Is belief in God madness in a modern world?

In the much heated thread Is morality decreasing with Time, Anglagard partially sums up his position on the issues with the following statement and message: http://EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time? -->EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time?He says:I will show that his is a logically incoherent statement. I do not want to impune Anglagard. We all make unthoughtful comments from time to time. It's more than forgivable, but the implications are invaluable.Anglagards comment, when taken into context with all of his comments in the thread, reveal that he is invoking 'reality' (which is absolute by definition) to give solid ground to the accusation that some of us are 'mad' in relation to that ground. But he does so all the while in defense of the position that 'reality' is not absolute, but relative.I believe that is the equivalent of him saying: It's also like the Agnostic professor who told a Christian professor, 'You are an anachronism. You believe in the concept of truth. You cannot arrive at the truth!' To which the Christian professor said, 'Then how did you arrive at that?'All of this finds it's context in the 'moral realm' (an integral part of reality whatever may be), wherein we find the only legitimate inference to confirming the existence of a transcendant reality within a philosophical dialog. So it is not just a blind appeal to conscious I offer you in my defense, but also one measured carefully by intellectual objectivity and consistency.Edited by scottness, : minor semantic adjustment... (transcendant)Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

Very good! I agree with you wholeheartedly.And I don't recall any of the theists arguing that those who are naturalists cannot be good. But I'm sure we have at some point in this treacherous terrain. It's just that under the assumptions implicit in materialist philosophies, there is no compelling reason to be good.Many a naturalist has realized this contradiction (eg. Anthony flew).As such, the goodness of unknowing naturalists finds it's source purely in the cultural programming they received from a theistic source since past.And by continuing to be good in light of no philosophical motivation for it, they then conclude that they have choosen to do so, which confirms to them their own autonomous goodness.So ultimately they claim the work of others as their own, whereas you and I may remember to give credit to the original source and passed on to us as a gift. At the very least we should.No to do so is immoral at another level of morality (reasoned honesty). And since naturalism is gaining ground in our time, and along with it the claim to ownership of goodness, then conversely, this other level of morality is on the decline.

First I was going to agree, and then I wasn't... It's not that simple. An absolute has interesting qualities.Technically, you are correct. A subjective opinion, can also be absolute (I will explain). However, an absolute is always objective.It is a fact, that someone can hold a subjective opinion, that is also absolute.
For example, 'in my opinion, reality exists!'But we may also hold an absolute as an objective fact.
For example, 'reality exists!'An absolute is always objective by definition. Objectivity is how you arrive at absolute truth, but once found, it does not then become subjective.The existence of reality is both objective and absolute. Subjectivity really has no bearing on it's absolute nature. An absolute cannot be subjective, but some things subjective can be absolute. The difference is, an observer cannot change an absolute, but he can believe it.Perhaps I'll have to edit the original post for clarity. I'll consider it.Good point/question Catholic scientist! You have aided the discussion emensely. So your saying it is possible that there are absolutely no absolutes?That is incorrect. Reality exists! It cannot be absolutely:relative!That is antonymous for sure!Illogical (contradictory) assertions are always false unless they are qualified in some way.These things can be very difficult to see, so I am not berating anyone (maybe jar ). Just like one of those pieces of artwork that is computer generated (I forget what they're called), if you look long enough, and try to understand, it will appear. Just when you thought it was a joke, and everyone is pretending to see it... presto!Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : perceived arrogance avoidance edit...

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

It would be helpful!Websters: Objective1: of, or relating to an object or end (my favorite)2: existing outside and independant of the mind (my other favorite)3: of, relating to or constituting a grammatical case marking typically the object of a verb or preposition. (irrelevant) 4: treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices (my other favorite)

That's because Phat would not allow the entire length of the original post to be promoted, but you can find it in it's entire context. Seek and you will find. Well you and Anglagard would not allow moral absolutes to be affirmed in anything but material terms, so that is not possible. But since you brought up absolute truth in general, I will give you two of them in material terms...1. Reality exists!2. We will die physically at least once!
Perhaps you can use a metaphysical opinion to refute those!But all of this aside, I still think the title will do if things continue to progress so well.As for the rest of your post... kinda calling the kettle black aren't we jar?The reason you think everyone is misrepresenting you and your friends, is because you do not even understand the things you say. And you still don't, even when we patiently explain the logical outworkings for you.yawnEdited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

No really, I'm sorry. I know it is hard to see these thngs. Keep trying. It took me a long time to understand this. Be patient.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

Don't reach too far my friend, they bite!

You're doing fine Anastasia. You're very thoughtful. But morality is already objective. I think you mean to say you are trying to objectively undertand the opposition point of view, and that's a different thing. You're giving them the benefit of the doubt and that's fine. This is difficult for everyone, even though it is so simple.Keep in mind this thread is not about morality; not directly!There's an old indian proverb that says, "you can touch your nose like this, or like this.' (use your imagination)What we're addressing here is logic (the law of non-contradiction), and particularly unaffirmability, and undeniabilty as a means of illustrating the saneness of a belief in the Biblical God.Natan Sharansky the former Israeli defense minister, said of Andrei Sakharov (a physicist who helped give the nuclear bomb to the USSR) while visiting his grave, that shortly before Sakharov died, he said, "I always thought that the most powerful weapon in the world was the bomb. I've changed my mind and now believe the most powerful weapon in the world is the truth!" (source- Ravi Zacharius, in an CD lecture 'The loss of Truth and a proposal for it's recovery')Anastasia, show mercy and love, by speaking boldy. Your adversary has no intention of coddling you.C.S. Lewis said, "To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether." (Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)

​

Part of the original thread post too long for promoting http://EvC Forum: Is belief in God madness in a modern world? -->EvC Forum: Is belief in God madness in a modern world?

