Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:%awWj.886$IK1.657@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
*snip*
>>
>>I know. I went there, at your suggestion. I read, and I decided that it
>>really wasn't for me. I am a scientist, and philosophy just leaves me
>>bored witless! Someone even suggested I join the local U3A philosophy
>>group. I just looked at them.
>
>
> Perhaps this attitude pertains because you've yet to see how philosophy
> underlies almost all of science? Mathematics, the "langugage of
science",
> is nothing but very stylized formal logic.
That displays your ignorance of advanced mathematics.
>
> I would think anyone with a real scientific aptitude wouldn't be able to
> just ignore the underpinnings of their discipline like this. But I also
am
> not oblivious to the ills of the modern world, one of which is this
> artificial chasm that's been dug between science and the humanities,
> allowing no crossover. This pigeonholing of human inquiry and knowledge
is
> a very recent phenomenon in human history, and the jury is still out as
to
> whether or not it's valid.
>
I agree, but what is observedly different is the different ways of
examining the world. It is related to the difference between top down
and bottom up approaches, or reductionism vs. teleology, and was the
subject of the conference paper I referred to elsewhere. Reductionism
has patently failed, but teleology has not suceeded either, so I think
that there is still some way to go. Complexity theory looked very
promising a decade ago, but has also stalled. The prime example must be
climate change, where things are so bad that all they do is average over
the various approaches to try to get some sort of concensus view. That
is the most blatant admission of failure I have ever seen, but I know of
no better approach.
>
>>>>>Chris, please don't lecture me out of your encyclopedic lack of
>>>>>understanding concerning the nature of knowledge. Seeing something
>>>>>occur doesn't automatically equate to knowing it did, nor is seeing
>>>>>something occur necessary for knowledge that it did. What counts is
>>>>>warrant/justification for the belief, and when you've got enough of
it,
>>>>>then it becomes "knowledge" for the one who has it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Philosophical twaddle as far as I can see.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you need to get your eyes checked.
>>>
>>
>>True. Must remember to make an appointment soon.
>
>
> You need a balance you don't have right now.
>
>
*snip*
>>
>>I don't see the problem. Its like going into the supermarket and seeing
>>lots of different brands of beans. One time you will choose one brand,
>>another time another. Rowland just keeps the shelves well stocked.
>
>
> You've conveniently left out of your characterization that at least some
of
> the brands are poison; that the person who picks them up and takes them
home
> may end up making their last meal on earth out of them.
>
Good point. If it were true, I would agree with you, but I trust him
enough to believe that he has weeded out the poisonous ones, although I
admit to not having checked. Do you have any examples?
> Why do I constantly have to take you and rub your nose in the obvious??
Why
> do you do what you just did here? Leave out the whole crux of the issue
so
> you can make it sound innocent? If beliefs didn't matter, then why did
> Jesus come to teach us the "Truth"? If it really doesn't matter what
anyone
> takes from Rowland's list of beliefs and opinions, and believes, then
Christ
> came in vain.
>
Probably because I am just a flawed human being, and capable of error.
> And YOU! You're the one who was arguing no one could act contrary to
their
> beliefs. Now you're implying it doesn't really matter what anyone
believes.
> If we put the two of those conclusions together (forgetting for the
moment
> there isn't any valid justification for either one of them!), we end up
with
> it doesn't really matter what anyone does! You sure you want to end up
> there? Are you, perhaps, an anarchist? I wouldn't think a person who
loves
> science would be an anarchist.
>
> More likely, you just have never subjected your own beliefs to any sort
of
> critical analysis, with the result that by now you've got a noetic
structure
> chalk full of contradictory beliefs. You may want to think about a
little
> spring cleaning this year, Chris.
>
Too late. Its autumn now, about to become winter. And at last we are
receiving substantial rain (more than half an inch for the first time
since January), praise the Lord.
