New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

[Hans Blaster]

Given your POV, I'm not sure that really matters a whole lot.

I was referring not only to my curent "POV", but my past one as well. I know that I would have objected to anyone telling me what my Christianity meant to me, just like I don't like them telling me about my thoughts about similar categories of things today. (You remember those, right?)

Yes, yes. We know how you disdain such things. So much better to just pretend that yours are simply the default, basic understanding than to engage with discussion on such things. Much more reasonable.

Glad we can agree. Now if you could just agree on your overlap with @BCP1928 on whatever it is you're going on about, this could go back to whatever it was about in the first place. (checks thread title--- oh. never mind.)

 

[Fervent]

I was referring not only to my curent "POV", but my past one as well. I know that I would have objected to anyone telling me what my Christianity meant to me, just like I don't like them telling me about my thoughts about similar categories of things today. (You remember those, right?)

Sure, but that sounds more like a personal issue, and your current POV certainly lends itself to anti-realist sentiments towards Christianity that allows it to mean whatever a person wants it to mean.

Glad we can agree. Now if you could just agree on your overlap with @BCP1928 on whatever it is you're going on about, this could go back to whatever it was about in the first place. (checks thread title--- oh. never mind.)

The discussion certainly took a weird turn, but diagnosing the underpinnings of phenomena like the ones described in the OP does not appear to me beyond the pale, especially when it is fundamental issues that are giving expression to such symptoms. But here's a thought, if you don't like talking about things...just don't involve yourself in the conversations?

 

[BCP1928]

My "straw man version"? What have I misrepresented about the position that universals exist in name only?

For one thing, you have asserted that nominalism makes naming and discussing groups of entities impossible. Have you ever read any Ockham yourself?

And declaring it "unfalsifiable" is hardly a defense, since there is no reason either epistemically or ontologically to prefer "falsifiability" in questions of what is real.

It is a well established ontological principle of science. Another way of saying it would be that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I have no idea what you mean by "desiderata" in this case.

We have plenty of desiderata we can appeal to in arbitrating such things, so relying on "unfalsifiability" is nothing but a cop out to avoid having to defend adopting a position.

I don't have to adopt a position. I am entirely agnostic on the ontological status of universals.

As for the rest of this reply, it's rather ironic that you accuse me of straw manning while creating your complete fabrication of my position as I have stated it, which is purely the philosophical adoption of nominalism(and by extension/or as a resulting from physicalist commitments). As for your question, the onus is on the one trying to insert trans into Biblical definitions of "man" and "woman" to show that trans is included, not to demonstrate that it is excluded.

No, the ball is in your court. You claim that the definition of "man" and "woman" in the Bible excludes trans. I don't know whether it does or not, but it's not up to me to prove it doesn't.

 

[Fervent]

For one thing, you have asserted that nominalism makes naming and discussing groups of entities impossible. Have you ever read any Ockham yourself?

Nominalism results either in non-explanation of the problem of universals, or a smuggling in of universals while denying that they are being used. I don't need to read Ockham to interact with more recent exposition on it and point to the flaws.

It is a well established ontological principle of science. Another way of saying it would be that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I have no idea what you mean by "desiderata" in this case.

"ontological principle of science"...since when does science deal with ontology? Science is purely procedural, and Popper is not the final word on the epistemics involved. Ontologies, by their nature, are unfalsifiable but that doesn't mean they are indistinguishable using other epistomic criteria.

I don't have to adopt a position. I am entirely agnostic on the ontological status of universals.

Clearly you're not, since you've adopted nominalist structures of thought that result in idealist constructions of reality.

No, the ball is in your court. You claim that the definition of "man" and "woman" in the Bible excludes trans. I don't know whether it does or not, but it's not up to me to prove it doesn't.

You're forwarding the idea that it might, so it is encumbant upon you to demonstrate that such a thing is possible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, but that sounds more like a personal issue,

What something means to someone is certainly a personal issue, so I don't know why you are fighting about it with anyone.

and your current POV certainly lends itself to anti-realist sentiments towards Christianity that allows it to mean whatever a person wants it to mean.

Anti-realist? Where do you get the idea that I am an anti-realist about anything. Frankly it is absurd. (Christianity is a religion. I accept that it exists, but I don't like it.)

The discussion certainly took a weird turn, but diagnosing the underpinnings of phenomena like the ones described in the OP does not appear to me beyond the pale, especially when it is fundamental issues that are giving expression to such symptoms. But here's a thought, if you don't like talking about things...just don't involve yourself in the conversations?

Frankly you create these extended back-and-forths about nothing because you take philosophy to seriously. You get what you create.

