I think you miss the point. LC believes that Christianity is objectively true; she did not say she can provide objective evidence to support that belief.
It's a little difficult to see why that crosses a line in a free country.
@SusanDoris the fact that one cannot provide objective evidence to prove something is objectively true doesn’t mean it isn’t.
There may be some objective evidence to suggest that it could be true, and multiple attestation of witnesses to suggest that it is true.
If someone thinks it’s important enough, they may quite reasonably make a decision ahead of having full objective proof. If they think it’s important enough they may also seek to enable and encourage others to make the same decision themselves.
How can something supernatural be objectively true? It doesn't make sense to me. "Objectively" strikes me as a naturalistic attribute.
If God exists whether people believe in him or not, he's objectively real.
Tbh I'm not really interested in God if he's only subjectively real.
But what does "exist" mean about the supernatural? It can't mean to exist in space and time, so there is some special type of existence which is about spirits?
How can something supernatural be objectively true? It doesn't make sense to me. "Objectively" strikes me as a naturalistic attribute.
If God exists whether people believe in him or not, he's objectively real.
Tbh I'm not really interested in God if he's only subjectively real.
But what does "exist" mean about the supernatural? It can't mean to exist in space and time, so there is some special type of existence which is about spirits?
I'm actually struggling to see what the problem is here. Why restrict the definition of "exist" to time and space?
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
How can something supernatural be objectively true? It doesn't make sense to me. "Objectively" strikes me as a naturalistic attribute.
If God exists whether people believe in him or not, he's objectively real.
Tbh I'm not really interested in God if he's only subjectively real.
But what does "exist" mean about the supernatural? It can't mean to exist in space and time, so there is some special type of existence which is about spirits?
I'm actually struggling to see what the problem is here. Why restrict the definition of "exist" to time and space?
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
I thought that's what exist means. Granted, I can invent all kinds of things that exist in a different way, e.g., supernatural mermaids on Venus, but the usual term for that is special pleading. Then any thing can exist, and anything can exist objectively. But there are no constraints here, and there is a collapse into a sort of amorphous everything.
What I'm getting at here is whether God is, as Christianity has traditionally held, an entity whose reality is entirely independent of our perception of him - ie he would still be, even if everyone was an atheist.
What I'm getting at here is whether God is, as Christianity has traditionally held, an entity whose reality is entirely independent of our perception of him - ie he would still be, even if everyone was an atheist.
OK, it just doesn't work for me. "Entity" again for me is meaningless, ditto reality, since anything can be an entity, and a reality, e.g., the dragon in my garage, as somebody said. The words are losing their boundaries, but I don't mind if others find it useful. Or, I don't care, why would I?
What I'm getting at here is whether God is, as Christianity has traditionally held, an entity whose reality is entirely independent of our perception of him - ie he would still be, even if everyone was an atheist.
OK, it just doesn't work for me. "Entity" again for me is meaningless, ditto reality, since anything can be an entity, and a reality, e.g., the dragon in my garage, as somebody said. The words are losing their boundaries, but I don't mind if others find it useful. Or, I don't care, why would I?
Yeah, but there isn't a dragon in your garage. Fortunately no-one's asking me to put my trust in one. Is there a God who is independent of my or anyone else's imagination of him? Surely that's a question with meaning?
If we believe that the Gospel is a wonderful gift then love compels us to pass it on. If we're wrong, we're wrong, but the logic seems simple to me.
Not that we're all much good at it. @Lamb Chopped, your post inspired, challenged and put me to shame.
It's that word compel, that makes me nervous. I think lots of things are wonderful gifts, and I might talk about them to friends, but I don't think they should be like me. I did Zen training for 30 years, so what.
Why restrict the definition of "exist" to time and space
I thought that's what exist means. Granted, I can invent all kinds of things that exist in a different way, e.g., supernatural mermaids on Venus, but the usual term for that is special pleading.
No, that is not what exist means. It may be that only things that exist in space and time exist. But that's not true by virtue of the meaning of the word 'exist'. There are plausible candidates outside religion: for example, the set of all natural numbers. If Platonic forms exist then they are outside space and time. Scientific laws if they have independent existence (and it seems implausible that they don't) exist outside space and time.
A computer simulation can contain objects or people who exist in that they have defined properties and histories, but which do not currently occupy spatial locations within the simulation.
(For that matter, nothing in the definition of supernatural such as it is excludes existing in space and time. Ghosts and fairies and Greek gods are imagined to have spatial locations.)
And that's not what special pleading means. Special pleading means treating two similar cases differently: for example, if A thinks all ethical and religious beliefs are subjective and thinks that therefore it's wrong for B to spread their religious or ethical beliefs to C, but it's ok for A to spread their ethical belief that it's wrong to B, then A is special pleading.