>
>>>>>>>>>Besides, who said anything about "parroting" a statement of
beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>I said it takes integrity to make one's TRUE beliefs KNOWN, and
then
>>>>>>>>>defend them against all comers.
>>>>>>>>>
I disagree here too. Any good debater can do this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And I repeat my point is that it is only when you are tested in
>>>>>>>>action that you discover what you truly believe, or at least that
is
>>>>>>>>my experience.
>>>>>>>
*snip*
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that the sentence in English isn't a
complete
> thought; I hope you're not that far gone.
>
No. But complete thoughts can be very complex and require several
sentences to express, unless you add many subordinate clauses like this,
and then you end up with unwieldy sentences like this, which any good
grammar checker tells you to split into shorter sentences so that the
explanation of your complex thought is easier for the reader to
understand than the long and complex sentence you have written which has
become totally unwieldy, jsut as this has. Still with me?
>
*snip*
>>
>>Much as I enjoy pulling your chain, I'm not actually doing that here. My
>>reading is very straightforward as far as I can see.
>
>
> I believe you, but since farther on down it becomes obvious we've got
some
> very rudimentary differences of opinion as to what is a proposition,
what is
> truth, etc., let's just shelve this until we can come closer to some
sort of
> agreement on these basic issues.
>
>
>>>>>>>I'm afraid the human psyche isn't as simplistic as you would have
it,
>>>>>>>Chris.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As for the main theme of Job, you need to get up to speed there as
>>>>>>>well. It's the earliest treatise on the question, "Do bad things
>>>>>>>happen to good people?", and entailed subjects (such as the fact
that
>>>>>>>evil people seem to prosper in this world). It's a rebuttal to the
>>>>>>>then prevalent opinion that doing good always brings tem****al
rewards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from God, and doing evil always brings tem****al punishments from
God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has nothing whatever to do with your simplistic theory
concerning
>>>>>>>belief/faith.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing to do with my theory (or understanding) at all, but
everything
>>>>>>to do with having faith even while questioning Gods motives and even
>>>>>>existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Motives, sure; existence, not unless you're insane/irrational. You
>>>>>can't believe in something you're not sure exists, Chris, if your
sane.
>>>>>Now maybe what you've got in mind here are those irrational moments
we
>>>>>all have from time to time, but in those moments we're not acting in
a
>>>>>sane, rational way, so those moments don't rise to the level of
>>>>>counter-examples to the statement that sane people can't believe in
>>>>>something they're not sure exists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you believe in love? How do you know it exists and is not just
>>>>self-interest?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I do. Because love and self-interest are opposites, which makes
>>>telling them apart pretty easy. Do you normally have trouble telling
>>>between a proposition and its denial? Is there something about "I love
>>>you" and "I love myself" that makes it difficult for you to see the
>>>difference?
>>>
>>
>>No, but sometimes it makes sense to say I love you in order to get
>>something in return. Maybe feelings of love are just a way our brain
works
>>to serve its own interests and procreate.
>
>
> Maybe you're just a brain in a vat on the counter top of an Alpha
Centaurian
> scientist interested in seeing how many false beliefs he can cause you
to
> believe. What's your point? That anything's possible? Fine.
Virtually
> anything's possible. Now what?
>
I am not being quite that obtuse. I am saying that our brains can have
different justifications for their beliefs. Look at what hypnotists do.
They implant beliefs into peoples brains which have no possible rational
justification in rationality. Brainwa****ng (and advertising) does the
same. One of those possible justifications is the possibility of getting
a payoff for itself (like reproduction or even just ***) because of that
belief. Rapists. for example often have these false beliefs. But that is
what advertising also does by implying that drinking Coca Cola will give
you an intro the the young and ***y crowd.
>
*snip*
>>>He DID say the same thing. Are you suggesting that your encounter with
>>>Jesus has made no difference in the way you live your life? I hope
not.
>>>
>>
>>No, certainly not. But I am very mindful of the plank in my own eye
before
>>I cast aspersions.