 

[Fervent]

What something means to someone is certainly a personal issue, so I don't know why you are fighting about it with anyone.

Sure, but when we're discussing things that are supposed to be objectivve its meaning to someone isn't really a relevant issue. Which regarding Christianity you would obviously not agree with, but to someone who is a Christian maintaining it as objective truth and not a constructed reality is fairly important.

Anti-realist? Where do you get the idea that I am an anti-realist about anything. Frankly it is absurd. (Christianity is a religion. I accept that it exists, but I don't like it.)

When I say anti-realist I don't mean that you deny that Christianity exists as a religion, but that you deny the reality of its claims.

Frankly you create these extended back-and-forths about nothing because you take philosophy to seriously. You get what you create.

I take philosophy seriously because I prefer not to adopt ideas uncritically, which requires me to examine what philosophies I am embracing and not simply allow myself to onboard one by default.

 

[BCP1928]

Nominalism results either in non-explanation of the problem of universals, or a smuggling in of universals while denying that they are being used. I don't need to read Ockham to interact with more recent exposition on it and point to the flaws.

Oh dear, now we are going to have to argue about what is nominalism? Too bad you can't have the argument with Ockham, himself. I'm sure he would learn something.

"ontological principle of science"...since when does science deal with ontology? Science is purely procedural, and Popper is not the final word on the epistemics involved. Ontologies, by their nature, are unfalsifiable but that doesn't mean they are indistinguishable using other epistomic criteria.

Clearly you're not, since you've adopted nominalist structures of thought that result in idealist constructions of reality.

You really do think you're the one to tell us who we are , don't you? Why should we believe you? I don't present here as a Christian, so you can badmouth my beliefs all you like, but I am a Traditional Christian and I studied this stuff at a Traditional Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) university. Traditional Christian theology is heavily invested in the realism of universals, of course, but nominalist interpretations are not forbidden and not generally regarded as a threat.

You're forwarding the idea that it might, so it is encumbant upon you to demonstrate that such a thing is possible.

I am proposing that I don't know if it does or not, and you have not provided any evidence that it does, so I can just dismiss it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, but when we're discussing things that are supposed to be objectivve its meaning to someone isn't really a relevant issue. Which regarding Christianity you would obviously not agree with, but to someone who is a Christian maintaining it as objective truth and not a constructed reality is fairly important.

I don't think I took religion seriously enough to consider it to be "objective truth". Clearly other people believe other, contradictory, things were true and both could not be. Perhaps, I just wasn't arrogant enough to think that my religion was "objectively" true.

When I say anti-realist I don't mean that you deny that Christianity exists as a religion, but that you deny the reality of its claims.

It isn't anti-realism to deny as real what you don't exists. Now who's mapping their psychological preferences on to terminology?

I take philosophy seriously because I prefer not to adopt ideas uncritically, which requires me to examine what philosophies I am embracing and not simply allow myself to onboard one by default.

From what I have observed, your philosophical maneuvers are driven to support your established religious positions, not really any different from most amateur philosophy users.

 

[Fervent]

Oh dear, now we are going to have to argue about what is nominalism? Too bad you can't have the argument with Ockham, himself. I'm sure he would learn something.

What's to agree on? It's the thesis that universals exist in name only, what more is Ockham supposed shed on the matter?

You really do think you're the one to tell us who we are , don't you? Why should we believe you? I don't present here as a Christian, so you can badmouth my beliefs all you like, but I am a Traditional Christian and I studied this stuff at a Traditional Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) university. Traditional Christian theology is heavily invested in the realism of universals, of course, but nominalist interpretations are not forbidden and not generally regarded as a threat.

Simply because the threat isn't widely apparent doesn't mean it isn't a threat.

I am proposing that I don't know if it does or not, and you have not provided any evidence that it does, so I can just dismiss it.

Convenient.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think I took religion seriously enough to consider it to be "objective truth". Clearly other people believe other, contradictory, things were true and both could not be. Perhaps, I just wasn't arrogant enough to think that my religion was "objectively" true.

In other words, you were nothing more than a cultural Christian and never actually believed it. So in what sense do you consider yourself a former Christian, if you never believed in the first place?

It isn't anti-realism to deny as real what you don't exists. Now who's mapping their psychological preferences on to terminology?

It is anti-realism in regard to that proposition.

From what I have observed, your philosophical maneuvers are driven to support your established religious positions, not really any different from most amateur philosophy users.

While my philosophical positions do align with my "established religious positions" they were not the positions I started my journey with, as most of my initial philosophical commitments were the typical cultural ones that dominate academia to the point that they escape routine criticism.

 

[BCP1928]

What's to agree on? It's the thesis that universals exist in name only, what more is Ockham supposed shed on the matter?