LC – Many thanks. I am now more clear about your understanding and interpretation of the words ‘mission’ and ‘missionaries’.
I maintain that no-one should try to change another’s faith belief for their own and that those without a faith belief should not be encouraged to, or inculcated into, a faith belief. Even though the faith believer has the right to say s/he believes such-and-such to be so and something true for all, s/he cannot demonstrate that in the same way that simple science information can be demonstrated. It is definitely not necessary to explain the whole edifice of science in order to demonstrate that it works. Today’s people have enough evidence of that all around them.
You talk of faith in science – well, I have faith that things work because that faith is backed up by ample observable evidence but I know, again from the observable evidence, that sometimes things go wrong (often discovered eventually to be from human error) so that faith of mine is always qualified with the proviso that it is not 100% guaranteed. .
I am sad that people feel they need to take their faith religious mission from anywhere to anywhere.
You talk of the gospel of Jesus Christ as being a best gift. I would respond by saying the messages , more or less summed up in the Golden Rule, are all human messages. Very good ones, yes, but JC was not the first to think of them – they were based on teachings, knowledge and understanding he had gained until the time when, I accept, he verbalised them.
I agree that you should not be stopped from expressing your belief in the value of the reported words of JC, but if at any time you state or claim that it is actually true that he was the Son of God etc, then I do not so agree.
The selfless work you do to help those in need deserves unstinting admiration and respect, but you do it because you are caring human beings whether you include your faith belief in that or not. Those you have helped are very lucky to have met you.
@Colin Smith is happy to share his belief with us, while denying us the moral right to share our beliefs with others. I wish he would explain that to us.
Because I don't assume my belief is better or more true than anyone else's.
To put it another way: I don't think my atheism is in any way superior to your beliefs; it just happens to be that atheism suits me. But you make it clear as a bell that you believe your beliefs are superior to atheism and superior to every other belief on this planet. Can you not see why that would (expletive deleted) people off?
Yes, of course. What you fail to realize is that your belief that all truth is relative, and your insistence on enforcing that belief on every single one of us out here, puts you in exactly the same boat.
Frankly, I don't understand why you fail to see this. You are perfectly willing to let us keep our Christian delusion, or Muslim delusion, or what have you, as long as we admit that your belief (everything is relative) is superior. In fact, you have the truth about truth, and we have delusion.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to tolerate this belief of yours, and feel no need at all to force you to admit the superiority of Christianity. Continue as you are, by all means. Preach, if you want (and you do.)
But you are not willing to allow me to continue in the belief that Christianity is in fact objectively true. You would in fact prevent me from speaking of it to others (who are rational human beings, and have minds capable of saying yes or no, just as you do).
Where's the equality here? (And frankly, why do you care so much? You have only to ignore me.)
We are all of us restricted by our subjective viewpoint. To step beyond that and believe that our subjective reality is also an objectively reality is arrogance. I am accusing you of arrogance.
I think you miss the point. LC believes that Christianity is objectively true; she did not say she can provide objective evidence to support that belief.
It's a little difficult to see why that crosses a line in a free country.
One should not make claims for which one does not have objective evidence.
I think you miss the point. LC believes that Christianity is objectively true; she did not say she can provide objective evidence to support that belief.
It's a little difficult to see why that crosses a line in a free country.
One should not make claims for which one does not have objective evidence.
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
One should not make claims for which one does not have objective evidence.
Why?
I claim that the Coronavirus is the first wave in an alien invasion; a Chinese bio-weapon; a hoax; a sign that Gaia is angry with us; caused by the microwave energy in mobile phones....
Now, you could accept any of those claims at face value and allow me to promulgate those claims, or you could insist on some evidence. Which is the better option?
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
Not exactly the point. If God isn't external to me then he isn't God. Not a God I'm interested in anyway.
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
Not exactly the point. If God isn't external to me then he isn't God. Not a God I'm interested in anyway.
To me, an internal God is the only possible God.
The notion that there is one God, let's call it God A, which happens to be the God person or group A believes in, and that any person or group claiming to believe in Gods B to Z has got it wrong and needs to be shown that only God A is the true God, is completely insane.
From above, thinking about Godwin's Law, which states that if a discussion goes on long enough, the probability of discussing or comparing to Hitler or the Nazis is 100%.
Is there a similar law for Harry Potter? That eventually in all discussions Harry Potter will come up.
The additional aspect of Godwin's Law is that further discussion establishes little following according to it.
From above, thinking about Godwin's Law, which states that if a discussion goes on long enough, the probability of discussing or comparing to Hitler or the Nazis is 100%.
