Irish Times: "I have always found it impossible to believe in God"

The Mad Hatter

An opinion pice from the Times that I thought a few here might be interested in: link

I DON’T believe in God. Not as a result of any great intellectual reasoning on my part (tempting though it is to claim otherwise).

I didn’t comb the Bible for inconsistencies; wonder how other people’s gods can possibly fit into the heavenly scheme of things; wrestle with the conflict between science and religion; or reflect on the conflicts caused by religion, before adopting a position.

All of those came later, except for the first point, which tires me out even thinking about it. No, I don’t believe in God for the most banal of reasons: I have always found it impossible to. And goodness knows, for a long time I tried hard enough.

Throughout my childhood and early teens, church and Sunday school were a weekly ritual, from where I would return feeling something of a failure. Everybody else seemed capable of believing. And without too much effort, either. Yet, try as I might, I couldn’t manage it.

As a consequence, I suppose, of childhood feelings of religious inadequacy, I’ve always had a sneaking regard for people who can genuinely put their faith in God. Not the hardline lunatics, of course, but the countless decent people who try to live their daily lives by the teachings of Jesus (who, incidentally, I do “believe in”, but that’s another story).

Not sure I agree with the author on mocking religious beliefs - I think if beliefs are silly, whether religious, political or otherwise, there's no reason not to make fun of them.

TwoShedsJackson

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Not sure I agree with the author on mocking religious beliefs - I think if beliefs are silly, whether religious, political or otherwise, there's no reason not to make fun of them.

Many people seem to think religious beliefs deserve special respect simply due to them being religious beliefs. This is illogical, but then again, an awful lot of things about religion are.

Having said that, I think overtly mocking or going out of your way to offend the religious is counter-productive to what many atheists probably want to see - a decrease in the hold that religion has on sections of society.

Calm, rational debate and discussion is the way to do it, not pointing and laughing.

seamus

Odd little letter. Basically boils down to, "Religion is good because it makes people do good". He sounds like someone who's missing <something> from his life and is looking for <something> to fill that void.

If religious fanatics weren’t fanatical about religion, they would surely be just as fanatical about something else (possibly atheism). The danger lies not in the ideology, but in the person. Conversely, does this mean that people like the Wilsons, McGoldricks and Cardys would be just as forgiving if they weren’t genuine Christians? I have no idea, but suspect not.

So, fanatics are fanatics because that's who they are. But good people are good because they're Christian? Doesn't add up I'm afraid.

My answer to his last question there is an emphatic YES. These people are good people because they're good people. Their religion is irrelevant.

hurling_lad

He certainly doesn't seem to be toeing the atheist party line in this article.

Dades

hurling_lad wrote: »

He certainly doesn't seem to be toeing the atheist party line in this article.

Well I doubt he's a member of Atheist Ireland, that's for sure, but I like the cut of his jib.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

Well I doubt he's a member of Atheist Ireland, that's for sure, but I like the cut of his jib.

What's a jib?

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

What's a jib?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jib

I assume the "cut" of someone's jib defines how it's been hoisted/hung/aligned/whatever and someone who's jib is well "cut" shows that they're a good-quality sailor, on a straight course and well under control.


Yaar.

Edit: No, it's simpler than that. The "cut" of the jib is quite literally the shape into which a ship's jib has been cut, which would often indicate the nationality or type (merchant, navy, pirate, etc) of sailor. So liking the cut of a ship's jib is another way of recognising who you do and don't like at sea.
A nautical form of racism.

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jib

I assume the "cut" of someone's jib defines how it's been hoisted/hung/aligned/whatever and someone who's jib is well "cut" shows that they're a good-quality sailor, on a straight course and well under control.


Yaar.

Edit: No, it's simpler than that. The "cut" of the jib is quite literally the shape into which a ship's jib has been cut, which would often indicate the nationality or type (merchant, navy, pirate, etc) of sailor. So liking the cut of a ship's jib is another way of recognising who you do and don't like at sea.
A nautical form of racism.

