A Cold Hell

a Christian is simply someone who primarily refers to the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ for spiritual guidance.

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.

1. To have confidence or faith in (a person), and consequently to rely upon, trust to.
a. To believe in a person (also in Scripture in, or on, his name). [Cf. late L. credere in aliquem.]
b. To believe in a thing, e.g. the truth of a statement or doctrine; also in mod. usage, in the genuineness, virtue, or efficacy of a principle, institution, or practice.
c. Formerly with of = on, in.
d. absol. To exercise faith.
2. To give credence to (a person, or his statement); to trust (from L. credere alicui). Obs. Replaced by 5, 6.
3. ellipt. To believe in (a person or thing), i.e. in its actual existence or occurrence.
4. To trust, expect, think to do (something). Obs. Cf. BELIEF 5.
5. To give credence to (a person in making statements, etc.). Object orig. dat.: cf. 2. Phrases. I believe you, an expression of emphatic agreement; believe (you) me, phr. strengthening an assertion.
6. a. To give credence to, to accept (a statement) as true [cf. L. credere aliquid]. Also in colloq. phrases strengthening an assertion, as believe it or not, would you believe it? (see WILL v.1 43), you'd better believe (see BETTER a. 4b).
b. To accept (a thing) as authentic. Obs.
7. With clause or equivalent inf. phrase: To hold it as true that..., to be of opinion, think.
8. To hold as true the existence of. Obs. (Now expressed by 3.)

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM. Obs.
2. The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles.
b. with pl. A Christian religious system.
3. State or fact of being a Christian; Christian condition or quality; Christian spirit or character.
b. upon my Christianity! = as I am a Christian: a form of asseveration. (Cf. CHRISTENDOM 1b, HALIDOM, etc.) Obs.
4. Eccl. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as in Court of Christianity = COURT CHRISTIAN; hence spec. applied to ruridecanal chapters, and ruridecanal jurisdictions; whence Dean of Christianity, orig. = Rural Dean; now retained in the title of particular rural deaneries, or Deaneries of Christianity, comprising the parishes of certain cities or towns, as Exeter, Lincoln, Leicester.

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM. The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles.

To believe in a thing, e.g. the truth of a statement or doctrine; also in mod. usage, in the genuineness, virtue, or efficacy of a principle, institution, or practice. To believe in (a person or thing), i.e. in its actual existence or occurrence.

What I'm attempting to suggest is that the ontological truth claims made by religion, in this case Chrisitianity, are epistemologically groundless - which is to say, not grounded in a valid epistemology, but are merely assertions about the nature of reality.

You would exempt some Christians from the definition of Christianity by wikipedia? Who? Don't generalize. Give me a specific and exhaustive list. If you're so keen on specificity - name the Christians that don't believe God exists, Jesus exists, heaven, hell and so forth, becuase it's you that contradicts a reasonable and objective defintition.

I don't think that definition fits at all - for someone who seeks spitritual guidence from the teachings of Jesus once in thier lifetime, but is for the rest of thier life athiest, is by your standards a Christian. Does it not wash off?

The existence of God, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that Jesus died for our sins are articles of faith central to the Christian religion, and they are truth claims about the nature of reality without a direct evidential basis, believed in contradiction of the usual way belief is formed.

I'm saying in these terms that the beliefs of Christianity are groundless - and that religion, in this case Christianity, makes truth claims without an evidential basis - that are not valid of reality, that do not accord with reason, but are required of adherents to this religion.

To ask for an exhaustive list is silly, and you know it. Should I survey all living Christians?

And still you make the mistake of confusing mythos with logos.

But, as I've said, Christianity is not monolithic and the term covers a variety of views.

It's as silly as you continuing to point out that my statements are generalizations. If you admit you can't provide an exhaustive list then it's foolish to expect the same of me - or to infer that I should be able to. You can't - I can't. So I'll make generalizations - just as you do, and if you are actually constructively engaged in the argument you might respond with 'yes, to some extent, but' - rather than 'no, because...'

No I don't. Religion does when it makes truth claims about the nature of reality. I know it's bollox, or mythos if you prefer.

p.s. so you refuse to accept my definition that accords with the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Chrisitanity in favour of your own?

- it is possible to believe the Genesis myth (mythos) and accept the scientific account of the origin of the universe and life (logos). They work on different levels.

Didymos Thomas,


I don't think that definition fits at all - for someone who seeks spitritual guidence from the teachings of Jesus once in thier lifetime, but is for the rest of thier life athiest, is by your standards a Christian. Does it not wash off?

iconoclast.

