Christianity as a philosophical system?

[juvenissun]

If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?

What is perfect? I think you may say that it is something you, or anyone else, can not find anything wrong with it. For example, I can say that something is wrong with Buddhism, or with Islam. Then neither of them is a perfect philosophical system.

What is wrong? In this case, first, if it is not complete, then it is wrong. Second, if it has internal logic conflict, then it is also wrong.

What is complete? It is a system which addresses everything you are, or anyone else is, concerned about. Then is complete.

This purpose of this thread is not to convince you on anything, but is begging you to challenge, or to convince me. I do think Christianity is a perfect philosophical system.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It's imperfect, because it does not particularly deal with the here and now. Everything is geared towards an unproven afterlife. Nor does it actually explain why anything is how it is. If God's reasoning is unknown or beyond our comprehension, then it cannot be included in the philosophy. Therefore it is incomplete.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?

What is perfect? I think you may say that it is something you, or anyone else, can not find anything wrong with it. For example, I can say that something is wrong with Buddhism, or with Islam. Then neither of them is a perfect philosophical system.

What is wrong? In this case, first, if it is not complete, then it is wrong. Second, if it has internal logic conflict, then it is also wrong.

What is complete? It is a system which addresses everything you are, or anyone else is, concerned about. Then is complete.

This purpose of this thread is not to convince you on anything, but is begging you to challenge, or to convince me. I do think Christianity is a perfect philosophical system.

OK then. If you think Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, then prove it.

Specifically, prove that it is internally consistent and externally complete.

 

[The Nihilist]

Christianity as a philosophical system is completely incoherent, mainly because that includes some 22,000 denominations ranging from catholicism to mormonism to christian science to the westboro baptist church to the anglican church. Additionally, the bible is full of contradictions, so that won't work either. You're going to have to be very specific on what kind of christianity you mean.

 

[juvenissun]

Christianity as a philosophical system is completely incoherent, mainly because that includes some 22,000 denominations ranging from catholicism to mormonism to christian science to the westboro baptist church to the anglican church. Additionally, the bible is full of contradictions, so that won't work either. You're going to have to be very specific on what kind of christianity you mean.

In contrast, Buddhism has much fewer denominations, and Islam has even fewer. I believe that some minor religions and philosophical systems will not allow any room for alternative interpretation.

But, diversity IS a character of Christianity. It not only allows, but in fact, it encourages alternative interpretations on various teachings. On the other side, it is also very strict on a few basic doctrines. A slight deviation from any of those will render the system into something called cults (such as the mormonism). I think this "design" (or consequence) is very beautiful. Various denominations of Christianity is hardly a problem to the philosophical system. Even within one denomination, one can always witness various of opinions on any of the non-essential doctrines. This fact, actually build up a very solid base for the system.

 

[juvenissun]

It's imperfect, because it does not particularly deal with the here and now. Everything is geared towards an unproven afterlife. Nor does it actually explain why anything is how it is. If God's reasoning is unknown or beyond our comprehension, then it cannot be included in the philosophy. Therefore it is incomplete.

It does. Otherwise, no one will believe in it. I, to be the first one, will not believe in a system which has no practical use.

 

[juvenissun]

OK then. If you think Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, then prove it.

Specifically, prove that it is internally consistent and externally complete.

A very improper argument. Thus, it needs no reply.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Clearly Christianity is not perfect either in the sense of completion, since it is a teleological system by its very nature of looking forward towards some goal, nor is it perfect in the sense of excellence, since people can be motivated by its teachings to be callous and condescending individuals simply because they think they are part of the elect or even simply that they are saved and thus somehow in a better position than others. While this is not always the case, Christianity, particularly in the fundamentalist and evangelical senses, promote ideas that are either triumphalist or moralist in nature, saying Christianity is destined to succeed or that Christianity's basic principles are somehow superior for people to live their lives by.

