New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 1:48 PM

Fervent said:
Considering its a complete mangling of what I have argued it is a straw man, even if unintentional or from a lack of understanding. Perhaps before you seek to challenge my argument, you might take the time to actually understand it?

I am offering to take the time. Why don't you set out your whole argument, point by point to begin with so at least I will know what I am supposed to be challenging.

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:02 PM

BCP1928 said:
I am offering to take the time. Why don't you set out your whole argument, point by point to begin with so at least I will know what I am supposed to be challenging.

Transgenderism depends on re-definition of the categories "male' and "female" to include individuals born into the opposite category. This is a confusion, and its a confusion based on an idealist epistemic bent(that is to say that the truth of what we are making sense of things depends on our making sense of them rather than reflecting something about reality). This arises as a result of nominalism, which is the notion that only individuals exist and there are nothing real being expressed when we recognize similarities across individuals, any grouping is then arbitrary. Nominalism is a threat to a proper understanding of Christianity, because it robs it of key ontological dimensions and renders the atonement either a legal fiction or nothing more than a moral exemplar(though nominalism threatens the idea of morality as well because it depends on universals). So transgenderism is a symptom of a larger philosophical issue, namely nominalist commitments, which are in turn a threat to Christian theology because of the entailments of nominalism and the inevitability of an idealist epistemic structure from such an ontological commitment.

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 2:19 PM

Fervent said:
In the words of John "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." Your inability to speak to the nature of your belief calls into question your perception of it, to the point where I believe it's legitimate to question such perceptions and whether it qualifies as belief in the sense that believers believe.

Perhaps you don't understand how memory works well, but I doubt that. I can't give you what you want. It is all just a subjective interpretation of my mental state from more than 1/4 century ago. If you'd like to interrogate 1995 me, have your time machine contact mine and I'll let you go back and interrogate 20-something me. I can't give you anymore than that. I'm sorry if old memories aren't good enough for you. I don't remember the details, certainly not to the extent that I could pass your "actual believer" test. I've seen this nonsense from other Christians before. I don't know what the issue is. Do you not want to admit that someone could truly believe and then give it up?

Fervent said:
There's no game, simply pointing out the flaw(fallacious base) in your argument.

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:27 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Perhaps you don't understand how memory works well, but I doubt that. I can't give you what you want. It is all just a subjective interpretation of my mental state from more than 1/4 century ago. If you'd like to interrogate 1995 me, have your time machine contact mine and I'll let you go back and interrogate 20-something me. I can't give you anymore than that. I'm sorry if old memories aren't good enough for you. I don't remember the details, certainly not to the extent that I could pass your "actual believer" test. I've seen this nonsense from other Christians before. I don't know what the issue is. Do you not want to admit that someone could truly believe and then give it up?

There's no issue, simply trying to gather evidence. And I don't exactly mean to put you to a test, simply expressing skepticism based on what you have stated. You insist that you once believed, but you don't seem to be able to recall well enough to actually know what that means so how can you be sure you ever believed and weren't simply going with the motions? You think you know what faith is, but from your testimony here and other places it doesn't appear to me you do. So why cling to the notion that you once did?

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 2:37 PM

Great, thank you. It is immediately clear where my confusion has come from. I am certainly not going to challenge your argument, just make some comments so you will know how my confusion arose.

Fervent said:
Transgenderism depends on re-definition of the categories "male' and "female" to include individuals born into the opposite category. This is a confusion, and its a confusion based on an idealist epistemic bent(that is to say that the truth of what we are making sense of things depends on our making sense of them rather than reflecting something about reality). This arises as a result of nominalism, which is the notion that only individuals exist and there are nothing real being expressed when we recognize similarities across individuals, any grouping is then arbitrary.

I am not familiar with modern philosophers of nominalism who lead you to this conclusion, nothing since Hume, anyway, nor do I understand their Nominalism to be the Nominalism treated of by Traditional Christian theologians. I am vaguely aware that Ockham himself would now be considered a Conceptualist in modern terms, rather than a Nominalist.

Fervent said:
Nominalism is a threat to a proper understanding of Christianity, because it robs it of key ontological dimensions and renders the atonement either a legal fiction or nothing more than a moral exem

I cannot take a position on that. I have been taught--and believe--that the Atonement is a Mystery, an event beyond our understanding which no human theory can fully explain. Consequently, I am at a loss to say what effect modern philosophy might have on our belief in it. For my part it has none.

