A Cold Hell

@iconoclast,

Zetherin,

Okay, you have my thoughts on the matter - and it's your choice to reject them, though a very kind rejection it was. Next, I imagine you'd have thanked me for my insisgts in bold!

Laughing

I wish you well on your journey - even if you only get as far as the temple.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not so sure. I think we all have to find our own unique path, but some roads do seem rather destructive. What of the man who's path is hate and violence? The man who has a path of love and peace seems to me to have a better path.

While I believe in giving every human the opportunity to live and experience life as you and I have been given, I humor other considerations. The reason I humor other considerations is that I realize human empathy is an influence; we must remember that even the universal idea of human empathy is relatively new. I mean, I don't even have to go that far back before I run into black, female, racist issues (that still persist even to this day). Further back I can find values that actually believed humans from different social classes or tribes were perceived different species. If the person wasn't from your class or tribe, you would kill them without remorse. Imagine living in a time period such as that. So, I think it's important not to let our moral values, which are most definitely influenced by the time in which we live, dictate our judgment.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You make an excellent point - where we like it or not, we do have to live our lives, and every life is unique. But consider the nihilist who is absolutely unconcerned with his path, with his life. Shouldn't we at least take notice that we are alive and that we have various options in life? Try our best to be the best we can be?

We can choose to notice we are alive, like you and I are doing, or you can choose not to. Best is relative, but if you define what the best you is, then sure, shoot for that if it brings you happiness. The nihilist can be boiled down to just a mirror image of one that does abide by all laws and advocates peace and existence. So what? It doesn't make either greater in worth - is either side of a side inherently better? They both have different agendas, seemingly opposite in nature, but it doesn't mean either is 'right'. Also, just because the nihilist advocates total rejection of established laws and institutions does not mean that he is unconcerned with his path. Of course he is concerned with his path, otherwise he wouldn't have decided to bend to an extreme; the person is trying really hard at their path (and probably putting much thought into destruction!) If nihilist's aren't concerned with their paths, then we can say people that only want to do "good" for the world aren't concerned with their paths either.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

Okay, you have my thoughts on the matter - and it's your choice to reject them, though a very kind rejection it was. Next, I imagine you'd have thanked me for my insisgts in bold!

I wish you well on your journey - even if you only get as far as the temple.

iconoclast.

If you think I've rejected your advice in the least, you've completely missed what I've been typing. I've taken your advice to heart and you've provided much needed insight on the personal nature of said journey. There's nothing lost here, my friend.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

I most definitely want the conversation to take place here. You both don't see the point of this thread - it welcomes ALL ideas. There is no hijacking, unless the person isn't being constructive. I mean, the original post itself is so ambiguous, how could I even attempt to confine the discussion when I'm the one asking for advice. Wouldn't that limit the perspective I could receive if I wasn't open to all ideas, thereby defeating the whole purpose? The thread started off in an abstract nature, and will continue. You both are being constructive, and I value all ideas to consider.

Proceed.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

That's cool. It's just you began with thanks, and then went on to contradict my advice, and that seemed to say - 'enough already' - which is fine. No bad feeling, and I do wish you well, my friend. I know my ideas can be a bit much, and I can be a bit much, because between you and I - I think that tact is really just lying, and that a person should say what they mean.

I'd also assume from your lack of response to the question that you'd prefer DT and I conduct our truth/religion debate elsewhere. Or maybe you just didn't read it? See, more signs where apparently there aren't any, or are there?

Oaky, I'm editing this post and to explain the point DT asked for it.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

That's cool. It's just you began with thanks, and then went on to contradict my advice, and that seemed to say - 'enough already' - which is fine. No bad feeling, and I do wish you well, my friend. I know my ideas can be a bit much, and I can be a bit much, because between you and I - I think that tact is really just lying, and that a person should say what they mean.

I'd also assume from your lack of response to the question that you'd prefer DT and I conduct our truth/religion debate elsewhere. Or maybe you just didn't read it? See, more signs where apparently there aren't any, or are there?

Oaky, I'm editing this post and to explain the point DT asked for it.

iconoclast.

