Simply that there is no external intelligence responsible for our existence, or put the other way around, that we are simply the result of a chance combination of particles and processes.
Again, how is that relevant to anything? It certainly has no relevance related to morality or service or love or deeds or results or responsibility or duty or ...
Re: Answering A Humanist Charge And earning Nothing.
She likely will say that the Fall is true Biblical Christianity.
Because it is biblically based. That much is evident. What I contend with is that she seems to be under the assumption that because of the Fall that mankind is absolutely perverse and literally incapable of doing anything good as a result, or if they do, they have some kind of nefarious or ulterior motive for doing it. Pure fiction and unscriptural.
jar argues that *we* most certainly can and do perform good works based on the charge rather than the impartation by the Holy Spirit. To me, that differs little from altruism and good works in and of themselves and divorced from religion.
The Parable about the Good Samaritan was specifically chosen to prove that non-believers too are capable of doing good and was Jesus' way of saying get off your high horse thinking that because you're the Chosen People that God cannot find favor among Gentiles too. Kindness is kindness wherever it comes from... you don't need to be a devout believer to behave in a respectable manner... or as the bible says, sometimes they can become "a law unto themselves." Remember, Samaritans were pretty roundly despised by the the Israelites.... That Jesus chose those people to illustrate his point also illustrates mine.... and by extension, Jar's.
That sort of "Christianity" doesn't set well with me. It makes Christianity so all-inclusive that it becomes simply a club that anyone can join through answering the charge, which is thus universal.
I don't subscribe to a Universalist style biblical view. For me, I have the ability of knowing what is biblical without having to believe in it. While I've lost some of my chops over the years (these are perishable skills) I still retain a lot of what I learned and I am fairly confident in what I know because of how many years I devoted to avid study.
So I would agree that if we are using the bible as the only metric for knowing God and what He wants then setting the bar so low for entry to believe in this hippy-dippy version of Christianity is often not scripturally supported. But then it begs the question what the purpose of the bible is and that is where Jar massively differs from other Christians. He sees it as a general guide, not an instruction manual that must be followed to the letter. Therein lies the disconnect between you two, seems to me.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Again, how is that relevant to anything? It certainly has no relevance related to morality or service or love or deeds or results or responsibility or duty or ...
I say it does because if we are the result of blind chance then it is my contention that there is no frame of reference for understanding morality.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Re: Answering A Humanist Charge And earning Nothing.
Hyroglyphx writes:
But then it begs the question what the purpose of the bible is and that is where Jar massively differs from other Christians. He sees it as a general guide, not an instruction manual that must be followed to the letter. Therein lies the disconnect between you two, seems to me.
I was reading your post and was thinking that you nailed it, and then I came to this last statement and I don't think that I am understanding it the way you intended it to be understood.
I'm just wondering of you see these two positions as the only options. Isn't there room in between those two positions?
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Re: Answering A Humanist Charge And earning Nothing.
What I contend with is that she seems to be under the assumption that because of the Fall that mankind is absolutely perverse and literally incapable of doing anything good as a result, or if they do, they have some kind of nefarious or ulterior motive for doing it. Pure fiction and unscriptural.
Perhaps the problem is the term "total depravity?" That's a Calvinist term I may wrongly have assumed everyone here understands. It doesn't mean what you are saying above at all, but explaining it would get us deep into Calvinism which wouldn't be the place to go on this thread. I don't know where to go at this point, then.
Once again, if we are only the result of a chance combination of particles and processes then how do we know that there is right and wrong, good an evil, or love and hate. I don't doubt that you know why love matters, but I would contend that you can only know that because there is an intelligence responsible for us being able to love. I have a hunch that you'll disagree.
It may superficially appear as such, and even supposing it is true there's really no way to define what that intelligence is. We say "God" as a kind of catch-all metric the same we speak about "Mother Nature", but its a pretty empty and non-definable term when you really stop to think about it. You might as well say gods in plurality or aliens are responsible. Its just as theoretically plausible and equally unprovable. Whether its evolution or God, you still have a chicken/egg problem.
As to love, I'm sure you are able to see that mammals in general have a much higher capacity to display and demonstrate levels of love or affection than other animals. My dogs and my cats love me. The higher the intelligence of the animal, the more pronounced the level of love is and the more it resembles our human definition of love. Chimpanzees can laugh. They can cry. They can hug. They can bury their dead. They demonstrate traits so close to our own. And isn't interesting that they just so happen to be much more highly intelligent than many other mammals that don't and can't do those things. I can laugh all day with my cat hoping she'll start laughing too, but she never does... because she does not possess the intelligence to even know what humor is.
