Courts do not rely on scientific evidence. They rely on strength of arguments, persuasion, all of the techniques of salespeople. Lawyers consider science as something to use as argument. And they'll frequently freely discount whatever parts of it that don't suit their arguments.
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.
Science = determinations on evidence from repeatable and testable observation and experimentation. Yes, science gets it wrong or incomplete at times. But that eventually straightens out.
Evidence for religious belief has no such standards. Not saying don't believe, but the idea of comparing such types of evidence is not valid.
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.
I would say that this is your subjective truth rather than an objective truth, except that you don't believe in a God that is an extension of yourself either, so it isn't even your subjective truth. It's just bullshit.
It's also you telling other people what they ought to believe, which is something you claim to disapprove of those other people doing, so it is hypocritical bullshit.
Also, if you think that in general any x that is purely an extension of the self is just as valuable as one that has external objective existence, then I cannot express just how pitiful and impoverished that seems to me.
@quetzalcoatl, on reflection I agree with you that "compel" has unhelpful overtones here. But if I've got something good, that would really help you, do I have a moral responsibility to at least let you know it exists? If I discovered a cure for Corona, say, and kept it to myself, would that be justifiable?
@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.
But you do. When you say LC shouldn't evangelize, you're saying your belief is better than hers.
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 have a splitting headache. There CAN BE no objective evidence for that. Should I not tell my doctor about it? This claim is beneath you.
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.
thank you, but the belief, the assumption, the assertion, that god is, or wants, or has done, or has become, rquires total faith. I fully realise that it is in fact what you believe and wish to share, but would you at least admit that you might be wrong?[
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.
You simply cannot equate the two. Subjectively, you can, yes, but not objectively.
Thank you for another, strongly and of course well expressed point of view
the belief, the assumption, the assertion, that god is, or wants, or has done, or has become, rquires total faith.
No, it doesn't require 'total faith' if by that you mean there is no reason at all in favour of one belief or another. There are reasons both for and against belief in God. People argue about them a lot. And there are arguments both for and against and within each religion. Ultimately perhaps it depends on what reasons you find most compelling what you believe, which you might call 'faith', but reason and evidence have a part in it.
We have established that your belief that you would have the same values irrespective of Christianity is itself what you call total faith.
the belief, the assumption, the assertion, that god is, or wants, or has done, or has become, rquires total faith.
No, it doesn't require 'total faith' if by that you mean there is no reason at all in favour of one belief or another.
Yes, ;I see what you mean – the difficulty probably lies here with the definition of faith.
. I googled, and the first definition is: “
'complete trust or confidence in someone or something. And the second is, a'strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof'.
I tend to take it for granted that, knowing my lack of belief, posters will assume I mean the second definition, especially in this context.
There are reasons both for and against belief in God. People argue about them a lot. And there are arguments both for and against and within each religion. Ultimately perhaps it depends on what reasons you find most compelling what you believe, which you might call 'faith', but reason and evidence have a part in it.
No argument on that point.
We have established that your belief that you would have the same values irrespective ofChristianity is itself what you call total faith.
I wasn’t aware that that had been ‘established’ as ’total faith’; on the contrary, I would not ever say I have a total faith in anything, and that is because of that proviso that must be added to any scientific Theory.
I'm also confused about this "total faith" thingy. What does that mean? Do you mean "it requires me to trust in Christ wholeheartedly, without a bunch of mental reservations"? in which case, I'd say yes, and on the same grounds as getting into a boat with both feet. In matters of trust, you do your investigating up front. Be sure the boat is trustworthy. Poke it, go over every inch, whatever suits your fancy. But once you've done your due diligence and found everything satisfactory, then it's time to commit. Get in and sit down. You simply cannot put one foot in the boat and decide to keep the other foot ashore. You're bound to fall in the water that way, and you'll look ridiculous doing it.
If, on the other hand, you are using the words "total faith" to mean "uninformed faith", a mad leap in the dark, or "a faith in which no judgement or investigation is involved," then I totally repudiate that. God does not ask us to buy a pig in a poke. Anyone who wants to investigate, may. There are no esoteric secrets in Christianity, no hidden cabals, no "lost history of whatsit" (in spite of Dan Brown). It's all out there. For instance, anybody who wishes, can learn the original languages, study textual theory, and go to town on the Gospels. I did it myself, and I'm nobody. Anybody who wishes to attend church (when there's not a pandemic) may do so also, and see us Christians at our best and at our worst. For that matter, my personal life, and that of my missionary family, is available for perusal. Anyone in the vicinity of St. Louis (after the pandemic) who wants to see us in action can contact me. Come and see what Christ is doing through his people. (You'll get to see all of my flaws, too, as big as life and twice as natural.) To twist Jesus' words a bit, "What I say to you, I say to everybody: Investigate!"