I'm a straightforward person and I don't leave mysterious signs. I explain my case. Look at the above post for my answer to the discussion question.

As for the contradiction of your advice: Just because I may not completely agree with an aspect of your advice, does not mean I haven't considered it, nor does it mean it was of no value to me or that I disregarded it at all. I consider as much as I can, so if something I type seem contradictory, that's just my nature. I consistently contradict because I consistently try to give as many sides as possible a turn to consider. In fact, when I thought you were attempting to stop conversation, I typed "But please don't make this the end"...look above on post #41.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Didymos Thomas,
This is what I said:

Quote:

This is where I'd refute Didymos Thomas's argument:

Quote:
Any louder than philosophy? And here's another one to consider - what is the difference between philosophy and spiritual teaching?

It would be to oversimplify to say it's the distinction between rationality and emotionality - but it's whether the emphasis is on epistemology or metaphysics.

I know I've talked a great deal about introspection, your own truth and the whispers of your heart - but I see epistemology, ontology and identity as interrelated. It's not merely about knowing your truth but why it's true, and what that means for you. I think religion, or spiritual teachings emphasizes idenitity over epistemology and ontology and that it's incorrect to do so.

You ask:

Quote:

You say spiritual teachings emphasize identity over epistemology and ontology; how? And is the misplaced focus universal to spiritual teaching, or local?

I'd say that the epistemology of religion is groundless, and that the ontology of religion is fantastic. Thus, the epistemology and ontology is actually an extension of ideintity, in the way that religion identifies the individual as a member of a group by requiring them to believe certain ontological assertions without a rigorous epistemological grounding.

iconoclast.

p.s. I only asked you to leave me alone to win the argument. Cheap shot I know!

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Zetherin,

Wow, that was a confusion, but I think we're back on track now, but where's Didymos? It's 23:07 here in GMT land. I bet he'll have posted by the time I do. Really, I live a few miles from the beginning and end of the temporal world and I'm always half a step behind.

All's well.

Anything yet? Nope, still waiting. There's no bad feeling even if you don't take my advice - how could there be when that very advice is to think for yourself. I really don't like religion though - because, its emotionally loud and begins with how you feel, not with how things are - get used to it. Which is what I'm saying to Didymos below.

You see, Didymos's tactics here are twofold 1) he doesn't want to allow me to generalize, and 2) wants to distinguish between good and bad religion.
These are both high order fakery - rhetoric, not philosophy. I've countered by making my arguments specific to a particular religious tradition - even while I think it fair to generalize, and simple rebuttal of his distinction between good and bad religion.

Either way he's caught on the horns of a dilema - because if religion is mythos, it's grounded in methaphysics and this is epistemically incorrect - a fact he doesn't want to acknowledge.

So now, he's either got to acknowledge that God is a metaphor, which he doesn't want to, or find the line, and thus explain the epistemology of a distinction between mythos and logos. I don't see how he can do so.

See.

Okay, I'm on.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

I'd say that the epistemology of religion is groundless, and that the ontology of religion is fantastic. Thus, the epistemology and ontology is actually an extension of ideintity, in the way that religions idnetifies the individual as a member of a group by requiring them to believe certain ontological assertions without a rigorous epistemological grounding.

The epistemology of religion is experience; empiricism.

Anyway, to the point. Different religious traditions approach ontology in different ways. I'm not sure how you can criticize so generally about such diverse perspectives. Furthermore, ontology is a branch of metaphysics, which relies on reason and language to arrive at logically coherent claims; usually ontological-like language in religion is figurative and not literal as is the case with most metaphysical discourses. Thus, this criticism boils down to a mistake of taking figurative language as literal. Now, this is a mistake that many religious people make - they interpret mythos as logos (you remember this from our last conversation), and that's a shame.

Have you read Swift's A Modest Proposal? Well, it's a satire in which he suggests we eat the babies of poor people. Some brilliant (note the sarcasm) English politician thought Swift was serious and actually liked his suggestions. This politician is not unlike those religious adherents who mistake mythos for logos. My point is this - just because some idiot English man didn't get the joke doesn't change the fact that Swift's publication was satire. Just because some religious adherents mistake mythos for logos does not mean that the mythos is logos, much less that the mythos should be approached as logos.