How informative. Thank you sir. I feel a bit bad now that I only said it as it's a Simpson's quote... but then that's how I do a lot of my learning by quoting a question from a cartoon and being taken seriously. Kudos.

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

I feel a bit bad now that I only said it as it's a Simpson's quote

Now I'm upset that I managed to miss a Simpson's quote.

D'oh.

The Mad Hatter

ShooterSF wrote: »

How informative. Thank you sir. I feel a bit bad now that I only said it as it's a Simpson's quote... but then that's how I do a lot of my learning by quoting a question from a cartoon and being taken seriously. Kudos.

Actually, this makes that quote a whole lot cleverer - wasn't this where Homer had joined the navy, and was talking to his officer?


(Unless I'm totally wrong and he was talking to Mr Burns...)

Standman

seamus wrote: »

Odd little letter. Basically boils down to, "Religion is good because it makes people do good". He sounds like someone who's missing <something> from his life and is looking for <something> to fill that void.



So, fanatics are fanatics because that's who they are. But good people are good because they're Christian? Doesn't add up I'm afraid.

My answer to his last question there is an emphatic YES. These people are good people because they're good people. Their religion is irrelevant.

I think sometimes religion can make otherwise "good" people do and believe in some morally reprehensible things. Do you not think it could work the other way too?

Beruthiel

I’ve always had a sneaking regard for people who can genuinely put their faith in God

I would have to take for his comment there that he either lacks imagination and needs to learn more about the wondrous universe, or he's got a gaping hole in his life that needs filling.

seamus

Standman wrote: »

I think sometimes religion can make otherwise "good" people do and believe in some morally reprehensible things. Do you not think it could work the other way too?

Absolutely it could, but I don't think it holds true as a rule.
The point at the end of the letter seemed to be that a number of people who were decent people, humble and with self-control, would not be so without religious influence in their lives. Which is a flawed statement just as, "someone could not do evil without religious influence in their lives".

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Not sure I agree with the author on mocking religious beliefs - I think if beliefs are silly, whether religious, political or otherwise, there's no reason not to make fun of them.

Said he who trusts a brain (which is supposedly the product of a directionless (other than what happens to produce survival) process) to accurately inform him that his brain is the product of a directionless (other than what happens to produce survival) process.

Now if that ain't a silly belief!

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Said he who trusts a brain

Do you trust yours fully never to make a mistake?

I'm asking because if you think that the human brain can make mistakes, then why do are you so confident that you cannot make a mistake when deciding to kill somebody?

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Said he who trusts a brain (which is supposedly the product of a directionless (other than what happens to produce survival) process) to accurately inform him that his brain is the product of a directionless (other than what happens to produce survival) process.

Now if that ain't a silly belief!

Your steely wit has caused me to rethink my life. Without this I would never have known that your brain told your fingers to tell my eyes to tell my brain something.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Do you trust yours fully never to make a mistake?

Of course not. But I fully trust it to be able to recognize it has made a mistake when it is given sufficient reason to suppose it has.

I'm asking because if you think that the human brain can make mistakes, then why do are you so confident that you cannot make a mistake when deciding to kill somebody?

See above.

Do you trust your brain never to make a mistake. If not, in what do you trust to inform you thus?

ShooterSF

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Actually, this makes that quote a whole lot cleverer - wasn't this where Homer had joined the navy, and was talking to his officer?


(Unless I'm totally wrong and he was talking to Mr Burns...)

Yep that's the one. Was actually only on TV (that's the old fashioned thing you can still watch the odd show on) last night. Anywho back to the topic at hand...

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you trust your brain never to make a mistake. If not, in what do you trust to inform you thus?

The brain doesn't inform us that it makes mistakes. Empirical testing informs us that it makes mistakes.

It is the person who relies solely on their own personal assessment that makes the most mistakes, but often they are blissfully ignorant of this fact (a classic example of this is the man who walks in circles in the desert while believing all the time that he is travelling in a straight line)

When man kind moves away from this into the realm of empiricism is when man kind finds consistency between assessments (place a stick or rock down in the desert and see if you come across it again, or better still take a measurement of the suns position).