The farther we delve scientifically, the more mythos we may be able to actually disprove - perhaps even the genesis mythos you speak of. So, then, how can they coexist in one's mind on some issues? What different levels do they work on, as you noted?

One can attempt to prove a God exists through logic, so they don't have to be on different levels, right? (Acquinas, for example).

In the end, though, it seems to me that one has to choose either one, in some situations. Yes, one can definitively live with a combination of logos and mythos, as you seem to do, but on certain topics it appears you have to choose either or.

Zetherin - Labels are difficult. Especially when they overlap, when they are not mutually exclusive. Someone might, and accurately so, describe themselves as Buddhist and Christian, or as an atheist and a Buddhist.
Looking at the history of religion in China, we find all sorts of great examples. Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism - these all merged together. Why? Because truth doesn't need labels.

You state mythos provides direction while logos simply explains what actually took place -can't logos provide just as much direction for a person?. For some, the logical explanations can bring a person a comfort, a sense of meaning, just as any mythos can. I feel it depends on the person. For instance, my atheist friend appears almost comforted at new scientific breakthroughs. This is not just a general curiosity I see in him, but rather it appears he is actually being calmed the more we uncover scientifically. In other words, even the functions are overlapping. I think the more we intellectually press any matter, the more we will see that there are no definitive lines but the lines we make. That is, the objective nature we attempt to place on ideas, notions, whatever, may be immensely more complex and blurred than we'd like to believe.

On to your next point, keeping what I just noted in mind: you don't believe God is matter for logos. I believe you aren't taking into account every notion of God. Sure, some notions of God may not be any matter for logos, but there are notions, such as intelligent design, in which logos does have place. Perhaps when you say God, you are implying the Christian notion only, and in that case you are oversimplifying.

You've furthered my understanding of the matter and enlightended me, despite the inebriation

Actually, you do confuse the two when you attempt to criticize mythos with logos, reason. It would be wrong to criticize Dante's Divine Comedy by saying the account is historically inaccurate.

it is possible to believe the Genesis myth (mythos) and accept the scientific account of the origin of the universe and life (logos). They work on different levels.

I take it you now recognize the fact that Christians can deny the historical existence of Jesus and deny literal interpretations of scripture?

My suggestion is that these notions of God, which chalk God up to logos, are mistaken.
If God is logos, lack of evidence for God would be reason enough to discard the notion of God. But God as a matter of mythos (please pardon my sloppy language) does not suffer in this way. God, as a matter of mythos, can help give context to human life, can allow us to come to terms with the ineffable aspects of our life.

You really think religion is worth defending, don't you? Why? It's not like your too stupid to think for yourself - and having thought for yourself it's not as if you've come to the same conclusions as - can we agree, a majority of Christians?

Similalrly, we both accept one and refute the other - but to reject religion is okay because it's not true, whereas the rejection of science is dangerous.

I'll entertain the notion if you'll explain to me how that's achieved - but let's be right, you're not speaking for any of the main streams of the Christian religion i.e. catholic, methodist, protestant, anglican, C of E, etc, but a personal, non-doctrinaire spiritualism based upon 'the teachings of Jesus' - (whatever that means if he didn't exist.)

You seem to be holding a discrimination against any doctrine of beliefs relating to religion,

and for some reason believe consideration of such equates to not thinking for yourself.

It appears science is it for you and humoring any sort of religious belief period is the sign of a weak mind.

I perceive you as no different than a religious extremist if you are a scientific extremist - both reject consideration.

How is either more dangerous to reject? I can reject the theory of evolution, so what?

Likewise, I can reject any notion of a spiritual God, so what?

Neither hold any more weight than the other

Every classification is personal, and that's what you're not understanding.

Everyone's mind is not as cut and dry, black and white, as you're implying.

You really think religion is worth defending, don't you? Why? It's not like your too stupid to think for yourself - and having thought for yourself it's not as if you've come to the same conclusions as - can we agree, a majority of Christians?

But Dante doesn't purvey his ideas as truth - and religion does, and/or of significance that's above and beyond mere human truth. I don't see the significance in what I view as the politics of an era gone by - and/or ideas discredited by science.

How? If we're saying that the majority of Christians confuse mythos with logos - or, from my point of view where I value scientific knowledge and see little worth in religion, the two conflict. Similalrly, we both accept one and refute the other - but to reject religion is okay because it's not true, whereas the rejection of science is dangerous.

The distinction you would make puts religion beyond criticism, except in religious terms - so religion can put forth on society, politics, ethics and so forth, but it's a one way street? Any ciriticism meets with - no, because that's logos. It's not on.