So, basically, you're criticism is reasonable in some cases. This is a valid complaint, one I share with you, against many religious individuals who misunderstand the teachings of their faith tradition (which usually occurs because they attend congregations lead by uneducated baboons). However, this complaint does not apply to all religious people, and most certainly cannot be reasonably lodged against all religion.

Quote:

p.s. I only asked you to leave me alone to win the argument. Cheap shot I know!

No, no, not a cheap shot. Just beneath you. First, if you're interested in "winning" an argument, being the last to speak doesn't designate you the victor in debate. Second, this forum isn't about "winning" arguments. This forum is about exchanging ideas with other people who have similar curiosities and interests. Disagreement is okay - no one will think less of you if, at some point in a conversation/debate, you say 'let's just agree to disagree'. To be honest, I will think more of you if you have the courage to say 'let's just agree to disagree' than I will if you revert to such childish tactics as playing a victim when you are most certainly not a victim.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos,

So, religion has an empirical basis? Surely then, it has absorbed other empirical knowledge with comfort and ease, has it? No, it hasn't. Despite the fact that the neo-darwinian synthesis has been accepted universally by scientists, religion continues to struggle with the idea - just as it struggled in the past with empirical proof of heliocentrism.

Next point. Different religious traditions. I'm doing Christianity from personal experience, but you do what you want. If you think it's okay to counter a criticism of Chrisitianity with 'the Dalai Lama says' and think this absolves religion in general, it's going to be a long night.

But, to the meat of the matter. You talk about the confusion between mythos and logos, but then you agree that religion emphasizes the metaphysical over the epistemological?

Even if you agree I don't agree with you, because I don't think it's merely 'some religious people' that fail to draw this distinction - and that in general religion, ontological claims and all, is thought of as having literal truth, and even super-literal truth.

This is epistemically incorrect, no?

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

Wow, that was a confusion, but I think we're back on track now, but where's Didymos? It's 23:07 here in GMT land. I bet he'll have posted by the time I do. Really, I live a few miles from the beginning and end of the temporal world and I'm always half a step behind.

All's well.

Anything yet? Nope, still waiting. There's no bad feeling even if you don't take my advice - how could there be when that very advice is to think for yourself. I really don't like religion though - because, its emotionally loud and begins with how you feel, not with how things are - get used to it. Which is what I'm saying to Didymos below.

Okay, I'm on.

iconoclast.

Realize I was actually following your advice before you even gave it, hence this thread.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Quote:

So, religion has an empirical basis? Surely then, it has absorbed other empirical knowledge with comfort and ease, has it? No, it hasn't. Despite the fact that the neo-darwinian synthesis has been accepted universally by scientists, religion continues to struggle with the idea - just as it struggled in the past with empirical proof of heliocentrism.

Either this is a joke, or you pay no attention. So what if some religious people have a misunderstanding; not all religious people have this misunderstanding. Therefore, such a criticism cannot be universally applied to religion, but only applied to those who make the mistake.

Many scientists are Christians, and they obviously have little trouble with evolution. You cannot honestly criticize Christian scientists who acknowledge and embrace evolution as if they somehow reject evolution.

Quote:

Next point. Different religious traditions. I'm doing Christianity from personal experience, but you do what you want. If you think it's okay to counter a criticism of Chrisitianity with 'the Dalai Lama says' and think this absolves religion in general, it's going to be a long night.

That's the thing, though. You are criticizing religion in a universal way, so of course I'm going to use universal counterpoints. I tell you what, though, I am a Christian who knows many other Christians. Would you like for me to rely on the Christian examples from my personal experience? I would not mind mentioning them, withholding their names, of course.

Even if we limit our conversation to Christianity - Christianity is not monolithic. Christians have diverse beliefs. Even among a single denomination you can find diverse and contradictory views, just as you can find diverse and contradictory views among adherents of particular schools of philosophy.