I don't decry Christianity as a whole, but as you said, if I can find things to criticize in part, it is less than perfect either by completion or in excellence. I don't see any reason to focus primarily on things outside oneself as the source for personal change, such as God, angels or demons, nor do I think that our primary focus should be seeking out a way to perpetuate our conscious existence beyond the life we have here and now. The fixation on immortality and indestructibility runs through Christianity, especially as people see it prefigured in the Old Testament, not to mention the military and political metaphors and imagery present in Revelation.

Overall, Christianity only seems to have ethical impulses that I could find agreeable, except that those ethical impulses are, in most cases, based on the notion of merit, even if the very system they believe in has no room for justification on the basis of merit. Not to mention I could choose to be a pacifist based on other methods besides the idea that I will go to heaven as a martyr. Either that, or the people simply feel they are doing God's will and surrendering their own will for the divine compulsion motivated by their personal revelations from it. And in that case, it becomes objectionable on the grounds that you cease to be free in any sense of the word except that you think freedom is polarized between slavery to good and slavery to evil, even though by general Christian consensus, evil is not a substance unto itself, but merely a twisting of good.

If one reads something like Jefferson's Bible, taking Jesus' teachings apart from the supernatural revelation context, they do appear to have more justification, though I would say that any general wisdom in Christianity seems to exist more primarily in the Jewish scriptures which they only borrow for justification of prophecy. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes both come to mind.

There's my initial polemic of sorts. By all means continue your apologia of it.

 

[juvenissun]

Clearly Christianity is not perfect either in the sense of completion, since it is a teleological system by its very nature of looking forward towards some goal, nor is it perfect in the sense of excellence, since people can be motivated by its teachings to be callous and condescending individuals simply because they think they are part of the elect or even simply that they are saved and thus somehow in a better position than others. While this is not always the case, Christianity, particularly in the fundamentalist and evangelical senses, promote ideas that are either triumphalist or moralist in nature, saying Christianity is destined to succeed or that Christianity's basic principles are somehow superior for people to live their lives by.

I don't decry Christianity as a whole, but as you said, if I can find things to criticize in part, it is less than perfect either by completion or in excellence. I don't see any reason to focus primarily on things outside oneself as the source for personal change, such as God, angels or demons, nor do I think that our primary focus should be seeking out a way to perpetuate our conscious existence beyond the life we have here and now. The fixation on immortality and indestructibility runs through Christianity, especially as people see it prefigured in the Old Testament, not to mention the military and political metaphors and imagery present in Revelation.

Overall, Christianity only seems to have ethical impulses that I could find agreeable, except that those ethical impulses are, in most cases, based on the notion of merit, even if the very system they believe in has no room for justification on the basis of merit. Not to mention I could choose to be a pacifist based on other methods besides the idea that I will go to heaven as a martyr. Either that, or the people simply feel they are doing God's will and surrendering their own will for the divine compulsion motivated by their personal revelations from it. And in that case, it becomes objectionable on the grounds that you cease to be free in any sense of the word except that you think freedom is polarized between slavery to good and slavery to evil, even though by general Christian consensus, evil is not a substance unto itself, but merely a twisting of good.

If one reads something like Jefferson's Bible, taking Jesus' teachings apart from the supernatural revelation context, they do appear to have more justification, though I would say that any general wisdom in Christianity seems to exist more primarily in the Jewish scriptures which they only borrow for justification of prophecy. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes both come to mind.

There's my initial polemic of sorts. By all means continue your apologia of it.

Your comment is two long, too wide and too general to be answered effectively. So I also give a general reply. I appreciate more specific argument.

Christianity admits and predicts that not everyone will accept it. In fact, it says that those who really accept it are in minority. For those who are faithful to it, they may feel both above others and lower than others at the same time on different aspects. This is a property of what perfectness should have. I am a Christian. But I don't feel I am better than you on everything. In fact, the doctrine teaches that a Christian should feel inferior.

No matter how you criticize Christianity, it can both accept it and win over it at the same time. That is another symptom of perfectness. It is wide, deep and yet has a clear goal which satisfies.

It has good answer to everything, whereas Buddhism and Islam do not. I have many questions that Buddhism and Islam can not, or do not answer. But Christianity can.