I'll entertain the notion if you'll explain to me how that's achieved - but let's be right, you're not speaking for any of the main streams of the Christian religion i.e. catholic, methodist, protestant, anglican, C of E, etc, but a personal, non-doctrinaire spiritualism based upon 'the teachings of Jesus' - (whatever that means if he didn't exist.)

Please explain your personal views - though I'm not sure what relevance they have to the historical and contemporary role of religion in society.

p.s. You're stateside, am I correct? I'm in GMT land. The time difference is playing havoc with my otherwise busy schedule - so how about three well though out posts per day, (today: me - you - me, tommorow: you - me - you) rather than, from my end a flurry from midnight to 3 am? I think it will free us both up and improve the quality of the debate.

God, as a matter of logos, can still help to give context to human life. No, this context may not be spiritual in nature, but that doesn't matter. Lack of evidence may be enough to discard certain notions of God through the matter of logos, but that doesn't mean God can't be logically proven by some, as we just mentioned with Acquinas. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the logic, and yes, I'm sure there are loopholes that could break a logical proof, but this could happen just as easily with a mythos-based belief of God. Instead of a logical point being disproven, a break in faith for the mythos would have the same effects. Disbelief, whether logically or spiritually, can be overwhelming.

If you're saying that I discriminate between relgion and rational knowledge - that's right, I do. And it's not merely to distinguish one from the other - I think rational knowledge has value and religion is false, foul, abusive, divisive, greedy, hateful and false. In know I've said false twice, but it's like a mantra.

Yes, religions tend to indoctrinate children with very emotionally powerful ideas before the age at which they're able to think for themselves - and these ideas are such that they create an emotional dependence, and tell the child it's sinful to question. I think, in adulthood, this disables a persons intellect - essentially hijacking them, and turning them into a defender of the faith.

Oh, yes they do. Epistemological weight.

So you use hope and belief to guide you? Do you think that hope (and no, I'm not thinking in a religious context) is a good thing to have in order to calm the mind. How did you overcome your "anchors"? It appears you imply that you are in a better state of mind now, and so I'm curious as to how you've made the progression.

...

And when you pray, who/what are you praying to? Do you find resolve in prayer, or was that just a phrase you enjoy using when you find a connection with another being and want to bestow a sense of empathy?

I appreciate your input.

Except that religion does not, should not (because abuses abound), attempt to establish itself as a logical framework.

Others, like myself, have to read and educate ourselves. Read history, spend some time with the scripture, and just simply read. If you notice, I draw many examples from literature - Dante, Swift, Moliere. Education in one area is not limited to that realm.

Science cannot discredit mythos

But trying to use science as mythos, as the Nazis often attempted, is equally dangerous.

To reject religion is okay because it is not true? This argument isn't going to hold up. Once again, you say religion is "not true" because you criticize religion as some sort of set of logical claims, which religion is not.

Rejection of religion can be dangerous, too. Just look at today's world - certain Jews reject Islam and certain Muslims reject Judaism and as a result they blow each other to pieces on the street.

We cannot reasonably criticize the Genesis myth by presenting scientific accounts of the formation of the universe and the development of life. To do so is to miss the point of the myth. However, we can criticize interpretations of that myth that take the myth beyond it's bounds. When someone denies evolution, or claims the world is only 6,000 years old (when someone has misappropriated the myth) we can criticize this with science.

when someone attempts to use scripture to justify violence, as so often happens, we can read the scripture and criticize their interpretation. Like when some Christians justify violence based on scripture, we can, and should, point out the peaceful nature of the teachings of Jesus.

regarding taking scripture literally, many mainstream churches and ministers recognize the fact that scripture is not supposed to be read literally.

Should not perhaps, but historically, and a great many contemporary religions do just that - and we agree that's wrong

...why religion and not a Swift Fan Club? Indeed, why not, like me, draw your spiritual conclusions from scientific knowledge?

It seems you hold the teachings attributed to Jesus in some regard. What's the basis of that? It's not epistemological - i.e. you think it's true. So you might as well draw your spiritual guidence from 'Far from the Madding Crowd' or 'The Mayor of Casterbridge.' (Thomas Hardy - recommended reading.)
Or better yet, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' (Daniel C. Dennett - highly recommended reading.)

Well, no, but science has consequences for our conception of self and the world, and what our just purposes in the world are, and these contend on the same basis as religious mythos.