Quote:

But, to the meat of the matter. You talk about the confusion between mythos and logos, but then you agree that religion emphasizes the metaphysical over the epistemological?

No, I do not think that religion emphases metaphysics over epistemology. I think it is misleading to speak universally about religion. I think it is misleading to discuss metaphysical-like religious claims in terms of logos because, more often than not, the metaphysical-like religious claims are not logos but mythos.

Quote:

Even if you agree I don't agree with you, because I don't think it's merely 'some religious people' that fail to draw this distinction - and that in general religion, ontological claims and all, is thought of as having literal truth, and even super-literal truth.

Why do you reject the fact that only a portion of the religious population takes their scripture literally?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos,

Quote:

Either this is a joke, or you pay no attention.

I'm sure it's a little of both. As we're criticizing styles though, I see you've again begun with the first line and commented on each line in trun, rather than reading the whole thing through and thus bringing latter points to bear on earlier ones. Would you like another go?

The Church teaches as if what it's saying is true, ontological claims and all.

So let's get into some of those cliams - if you think religion is all metaphor.

God: does he exist or is he a methaphor?

heaven: exist or metaphor?

Jesus?

Miracles?

Creation - did that actually happen?

What are we suuposed to take literally and what are we supposed to understand is a metaphor, how can we tell the difference?

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Quote:

As we're criticizing styles though, I see you've again begun with the first line and commented on each line in trun, rather than reading the whole thing through and thus bringing latter points to bear on earlier ones. Would you like another go?

You made this same criticize in our last debate. I have to tell you, I do read the whole post through. My style of responding insures that I address all of your claims; so that I do not omit any necessary point of the conversation.

Quote:

The Church teaches as if what it's saying is true, ontological claims and all.

Once again, you speak of Christianity as a monolithic institution. But there is no "The Church", there are many churches and many Christians who do not attend church or receive instruction from a church.

Also, not all Churches teach the Bible as if the text is literally true. You find churhces and ministers from all parts of the spectrum, from insanely literal to remarkably open.

Quote:

So let's get into some of those cliams - if you think religion is all metaphor.

Sounds like a good idea. I'll answer as best I can.

Quote:

God: does he exist or is he a methaphor?

This is a large question, and God is understood in many different ways. Some would respond with something to the effect of "of course God exists, as God is everything that does exist". In this way, the teaching "Love God" means something like "Love life".
We might also take God as a figurative term, and not make God equivalent to nature. God could represent love, for example. In this way, the teaching "Love God" is a way to impress the value of love and compassion.

There are many ways to approach the concept of God, and many of them clearly reject the idea that God is some magical man in the clouds watching our every move.

Quote:

heaven: exist or metaphor?

Metaphor, very much so. Hell, too. These should not, in my opinion, be understood as places we go after our literal death, but instead these should be understood as abstractions of life on earth. For example, when you sin, let's say you murder someone, you are already in Hell; you're own psychological disorder that drives you to murder is Hell. Similarly, when you love your neighbor as yourself, you are in heaven.

Quote:

Jesus?

Pontius Pilate was a real person, we know this as a matter of fact. But the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not so clear. There does not exist any extra-scriptural evidence of his literal existence. So, there should be no reason to think that Jesus actually lived. More importantly, it doesn't matter if he lived or not.

Jesus represents a sort of ideal human. Try to live as Jesus lived; love others, help people, ect.

Quote:

Miracles?

Myths - they figuratively express something. Jesus walking on water represents his enlightened nature; and reminds us that we should not be so arrogant to think of ourselves as enlightened. Jesus rising from the dead on the third day reminds us that our actions go beyond our life, and that good teaching never dies.

Quote:

Creation - did that actually happen?

Of course not. It's a mythological story. Figuratively expresses something about life.

Quote:

What are we suuposed to take literally and what are we supposed to understand is a metaphor, how can we tell the difference?