Is there a similar law for Harry Potter? That eventually in all discussions Harry Potter will come up.
The additional aspect of Godwin's Law is that further discussion establishes little following according to it.
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
Not exactly the point. If God isn't external to me then he isn't God. Not a God I'm interested in anyway.
Some of the Asian religions collapse notions of self and other, so that gods themselves are conflated with everything. This is something that makes sense to me, but I shall not proselytize, too tired.
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
Not exactly the point. If God isn't external to me then he isn't God. Not a God I'm interested in anyway.
Some of the Asian religions collapse notions of self and other, so that gods themselves are conflated with everything. This is something that makes sense to me, but I shall not proselytize, too tired.
It makes absolutely no sense at all to me.
If God is the ultimate creator and source of everything, then he has to have an existence independent of it. Such a God may or may not exist but is the one I'm interested in. I'm not interested in an internal God; such a God only started to exist when I started believing in him and dies with me. Worthless to me.
From above, thinking about Godwin's Law, which states that if a discussion goes on long enough, the probability of discussing or comparing to Hitler or the Nazis is 100%.
Is there a similar law for Harry Potter? That eventually in all discussions Harry Potter will come up.
The additional aspect of Godwin's Law is that further discussion establishes little following according to it.
I think we passed that point on page 2.
Probably but my real point is whether there's a Potter Law. Or a Dumbledore Law etc.
Objective is the wrong word to use for deities. Whilst objective existence doesn't require belief, deities cannot be objectively proven to exist. Believing God is objectively real is a subjective thing.
How can something supernatural be objectively true? It doesn't make sense to me. "Objectively" strikes me as a naturalistic attribute.
If God exists whether people believe in him or not, he's objectively real.
Tbh I'm not really interested in God if he's only subjectively real.
Preach it, Karl
That's the prize which lies somewhere in the middle of the agony of the suspension of disbelief.
(I find it helpful to remember that if I am wrong, who gives a shit - nothing is then True, so nothing is then Ridiculous, False or Pointless. My eldest (home from school) points out over my shoulder that I say this a lot, which is just a metric of how heavily I depend on it.)
I'm not all that interested in any god, except maybe anthropologically, and I was a Christian for 30 years. It just doesn't figure in my life, I don't know why. I remember my dad with affection, who thought it was nonsense. So it goes.
If we believe that the Gospel is a wonderful gift then love compels us to pass it on. If we're wrong, we're wrong, but the logic seems simple to me.
Not that we're all much good at it. @Lamb Chopped, your post inspired, challenged and put me to shame.
It's that word compel, that makes me nervous. I think lots of things are wonderful gifts, and I might talk about them to friends, but I don't think they should be like me. I did Zen training for 30 years, so what.
Self-compulsion seems fine to me - what I'd abject to is when it results in the attempt to compel others as well. If missionaries offer ideas to be freely accepted or discarded, what's the problem? We do that with each other on the ship all the time.
One should not make claims for which one does not have objective evidence.
Why?
I claim that the Coronavirus is the first wave in an alien invasion; a Chinese bio-weapon; a hoax; a sign that Gaia is angry with us; caused by the microwave energy in mobile phones....
Now, you could accept any of those claims at face value and allow me to promulgate those claims, or you could insist on some evidence. Which is the better option?
That is not an argument against making some claims without objective evidence. Instead, that is an argument against accepting some claims without challenging them. Quite different.
One may make any claim one wishes, but expect to be engaged with critically if seeking to influence others. That seems to be the purpose of this discussion board.
I find it helpful to remember that if I am wrong, who gives a shit - nothing is then True
Rubbish. If you're wrong then it just means something else is True. Your Truth is not the only possible Truth to the extent that if it's false then the very concept of Truth ceases to exist.
There is a Truth of existence. Whether that's God, Allah, Zeus, Kah'less or just the empty, uncaring void I don't know.
Maybe someone posted this. If they have, my apologies. I just saw the article today. Time Magazine released an opinion by N.T. Wright entitled "Christianity Offers No Answers About the Coronavirus. It's Not Supposed To."
If we believe that the Gospel is a wonderful gift then love compels us to pass it on. If we're wrong, we're wrong, but the logic seems simple to me.
Not that we're all much good at it. @Lamb Chopped, your post inspired, challenged and put me to shame.
It's that word compel, that makes me nervous. I think lots of things are wonderful gifts, and I might talk about them to friends, but I don't think they should be like me. I did Zen training for 30 years, so what.
Self-compulsion seems fine to me - what I'd abject to is when it results in the attempt to compel others as well. If missionaries offer ideas to be freely accepted or discarded, what's the problem? We do that with each other on the ship all the time.