Fervent said:
(though nominalism threatens the idea of morality as well because it depends on universals). So transgenderism is a symptom of a larger philosophical issue, namely nominalist commitments, which are in turn a threat to Christian theology because of the entailments of nominalism and the inevitability of an idealist epistemic structure from such an ontological commitment.

OK, so what do you suppose should be done about it?

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:48 PM

BCP1928 said:
Great, thank you. It is immediately clear where my confusion has come from. I am certainly not going to challenge your argument, just make some comments so you will know how my confusion arose.

Fair enough.

BCP1928 said:
I am not familiar with modern philosophers of nominalism who lead you to this conclusion, nothing since Hume, anyway, nor do I understand their Nominalism to be the Nominalism treated of by Traditional Christian theologians. I am vaguely aware that Ockham himself would now be considered a Conceptualist in modern terms, rather than a Nominalist.

Conceptualism is still broadly nominalist, and among most philosophers there remain only two live possibilities on the question of universals. Either strong realism, or what's called "trope nominalism". But the arguments against realism are basically "I don't like it because its weird" and misapplication of Occam's razor from an epistemic heuristic to a law of nature, while trope nominalism ultimately runs into the same issue that predicate nominalism has in requiring acceptance as a brute fact rather than providing any sort of explanation to the problem of universals. But the issue with nominalism in general remains because it renders any grouping of objects an arbitrary decision since there is no real commonality to speak of only accidental "similarities".

BCP1928 said:
I cannot take a position on that. I have been taught--and believe--that the Atonement is a Mystery, an event beyond our understanding which no human theory can fully explain. Consequently, I am at a loss to say what effect modern philosophy might have on our belief in it. For my part it has none.

Mystery, certainly, but that doesn't mean there aren't genuine truths we can understand about it even if we can't reduce it to a pure theory. You may not recognize the impact modern philosophy has on a general understanding of it, but to me there's a clear link between the popularity of what I consider impoverished theories like penal substitution that reduce it to a mere shifting around of heavenly ledgers among Western Christianity. At some level, we have to maintain that the atonement impacted our ontology and nominalism renders that impossible given there is no shared ontology among us.

BCP1928 said:
OK, so what do you suppose should be done about it?

Challenging anti-philosophical attitudes built on misperception of what philosophy involves, especially in challenging an aversion to dealing with the deep questions even if they will never fully be settled.

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 2:57 PM

Fervent said:
Fair enough.

Conceptualism is still broadly nominalist, and among most philosophers there remain only two live possibilities on the question of universals. Either strong realism, or what's called "trope nominalism". But the arguments against realism are basically "I don't like it because its weird" and misapplication of Occam's razor from an epistemic heuristic to a law of nature, while trope nominalism ultimately runs into the same issue that predicate nominalism has in requiring acceptance as a brute fact rather than providing any sort of explanation to the problem of universals. But the issue with nominalism in general remains because it renders any grouping of objects an arbitrary decision since there is no real commonality to speak of only accidental "similarities".

Mystery, certainly, but that doesn't mean there aren't genuine truths we can understand about it even if we can't reduce it to a pure theory. You may not recognize the impact modern philosophy has on a general understanding of it, but to me there's a clear link between the popularity of what I consider impoverished theories like penal substitution that reduce it to a mere shifting around of heavenly ledgers among Western Christianity. At some level, we have to maintain that the atonement impacted our ontology and nominalism renders that impossible given there is no shared ontology among us.

Challenging anti-philosophical attitudes built on misperception of what philosophy involves, especially in challenging an aversion to dealing with the deep questions even if they will never fully be settled.

Well, that certainly sounds like a challenging project for Protestant theologians. Good luck.

Fervent · Tuesday at 3:09 PM

BCP1928 said:
Well, that certainly sounds like a challenging project for Protestant theologians. Good luck.

When the foudation crumbles, most of the work will be done on its own. It's only a matter of time before post modern philosophy leads to a general nihilism among the populace and the false hope of radical individualism is exposed for what it is.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:35 PM

Hans Blaster said:
I'm sorry if old memories aren't good enough for you. I don't remember the details, certainly not to the extent that I could pass your "actual believer" test.

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

I can claim I ate apples for years, but if later I claim I don't know what apples taste like, would you blame someone if he was skeptical of my initial claim?