 

[The Nihilist]

In contrast, Buddhism has much fewer denominations, and Islam has even fewer. I believe that some minor religions and philosophical systems will not allow any room for alternative interpretation.

But, diversity IS a character of Christianity. It not only allows, but in fact, it encourages alternative interpretations on various teachings. On the other side, it is also very strict on a few basic doctrines. A slight deviation from any of those will render the system into something called cults (such as the mormonism). I think this "design" (or consequence) is very beautiful. Various denominations of Christianity is hardly a problem to the philosophical system. Even within one denomination, one can always witness various of opinions on any of the non-essential doctrines. This fact, actually build up a very solid base for the system.

Sir, you are not describing a philosophical system. You are describing a philosophical pile.

 

[3sigma]

It has good answer to everything, whereas Buddhism and Islam do not. I have many questions that Buddhism and Islam can not, or do not answer. But Christianity can.

Such as? What questions does Christianity answer that other religions can’t or don’t and can you demonstrate that those answers are true? I also suspect that many won’t agree with your idea of a “good” answer.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Your comment is two long, too wide and too general to be answered effectively. So I also give a general reply. I appreciate more specific argument.

Christianity admits and predicts that not everyone will accept it. In fact, it says that those who really accept it are in minority. For those who are faithful to it, they may feel both above others and lower than others at the same time on different aspects. This is a property of what perfectness should have. I am a Christian. But I don't feel I am better than you on everything. In fact, the doctrine teaches that a Christian should feel inferior.

No matter how you criticize Christianity, it can both accept it and win over it at the same time. That is another symptom of perfectness. It is wide, deep and yet has a clear goal which satisfies.

It has good answer to everything, whereas Buddhism and Islam do not. I have many questions that Buddhism and Islam can not, or do not answer. But Christianity can.

Just being able to accept a critique does not mean you've automatically won. And as someone else pointed out, winning is not something you can always objectively determine. Just because you happen to answer one objection doesn't mean that you have successfully defended against all objections.

Not to mention that you seem to think perfection is somehow able to answer every question to complete satisfaction, whereas I would argue that perfection would at best have sufficient answers, even if there is also the possibility that people will not be able to reconcile your answers with reality.

Wanting an answer to everything is a problem in itself. Even Christianity from at least a Catholic perspective, if not also a Protestant perspective, says that there are things we cannot sufficiently answer and must be believed in on faith, such as the Trinity and the Resurrection. Just because Islam or Buddhism chooses not to answer your question doesn't suggest that the lack is an imperfection.

Your idea of perfection really seems to want both completion and excellence, which are distinct from each other. Completion would be impossible in the sense that Christianity doesn't necessarily answer every opposition and criticism of it. The answers aren't self evident. Excellence is a matter of comparison which is not able to be done with every single person. I find Buddhism by comparison better and more excellent than Christianity, whileyou find Christianity more excellent in comparison to Buddhism.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Bullet point version of critique

Christianity is not perfect either in the sense of completion, since it is a teleological system by its very nature of looking forward towards some goal

Nor is it perfect in the sense of excellence, since people can subjectively reject Christian ideas. We believe in things by relation to them when they are a matter of faith primarily and not logic.

I don't decry Christianity as a whole, but as you said, if I can find things to criticize in part, it is less than perfect either by completion or in excellence.

I don't see any reason to focus primarily on things outside oneself as the source for personal change, such as God, angels or demons

Nor do I think that our primary focus should be seeking out a way to perpetuate our conscious existence beyond the life we have here and now.

The fixation on immortality and indestructibility runs through Christianity, especially as people see it prefigured in the Old Testament, not to mention the military and political metaphors and imagery present in Revelation. This seems to make it more focused on the here and now than people make it seem to be

If one takes Jesus' teachings apart from the supernatural revelation context, they appear to have more justification, though I would say that any general wisdom in Christianity seems to exist more primarily in the Jewish scriptures which they only borrow for justification of prophecy. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes both come to mind.

 

[juvenissun]

Sir, you are not describing a philosophical system. You are describing a philosophical pile.