Reference the Time Magazine article, twice referenced. Hey, I have no problem with it being referenced twice. It is a problem when people around the globe are posting at different times of the day. I know when I post most of my comments people in Europe are still sleeping, and they are posting when I am turning in or asleep. It makes it hard to keep up with all the active threads. Carry on...
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?
Yikes.
No I am not and do not assign value ratings to people. I don't know where you get that idea from.
I'm saying that a God which is an extension of the person who believes in that God is as valuable to them in the course of their life as a God that has external existence.
My basis is that the experience of God is identical to the believer whether God is objectively real or an extension of themselves.
You may quibble and argue that a God that is objectively real can offer some form of life after death, whereas a God that is an extension of the self cannot, but life after death is a whole other subject.
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?
Yikes.
I'm saying that a God which is an extension of the person who believes in that God is as valuable to them in the course of their life as a God that has external existence.
My basis is that the experience of God is identical to the believer whether God is objectively real or an extension of themselves.
You may quibble and argue that a God that is objectively real can offer some form of life after death, whereas a God that is an extension of the self cannot, but life after death is a whole other subject.
No, it’s not a whole ‘nother subject. It’s part of the same subject.
Sorry, Colin Smith, but your assumption that “a God which is an extension of the person who believes in that God is as valuable to them in the course of their life as a God that has external existence” tells me you really don’t understand what you’re making judgments and assumptions about.
And it is once again doing what you seem to be unable to recognize you’re doing—imposing your values and beliefs on others.
I would say that this is your subjective truth rather than an objective truth, except that you don't believe in a God that is an extension of yourself either, so it isn't even your subjective truth. It's just bullshit.
It's also you telling other people what they ought to believe, which is something you claim to disapprove of those other people doing, so it is hypocritical bullshit.
Also, if you think that in general any x that is purely an extension of the self is just as valuable as one that has external objective existence, then I cannot express just how pitiful and impoverished that seems to me.
I would argue that my atheism, which is to say my belief in a universe devoid of significance and purpose, is a subjective truth.
I am not telling anyone what they ought to believe. I am saying that whatever anyone believes and no matter how sincerely they believe their belief is the greatest thing since sliced bread, there is no justification for assuming your beliefs are right for anyone else or better than any belief other people may hold.
An actual tree is more valuable than any tree I can imagine up because my sensory experience of the actual tree will always be deeper. But since everyone's experience of God is necessarily subjective there is no perceivable difference between an objective God and one that is an extension of the self.
@quetzalcoatl, on reflection I agree with you that "compel" has unhelpful overtones here. But if I've got something good, that would really help you, do I have a moral responsibility to at least let you know it exists? If I discovered a cure for Corona, say, and kept it to myself, would that be justifiable?
How do you know that what you have will help anyone?
@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.
But you do. When you say LC shouldn't evangelize, you're saying your belief is better than hers.
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 have a splitting headache. There CAN BE no objective evidence for that. Should I not tell my doctor about it? This claim is beneath you.
I'm not saying my belief is better than hers. I'm saying that the beliefs of those she's evangelising to are the equal of hers.
@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.
But you do. When you say LC shouldn't evangelize, you're saying your belief is better than hers.
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 have a splitting headache. There CAN BE no objective evidence for that. Should I not tell my doctor about it? This claim is beneath you.
I'm not saying my belief is better than hers. I'm saying that the beliefs of those she's evangelising to are the equal of hers.
No, you’re not, because you’re prioritizing your belief—that she shouldn’t evangelize—over her belief that she should. And you are asserting that your belief should control.
@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.
But you do. When you say LC shouldn't evangelize, you're saying your belief is better than hers.
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 have a splitting headache. There CAN BE no objective evidence for that. Should I not tell my doctor about it? This claim is beneath you.
I'm not saying my belief is better than hers. I'm saying that the beliefs of those she's evangelising to are the equal of hers.
No, you’re not, because you’re prioritizing your belief—that she shouldn’t evangelize—over her belief that she should. And you are asserting that your belief should control.
One person’ freedom to evangelise directly impinges on another’s freedom from hearing it.
There is no equality in that equation, there cannot be.
No, you’re not, because you’re prioritizing your belief—that she shouldn’t evangelize—over her belief that she should. And you are asserting that your belief should control.