Hans Blaster said:
I've seen this nonsense from other Christians before. I don't know what the issue is. Do you not want to admit that someone could truly believe and then give it up?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Lots of people believe.

But not everyone receives.

Okay ... so you believed at one time, then gave up your belief.

People do that.

But don't arc and spark if they don't think you received.

You're past testimony, coupled with your attempt to "Chuck Cunningham" God out of existence, is flawed.

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 4:49 PM

Fervent said:
There's no issue, simply trying to gather evidence. And I don't exactly mean to put you to a test, simply expressing skepticism based on what you have stated. You insist that you once believed, but you don't seem to be able to recall well enough to actually know what that means so how can you be sure you ever believed and weren't simply going with the motions? You think you know what faith is, but from your testimony here and other places it doesn't appear to me you do. So why cling to the notion that you once did?

There isn't more edifying information to be had. You either accept what I claim (that I believed as a callow youth), or you don't. It says nothing about me, but it might say something about you. I am not going to try and justify your acceptance of my truth.

Part of the problem is you speak in a language that is alien to me (Protestantism) and not related to how I viewed the faith or my part in it. About 10 years ago after I had discovered this site and had followed links from it to apologetics and counter-apologetics, to debates, and then to "atheist content", I had a moment of doubt and pain, or rather I convinced myself that I had never really believed and was just going through the motions in my church days. But, the problem was that I was watching too many ex-evangelicals make their arguments against religion (and the ways that *they* had tried to communicate to the believers in their audience that *they* had once believed in the evangelical way) and had started to absorb their notions about what was needed to be a True Christian(tm). Since I had never had a "born again" experience or a "relationship with Jesus" nor ever read the Bible, I took that and that I'd never put a whole lot of focus my faith and convinced myself that I just wasn't a real believer. The problem was, I was privately embarrassed that I'd fallen for that Christianity thing in the first place and *wanted* it to be true that I was never a believer (or at least not in my adult life). That only lasted a couple of weeks of self-satisfaction, until I realized I really had believed that stuff about God and just because I hadn't done it the evangelical way that I wasn't even aware of didn't change the fact that I'd believed. (My next step was to be angry with my indoctrination and the time I had wasted, but I got over that too.)

Fervent · Tuesday at 5:02 PM

Hans Blaster said:
There isn't more edifying information to be had. You either accept what I claim (that I believed as a callow youth), or you don't. It says nothing about me, but it might say something about you. I am not going to try and justify your acceptance of my truth.

And here we're at the subjective idea of truth again.

Hans Blaster said:
Part of the problem is you speak in a language that is alien to me (Protestantism) and not related to how I viewed the faith or my part in it. About 10 years ago after I had discovered this site and had followed links from it to apologetics and counter-apologetics, to debates, and then to "atheist content", I had a moment of doubt and pain, or rather I convinced myself that I had never really believed and was just going through the motions in my church days. But, the problem was that I was watching too many ex-evangelicals make their arguments against religion (and the ways that *they* had tried to communicate to the believers in their audience that *they* had once believed in the evangelical way) and had started to absorb their notions about what was needed to be a True Christian(tm). Since I had never had a "born again" experience or a "relationship with Jesus" nor ever read the Bible, I took that and that I'd never put a whole lot of focus my faith and convinced myself that I just wasn't a real believer. The problem was, I was privately embarrassed that I'd fallen for that Christianity thing in the first place and *wanted* it to be true that I was never a believer (or at least not in my adult life). That only lasted a couple of weeks of self-satisfaction, until I realized I really had believed that stuff about God and just because I hadn't done it the evangelical way that I wasn't even aware of didn't change the fact that I'd believed. (My next step was to be angry with my indoctrination and the time I had wasted, but I got over that too.)

It's not just a "evangelical" thing, though evangelicals tend to be the most vocal about the whole thing. And it's not about a lack of a born again experience, though a personal relationship isn't dispensible though what that means varies. So from what you are saying, you seem to be trying to play at both sides. You believed the stuff about God(though I'm not sure how this fits with your previous statement about not being "arrogant" enough to believe it was objectively true) but that's a wide net that may or may not include a genuine expression of faith, though the more you relate your past experiences the less it appears you had a genuine experience of faith. Faith isn't about particular doctrines and mental assent to some set of propositions, it's about personally experiencing God in our lives. So I'm not sure what you experienced, but it seems a rather pallid experience compared to genuine faith.