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

It's hard to do this nicely... I am trying. I went back and made some editing to my replies. God help me!

Archer, I want to share a few things... You make up your own mind. I only ask that you try to see my point. And none of what I offer below is preaching. It is simply the defense of the sanity of belief in Christ as per the Biblical cannon.Archer writes: Are you sure? Or is that a conclusion?
Perhaps you've overlooked something... keep looking. What about God? He can see the whole picture. What if He came and told us these things? Is it then possible? Who is in a position to say? Jesus had the audacity to claim He was that which none of us can be. So we should be seeking with all of our heart, all our mind, and all our strength the omniscient reality expressed Biblically as God?Under what conditions would He give us these answers?On our knees in humility and realizing the utter failure of ourselves to handle what little power we have?I think that would be a reasonable offer so as to begin learning from Him, how to use our power morrally.Here below lies a sewer of madness if what you say is true Archer (that we cannot know). But what you say cannot be true because it is illogical (contradictory). Luke 9:27 below, says that you will know. Open eyes can see reality! It's just that we cannot open our own eyes. So if our eyes are open, it is not because we are special. We must ask for help. So the seeing got there by admiting their blindness. You've already admited that in a sense, but claim to see still. That's the contradiction. Contradictions are motivated by subjectivity.consider:John 9:39-41
39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" 41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.Luke 9:18-27
18 Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say I am?" 19 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life." 20 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "The Christ of God." 21 Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22 And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." 23 Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. 25 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? 26 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

Yes, I have edited the original from: To: A slip there on my part, but one that made for an interesting exchange.I think everyone got the point in spite of my carelessness, but maybe not. I confess it is difficult, and at this moment in time, my brain cannot go there. A break is mandatory from such thoughts. It requires the right frame of mind. At least for me.So if anyone is not following today, come back when you're sharp. I think few of us are 'that' sharp all the time.I bend my knee to the Catholic Scientist!Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

No jar, they should try to get it right. And if it's not then they need to concede the point. That's how dialog works in the framework of objectivity.If someone is wrong in their assertion, it is not my job to promote what it is they said. It is my job to point out what it is they are actually saying.Correction is not misrepresentation.For example, if I ask a person what the solution to the equation 1+1 is, and they say 4, then I must correct them. Obviously, they did not mean to be incorrect, but that does not mean that they meant to say 1.I simply must, in the interest of truth, point out to others that 1+1 does not equal 4 but 1. Well think whatever you want. You said that no-one can or has ever given an example of absolute truth. And I gave you two. I don't think that moves the momentum in your favor. You're the stubborn one who has forced this to be done the hard way. We'll start very simple where you cannot escape, and then we will move forward into more astonishing ground. Do you get suprised often? I do, and it's ok... Oh no.... no no no no no.... There's no stopping!Reality is eternal and will keep calling our bluff until we fall upon it in brokeness, or it falls upon us and crushes us!But I'm glad we agree on something.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

Will you please......keep doing what you're doing. I'll shut up and let you work. Go get'em! I don't mean to be an ass, it is just what I am.

Phat, you dog... That question is far more difficult to answer than at first glance. We all have to put on our thinking caps. I thought to make a simple yes or no, but that is not satisfactory.I had to divide it in two. I wish I could say more with less words, but this does not lend itself to wit, but demands patient pursuit of sound and logical theology. I hope I did not make any significant mistakes.Bear with me... Yes. It cannot be otherwise. Without God (reality), there is no difference between a good deed and a bad one. The only reason we think a deed good, is because we believe that it reflects what should actually be. Or to put it another way, we believe it conforms to reality, and we must assume that reality is good.So we assume in our minds by necessity that good is a 'real' thing. And 'real' is notably the root word of 'reality'. So 'good' is implicitly 'real'. And reality is inalteralbly ansolute! So reality is real, and it is good, then it must be perfect. Irrespective of our opinions of what perfection (reality) is... it is what it is. And since reality is not a lifeless concept but is alive unto itself, then 'I am what I am'.That's why Jesus said, ...'No one is good but God'. We don't create goodness (energy can niether be created or destroyed), we can only reflect it. Not at all in my mind. The one does not necessitate the other. A person may choose to do good for a number of reasons, apart from God. But it is still God's will being implimented, because if it really is good, then it works for good.But that does not make the person good. If I do good because it will benefit my career, then I do it, not for Goodness sake, but for my own. If I was God, that would suffice, but I am not.Reality exists for reality's sake. So if good is real, then to be good, I must do it for God. And this is what none of us do in terms of the implication of perfection that appears.If anyone claims their deeds do make them good, then they do not understand goodness (the inevitable conclusions of reality, reached within the boundaries of logic).We may be good relative to evil and total hell (which earth has never experienced btw). But relative to God and His reality (heaven) we are wretched.That is why the doctrine of the fall is so critical. It places our bar above, rather than below. And that is the only doctrine that is logical if God is assumed to be good.The reality in my mind, is that we were created to be good (perfect), and that is why we are not satisfied with ourselves (particularly others).If there was no fall, then what do we need to climb from... Reality? No! We are trying to get up (in that sense) not down.The true measure of what is good, must, by logical necessity, be God (above). Anything less is not good.And although we may display some measure of goodness, we are not good because good is perfect, perfect is reality , and reality is not relative but absolute!My brain hurts... Must have wine...

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

I'm so glad you agree that reality is obviously absolute. It cannot be otherwise.But the physical world is relative. So the absolute part is found elsewhere.Ok? Can we be friends now?

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)