What you are purporting is a lazy "God did it" answer in the absence of a clearly identifiable answer that, if we're being totally honest, that no one knows or could know. I used to utilize the same argument when I was a believer, that good and evil must be intrinsic otherwise how could you distinguish between them? But the reality is that isn't... When you watch a lion tear apart a baby gazelle and watch the agony of the creature, you see that the lion could care less. There's no moral conflict there. And yet that same female lion that callously and savagely disemboweled a living creature will still lovingly preen her cubs, feed her cubs with the flesh of the gazelle, etc.
Humans have a defined sense of right and wrong the same way a pack of dogs develop social rules learned by observing social cues from one another. Pack animals especially have this. And the proof that it is not necessarily universal even among humans is that still in parts of the world cannibalism is an accepted practice that elicits not a shred of guilt, where as in most parts of the world we call that "homicide" and "abuse of a corpse."
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: Answering A Humanist Charge And earning Nothing.
Perhaps the problem is the term "total depravity?" That's a Calvinist term I may wrongly have assumed everyone here understands. It doesn't mean what you are saying above at all, but explaining it would get us deep into Calvinism which wouldn't be the place to go on this thread. I don't know where to go at this point, then.
You can start by explaining what your personal beliefs are and how you arrived at it.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: Answering A Humanist Charge And earning Nothing.
I'm just wondering of you see these two positions as the only options. Isn't there room in between those two positions?
Well, sure, but it was specific to how Phat and Jar view the bible differently. The point being that two people can read the exact same bible and still arrive at radically different conclusions.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: Answering A Humanist Charge And earning Nothing.
Hyroglyphx writes:
ell, sure, but it was specific to how Phat and Jar view the bible differently. The point being that two people can read the exact same bible and still arrive at radically different conclusions.
Thanks, that explains it.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
It may superficially appear as such, and even supposing it is true there's really no way to define what that intelligence is. We say "God" as a kind of catch-all metric the same we speak about "Mother Nature", but its a pretty empty and non-definable term when you really stop to think about it. You might as well say gods in plurality or aliens are responsible. Its just as theoretically plausible and equally unprovable. Whether its evolution or God, you still have a chicken/egg problem.
I agree with all of that. When I talk about being the result of intelligence I am not doing it in reference to a specific deity. It is just a theistic ,or I suppose even from a deistic POV. BTW I have no problem with evolutionary theory.
Hyroglyphx writes:
As to love, I'm sure you are able to see that mammals in general have a much higher capacity to display and demonstrate levels of love or affection than other animals. My dogs and my cats love me. The higher the intelligence of the animal, the more pronounced the level of love is and the more it resembles our human definition of love. Chimpanzees can laugh. They can cry. They can hug. They can bury their dead. They demonstrate traits so close to our own. And isn't interesting that they just so happen to be much more highly intelligent than many other mammals that don't and can't do those things. I can laugh all day with my cat hoping she'll start laughing too, but she never does... because she does not possess the intelligence to even know what humor is.
I agree
Hyroglyphx writes:
What you are purporting is a lazy "God did it" answer in the absence of a clearly identifiable answer that, if we're being totally honest, that no one knows or could know. I used to utilize the same argument when I was a believer, that good and evil must be intrinsic otherwise how could you distinguish between them? But the reality is that isn't... When you watch a lion tear apart a baby gazelle and watch the agony of the creature, you see that the lion could care less. There's no moral conflict there. And yet that same female lion that callously and savagely disemboweled a living creature will still lovingly preen her cubs, feed her cubs with the flesh of the gazelle, etc.
I am not claiming I know, but from what I have observed over the years I am convinced without knowing it to be true. I think that you would agree that humans have a higher sense of morality that any other animal, and as a result we have a more refined senses of good and evil etc.
I would add however, that when I look at how our society usually treat the creatures that we eat that we aren't any better than your female lion.
Hyrpglyphx writes:
Humans have a defined sense of right and wrong the same way a pack of dogs develop social rules learned by observing social cues from one another. Pack animals especially have this. And the proof that it is not necessarily universal even among humans is that still in parts of the world cannibalism is an accepted practice that elicits not a shred of guilt, where as in most parts of the world we call that "homicide" and "abuse of a corpse."