Do you want me to run through every passage of the Bible? You tell the difference by paying attention to what you read. You tell the difference the same way you tell the difference between the literal and figurative in Dante's Divine Comedy or in any other figurative work.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Okay, If DT hasn't posted by the time I post this I'm going to bed. It's waaaaay past my bedtime here in GMT land and I really do need my beauty sleep. Until we meet agian Didymos Thomas. Bwaah - hahahaha!

Well, after this then.

Didymos,

Yes, I did make that criticism because I'm fairly sure it's the case that you respond to each sentance. It's a problem because I don't approach things systematically but address the whole thing, and build toward my point - which is likely to come at the end of a post like this.

You say:

Quote:

Once again, you speak of Christianity as a monolithic institution. But there is no "The Church", there are many churches and many Christians who do not attend church or receive instruction from a church.

Well, so what? What are my options? Do you want a list of Churches and a psychological profile of each and every vicar? Not to mention the congregation, both church going and not? It may slow the debate somewhat while I spend the next 2000 years compiling the data?

This is a ridiculous objection you keep bringing up as if it's possible to speak about this subject in other terms. You say 'many churches' which is to say not all, but it's still a generalization, so please, don't do this. Yes, I'm speaking generally when I say:

Quote:

The Church teaches as if what it's saying is true, ontological claims and all.

But rather then address the point you shoot it down as meaningless because it's a generalization. I think you'd have great difficulty finding any religious teacher, vicar, parson, preacher whatever, who'd say that God is a metaphor. Jesus - metaphor.

You might have better luck with heaven, hell, miracles and creation, but it's the absurd consequence of your argument that no truth claims are made at all - as far as I can tell, though I suppose now you'll tell me that in fact they do, but are confused over the mythos/logos distinction.

Quote:

Some would respond with something to the effect of "of course God exists, as God is everything that does exist".

Pantheism - not really a mainstream Chrisitian religious sect.

Quote:

God could represent love, for example.

Then religious teachings must have changed a great deal since I was a kid, when God was the authority called upon for a good smacking. And historically, he's been the authority for a lot worse than a heavy handed approach to child rearing. God is love - now fix bayonets!

Quote:

There are many ways to approach the concept of God, and many of them clearly reject the idea that God is some magical man in the clouds watching our every move.

So no, not really, no-one thinks he actually exists?! balderdash!

Just as you're not going to go through every passage of the Bible, I'm not going to go through every passage of your reply to demonstrate the same principle. The Bible makes these claims - and other religions make similar claims to fantastic ontologies. Thus:

Quote:

I'd say that the epistemology of religion is groundless, and that the ontology of religion is fantastic. Thus, the epistemology and ontology is actually an extension of identity, in the way that religion identifies the individual as a member of a group by requiring them to believe certain ontological assertions without a rigorous epistemological grounding.

Generally speaking, of course.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Iconoclast,

You seem to just be ragging on DT. He has specific examples of interpretation that justify his attack on your attempts at generalization. Don't let your dogmas blind you to what he is saying, it is quite true. You can twist any ambiguous text into somthing you find valueable. Its just like Crime and Punishment but more comprehensive, its just like any philosophy. People wrongly treat a philosophical text as a religious ones all of the time. They often wrongly interpret these texts, and sometimes do terribloe things in their names(like with Nietzsche and hitler, or Heidegger and hittler, or Marx and any number of dictators).

You simply need to be more specific. What you are doing is akin to me saying that philosophy is just a bunch of wind bags quippng over nothing to nobody and is a waste of time and thought. It manipulates the minds of those who read it so it should be eliminated. Lets extend what you are doing to all ideologies. Does it still hold? You generalize dispite counter examples so I suspect it might.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235,

Quote:

You seem to just be ragging on DT.

If you read back you'll find we're consenting adults who have agreed to engage in this debate in knowledge of our respective positions and its contentious nature.

See above for comments on generalization.

Quote:

What you are doing is akin to me saying that philosophy is just a bunch of wind bags quippng over nothing to nobody and is a waste of time and thought.

You fail to distinguish between good and bad philosphers you see - that's your problem! Good philosphers: me / bad philsophers: everyone else!