Unfortunately no one has come up with a way to empirically measure theological claims yet. Hence the continued existences of thousands of different religions teaching inconsistent beliefs contrasted with the increasing accuracy and constriction of empirical measurements.

Or to put it another way, lots and lots of people walking around in the desert all convinced they are the only ones walking in a straight line.

To paraphrase a saying of mine, 1 measurement for the distance to the moon, 40,000 religions.

But I'm sure this means little to you, since you can after all see God, you know you are walking in a straight line

Dave!

Read that today, found it a bit wánky and lacking in imagination really

Still, nice to see atheism getting discussed so much in such a mainstream publication

I think one of the letters today was also regarding atheism, thought it was a priest challenging Michael Nugent on a few Biblical references

every time i see the thread preview snipped to "i have always...", i want to finish it with "...depended on the kindness of strangers"

there you go, that's my on topic contribution

The Quadratic Equation

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

An opinion pice from the Times that I thought a few here might be interested in: link

He's broken with party lines, he doesn't adhere to and parrot the now standard atheist political dogma.

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

He's broken with party lines, he doesn't adhere to and parrot the now standard atheist political dogma.

Which is what exactly? Be precise.

DublinWriter

seamus wrote: »

Odd little letter. Basically boils down to, "Religion is good because it makes people do good".

Ergo, the inverse must also be true.

Jaysus, philosophical facepalm #101.

ShooterSF

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

He's broken with party lines, he doesn't adhere to and parrot the now standard atheist political dogma.

Yeah! Silly Atheists with their ridiculous rules on what their members can and can't do, like not eating meat on a particular friday and such. It's nuts. Lets all point and laugh at them.

Alopex

Beruthiel wrote: »

I would have to take for his comment there that he either lacks imagination and needs to learn more about the wondrous universe, or he's got a gaping hole in his life that needs filling.

bit snipey?

I know what he means. I've heard Dawkins come out with "the universe is magical in itself etc " argument and I know what he means - but magical as it is its not quite the whole God story. I think humans like the idea that there's something behind it all - so in that sense I have a slight envy of believers too

Dades

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

He's broken with party lines, he doesn't adhere to and parrot the now standard atheist political dogma.

Consider this a formal warning. Your now frequent one-liners are consistent with trolling. [Be warned this point is not up for debate in thread.]

Dave!

last word

The Quadratic Equation

Quick Comrade Dades ! Censor the truth ! Quickly ! Hop to it, theres a good lad, lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7FYvQYYh2I

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Consider this a formal warning. Your now frequent one-liners are consistent with trolling. [Be warned this point is not up for debate in thread.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Quick Comrade Dades ! Censor the truth ! Quickly ! Hop to it, theres a good lad, lol

The quadratic equation is now the proud owner of a brand new yellow card! Your next humorless, content-free oneliner will earn you a red card, and the next one after that, a holiday from the forum.

Toodle-pip

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

The brain doesn't inform us that it makes mistakes. Empirical testing informs us that it makes mistakes.

Could the brain be mistaken in supposing empirical testing a way to indicate it makes mistakes?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could the brain be mistaken in supposing empirical testing a way to indicate it makes mistakes?

I'm not sure how.

Suppose for example you attempt to measure the distance to the moon with just personal assessment. There are two possible outcomes, you will either accurately assess this or you will not.

Now suppose another man attempts the same thing. He gets a different answer to you. So either you are right and he is wrong or vice versa or you are both wrong.

Now a third man has a crack at it, he gets a different answer. At most one of you can be correct. At the very least you have 2 brains making inaccurate assessments of the distance and one making a correct assessment.

Repeat for a few more people and the percentage of inaccurate assessments increases, even if you assume that one of them is actually accurately measuring. 15 different measurements, at least 14 inaccurate assessments. 25 different measurements, at least 24 inaccurate ones. 50 different measurements, at least 49 inaccurate ones etc etc.