Well, mention of compulsion makes me think you're dealing with your need, not mine. OK, I'm a big boy, and I can say naff off. Can everyone?
If we believe that the Gospel is a wonderful gift then love compels us to pass it on. If we're wrong, we're wrong, but the logic seems simple to me.
Not that we're all much good at it. @Lamb Chopped, your post inspired, challenged and put me to shame.
It's that word compel, that makes me nervous. I think lots of things are wonderful gifts, and I might talk about them to friends, but I don't think they should be like me. I did Zen training for 30 years, so what.
Please note that the verse I'm quoting (and agreeing with) is "Christ's love compels us." It doesn't compel you, nor does it compel us to compel you. You, as ever, retain your freedom.
Why restrict the definition of "exist" to time and space
I thought that's what exist means. Granted, I can invent all kinds of things that exist in a different way, e.g., supernatural mermaids on Venus, but the usual term for that is special pleading.
No, that is not what exist means. It may be that only things that exist in space and time exist. But that's not true by virtue of the meaning of the word 'exist'. There are plausible candidates outside religion: for example, the set of all natural numbers. If Platonic forms exist then they are outside space and time. Scientific laws if they have independent existence (and it seems implausible that they don't) exist outside space and time.
A computer simulation can contain objects or people who exist in that they have defined properties and histories, but which do not currently occupy spatial locations within the simulation.
(For that matter, nothing in the definition of supernatural such as it is excludes existing in space and time. Ghosts and fairies and Greek gods are imagined to have spatial locations.)
And that's not what special pleading means. Special pleading means treating two similar cases differently: for example, if A thinks all ethical and religious beliefs are subjective and thinks that therefore it's wrong for B to spread their religious or ethical beliefs to C, but it's ok for A to spread their ethical belief that it's wrong to B, then A is special pleading.
Quick addition to this lovely bit of reasoning: space/time themselves exist outside of space/time.
LC – Many thanks. I am now more clear about your understanding and interpretation of the words ‘mission’ and ‘missionaries’.
I maintain that no-one should try to change another’s faith belief for their own and that those without a faith belief should not be encouraged to, or inculcated into, a faith belief. Even though the faith believer has the right to say s/he believes such-and-such to be so and something true for all, s/he cannot demonstrate that in the same way that simple science information can be demonstrated. It is definitely not necessary to explain the whole edifice of science in order to demonstrate that it works. Today’s people have enough evidence of that all around them.
You talk of faith in science – well, I have faith that things work because that faith is backed up by ample observable evidence but I know, again from the observable evidence, that sometimes things go wrong (often discovered eventually to be from human error) so that faith of mine is always qualified with the proviso that it is not 100% guaranteed. .
I am sad that people feel they need to take their faith religious mission from anywhere to anywhere.
You talk of the gospel of Jesus Christ as being a best gift. I would respond by saying the messages , more or less summed up in the Golden Rule, are all human messages. Very good ones, yes, but JC was not the first to think of them – they were based on teachings, knowledge and understanding he had gained until the time when, I accept, he verbalised them.
I agree that you should not be stopped from expressing your belief in the value of the reported words of JC, but if at any time you state or claim that it is actually true that he was the Son of God etc, then I do not so agree.
The selfless work you do to help those in need deserves unstinting admiration and respect, but you do it because you are caring human beings whether you include your faith belief in that or not. Those you have helped are very lucky to have met you.
Thank you for your reply. You do realize that by restricting me/everybody to attempting to persuade others of the truth only of scientifically demonstrable propositions, you have just made it impossible for anyone to effectively propose marriage?
Or, of course, to convince them to vote against Trump. Statements about future human behavior cannot be scientifically demonstrated in the present.
You talk of the gospel of Jesus Christ as being a best gift. I would respond by saying the messages , more or less summed up in the Golden Rule, are all human messages. Very good ones, yes, but JC was not the first to think of them – they were based on teachings, knowledge and understanding he had gained until the time when, I accept, he verbalised them.
This is a misunderstanding. The Golden Rule, the various teachings of Christ on the subjects of money, marriage, prayer, humility, and the like--those are not the Gospel. They are in fact the basic moral code of the universe, common to all humanity with a few minor modifications here and there between cultures--and Jesus is simply restating them (and occasionally applying them to a particular situation). They are not his original thinking (unless you are admitting that Jesus = God, and I'm sure you are not.) They are the common inheritance of humanity (and probably of angels, aliens, etc. etc. etc.) just as much as the laws of gravity, inertia, etc. are the common inheritance of physical objects. If that was what missionaries had to share, we might as well stay home. As you point out, they can get it elsewhere.
