes?So your God is not omnipotent, then? We "gotta" die? So you don't think it's evil to be raped and buried alive (as Jessica Lunsford was), compared to dying in your sleep next to your wife at 100 years old? So God is "off the hook" for sitting on Its heavenly thumb while she screamed in pain and tried to crawl out of the grave, slowly suffocating?
I know this will be hard for you, but read carefully through my examples.Hooked on phonics worked for me!
Just to let you know, you are so arrogant and mocking that people might not notice your questionable claims of Jesus. They will hopefully be turned off by your ignorant mentality.I bet you would hate that, wouldn't you? I'm sure they wouldn't notice if you were arrogant and mocking, or disregard your writing because of it, now would they?
I don't need lessons from someone subpar like you on textual criticism and manuscript evidence.Um, well you did ask me to substantiate the claim that it is reasonable to argue that early Christians didn't accept a bodily resurrection. You asked, and received. ;) Sorry it was "subpar".
Your rude comments about the Christian worldview and its perspective are proving nothing. All they prove is that you are an arrogant ignorant pompous atheist claiming to have all the answers but really just being clueless. I am allowed to make that sweeping statement about you because of your sweeping view on the claims of the Bible and we Christian and Jews cartoonish existence.Ah, so "tit for tat"? I thought it was "turn the other cheek"? Maybe you aren't as familiar with your great Jesus as I am. Besides, I'm sure the readers of the thread would find my "insults and tone" a bit different in quality and character than yours.
I stand by my opinion that you are intellectually dishonest and you have a hateful attitude.Well, they do say that opinions are like assholes. You happen to possess one of each, it appears, but only be one of the two.
You will respond to this I'm sure. I am going to try very hard to let you make all the claims you want, but I do not want to debate with someone who is so unyielding from questionable positions. I will try very hard not to waste any more of my life on this.Well, keep fighting the good fight. Try very hard. Pray.
Harmonization is a common historical tool, use it for the resurrection accounts you biggot.First, it's "bigot" you silly moron. Second, be careful what you wish for, silly wabbit...
Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, so why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.
What time did the women visit the tomb?Tag, you're it, Lurchling.
* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
* Mark: No (16:13[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
* Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
________________
Technorati tags: Apologetics, Christianity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)