That's simply not true. The ideology of the Nazis was not remotely scientific - but in fact steeped in the teutonic mythos of blood and soil - and distinctions between Aryans and Semitic peoples. The Aryans come from Atlantis - which tells you all you need to know about the scientific merits of the argument. The danger is not inherrent to science, but science in the hands of people who believe in mythos.

But you admit: 1) that many religions do confuse mythos and logos - they shouldn't, but they do. and 2) that religion is mythos - which is to say, not true.

What I'm saying is there's no danger in rejecting a myth, because it's a myth - i.e. not true, whereas there is danger in rejecting scientific facts because they are true of who we are and the reality we inhabit. To reject a scientific fact is live at odds with onesself, eachother and reality.

That's a hillarious attempt to absolve religion of its sins. They don't reject Islam, they believe in Judaism - as if it were true, in fact more than true. And the Muslims you speak of believe Islam as if it were true, in fact beyond mere human truth. They identify themselves and eachother in these terms - and thus see eachother as an affront to the truth of thier own religiously defined identities.

Arguably, you miss the point. The very existence of the myth robs science of its profound spiritual implications. The simple fact that we are a single species on a single planet rationalizes cooperation rather than segregation and hatred. That we are evolutionary beings places the spiritual emphasis on the species as opposed to the individual - and thus we should cooperate to perpetuate the species.

You say that, but the Bible is packed with violence, and instructs people to spare the rod and spoil the child, and beat your wife with a stick - but no thicker than your thumb. Besides, because it's a myth, what basis is there for establishing any one interpretation over another? There are moderate Muslims and Muslims that think the Koran instructs them to kill. We have to turn to religious authorities to get the authoritative interpretation - and by doing so invest such a person with power of life and death on the basis of a myth!!!?

But I don't think literalism is the issue here. I still don't accept that even liberal Christianity makes no truth claims, even while it may not read genesis literally, like I was saying before, it still credits the idea with value that stands in contradiction of the value of scientific fact, and attributes the inspiration to God to elevate themselves above the status of a literary fan club.

Actually, science does not work on the same level as mythos. I'd recommend talking to Aedes for a full explanation as to the limitations of science in this regard.

while the "is" findings may bear on personal decisions and clinical recommendations, that is NOT a grounding for a moral rule. (Abortion: #323)

The very existence of the myth robs science of its profound spiritual implications. The simple fact that we are a single species on a single planet rationalizes cooperation rather than segregation and hatred. That we are evolutionary beings places the spiritual emphasis on the species as opposed to the individual - and thus we should cooperate to perpetuate the species.

Except that religion does not, should not (because abuses abound), attempt to establish itself as a logical framework. Again, the difference between mythos and logos.

historically, and a great many contemporary religions do just that - and we agree that's wrong

Right, but historically, and a great many contemporary religions, do not make such mistakes.

It's a version of the argument from authority that is the epistemological basis of religion - to make assertions, and present no evidence but a well respected name. Having pointed out that this put's the power of life and death in the hands of those who interpret myths for a living - I'd rather we conducted this debate in the here and now.

So, the argument to which you refer is the ought-from-is argument. And as I'm sure you're aware, Aedes is a medical doctor. The argument states that one cannot derive ought-from-is, and despite my objections, Aedes has shown this to be the case.

This doesn't claim to be a scientific argument, but is a moral argument informed by science - that is, spiritual conclusions drawn from a scientific conception of reality - rather than 'the teachings attributed to Jesus.' If you think of scientific fact, in this sense, as a parable - a body of information not explicitly stating, but suggesting and informing the moral...clearly, your contention that: 'science does not work on the same level as mythos' is simply incorrect.

I can have anything inform my moral and spiritual calculus - as you do, from the Divine Comedy, Confucius, or Russell, or Aristotle through to the teachings attributed to Jesus, but I choose science because it's valid of reality. The fallacy only comes into play if I were to suggest that the moral were determined by the facts, and I'm not suggesting that at all. (I've learnt better from arguments on this forum.)

Well, we could debate that question from the Council at Nicea through Siger of Brabant and the Papal Court of the Inquisition, through Galileo and Darwin and onto Intelligent Design. But the question for me here is, what are you prepared to defend?

You won't acknowledge that Christians necessarily have beliefs, or that religions require faith of adherents, you don't accept that religion makes truth claims - and therefore cannot assert that the Bible has any greater authority than The Mayor of Casterbridge, for example. You don't claim God exists, or Jesus exists, or that heven and hell exist, or miracles, or creation.

If that's the case, I declare your God and religion fiction by your own admission. The only question remaining is whether one thinks it better to have one's moral calculus informed by fact or fiction. I know where I stand, and where Aedes stands, what about you?