Then what IS this Gospel that missionaries (and others) feel compelled to share? It is the good news that God himself has come into this world, into our lives, as one of us--as a human being--with the purpose of setting right the brokenness of the world. It is the good news that God both sees and cares about the mess that we are in, and that he has taken steps to remedy it. How? Through his incarnation as a human being (Jesus Christ) and through that human being's life, service, suffering, death, and resurrection from the dead. Through those actions God has struck a decisive blow in the war against evil, and has won it. Now we are in the mopping-up stages of the great war, but the issue is already decided, and evil is doomed. And every human being who wants to have a share in this victory can have it just for the asking. Jesus is sharing this victory with all of us, any of us who will take it. But he will force no one. What you do with your free gift is up to you.
This, then, is the Gospel. This is what we (missionaries and pretty much all Christians, more or less) are compelled to share. For us to shut up about it is morally equivalent to having a cure for COVID-19 (a real, tested, scientifically verified cure) and refusing to tell anybody. Only an asshole does that.
Once we have told you, our responsibility ends. We are not allowed to coerce or compel you--God will certainly smack us upside the head if we do so--because he is a God of freedom, including the freedom to reject him. God himself will not compel you to take the gift of the Gospel. You may throw it back in his face if you please. You may throw it back in our faces if you please--who are we to think ourselves greater than our master? Do whatever you please with it. It's your gift, and your freedom.
To put it another way: I don't think my atheism is in any way superior to your beliefs; it just happens to be that atheism suits me. But you make it clear as a bell that you believe your beliefs are superior to atheism and superior to every other belief on this planet. Can you not see why that would (expletive deleted) people off?
Yes, of course. What you fail to realize is that your belief that all truth is relative, and your insistence on enforcing that belief on every single one of us out here, puts you in exactly the same boat.
Frankly, I don't understand why you fail to see this. You are perfectly willing to let us keep our Christian delusion, or Muslim delusion, or what have you, as long as we admit that your belief (everything is relative) is superior. In fact, you have the truth about truth, and we have delusion.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to tolerate this belief of yours, and feel no need at all to force you to admit the superiority of Christianity. Continue as you are, by all means. Preach, if you want (and you do.)
But you are not willing to allow me to continue in the belief that Christianity is in fact objectively true. You would in fact prevent me from speaking of it to others (who are rational human beings, and have minds capable of saying yes or no, just as you do).
Where's the equality here? (And frankly, why do you care so much? You have only to ignore me.)
We are all of us restricted by our subjective viewpoint. To step beyond that and believe that our subjective reality is also an objectively reality is arrogance. I am accusing you of arrogance.
Feel free. I don't mind being called arrogant. Go for it. If we had siglines still, I'd stick it in there.
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
You're under the same misapprehension as SusanDoris--thinking that the purpose of Christianity (or the purpose of God, really!) is to tell us right from wrong. That's a side issue, already adequately taken care of by conscience (as you point out) and by the many moral codes of humanity, all of which reflect God's moral nature to some extent or another.
But that's not what God is about, at base. Any more than saying poker is about rules.
One should not make claims for which one does not have objective evidence.
Why?
I claim that the Coronavirus is the first wave in an alien invasion; a Chinese bio-weapon; a hoax; a sign that Gaia is angry with us; caused by the microwave energy in mobile phones....
Now, you could accept any of those claims at face value and allow me to promulgate those claims, or you could insist on some evidence. Which is the better option?
Evidence is not limited to scientific, so-called objective evidence. There are other forms of evidence. If there were not, no courtroom could operate, and no man nor woman make their minds up about a proposal of marriage.
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
You're under the same misapprehension as SusanDoris--thinking that the purpose of Christianity (or the purpose of God, really!) is to tell us right from wrong. That's a side issue, already adequately taken care of by conscience (as you point out) and by the many moral codes of humanity, all of which reflect God's moral nature to some extent or another.
But that's not what God is about, at base. Any more than saying poker is about rules.
That wasn't what I was getting at. I was trying to point out that a God which is purely an extension of the self is just as valuable as one that has external objective existence. God as moral arbiter is irrelevant.
Evidence is not limited to scientific, so-called objective evidence. There are other forms of evidence. If there were not, no courtroom could operate, and no man nor woman make their minds up about a proposal of marriage.
Courtrooms do rely on scientific evidence. Evidence such as eye-witness accounts rely on how credible the witnesses are and how credible their accounts are. Courts have made many terrible errors.
Given the number of divorces and miserable relationships I'd say the evidence people use to judge a proposal of marriage is pretty poor stuff. More to the point, a person is only judging whether a particular proposal is right for them.