Yes. In the same way that I prioritise my belief that slavery is bad over the beliefs of those who find it useful to enslave people.
But when it comes to her religious belief I am saying that is the equal, and no more, of any other religious belief, including my atheism.
Yet you have made clear, in this thread and others, that your view of religious beliefs generally should dictate how others exercise their religious beliefs.
Yet you have made clear, in this thread and others, that your view of religious beliefs generally should dictate how others exercise their religious beliefs.
Not religious beliefs, as such. I think that in general people should respect the choices other people make about their lives except where those choices directly affect the lives of others.
So, if I like Wagnerian opera then my taste should be respected. But if I play Wagner so loudly my neighbour hears it I am affecting his life and it's reasonable for him to ask I turn the volume down. That I really like Wagner's music and want my neighbour to like it as well is beside the point.
The problem comes when exercising one's religious belief includes broadcasting it to others regardless of whether they may or may not like it.
I didn’t say otherwise (though in many of not most cases the person hearing has some ability to say “I’m not listening” in some way or another).
That doesn't completely work. If I am on the high street and someone is preaching, I can curtail my agenda or put up with it. Either way, they are impinging on my activities.
I didn’t say otherwise (though in many of not most cases the person hearing has some ability to say “I’m not listening” in some way or another).
That doesn't completely work. If I am on the high street and someone is preaching, I can curtail my agenda or put up with it. Either way, they are impinging on my activities.
Duh. Of course it doesn’t always work or isn’t always an option, which is why I qualified my answer with “many if not most cases” and “some ability.”
Regardless, it’s irrelevant to the point I was making.
Maybe there's a cultural difference here. I'm English. In England you could be on familiar terms with someone for years without either of you talking about religion or ever having the slightest interest in what the other person might believe. It's just not discussed.
It could crop up in conversation about something else, as in: Are you doing anything tomorrow?
Actually, I'm going to church.
Which would normally lead to an awkward silence and an: I didn't know you were religious.
What you hardly ever get here is an English person going out of the way to share their beliefs. It's just considered rude.
@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.
But you do. When you say LC shouldn't evangelize, you're saying your belief is better than hers.
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 have a splitting headache. There CAN BE no objective evidence for that. Should I not tell my doctor about it? This claim is beneath you.
I'm not saying my belief is better than hers. I'm saying that the beliefs of those she's evangelising to are the equal of hers.
That's your belief. Which you think trumps hers. How about my second statement?
I didn’t say otherwise (though in many of not most cases the person hearing has some ability to say “I’m not listening” in some way or another).
That doesn't completely work. If I am on the high street and someone is preaching, I can curtail my agenda or put up with it. Either way, they are impinging on my activities.
Duh. Of course it doesn’t always work or isn’t always an option, which is why I qualified my answer with “many if not most cases” and “some ability.”
Regardless, it’s irrelevant to the point I was making.
And you missed the point I made about the point you were making.
More people do what you accuse Colin than are called on it. We are less likely to see such behaviour when we agree with the POV expressed.
I didn’t say otherwise (though in many of not most cases the person hearing has some ability to say “I’m not listening” in some way or another).
That doesn't completely work. If I am on the high street and someone is preaching, I can curtail my agenda or put up with it. Either way, they are impinging on my activities.
Duh. Of course it doesn’t always work or isn’t always an option, which is why I qualified my answer with “many if not most cases” and “some ability.”
Regardless, it’s irrelevant to the point I was making.
And you missed the point I made about the point you were making.
More people do what you accuse Colin than are called on it. We are less likely to see such behaviour when we agree with the POV expressed.
I didn’t miss it. I chose not to respond to it (as frankly I find myself doing to more and more of your posts), because it was again obvious and beside the point—the point being that Colin Smith is doing it in this thread.
I didn’t miss it. I chose not to respond to it (as frankly I find myself doing to more and more of your posts), because it was again obvious and beside the point—the point being that Colin Smith is doing it in this thread.
I dispute that. I'm not telling anyone what they can believe in or how they can practise their faith in private or in gatherings with their fellow believers.
My concern is specifically:
1. The view that all other beliefs are false.
2. Sharing one's belief for the purpose of converting others.
Neither of those can be justified in the modern world.
If I said Coronavirus is infectious, and that anyone who believes anything different is mistaken, that would be fairly uncontroversial.
The rationale for religious belief may be harder to establish, but religious belief isn’t a different kind of truth.
You may believe that each person can have their own, possibly conflicting religious belief which is ‘true for them’, but your belief is mistaken.