:OK::sarcastic:

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

Well, so what? What are my options? Do you want a list of Churches and a psychological profile of each and every vicar? Not to mention the congregation, both church going and not? It may slow the debate somewhat while I spend the next 2000 years compiling the data?

This is a ridiculous objection you keep bringing up as if it's possible to speak about this subject in other terms. You say 'many churches' which is to say not all, but it's still a generalization, so please, don't do this. Yes, I'm speaking generally when I say:

Quote:
The Church teaches as if what it's saying is true, ontological claims and all.
But rather then address the point you shoot it down as meaningless because it's a generalization. I think you'd have great difficulty finding any religious teacher, vicar, parson, preacher whatever, who'd say that God is a metaphor. Jesus - metaphor.

You might have better luck with heaven, hell, miracles and creation, but it's the absurd consequence of your argument that no truth claims are made at all - as far as I can tell, though I suppose now you'll tell me that in fact they do, but are confused over the mythos/logos distinction.

Your options - continue to over-generalize and misrepresent faith traditions or be sensitive to the vast differences to be found among faith traditions.

I do not say that your claims are meaningless. As I've said, the objections you raise are valid, and that I share those objections, in certain contexts. For example, you rightly criticize those who demand literal interpretation of scripture. Me too. The difference between us here is that I recognize that not all Christians/religious demand literal interpretation of scripture, and so I do not make the mistake of criticizing all Christians as if they all made such an error.

I have never argued that no truth claims are made.

Quote:

Pantheism - not really a mainstream Chrisitian religious sect.

Who cares how many adherents a particular perspective has? They still serve as an example just as well. I'm not even trying to suggest that a majority of Christians do not make the mistakes we criticize, only that some do not make those mistakes. You cannot indiscriminately indict the whole population because of part of the whole.

Let's apply your reasoning to a different issue. Most Americans are Christians, but not all Americans are Christians. Certainly you would not say that all Americans are Christian just because most are.

Quote:

Then religious teachings must have changed a great deal since I was a kid, when God was the authority called upon for a good smacking. And historically, he's been the authority for a lot worse than a heavy handed approach to child rearing. God is love - now fix bayonets!

Your individual experiences do not, cannot, represent the full range of religious instruction.

I'm sorry if you do not like my examples, but there they are, and there they stand.

Quote:

So no, not really, no-one thinks he actually exists?! balderdash!

That is not what I said. If all you want to do is twist my words so that you feel more comfortable with you ideological predisposition, that's fine.

Quote:

If you read back you'll find we're consenting adults who have agreed to engage in this debate in knowledge of our respective positions and its contentious nature.

Yeah, and I wish you would engage in a conversation using our knowledge. Instead, you restate your ideological opinions and reject my examples out of hand.

Furthermore, the fact that we both agree to have this conversation in no way discredits Zetetic. We can both agree to have the conversation and one of us still do nothing more than rag on the other.

Iconoclast - we are all wrong sometimes. I've been shown to be wrong many times on this forum. Ask Aedes if you do not believe me. No one will think less of you because some particular idea of yours does not hold up under scrutiny; heck, chances are you will be held in higher esteem if you are humble enough to reevaluate your ideology based on new information. It's easy to be stubborn, and difficult to be open minded.

Open that mind, friend. I know you have one.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

If you continue with this futile rhetorical tactic, it seems we will have to define the object of discussion. This is from wikipedia:

Quote:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion[1] centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.[2] Its followers, known as Christians,[3] believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament (the part of scripture common to Christianity and Judaism). To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher, the model of a virtuous life, the revealer of God, and most importantly the saviour of humanity who suffered, died, and was resurrected to bring about salvation from sin.[4] Christians maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven, and most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers. Christians call the message of Jesus Christ the Gospel ("good news") and hence label the written accounts of his ministry as gospels.

If you have problems with this and would like to offer a counter definition - okay, but I don't see how this debate can progress if you use rhetorical tactics to avoid addressing arguments - that you know very well cannot be other than generalizations, and are fair comment of the mainstream of the Christian religious tradition.

Quote:

Let's apply your reasoning to a different issue. Most Americans are Christians, but not all Americans are Christians. Certainly you would not say that all Americans are Christian just because most are.