In deciding whether something does or does not exist it seems reasonable to insist on objective evidence.
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
You're under the same misapprehension as SusanDoris--thinking that the purpose of Christianity (or the purpose of God, really!) is to tell us right from wrong. That's a side issue, already adequately taken care of by conscience (as you point out) and by the many moral codes of humanity, all of which reflect God's moral nature to some extent or another.
But that's not what God is about, at base. Any more than saying poker is about rules.
That wasn't what I was getting at. I was trying to point out that a God which is purely an extension of the self is just as valuable as one that has external objective existence. God as moral arbiter is irrelevant.
Just as VALUABLE? Are you in the habit of assigning value ratings to people?
Evidence is not limited to scientific, so-called objective evidence. There are other forms of evidence. If there were not, no courtroom could operate, and no man nor woman make their minds up about a proposal of marriage.
Courtrooms do rely on scientific evidence. Evidence such as eye-witness accounts rely on how credible the witnesses are and how credible their accounts are. Courts have made many terrible errors.
Given the number of divorces and miserable relationships I'd say the evidence people use to judge a proposal of marriage is pretty poor stuff. More to the point, a person is only judging whether a particular proposal is right for them.
In deciding whether something does or does not exist it seems reasonable to insist on objective evidence.
Dude. Of COURSE courts have made terrible errors. So have scientists, such as the idiots who failed to recognize Semmelweis' contributions. You cannot logically say "So-and-so misused the evidence available to them, therefore evidence is always useless." (Well, you CAN, but in that case I'll avoid riding with you in a car...)
And what "objective" evidence would you use to decide if you should marry someone? Particularly if you believe that "objective" means only "scientific"?
Evidence is not limited to scientific, so-called objective evidence. There are other forms of evidence. If there were not, no courtroom could operate, and no man nor woman make their minds up about a proposal of marriage.
Courtrooms do rely on scientific evidence. Evidence such as eye-witness accounts rely on how credible the witnesses are and how credible their accounts are. Courts have made many terrible errors.
credible to the jury, not credible by any other standard and juries are ignorant as fuck. Not every single person on every single jury, but in the general.
Given the number of divorces and miserable relationships I'd say the evidence people use to judge a proposal of marriage is pretty poor stuff. More to the point, a person is only judging whether a particular proposal is right for them.
In deciding whether something does or does not exist it seems reasonable to insist on objective evidence.
Evidence ≠ credible, resolvable or rational. We humans make far more decisions on dubious "evidence" than we like to admit.
Comments
It's a little difficult to see why that crosses a line in a free country.
There may be some objective evidence to suggest that it could be true, and multiple attestation of witnesses to suggest that it is true.
If someone thinks it’s important enough, they may quite reasonably make a decision ahead of having full objective proof. If they think it’s important enough they may also seek to enable and encourage others to make the same decision themselves.
If God exists whether people believe in him or not, he's objectively real.
Tbh I'm not really interested in God if he's only subjectively real.
But what does "exist" mean about the supernatural? It can't mean to exist in space and time, so there is some special type of existence which is about spirits?
I'm actually struggling to see what the problem is here. Why restrict the definition of "exist" to time and space?
The only question I'm interested in is whether God is a real entity outside myself who can in principle at least be discovered, or is he entirely something invented by our imagination?
Harry Potter: Is this real, or is it happening in my imagination?
Dumbledore: Of course, it's happening in your imagination, Harry--but why in the world would that mean it isn't real?
(From the last of the original Harry Potter books.)
Yes, I've read that, but a God who only exists in my head will stop existing when I die and my head stops working.
I have zero interest in that God.
I thought that's what exist means. Granted, I can invent all kinds of things that exist in a different way, e.g., supernatural mermaids on Venus, but the usual term for that is special pleading. Then any thing can exist, and anything can exist objectively. But there are no constraints here, and there is a collapse into a sort of amorphous everything.
What I'm getting at here is whether God is, as Christianity has traditionally held, an entity whose reality is entirely independent of our perception of him - ie he would still be, even if everyone was an atheist.
OK, it just doesn't work for me. "Entity" again for me is meaningless, ditto reality, since anything can be an entity, and a reality, e.g., the dragon in my garage, as somebody said. The words are losing their boundaries, but I don't mind if others find it useful. Or, I don't care, why would I?
Not that we're all much good at it. @Lamb Chopped, your post inspired, challenged and put me to shame.
Yeah, but there isn't a dragon in your garage. Fortunately no-one's asking me to put my trust in one. Is there a God who is independent of my or anyone else's imagination of him? Surely that's a question with meaning?