At a certain point you will get to a percentage of inaccuracy where you can safely say that humans are appallingly bad at assessing something like the distance to the moon accurately.

Perhaps it is my lack of imagination but could you explain how this itself could be a mistake and in fact all these people are in fact accurately assessing the distance to the moon but a flaw in the brain is causing that to not register?

Enkidu

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could the brain be mistaken in supposing empirical testing a way to indicate it makes mistakes?

Can I ask, what is with the obsession I've seen in some intellectual religious people for these overextended philosophical arguments?

Person A: Hey look a stone!
Theologian: You don't believe in God, so how do you know there exists any objective truth of "a stone".
Person A: Well I can see the stone.
Theologian: All you have is your senses, they could be lying to you.
Person A: Well you can perform experimental tests that agree with my experience of a stone being there.
Theologian: Yes, but you interact with the experiment via your senses, so your argument is circular.
Person A: Other people can check my experiment, we all agree so that generates greater statistical certainty.
Theologian: However, you will never have absolute certainty and those people are as fallible as you.
Person A: Well, okay, in an extremely strict philosophical way, that has no influence on real life, I guess I can't be sure that there is a stone.
Theologian: Ah!, you admit the soulless emptiness of your wretched existence without God.
Person A::confused:

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not sure how.

Suppose for example you attempt to measure the distance to the moon with just personal assessment. There are two possible outcomes, you will either accurately assess this or you will not.

Now suppose another man attempts the same thing. He gets a different answer to you. So either you are right and he is wrong or vice versa or you are both wrong.

Correct

Now a third man has a crack at it, he gets a different answer. At most one of you can be correct. At the very least you have 2 brains making inaccurate assessments of the distance and one making a correct assessment.

At the very least, all are making incorrect assessments - both the individual observers and the multiple observers.

(All that multiple same observations says is that a number of folk see something the same way. No comment is made on whether they are accurately seeing)

Repeat for a few more people and the percentage of inaccurate assessments increases, even if you assume that one of them is actually accurately measuring. 15 different measurements, at least 14 inaccurate assessments. 25 different measurements, at least 24 inaccurate ones. 50 different measurements, at least 49 inaccurate ones etc etc.

At a certain point you will get to a percentage of inaccuracy where you can safely say that humans are appallingly bad at assessing something like the distance to the moon accurately.

At this point I wouldn't know what the case is. I don't know who is inaccurate and who is not or whether all are inaccurate. I can safely say nothing.

In order to progress in the orthodox direction I need a reason to suppose that the multitude seeing things the same way translates into to accuracy of seeing. That reason is, I would suggest, contained in some evaluation I make. That "it seems to make sense to me" to suppose the multitude are accurately seeing. Or some such.

And in order for that assessment to be of use, I need to be trusting my brain not to be mistaken in that assessment. In other words, it's my brain who is the ultimate judge as to whether I am mistaken or not. Whilst I can utilise outside sources in my evaluations and can judge to defer to those outside sources, no outside source can occupy a "higher place" on the throne than is given it by my brain.

Which places my brain in the highest place. If multiple observations are deemed king then it's only because I am kingmaker.

Perhaps it is my lack of imagination but could you explain how this itself could be a mistake and in fact all these people are in fact accurately assessing the distance to the moon but a flaw in the brain is causing that to not register?

Your argument seems to break down as outlined above (if I am following you correctly)

antiskeptic

Enkidu wrote: »

Can I ask, what is with the obsession I've seen in some intellectual religious people for these overextended philosophical arguments?

They are like games of chess (as your "your move, my move" involvement in the obsession indicates). Objections to God is the chess board and the point of the game is to drive the objection to stalemate (for you cannot prove God, which would be winning the game).

In driving an objection to stalemate, the objection is effectively set aside. It has no power anymore. It is muted.

Now imagine that someone had no more objections left. It doesn't mean they'll believe in God but they would be "nearer" God (assuming for a moment he exists) than would be the case were a 100 objections to stand between them.