I am not a philosopher. I do not know the established structure of philosophy. I am talking about a system of ... philosophy, the best word I know for it.

 

[juvenissun]

Such as? What questions does Christianity answer that other religions can’t or don’t and can you demonstrate that those answers are true? I also suspect that many won’t agree with your idea of a “good” answer.

It does not matter if the answer is good or not good to a person. But it has a structured answer.

For example, the origin problems, and their relationships to the present and to the future. To look at it from the beginning to the end, it is very beautiful.

I do not see such a complete system anywhere else.

 

[juvenissun]

Just being able to accept a critique does not mean you've automatically won. And as someone else pointed out, winning is not something you can always objectively determine. Just because you happen to answer one objection doesn't mean that you have successfully defended against all objections.

Not to mention that you seem to think perfection is somehow able to answer every question to complete satisfaction, whereas I would argue that perfection would at best have sufficient answers, even if there is also the possibility that people will not be able to reconcile your answers with reality.

Wanting an answer to everything is a problem in itself. Even Christianity from at least a Catholic perspective, if not also a Protestant perspective, says that there are things we cannot sufficiently answer and must be believed in on faith, such as the Trinity and the Resurrection. Just because Islam or Buddhism chooses not to answer your question doesn't suggest that the lack is an imperfection.

Your idea of perfection really seems to want both completion and excellence, which are distinct from each other. Completion would be impossible in the sense that Christianity doesn't necessarily answer every opposition and criticism of it. The answers aren't self evident. Excellence is a matter of comparison which is not able to be done with every single person. I find Buddhism by comparison better and more excellent than Christianity, whileyou find Christianity more excellent in comparison to Buddhism.

I try to ask a question to Buddhism, but I do not get an answer: What is the origin of life? This is a very fundamental question. But Buddhism avoids it completely. The idea of nothing is everything and everything is nothing does not address this question.

 

[juvenissun]

Bullet point version of critique

Christianity is not perfect either in the sense of completion, since it is a teleological system by its very nature of looking forward towards some goal

One at a time.

Christianity is a philosophy of man. A man has a need to know his future, that is so-called the goal. And Christianity addresses that concern.

Why is this not good (breaking the sense of completion?)? Would a system not be complete if the end is not known?

 

[3sigma]

For example, the origin problems, and their relationships to the present and to the future. To look at it from the beginning to the end, it is very beautiful.

I asked you to demonstrate that the answers Christianity gives are true. You haven’t done that here. Christianity’s answer to the origin of life hasn’t been shown to be true. In fact, the creation stories in Genesis have been shown to be false. A philosophy that provides false answers can hardly be considered perfect. A perfect philosophy would be without defect or fault.

It does not matter if the answer is good or not good to a person. But it has a structured answer.
…
I do not see such a complete system anywhere else.

It seems as though when you say, “Christianity is a perfect philosophical system”, what you really mean is, “Christianity is a perfect belief system for me”.

 

[juvenissun]

Bullet point version of critique

Nor is it perfect in the sense of excellence, since people can subjectively reject Christian ideas. We believe in things by relation to them when they are a matter of faith primarily and not logic.

The faith in a philosophical system can be treated as assumption. I am not sure, but I think in Christianity, we only need one major assumption: God exists.

All other doctrines can be discussed according to logic. For example, what is the property of God? Or what is the relationship between God and man? And, as it is discussed in another thread, what is free will?

People can reject some contents of a philosophical system. But if the system structurally provides arguments to the concern, then it satisfied a requirement of being complete. And if the argument is essential and supports the whole system, then the system is perfect, regardless if people accept that particular argument of not.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It does. Otherwise, no one will believe in it. I, to be the first one, will not believe in a system which has no practical use.

What about the rest of the argument? Are you going to ignore it? Christianity does not say why, which is an important part of a philosophy. It offers no explanation on the nature of God and the universe, unless you take a literal interpretation - and we know that the literal interpretation is wrong.

Besides, as Wiccan said, you're claiming that it's perfect so you're going to need to put forward reasons to.