It's that word compel, that makes me nervous. I think lots of things are wonderful gifts, and I might talk about them to friends, but I don't think they should be like me. I did Zen training for 30 years, so what.
A computer simulation can contain objects or people who exist in that they have defined properties and histories, but which do not currently occupy spatial locations within the simulation.
(For that matter, nothing in the definition of supernatural such as it is excludes existing in space and time. Ghosts and fairies and Greek gods are imagined to have spatial locations.)
And that's not what special pleading means. Special pleading means treating two similar cases differently: for example, if A thinks all ethical and religious beliefs are subjective and thinks that therefore it's wrong for B to spread their religious or ethical beliefs to C, but it's ok for A to spread their ethical belief that it's wrong to B, then A is special pleading.
I maintain that no-one should try to change another’s faith belief for their own and that those without a faith belief should not be encouraged to, or inculcated into, a faith belief. Even though the faith believer has the right to say s/he believes such-and-such to be so and something true for all, s/he cannot demonstrate that in the same way that simple science information can be demonstrated. It is definitely not necessary to explain the whole edifice of science in order to demonstrate that it works. Today’s people have enough evidence of that all around them.
You talk of faith in science – well, I have faith that things work because that faith is backed up by ample observable evidence but I know, again from the observable evidence, that sometimes things go wrong (often discovered eventually to be from human error) so that faith of mine is always qualified with the proviso that it is not 100% guaranteed. .
I am sad that people feel they need to take their faith religious mission from anywhere to anywhere.
You talk of the gospel of Jesus Christ as being a best gift. I would respond by saying the messages , more or less summed up in the Golden Rule, are all human messages. Very good ones, yes, but JC was not the first to think of them – they were based on teachings, knowledge and understanding he had gained until the time when, I accept, he verbalised them.
I agree that you should not be stopped from expressing your belief in the value of the reported words of JC, but if at any time you state or claim that it is actually true that he was the Son of God etc, then I do not so agree.
The selfless work you do to help those in need deserves unstinting admiration and respect, but you do it because you are caring human beings whether you include your faith belief in that or not. Those you have helped are very lucky to have met you.
Because I don't assume my belief is better or more true than anyone else's.
We are all of us restricted by our subjective viewpoint. To step beyond that and believe that our subjective reality is also an objectively reality is arrogance. I am accusing you of arrogance.
One should not make claims for which one does not have objective evidence.
Why?
Replace God with conscience and then ask yourself if your conscience is any less real, any less powerful, for being part of you rather than an external force.
I claim that the Coronavirus is the first wave in an alien invasion; a Chinese bio-weapon; a hoax; a sign that Gaia is angry with us; caused by the microwave energy in mobile phones....
Now, you could accept any of those claims at face value and allow me to promulgate those claims, or you could insist on some evidence. Which is the better option?
Not exactly the point. If God isn't external to me then he isn't God. Not a God I'm interested in anyway.
To me, an internal God is the only possible God.
The notion that there is one God, let's call it God A, which happens to be the God person or group A believes in, and that any person or group claiming to believe in Gods B to Z has got it wrong and needs to be shown that only God A is the true God, is completely insane.
Is there a similar law for Harry Potter? That eventually in all discussions Harry Potter will come up.
The additional aspect of Godwin's Law is that further discussion establishes little following according to it.
I think we passed that point on page 2.
Some of the Asian religions collapse notions of self and other, so that gods themselves are conflated with everything. This is something that makes sense to me, but I shall not proselytize, too tired.
It makes absolutely no sense at all to me.
If God is the ultimate creator and source of everything, then he has to have an existence independent of it. Such a God may or may not exist but is the one I'm interested in. I'm not interested in an internal God; such a God only started to exist when I started believing in him and dies with me. Worthless to me.
Probably but my real point is whether there's a Potter Law. Or a Dumbledore Law etc.
Preach it, Karl
That's the prize which lies somewhere in the middle of the agony of the suspension of disbelief.
(I find it helpful to remember that if I am wrong, who gives a shit - nothing is then True, so nothing is then Ridiculous, False or Pointless. My eldest (home from school) points out over my shoulder that I say this a lot, which is just a metric of how heavily I depend on it.)
Self-compulsion seems fine to me - what I'd abject to is when it results in the attempt to compel others as well. If missionaries offer ideas to be freely accepted or discarded, what's the problem? We do that with each other on the ship all the time.
That is not an argument against making some claims without objective evidence. Instead, that is an argument against accepting some claims without challenging them. Quite different.
One may make any claim one wishes, but expect to be engaged with critically if seeking to influence others. That seems to be the purpose of this discussion board.
Rubbish. If you're wrong then it just means something else is True. Your Truth is not the only possible Truth to the extent that if it's false then the very concept of Truth ceases to exist.