It could be that they've only got to turn around at that point and they'll find him standing right behind them.

Boo!

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

They are like games of chess (as your "your move, my move" involvement in the obsession indicates). Objections to God is the chess board and the point of the game is to drive the objection to stalemate (for you cannot prove God, which would be winning the game).

Given you guys are the ones making the claim, shouldn't the chessboard be "Evidence of God"?

Your move.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

At this point I wouldn't know what the case is. I don't know who is inaccurate and who is not or whether all are inaccurate. I can safely say nothing.

You know they have all given separate answers. Thus even if you assume one of them has accurately measured the distance to the moon you know that the vast majority haven't. You do not need to know the actual distance to the moon except to rule out the one person that might be accurate. All others can be ruled out without even needing to know that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And in order for that assessment to be of use, I need to be trusting my brain not to be mistaken in that assessment.

No you don't. The purpose is to show that the brain makes mistakes. Either you are accurately observing all the other 50 guys inaccurately measuring the distance to the moon or you yourself are inaccurately observing this.

Either way both outcomes result in the brain can make mistakes.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst I can utilise outside sources in my evaluations and can judge to defer to those outside sources, no outside source can occupy a "higher place" on the throne than is given it by my brain.

That isn't the issue though. That would be fine if we established the brain never makes mistakes. But since we have established it does then the question becomes how do we attempt to over come the mistakes the brain makes, since relying solely on the brain leads to inaccuracy.

Imagine you are man who is a shut in and never interacts with the world except through sending messages via his five sons.

You come to realize through deduction that some times your sons lie to you about the messages you had them send out into the world.

Now you could say "Well I can only interact with the world through my five sons so really what ever information I receive will be through them, I have to trust them implicitly even if I know they make mistakes or lie".

Now that might make sense initially, particularly if you have a vested interest in believing a particular thing one of your sons tells you about what the creator of the universe says and don't want to even attempt to assess if this is one of the lies ... ahem ...
but ultimately there are better ways to determine if what your sons are telling you is in fact accurate or not than simply always trusting them, even if ultimately the only information you will ever receive in your room is through you sons.

Saying well ultimately everything comes through the brain so the fact that the brain makes mistakes is irrelevant is quite naive, and I think you only say that because you do not want to challenge some of the things your brains tells you are that are on the more pleasing end of the spectrum.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Given you guys are the ones making the claim, shouldn't the chessboard be "Evidence of God"?

Your move.

I wouldn't see the point of that. Without eyes to see the evidence can only remain invisible.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't see the point of that. Without eyes to see the evidence can only remain invisible.

Good thing they didn't say that about the atom

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

You know they have all given separate answers. Thus even if you assume one of them has accurately measured the distance to the moon you know that the vast majority haven't. You do not need to know the actual distance to the moon except to rule out the one person that might be accurate. All others can be ruled out without even needing to know that.

We might be speaking past each other. To clarify my understanding of the set up.

There are effectively two observers. A single observer (me) observing one way and a multitude of observers all viewing things the same way (but differently to me). This gives us three possibilities.

me wrong/them right
them right/me wrong
both of us wrong.

I can conclude at this point that the brain is capable of making mistakes. I don't know whether it them or me or both.

No you don't. The purpose is to show that the brain makes mistakes. Either you are accurately observing all the other 50 guys inaccurately measuring the distance to the moon or you yourself are inaccurately observing this.

Either way both outcomes result in the brain can make mistakes.

It is already accepted (outside the above working example) that my brain is capable of making mistakes (I made that point earlier before you joined the discussion).

But that acceptance itself needs to be something my brain cannot be mistaken about. For if it is mistaken about that it has no way of ascertaining whether it is right about anything ultimately

In other words, at least one assessment the brain makes must be assumed to be incapable of error - namely it's ability to conclude it is capable of making error in other areas (such as observing distances to the moon)

That isn't the issue though. That would be fine if we established the brain never makes mistakes. But since we have established it does then the question becomes how do we attempt to over come the mistakes the brain makes, since relying solely on the brain leads to inaccuracy.