1. No one has died from having a religious belief or from not having a religious belief so the comparison with Coronavirus is absurd.
2. I maintain that it is a different kind of truth because it is subjective and cannot be objectively established.
3. What evidence do you have that people cannot have their own, possibly conflicting religious belief which is ‘true for them’?
@Colin Smith, you have, in this thread and in other threads, expressed your belief that all religious beliefs are subjective truths—true for the person who holds them and not necessarily true for others. You have also expressed your belief that for this reason, everyone is free to find the belief or non-belief that works for them (a proposition that I doubt anyone here disagrees with).
But then you say:
that holders of any belief should not hold the belief that other beliefs are wrong;
that sharing one’s belief for the purpose of converting others, is wrong; and
(in another thread) that it is wrong for parents to teach their religion to their children, and that parents should instead merely expose their kids to as many possibilities as they can so that the kids can decide what works for them.
But by asserting that claiming other beliefs are incorrect, sharing one’s faith for the purpose of converting others and trying to pass one’s religion along to one’s children “cannot be justified in the modern world,” you are asserting that your belief—that all religious beliefs are subjective truths and that none is any more right or wrong than another but rather everyone should be able to pick what works for them—should take precedence over the beliefs of those who do believe that some religions are wrong, who do believe that they are compelled to share their belief for the purpose of converting others or who do believe that they should raise their children within their own religious tradition.
@Colin Smith, you have, in this thread and in other threads, expressed your belief that all religious beliefs are subjective truths—true for the person who holds them and not necessarily true for others. You have also expressed your belief that for this reason, everyone is free to find the belief or non-belief that works for them (a proposition that I doubt anyone here disagrees with).
But then you say:
that holders of any belief should not hold the belief that other beliefs are wrong;
that sharing one’s belief for the purpose of converting others, is wrong; and
(in another thread) that it is wrong for parents to teach their religion to their children, and that parents should instead merely expose their kids to as many possibilities as they can so that the kids can decide what works for them.
But by asserting that claiming other beliefs are incorrect, sharing one’s faith for the purpose of converting others and trying to pass one’s religion along to one’s children “cannot be justified in the modern world,” you are asserting that your belief—that all religious beliefs are subjective truths and that none is any more right or wrong than another but rather everyone should be able to pick what works for them—should take precedence over the beliefs of those who do believe that some religions are wrong, who do believe that they are compelled to share their belief for the purpose of converting others or who do believe that they should raise their children within their own religious tradition.
Yes I am. In the same way that asserting all races and cultures are equal takes precedence over claims that some races and cultures are superior to others. The belief that one's own culture and race is superior to others and that one has a right to appropriate the land and wealth of lesser peoples while indoctrinating them with one's cultural values was once normal practise for the west but is no longer acceptable. The same applies to one's religion.
One will typically see their belief as the correct one, otherwise why would they believe it. I have no problem with this.
The problem I have is when they do not accept that others seeing their own beliefs in the same way as equally valid.
I’m not arguing for some general superiority of Christian faith other than that it is true.
Christians believe that their faith transcends the issues of physical life and death in this world and goes beyond them. Many (maybe most, or even all) believe that Christian faith is more important than life or death, and d St o the comparison with Coronavirus is far from absurd.
Why does your belief that each person’s faith is true for that person trump the Christian belief that Christian faith is true for all people?
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.
But we couldn't not tell you.
Thank you for taking the time to post this, @Lamb Chopped
There are some who prefer to think that Christianity was and is shared by coercion rather than by invitation.
I’m not arguing for some general superiority of Christian faith other than that it is true.
Christians believe that their faith transcends the issues of physical life and death in this world and goes beyond them. Many (maybe most, or even all) believe that Christian faith is more important than life or death, and d St o the comparison with Coronavirus is far from absurd.
Why does your belief that each person’s faith is true for that person trump the Christian belief that Christian faith is true for all people?
I'm not saying it does. I am saying that people should have more respect for people that believe other things then they do.
I’m not arguing for some general superiority of Christian faith other than that it is true.
Christians believe that their faith transcends the issues of physical life and death in this world and goes beyond them. Many (maybe most, or even all) believe that Christian faith is more important than life or death, and d St o the comparison with Coronavirus is far from absurd.
Why does your belief that each person’s faith is true for that person trump the Christian belief that Christian faith is true for all people?