Yeah, what could he know, anyway.

Simply because the threat isn't widely apparent doesn't mean it isn't a threat.

It's a very sneaky kind of threat, waiting since the 14th century for you to come along.

Convenient.

No, just too bad. It would be a more interesting discussion if you actually had anything.

 

[Fervent]

Yeah, what could he know, anyway.

You're presenting him as providing something of value, so what is it that you think he would add?

It's a very sneaky kind of threat, waiting since the 14th century for you to come along.

It's led to much of the acrimony in the church as indiidualism became increasingly en vogue. That isn't to say there haven't been positives, but that it was the first move towards an increasingly self-interested populace focused on "me, me, me"

No, just too bad. It would be a more interesting discussion if you actually had anything.

I would suggest that it's pretty clear in Genesis that "male" refers to biological male in Adam and "female" refers to biological female in Eve. There's no indication that trans was even within the realm of possibility, so what makes you think it might be?

 

[BCP1928]

You're presenting him as providing something of value, so what is it that you think he would add?

He might have explained such things as why Nominalism does not rule out naming and discussing groups of entities. Very brilliant fellow. He was excommunicated eventually, but not for Nominalism. Did you ever read The Name of the Rose?

It's led to much of the acrimony in the church as indiidualism became increasingly en vogue. That isn't to say there haven't been positives, but that it was the first move towards an increasingly self-interested populace focused on "me, me, me"

Please spare me the argument as to why you blame that on Nominalism.

I would suggest that it's pretty clear in Genesis that "male" refers to biological male in Adam and "female" refers to biological female in Eve. There's no indication that trans was even within the realm of possibility, so what makes you think it might be?

As far as we can tell, it has always been present in the human population. Some cultures have an ancient tradition of recognizing four gender categories to accommodate it.

 

[BCP1928]

You're presenting him as providing something of value, so what is it that you think he would add?

It's led to much of the acrimony in the church as indiidualism became increasingly en vogue. That isn't to say there haven't been positives, but that it was the first move towards an increasingly self-interested populace focused on "me, me, me"

Please spare me the argument as to why you blame that on Nominalism

I would suggest that it's pretty clear in Genesis that "male" refers to biological male in Adam and "female" refers to biological female in Eve. There's no indication that trans was even within the realm of possibility, so what makes you think it might be?

 

[Fervent]

He might have explained such things as why Nominalism does not rule out naming and discussing groups of entities. Very brilliant fellow. He was excommunicated eventually, but not for Nominalism. Did you ever read The Name of the Rose?

It's my understanding that Ockham forwarded predicative nominalism, which has long since been discredited and is pejoratively referred to as "ostrich nominalism". On top of that, his use of his famous razor as an ontological contention as an objection to realism has equally been discredited though there remains a heuristic value to it.

As far as we can tell, it has always been present in the human population. Some cultures have an ancient tradition of recognizing four gender categories to accommodate it.

That's not really addressing/establishing the Biblical possibility.

 

[Fervent]

Please spare me the argument as to why you blame that on Nominalism

Seems a pretty straightforward case given the disproportionate focus that nominalism puts on individuals. But ok.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, you were nothing more than a cultural Christian and never actually believed it. So in what sense do you consider yourself a former Christian, if you never believed in the first place?

I asked Hans essentially the same question here:

So you gave up all this:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... to become an atheist?

And here is the answer I got:

I gave up nothing. I made no conscious choice to stop believing, I just realized one day that I no longer did and since have self-identified as an atheist. (Though outside this board, I mostly keep that to myself.)

If you push the issue, he may stop replying to you altogether; like he did me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In other words, you were nothing more than a cultural Christian and never actually believed it. So in what sense do you consider yourself a former Christian, if you never believed in the first place?

I am at a loss for words that will pass this site's rules and filters. Please relocate yourself 1 AU closer to the Sun.

It is anti-realism in regard to that proposition.

No, just think it ain't real. No evidence. No thinkin' it real.

While my philosophical positions do align with my "established religious positions" they were not the positions I started my journey with, as most of my initial philosophical commitments were the typical cultural ones that dominate academia to the point that they escape routine criticism.

Cool story.

 

[Fervent]

I am at a loss for words that will pass this site's rules and filters. Please relocate yourself 1 AU closer to the Sun.

I'm only inquiring based on your words.

No, just think it ain't real. No evidence. No thinkin' it real.

Yes, you regard it as not real so you are anti-realist in regard to it.

Cool story.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm only inquiring based on your words.

You are so bad at analyzing peoples positions. You should stop.

Yes, you regard it as not real so you are anti-realist in regard to it.

picard_riker_double_facepalm.gif