I agree. And I'm asking what use the observations of a multitude when my starting position is that they could be in error.

Imagine you are man who is a shut in and never interacts with the world except through sending messages via his five sons.

You come to realize through deduction that some times your sons lie to you about the messages you had them send out into the world.

Now you could say "Well I can only interact with the world through my five sons so really what ever information I receive will be through them, I have to trust them implicitly even if I know they make mistakes or lie".

Now that might make sense initially, particularly if you have a vested interest in believing a particular thing one of your sons tells you about what the creator of the universe says and don't want to even attempt to assess if this is one of the lies ... ahem ...
but ultimately there are better ways to determine if what your sons are telling you is in fact accurate or not than simply always trusting them, even if ultimately the only information you will ever receive in your room is through you sons.

Saying well ultimately everything comes through the brain so the fact that the brain makes mistakes is irrelevant is quite naive, and I think you only say that because you do not want to challenge some of the things your brains tells you are that are on the more pleasing end of the spectrum.

This is all a bit too wooly rhetoric to be of use.

My position (one I remember having a discussion with you about before) is that ultimately, all will rest on what it is that appears good to me (where "good" involves subjective notions such as coherency, good sense, good fit, gut feeling, reasonableness etc. .. as well as not so subjective notions such as logic).

In order to get to that end (or that stalemate) it would be worth following our working example. Where I'm faced with the two sets of observers: me and them. And how it is I arrive at the conclusion of eg: them right and me wrong .. without involving an assumption that I am assessing things correctly with my brain so as to arrive at this conclusion.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Good thing they didn't say that about the atom

That's precisely what they said. And so they put on powerful glasses.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's precisely what they said. And so they put on powerful glasses.

Indeed they did! Big durty scientific goggles!

They didn't search their hearts or read 2000 year old textbooks.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Indeed they did! Big durty scientific goggles!

They didn't search their hearts or read 2000 year old textbooks.

Well they did in fact. And the conviction of an ordered, rational, and logical God which they extracted from it led the pioneers of the scientific method: Newton, Kepler, Watt, Joule, Morse, Faraday, Pascal, Bacon, et al to embark on a method of enquiry built around those very same principles.

Thus did alchemy become chemistry.

Checkmate?

(Or don't you take cheques, mate?)

Dades

Are you suggesting they made their discoveries by reading the bible and reflecting on God?

Also: cognitive dissonance.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well they did in fact. And the conviction of an ordered, rational, and logical God which they extracted from it

I challenge you to reflect on the entire bible and manage to extract a conviction of an ordered, rational and logical God.

Reading the Bible only leads to one logical conclusion; if this God exists, he is scattered and chaotic (giving conflicting or completely separate instructions depending on who he talking to or when he talked to them), completely irrational (wiping out entire civilisations for enjoying themselves) and completely illogical (why would he create a tree of knowledge if no-one was supposed to eat from it?).

cursing a fig tree because you are hungry and the fig tree isn't in season is very rational and logical all right

Knasher

antiskeptic wrote: »

They are like games of chess (as your "your move, my move" involvement in the obsession indicates). Objections to God is the chess board and the point of the game is to drive the objection to stalemate (for you cannot prove God, which would be winning the game).

In driving an objection to stalemate, the objection is effectively set aside. It has no power anymore. It is muted.

Now imagine that someone had no more objections left.

If you drive an objection to stalemate then that just means that you haven't resolved the objection to either parties satisfaction and you don't see a move towards a resolution either party can make. If your goal in discourse is really to find a stalemate then the good news is that to reach that goal the quickest strategy is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout na na na really loudly. The bad news is that you will never actually accomplish anything.

The proper analogy between chess and arguments in general would be if every argument was a chess piece and every time you eliminate an apposing piece you are a stronger position for your next move. The problem with this particular game is that we didn't agree in advance on any particular with regards to when a piece is actually dead.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Are you suggesting they made their discoveries by reading the bible and reflecting on God?