>
>
> And you think that makes you...what? Rare? Different from me?
>
No.
>
*snip*
>>>
>>>
>>>But that's the whole point, Chris. The "gospel" involves going and
>>>sinning no more. Forget about having homo***ual *** for the moment,
>>>fornication, *** outside of the bond of marriage as instituted by God
>>>(which means between a man and a woman), is sin. You can't say you've
>>>surrendered your life to Jesus Christ on the one hand, and then go on
>>>fornicating your way through life!
>>>
>>
>>I agree, but I think there is too much emphasis on fornicating and not
>>enough on other forms of sinning.
>
>
> You brought up Ninure! I didn't. If you want to talk about other types
of
> sins, fine. We can talk about you, or about me. But don't run away
from
> the truth here in an ink cloud of obfuscation, and think you're being
> "moral" or "high-minded" for the ***-obsessed fundamentalist, because
that's
> not the case here. You're DEFENDING a person who pants after sin like a
dog
> in heat, and you're doing it on the basis all humans sin and are weak,
not
> on the basis of the Gospel, which CLEARLY makes a difference between
those
> who love sin, and those who love God.
>
Yes, I did bring up Ninure, but as an example of a sinner (like you and
me), but one who is also poor, black, almost blind and in desperate need
of help (unlike you and me). I don't defend her, but I have tried to
help her. As to your judgements on her character, I cannot comment since
I do not know her, have never met her and wouldn't possibly judge her in
any way without more contact with her.
> Sin is about desire, Chris. You either desire to satisfy yourself and
what
> you think of as your "needs", or you desire to please God. There is no
in
> between. Now I don't know about Ninure's conscience now, but I'll
guarantee
> you there was a time in her life when she KNEW, with every fiber of her
> being, that her ***ual desire for other women was wrong; offended God.
And
> just because she may not feel that way anymore, doesn't change the
reality
> she once knew. I can deaden my leg so it doesn't feel anything.
Doesn't
> mean the pain it felt before wasn't real.
>
> snip
>
>
>>>Homo***ual *** is, by definition, fornication. There are other
arguments
>>>that can be brought to bear here, but if you're a Christian, that
should
>>>end the discussion as to whether or not someone who makes a lifestyle
out
>>>of fornicating can be a Christian. Christians "fall" into sin from
time
>>>to time, Chris, they don't make a life out of it, and they certainly
>>>don't sin seeking personal fulfillment or happiness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just as I have physiological defects, so do they, but we are all
sinners
>>>>anyway, so what is the essential difference?
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe there isn't any between you and Ninure, Chris. I'm in no
position
>>>to know that. But I can speak for myself. The difference is just what
I
>>>was saying above; the difference is I don't want to sin; I hate it when
I
>>>sin, and I'm unhappy sinning. It eats at me. I'm convicted about it,
>>>even if no one knows but me.
>>>
>>>That's not the case with our little "rainbow" Christian, Chris. She's
>>>only happy when she's sinning. She needs to be in a relation****p that
is
>>>an abomination before God to be truly happy. Without that sin in her
>>>life she feels incomplete, as if she is missing something.
>>>
How do you know that? Can you see inside her mind?
>>>Now if you can't see the difference between those two states of mind
when
>>>one sins now, then there is no hope of ever showing it to you.
>>>
>>
>>Yes I can, and I feel much the same about someone who is a professional
>>thief or murderer. I see that lifestyle as incompatible with faith. I
>>would say the same about someone who keeps slaves, yet that was
perfectly
>>acceptable only a few hundred years ago.
>
>
> But since you DIDN'T live a few hundred years ago, you can't know what
you
> would have thought then.
>
True.
> I can tell you what you "probably" would have thought, though, just from
> listening to you in here, and knowing where (very generally) you got it.