There is a Truth of existence. Whether that's God, Allah, Zeus, Kah'less or just the empty, uncaring void I don't know.
Good read.
Well, mention of compulsion makes me think you're dealing with your need, not mine. OK, I'm a big boy, and I can say naff off. Can everyone?
Please note that the verse I'm quoting (and agreeing with) is "Christ's love compels us." It doesn't compel you, nor does it compel us to compel you. You, as ever, retain your freedom.
Quick addition to this lovely bit of reasoning: space/time themselves exist outside of space/time.
Thank you for your reply. You do realize that by restricting me/everybody to attempting to persuade others of the truth only of scientifically demonstrable propositions, you have just made it impossible for anyone to effectively propose marriage?
Or, of course, to convince them to vote against Trump. Statements about future human behavior cannot be scientifically demonstrated in the present.
I'd like to pick up this:
This is a misunderstanding. The Golden Rule, the various teachings of Christ on the subjects of money, marriage, prayer, humility, and the like--those are not the Gospel. They are in fact the basic moral code of the universe, common to all humanity with a few minor modifications here and there between cultures--and Jesus is simply restating them (and occasionally applying them to a particular situation). They are not his original thinking (unless you are admitting that Jesus = God, and I'm sure you are not.) They are the common inheritance of humanity (and probably of angels, aliens, etc. etc. etc.) just as much as the laws of gravity, inertia, etc. are the common inheritance of physical objects. If that was what missionaries had to share, we might as well stay home. As you point out, they can get it elsewhere.
Then what IS this Gospel that missionaries (and others) feel compelled to share? It is the good news that God himself has come into this world, into our lives, as one of us--as a human being--with the purpose of setting right the brokenness of the world. It is the good news that God both sees and cares about the mess that we are in, and that he has taken steps to remedy it. How? Through his incarnation as a human being (Jesus Christ) and through that human being's life, service, suffering, death, and resurrection from the dead. Through those actions God has struck a decisive blow in the war against evil, and has won it. Now we are in the mopping-up stages of the great war, but the issue is already decided, and evil is doomed. And every human being who wants to have a share in this victory can have it just for the asking. Jesus is sharing this victory with all of us, any of us who will take it. But he will force no one. What you do with your free gift is up to you.
This, then, is the Gospel. This is what we (missionaries and pretty much all Christians, more or less) are compelled to share. For us to shut up about it is morally equivalent to having a cure for COVID-19 (a real, tested, scientifically verified cure) and refusing to tell anybody. Only an asshole does that.
Once we have told you, our responsibility ends. We are not allowed to coerce or compel you--God will certainly smack us upside the head if we do so--because he is a God of freedom, including the freedom to reject him. God himself will not compel you to take the gift of the Gospel. You may throw it back in his face if you please. You may throw it back in our faces if you please--who are we to think ourselves greater than our master? Do whatever you please with it. It's your gift, and your freedom.
But we couldn't not tell you.
Feel free. I don't mind being called arrogant. Go for it. If we had siglines still, I'd stick it in there.
You're under the same misapprehension as SusanDoris--thinking that the purpose of Christianity (or the purpose of God, really!) is to tell us right from wrong. That's a side issue, already adequately taken care of by conscience (as you point out) and by the many moral codes of humanity, all of which reflect God's moral nature to some extent or another.
But that's not what God is about, at base. Any more than saying poker is about rules.
Evidence is not limited to scientific, so-called objective evidence. There are other forms of evidence. If there were not, no courtroom could operate, and no man nor woman make their minds up about a proposal of marriage.
That wasn't what I was getting at. I was trying to point out that a God which is purely an extension of the self is just as valuable as one that has external objective existence. God as moral arbiter is irrelevant.
Courtrooms do rely on scientific evidence. Evidence such as eye-witness accounts rely on how credible the witnesses are and how credible their accounts are. Courts have made many terrible errors.
Given the number of divorces and miserable relationships I'd say the evidence people use to judge a proposal of marriage is pretty poor stuff. More to the point, a person is only judging whether a particular proposal is right for them.
In deciding whether something does or does not exist it seems reasonable to insist on objective evidence.
Just as VALUABLE? Are you in the habit of assigning value ratings to people?
Yikes.
Dude. Of COURSE courts have made terrible errors. So have scientists, such as the idiots who failed to recognize Semmelweis' contributions. You cannot logically say "So-and-so misused the evidence available to them, therefore evidence is always useless." (Well, you CAN, but in that case I'll avoid riding with you in a car...)
And what "objective" evidence would you use to decide if you should marry someone? Particularly if you believe that "objective" means only "scientific"?