No. I'm suggesting their realisation that God was ordered and logical in his ways (something they gleaned from reading the bible) led them to to suppose that an examination of what they believed he had created might best be accomplished through deployment of an ordered, logical investigative approach a.k.a. the scientific method.

It stands to reason.

Also: cognitive dissonance.

Like "intellectual dishonesty", that term has lost it's magic bullet appeal

antiskeptic

Knasher wrote: »

If you drive an objection to stalemate then that just means that you haven't resolved the objection to either parties satisfaction and you don't see a move towards a resolution either party can make. If your goal in discourse is really to find a stalemate then the good news is that to reach that goal the quickest strategy is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout na na na really loudly. The bad news is that you will never actually accomplish anything.

Sticking your fingers in your ears permit the other party to maintain the objection by reason of no show. If you drive the objection to stalemate by argument then the objector is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

For example. If a person says the bible says God approves of rape then the person has a valid objection to God. If you argue to stalemate where it need not be that the bible says that then the valid objection is rendered neutralized. The person can object to God for other reasons but not this one.

The proper analogy between chess and arguments in general would be if every argument was a chess piece and every time you eliminate an apposing piece you are a stronger position for your next move. The problem with this particular game is that we didn't agree in advance on any particular with regards to when a piece is actually dead.

Indeed. Which is why I don't bother engaging too much in "when the bible was written or was it added to or who was the original author" discussions. They just go on and on forever with no stalemate in sight.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

I challenge you to reflect on the entire bible and manage to extract a conviction of an ordered, rational and logical God.

Curiously, we recently embarked on just that up at the bible study I attend. Whilst many Christians are conversant with the NT, the OT (and often Revelation) remain a bit of a mystery.

The overarching description of what we are doing is examining "the unfolding drama of redemption". For that is what the bible is ultimately about.

And already the tie in's with the NT are plain and obvious. And ordered and logical. But you do have to keep the big picture in mind.

Reading the Bible only leads to one logical conclusion; if this God exists, he is scattered and chaotic (giving conflicting or completely separate instructions depending on who he talking to or when he talked to them),

There is nothing conflicting, scattered or chaotic about giving different instructions to different peoples at different times for different reasons.

If you don't realize that as a general truth then of course you won't have a hope with the bible.

completely irrational (wiping out entire civilisations for enjoying themselves)

The biblical term for the enjoyment you speak of is sin. I don't see anything irrational about a God who hates sin wiping out sinners.

..and completely illogical (why would he create a tree of knowledge if no-one was supposed to eat from it?).

In order to give them a means whereby they could disobey him if they wanted to. If it is your aim to give choice like that then it's completely logical to enable that choice by way of presenting options.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing conflicting, scattered or chaotic about giving different instructions to different peoples at different times for different reasons.

So there's nothing conflicting about laying down a set of laws on stone tablets, and when asked to repeat oneself you supply a totally different set of laws?

The biblical term for the enjoyment you speak of is sin. I don't see anything irrational about a God who hates sin wiping out sinners.

In order to give them a means whereby they could disobey him if they wanted to. If it is your aim to give choice like that then it's completely logical to enable that choice by way of presenting options.

No, it's not. If you don't want someone to make a choice, you don't give them that choice, simple as. Otherwise what you have is an experiment. In an experiment you have no emotional attachment to what choice your rats make, all you do is observe and make notes.

Irrationality and illogic pretty much go hand-in-hand. It might be rational to destroy sin if you hate it, but if you hate sin it's illogical to make it possible in the first place. If the creation of sin was a logical part of his plan for creation, then it's irrational to get angry when it exists.
Likewise, if you create two beings who are fundamentally ignorant of right and wrong, it's illogical and irrational to expect them to do the right thing and get angry when they don't.

Indeed the very notions of "hate" and "anger" are trademarks of irrationality and illogic. Someone who is rational and logic does things because they are rational and logical. Someone who does things out of hate or anger is by definition not being rational (even if those actions can later be rationally justified).