I get that, but I don't see that it explains sacrificial love for others that we never meet and aren't part of our gene pool or our culture. Why do we as individuals send huge amounts of money voluntarily to the third world. You can accept that it is a cultural thing but I just don't see it.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
I am not claiming I know, but from what I have observed over the years I am convinced without knowing it to be true.
And that's fine, I accept that. I am also in no way stating that what I just said is completely accurate it is just a preview into my rationale at the present time... which is always subject to the potential of change.
I would add however, that when I look at how our society usually treat the creatures that we eat that we aren't any better than your female lion.
True.
I get that, but I don't see that it explains sacrificial love for others that we never meet and aren't part of our gene pool or our culture. Why do we as individuals send huge amounts of money voluntarily to the third world. You can accept that it is a cultural thing but I just don't see it.
Altruism exists in the animal kingdom.... check out this unbelievable display of altruism throughout different species. Fascinating!
Now, how do we explain this? Is there any evidence that God imparts altruism among animals? Is there evidence that animals acknowledge God's existence? I can't answer it. All I can do is be in awe that it exists and marvel at the beauty of nature.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
And that's fine, I accept that. I am also in no way stating that what I just said is completely accurate it is just a preview into my rationale at the present time... which is always subject to the potential of change.
There is always new information to be discovered. I have retained a strong Christian faith over the years but it is been substantially changed or refined over the last couple of decades.
Hyrpglyphx writes:
Altruism exists in the animal kingdom.... check out this unbelievable display of altruism throughout different species. Fascinating!
Watched it all and it is fascinating. After watching our dogs go through life and pass on I hold the opinion that they have a sense or senses that we don't have. They just seem to sometimes perceive things that we don't and I think that they have a different take on death than we do. Don't ask me to explain that but I plan to go to all the classes in the next life.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Now, how do we explain this? Is there any evidence that God imparts altruism among animals? Is there evidence that animals acknowledge God's existence? I can't answer it. All I can do is be in awe that it exists and marvel at the beauty of nature.
There is no evidence, it is a matter of belief. One thought I have is that I metaphorically consider the Holy Spirit to be a God meme that nudges us to do the loving thing. If we as humans can pass that God meme on to others then I don't see why it couldn't be passed on to animal life as well. The wolf is supposed to be laying down with the lamb in the next life.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
All life on earth competes merely to survive. You have a very myopic view of life. The way we are now is a result of billions of organisms and billions of years of competition for life.
Once again, if we are only the result of a chance combination of particles and processes then how do we know that there is right and wrong, good an evil, or love and hate.
Because we have an evolved brain and consciousness! You accept evolution, this is the result. We create the rules we live by and always have. There is no evidence that anything else has made us the way we are.
I don't doubt that you know why love matters, but I would contend that you can only know that because there is an intelligence responsible for us being able to love. I have a hunch that you'll disagree.
You tell us that loving each other is all that is required of us by your reading of your religious work, well I'm happy with that, I just find the need for a god superfluous.
You have yet to explain why anyone should bother with all the rest of the religious paraphernalia and baggage. After all, as a non-believer in an afterlife my instincts to live a decent life and do well by people can't be taken as a purely selfish act designed to book a place in this heaven of yours now can it? That question can only hang over a believer.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
We create the rules we live by and always have. There is no evidence that anything else has made us the way we are.
I would argue that experience has shaped my beliefs and shapes the beliefs of many people. Evidence is lacking. To me, this does not mean that there is no God. For you, the absence of evidence led to your conclusion of absence regarding God. I see that and so does GDR and Faith. I've noticed that Faith has a bit of an evangelistic bent lately as she is only basically saying to you that she knows not the day or the hour *But that God does* so keep an open mind. You, on the other hand, are willing to offer we believers a guarantee that nothing supernatural is ever going to happen and that you have faith in the obvious.
tangle writes:
I just find the need for a god unnecessary, especially through being more than enough.
Hmmm.
Google Dictionary writes:
Superfluous: surplus redundant unneeded not required excess extra spare to spare remaining unused left over useless unproductive undue in excess surplus to requirements expendable disposable dispensable unwanted waste unnecessary needless unneeded inessential pointless redundant uncalled for unwarranted unjustified gratuitous.
More than enough? It seems that God Himself (Herself, Itself) would be a welcome addition and it is just the excess religious baggage connected with Him that you consider excessive. Or am I again wrong about how you think?
For me personally, a disinterested aloof god would be superfluous. An interactive supportive One would not.
The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide
™ Version 4.2
(1)