No, but America is a Christian country, in much the same way that not all Iranians are Muslims, but Iran is a Muslim country. I'm talking about the country of Christendom if you like, and making general observations about that country. That's fair comment - we both know is neither specific nor universal, but general.

This, again, is my general argument.

Quote:

I'd say that the epistemology of religion is groundless, and that the ontology of religion is fantastic. Thus, the epistemology and ontology is actually an extension of identity, in the way that religion identifies the individual as a member of a group by requiring them to believe certain ontological assertions without a rigorous epistemological grounding.

What I'm attempting to suggest is that the ontological truth claims made by religion, in this case Chrisitianity, (excepting those Christians who don't actually believe in the existence of God, Jesus, heaven, hell, miracles or creation) are epistemologically groundless - which is to say, not grounded in a valid epistemology, but are merely assertions about the nature of reality.

Now, you admit you have:

Quote:

been shown to be wrong many times on this forum.

But please don't feel that acknowledging the validity of my argument undermines your whole belief structure and personal identity.
I know, as you say:

Quote:

It's easy to be stubborn, and difficult to be open minded.

Particularly given that the false epistemology inherrent to religious faith does not lend itself to reason, but do try.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

If you have problems with this and would like to offer a counter definition - okay, but I don't see how this debate can progress if you use rhetorical tactics to avoid addressing arguments - that you know very well cannot be other than generalizations, and are fair comment of the mainstream of the Christian religious tradition.

Yes, I do not think that definition works. A definition of Christian must account for all variations of Christianity we are likely to encounter; even minority perspectives. Thus, a Christian is simply someone who primarily refers to the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ for spiritual guidance.

You do present criticisms of Christianity that are valid against many Christians. But those criticisms are not valid against all Christians. This point is not merely some rhetorical tactic, it is a statement of fact, a recognition of the variety of Christian faith; most basically, the point allows us to criticize religion without employing a fallacious argument, namely, the fallacy of composition.

Quote:

No, but America is a Christian country, in much the same way that not all Iranians are Muslims, but Iran is a Muslim country. I'm talking about the country of Christendom if you like, and making general observations about that country. That's fair comment - we both know is neither specific nor universal, but general.

Iran is a Muslim country because Iran's government is a Muslim theocracy. The US does not have a Christian theocracy and is therefore not a Christian nation in the same way Iran is a Muslim nation.

Anyway, you missed the point. I brought up the example to highlight the failure of your logic by applying that logic to another situation. It's a fallacy of composition.

To your second point here; if you recognize that your criticisms are not universal, then you should also be able to recognize the error of using those criticisms to universally discredit Christianity.

Quote:

What I'm attempting to suggest is that the ontological truth claims made by religion, in this case Chrisitianity, (excepting those Christians who don't actually believe in the existence of God, Jesus, heaven, hell, miracles or creation) are epistemologically groundless - which is to say, not grounded in a valid epistemology, but are merely assertions about the nature of reality.

First, we have to clear up the issue of "those Christians who don't actually believe in the existence of God, Jesus, heaven, hell, miracles or creation". The problem is the word "believe" and what that word means. Some say "I believe in God" and imagine a magical man in the clouds. Others say "I believe in God" and imagine an ineffable reality.

If you want to criticize, by saying "that the ontological truth claims made by religion, in this case Christianity, are epistemologically groundless - which is to say, not grounded in a valid epistemology, but are merely assertions about the nature of reality." only those who demand literal interpretation of scripture, people who demand that Jesus was a real human being who was literally resurrected after death, who literally walked on water, then we do not have much to argue about. I, too, criticize these claims.

Quote:

Particularly given that the false epistemology inherrent to religious faith does not lend itself to reason, but do try.

By saying that false epistemology is "inherent" to religious faith, again, makes a universal statement about religion; again, it's a fallacy of composition. If you are interested in making your arguments reasonable, then you have to root out such fallacies. Otherwise, all you are doing is establishing an ideological claim that categorically ignores the facts of the subject you are addressing as ideology so often does.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know