> You'd have thought it was fine if you'd been in a church whose pastor
was
> preaching it was fine, and you'd have thought it was an abomination to
God
> if you'd been in a church whose pastor was preaching it was an
abomination
> to God.
>
I don't think I am that suggestible. I have disagreed with pastors
before, even been thrown out of a church once (actually asked to leave)
for questioning their views.
> Why do I think that would have probably been the case, Chris? Because
> you've evinced no grounding for your faith! You don't like philosophy,
> can't stand thinking theologically, and just want to dabble in science.
> Why? Because when the rubber meets the road, way deep down, you think
> religion and philosophy are crap, and only science has any real
intrinsic
> value for you.
Not true about either. I think religion is for me (in a way, but not
religiosity), and that philosophy is great for those who can understand
it. Just that I cannot.
>
> You're a good man out of balance, Chris, and as such, you would have
spun
> like a top any which way anyone pushed you a few hundred years ago.
>
Ever doen a personality test (Myers-Briggs or Enneagram)? Sure I'm high
on some aspects and low on others, but I am also balanced on some. I
doubt if you are any better.
>
>>What changed was that societies views about slavery changed, and that
led
>>to a change in our understanding of the bible, particularly Paul's talk
>>about the lack of an essential difference between different types of
>>people. You don't have to go far back to find Christians debating
whether
>>black people were people or animals!
>
>
> Source?
>
Something I read recently, but can't remember where. It was either
talking about Western Australian aboriginal policy which only changed in
the 70's or South Africa. Don't forget we only gave aboriginal people
the vote in the 60's. If that doesn't tell you what our attitude was, I
don't know what would. I can remember one church (Dutch Reformed ?)
claiming that blacks were sub-human during the Apartheid demonstrations
here in the 60's. Not sure if thats not still their official view.
>
>>My guess is that we are seeing the same change in our attitude to
>>***uality.
>
>
> Chris, I'm not interested in your guesses.
>
>
>>Biblical ***ual mores (particularly in the OT) were based on property
>>rights and the need to know if a child was yours or not.
>
>
> I see. So all that "written by the finger of God" stuff was just a
bunch of
> bull****, hey? Okay, fine. You go ahead and you try living out your
> "faith", Chris. Watch what happens the first time it's really tested.
I have.
> Watch it change with the circumstances. Watch how your personal
experiences
> mold it; shape it, until you can't tell you from it anymore. Until what
you
> believe in is, simply, you. Then you will have definitely reasoned your
way
> to atheism.
>
No. They have made my faith stronger.
> I've got to go now, Chris. Nice talking to you. Sorry we can't
communicate
> on these basic issues.
>
Taken your bat and ball and gone home eh? Good talking to you. Sorry
you're not up to it. Play again one day when you're feeling stronger?
> Chuck Stamford
>
> PS - Albert Schweitzer wasn't a Christian by any stretch of the
imagination.
> Christians believe that Jesus Christ was God in flesh. Schweitzer only
> appears the Christian next to the liberal German school of theology that
> served as his theological counterpoint. He is no more a "Christian" in
the
> sense of one who believes the apostolic faith "once delivered to the
saints"
> than are Reimarus, Strauss, or Bultmann. As far as Albert was
concerned,
> Jesus failed in His mission as He percieved what it was.
Don't you think Jesus thought this? "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"
> Who fills your
> head with this nonsense?!
>
The bible, and all those great christian thinkers, writers and doers who
have preceded me in the faith and who are alive today and will follow
after me.
Since when have you decided who is and isn't Christian? I thought that
was Jesus prerogative? Or doesn't your bible include Revelation?
>
>
*snip*
>>>
>>>I see I'm not going to get any evidence from you for your defense of
>>>Rowland's habitual posting of opinions and arguments that attack
>>>Apostolic Christianity. Fine. Let it go. You've got much bigger fish
>>>to fry anyway.
>>>
>>
>>No, I don't remember any.
>>
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford
>>
>>Chris
>
Chris
|