Well, modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and for the majority of those 2,000 years it was only available to a fraction of the world's population. So wouldn't it be odd if something that was true for all people had been non-existent for 99% of the time humans have existed and hard to come by for most of the rest? On the other hand, most, if not all cultures, we know about have had some form of religious belief which has played a role in ordering their society.
The comparison with Coronavirus IS absurd because it is demonstrably real and people have died from it. Whatever Christians might believe about their faith is a whole other category.
I’m not arguing for some general superiority of Christian faith other than that it is true.
Christians believe that their faith transcends the issues of physical life and death in this world and goes beyond them. Many (maybe most, or even all) believe that Christian faith is more important than life or death, and d St o the comparison with Coronavirus is far from absurd.
Why does your belief that each person’s faith is true for that person trump the Christian belief that Christian faith is true for all people?
Well, modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and for the majority of those 2,000 years it was only available to a fraction of the world's population. So wouldn't it be odd if something that was true for all people had been non-existent for 99% of the time humans have existed and hard to come by for most of the rest?
That is a very real problem with the way some Christians think. But to be fair, not all think this way.
Comments
Evidence for religious belief has no such standards. Not saying don't believe, but the idea of comparing such types of evidence is not valid.
It's also you telling other people what they ought to believe, which is something you claim to disapprove of those other people doing, so it is hypocritical bullshit.
Also, if you think that in general any x that is purely an extension of the self is just as valuable as one that has external objective existence, then I cannot express just how pitiful and impoverished that seems to me.
But you do. When you say LC shouldn't evangelize, you're saying your belief is better than hers.
I have a splitting headache. There CAN BE no objective evidence for that. Should I not tell my doctor about it? This claim is beneath you.
Thank you for another, strongly and of course well expressed point of view
Her comparison between the Gospel and a cure for Corona also seems spot on to me; indeed I used it myself a few posts earlier.
We have established that your belief that you would have the same values irrespective of Christianity is itself what you call total faith.
. I googled, and the first definition is: “
'complete trust or confidence in someone or something. And the second is, a'strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof'.
I tend to take it for granted that, knowing my lack of belief, posters will assume I mean the second definition, especially in this context. No argument on that point. I wasn’t aware that that had been ‘established’ as ’total faith’; on the contrary, I would not ever say I have a total faith in anything, and that is because of that proviso that must be added to any scientific Theory.
I beg your pardon, could you explain? I know the phrase, but from the politics of the Reformation. How does it fit here?
If, on the other hand, you are using the words "total faith" to mean "uninformed faith", a mad leap in the dark, or "a faith in which no judgement or investigation is involved," then I totally repudiate that. God does not ask us to buy a pig in a poke. Anyone who wants to investigate, may. There are no esoteric secrets in Christianity, no hidden cabals, no "lost history of whatsit" (in spite of Dan Brown). It's all out there. For instance, anybody who wishes, can learn the original languages, study textual theory, and go to town on the Gospels. I did it myself, and I'm nobody. Anybody who wishes to attend church (when there's not a pandemic) may do so also, and see us Christians at our best and at our worst. For that matter, my personal life, and that of my missionary family, is available for perusal. Anyone in the vicinity of St. Louis (after the pandemic) who wants to see us in action can contact me. Come and see what Christ is doing through his people. (You'll get to see all of my flaws, too, as big as life and twice as natural.) To twist Jesus' words a bit, "What I say to you, I say to everybody: Investigate!"
https://medium.com/@dostlund_42808/a-letter-from-catherine-keller-1930029c4914
A very good article. Thanks for posting it.
No I am not and do not assign value ratings to people. I don't know where you get that idea from.
I'm saying that a God which is an extension of the person who believes in that God is as valuable to them in the course of their life as a God that has external existence.
My basis is that the experience of God is identical to the believer whether God is objectively real or an extension of themselves.
You may quibble and argue that a God that is objectively real can offer some form of life after death, whereas a God that is an extension of the self cannot, but life after death is a whole other subject.
Sorry, Colin Smith, but your assumption that “a God which is an extension of the person who believes in that God is as valuable to them in the course of their life as a God that has external existence” tells me you really don’t understand what you’re making judgments and assumptions about.
And it is once again doing what you seem to be unable to recognize you’re doing—imposing your values and beliefs on others.
I would argue that my atheism, which is to say my belief in a universe devoid of significance and purpose, is a subjective truth.
I am not telling anyone what they ought to believe. I am saying that whatever anyone believes and no matter how sincerely they believe their belief is the greatest thing since sliced bread, there is no justification for assuming your beliefs are right for anyone else or better than any belief other people may hold.
An actual tree is more valuable than any tree I can imagine up because my sensory experience of the actual tree will always be deeper. But since everyone's experience of God is necessarily subjective there is no perceivable difference between an objective God and one that is an extension of the self.
How do you know that what you have will help anyone?
I'm not saying my belief is better than hers. I'm saying that the beliefs of those she's evangelising to are the equal of hers.
There is no equality in that equation, there cannot be.
I’m pointing out that Colin Smith is criticizing others for doing something without recognizing that he’s doing too.
Yes. In the same way that I prioritise my belief that slavery is bad over the beliefs of those who find it useful to enslave people.
But when it comes to her religious belief I am saying that is the equal, and no more, of any other religious belief, including my atheism.
Not religious beliefs, as such. I think that in general people should respect the choices other people make about their lives except where those choices directly affect the lives of others.
So, if I like Wagnerian opera then my taste should be respected. But if I play Wagner so loudly my neighbour hears it I am affecting his life and it's reasonable for him to ask I turn the volume down. That I really like Wagner's music and want my neighbour to like it as well is beside the point.
The problem comes when exercising one's religious belief includes broadcasting it to others regardless of whether they may or may not like it.
I think that is a much broader problem here than oft recognised.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant to the point I was making.
It could crop up in conversation about something else, as in:
Are you doing anything tomorrow?
Actually, I'm going to church.
Which would normally lead to an awkward silence and an:
I didn't know you were religious.
What you hardly ever get here is an English person going out of the way to share their beliefs. It's just considered rude.
That's your belief. Which you think trumps hers. How about my second statement?
More people do what you accuse Colin than are called on it. We are less likely to see such behaviour when we agree with the POV expressed.
I dispute that. I'm not telling anyone what they can believe in or how they can practise their faith in private or in gatherings with their fellow believers.
My concern is specifically:
1. The view that all other beliefs are false.
2. Sharing one's belief for the purpose of converting others.
Neither of those can be justified in the modern world.
The rationale for religious belief may be harder to establish, but religious belief isn’t a different kind of truth.
You may believe that each person can have their own, possibly conflicting religious belief which is ‘true for them’, but your belief is mistaken.
1. No one has died from having a religious belief or from not having a religious belief so the comparison with Coronavirus is absurd.
2. I maintain that it is a different kind of truth because it is subjective and cannot be objectively established.
3. What evidence do you have that people cannot have their own, possibly conflicting religious belief which is ‘true for them’?
But then you say:
- that holders of any belief should not hold the belief that other beliefs are wrong;
- that sharing one’s belief for the purpose of converting others, is wrong; and
- (in another thread) that it is wrong for parents to teach their religion to their children, and that parents should instead merely expose their kids to as many possibilities as they can so that the kids can decide what works for them.
But by asserting that claiming other beliefs are incorrect, sharing one’s faith for the purpose of converting others and trying to pass one’s religion along to one’s children “cannot be justified in the modern world,” you are asserting that your belief—that all religious beliefs are subjective truths and that none is any more right or wrong than another but rather everyone should be able to pick what works for them—should take precedence over the beliefs of those who do believe that some religions are wrong, who do believe that they are compelled to share their belief for the purpose of converting others or who do believe that they should raise their children within their own religious tradition.Yes I am. In the same way that asserting all races and cultures are equal takes precedence over claims that some races and cultures are superior to others. The belief that one's own culture and race is superior to others and that one has a right to appropriate the land and wealth of lesser peoples while indoctrinating them with one's cultural values was once normal practise for the west but is no longer acceptable. The same applies to one's religion.
The problem I have is when they do not accept that others seeing their own beliefs in the same way as equally valid.
Christians believe that their faith transcends the issues of physical life and death in this world and goes beyond them. Many (maybe most, or even all) believe that Christian faith is more important than life or death, and d St o the comparison with Coronavirus is far from absurd.
Why does your belief that each person’s faith is true for that person trump the Christian belief that Christian faith is true for all people?
Thank you for taking the time to post this, @Lamb Chopped
There are some who prefer to think that Christianity was and is shared by coercion rather than by invitation.
Well, modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and for the majority of those 2,000 years it was only available to a fraction of the world's population. So wouldn't it be odd if something that was true for all people had been non-existent for 99% of the time humans have existed and hard to come by for most of the rest? On the other hand, most, if not all cultures, we know about have had some form of religious belief which has played a role in ordering their society.
The comparison with Coronavirus IS absurd because it is demonstrably real and people have died from it. Whatever Christians might believe about their faith is a whole other category.