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 5:21 PM

Fervent said:
And here we're at the subjective idea of truth again.

Oh, boy. Not again. We are talking about things that are true *about* me. You might not accept my claims about me, but that is not my problem. I find green peas disgusting and I have only every truly cared about one professional sports team -- [the redacted redactors]. For these kinds of things, even when true, can they truly be called "objective"? This isn't about whether peas are disgusting or if the [redacted redactors] are the greatest pro sports team of all time (both are, of course true), or if there is a god, but what my opinion of these things was/is.

Fervent · Tuesday at 5:32 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Oh, boy. Not again. We are talking about things that are true *about* me. You might not accept my claims about me, but that is not my problem. I find green peas disgusting and I have only every truly cared about one professional sports team -- [the redacted redactors]. For these kinds of things, even when true, can they truly be called "objective"?

Yes, because subjective things aren't subject to truth or falsity. In order for something to be true, there must be some objective character to it.

Hans Blaster said:
This isn't about whether peas are disgusting or if the [redacted redactors] are the greatest pro sports team of all time (both are, of course true), or if there is a god, but what my opinion of these things was/is.

No, that's where you're mistaken. Your opinion is only part of the equation, the rest is whether it reaches the threshold to qualify as faith or if it was something else entirely. Which isn't purely a matter of your opinion or what you believed about yourself, especially since lacking the genuine experience you would have no basis to recognize the shortcomings of your opinions.

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 5:39 PM

Fervent said:
Yes, because subjective things aren't subject to truth or falsity. In order for something to be true, there must be some objective character to it.

No, that's where you're mistaken. Your opinion is only part of the equation, the rest is whether it reaches the threshold to qualify as faith or if it was something else entirely. Which isn't purely a matter of your opinion or what you believed about yourself, especially since lacking the genuine experience you would have no basis to recognize the shortcomings of your opinions.

Is objective truth the only kind there is?

Fervent · Tuesday at 5:40 PM

BCP1928 said:
Is objective truth the only kind there is?

What other kind of truth might there be? Seems to me objectivity is required for something to fall into categories of truth or falsity.

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 5:47 PM

Fervent said:
What other kind of truth might there be? Seems to me objectivity is required for something to fall into categories of truth or falsity.

We seem to be talking about theological propositions here, most of which cannot be demonstrated objectively, yet you still believe them. What kind of truth is that?

Fervent · Tuesday at 5:54 PM

BCP1928 said:
We seem to be talking about theological propositions here, most of which cannot be demonstrated objectively, yet you still believe them.

You're getting into epistemic issues, which is a separate question. Whether they can be demonstrated objectively, if God is real then there is a correct understanding at least to the extent humanly possible. So our epistemic uncertainty about the truth of the propositions does not undermine their objective status. They are either true or false, or else empty.

BCP1928 said:
What kind of truth is that?

If it is true, then it is objectively true.

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 9:27 PM

Fervent said:
Yes, because subjective things aren't subject to truth or falsity. In order for something to be true, there must be some objective character to it.

I'm beginning to think I may need to use the InigoMontoyaMeaning.jpeg meme.

Fervent said:
No, that's where you're mistaken. Your opinion is only part of the equation, the rest is whether it reaches the threshold to qualify as faith or if it was something else entirely. Which isn't purely a matter of your opinion or what you believed about yourself, especially since lacking the genuine experience you would have no basis to recognize the shortcomings of your opinions.

There is only one judge of the truth of my opinions and feelings -- ME.

The item at issue (for reasons I no longer remember) is whether I, alias "Hans Blaster", believed in God (and associated things), during the last 1/4 of the 20th century. It refers to the *opinion* of said "me" in the past about the nature/existence of God. The only authority is *me*, no one else, not you, not @BCP1928 , not my priest, no one. If you don't want to believe me or you wish to judge the form of Christianity I practiced, that's up to you, but do it in private, would ya?

Fervent · Tuesday at 9:46 PM

Hans Blaster said:
There is only one judge of the truth of my opinions and feelings -- ME.

Again, your opinions and feelings aren't what's chiefly at issue. It's the ingredients of faith, which are not simply a matter of feelings and opinions.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 9:50 PM

Hans Blaster said:
The only authority is *me*, no one else, not you, not @BCP1928 , not my priest, no one.

Surely you saw this coming?

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads