Christianity as a philosophical system?

[Eudaimonist]

But, assume your are right, how would that affect the system of Christianity? We discovered problems, then there is something called Christianity which has the axiom of "God Exists" and is able to answer the problems perfectly.

The axiom of God's existence assumes too much, and it acts literally as a deus ex machina. "Goddidit" does not actually answer anything -- it is a complex assumption masquerading as an answer.

It would be reasonable for me to have as an axiom that "I am capable of abstract thought". It would be absurd (even self-contradictory) to deny this, and the capability of abstract thought is fully self-evident in the very act of considering an axiom.

I realize that you may believe that you experience God directly, such that God's existence seems self-evident to you, but it isn't self-evident to everyone, and isn't self-evident enough for axioms. It's not basic enough, and it's far too debatable. For instance, I personally don't believe there is any need for a divine orderer of the universe in order for the universe to be intelligable, and so there is no reason at all for me to even consider a need for God as an axiom.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I got it. Thanks for spending so much time to explain. I guess you are right on this so-calle axiom argument.

Thanks for trying to understand.

So "God exists" is not an axiom unless God is roughly defined first. I agree. In fact, as I review what I said, I did use expression:

God = functions (parameter1, parameter2, ...)

Except I thought those parameters could be added at later time. Indeed, God is a name space and is empty until those parameters and functions are filled. I might make an inaccurate argument. But I do have the right idea.

Yes, you may have "the right idea". But please keep in mind that all I can possibly know about your idea is what you present it as. And please keep in mind - when investigating the ideas of others - that it mightn´t be the idea that is lacking but merely its presentation.

I will tentatively assign two characters to God at the beginning: 1. supernatural; 2. authoritative. Then I say, such a being called God, which exist.

Ok.

Would that be a good axiom?

Don´t know if it´s a good one, but I would be willing to accept that for an unnecessary assumption as the starting point.
(Let´s not forget that there are several different definitions of "axiom". One of them demands that an axiom must be inevitable or self-evident, and - for hopefully obvious reasons - I wouldn´t accept your assumption as such.)

Now let´s get clear about a couple of things that I think I have said earlier but that may have been misunderstandable:

1. I am afraid you underestimate the distance between the paradigms of your and my worldview.

2. I am afraid you underestimate my indifference towards philosophical ideas/systems that are founded on unnecessary assumptions that I don´t share or even find downright absurd. Actually, even though they may prove internally consistent, there will always remain these premises that will render them completely uninteresting to me.

3. I am afraid you underestimate my tolerance towards such philosophical ideas. If you feel that your worldview is answering all your questions that´s a good thing, in my book, and I would recommend you to keep it (at least until - possibly - a change of desires and needs necessitate you to change the paradigms of your thinking at some point in time.

As my age and post count may or may not have already told you I´m not exactly a spring chicken when it comes to theological discussions. Don´t take it personally but I don´t expect something substantially new from your answers. Christianity - and I beg you to excuse this admittedly too broad statement - in my experience asks questions I don´t have, and doesn´t satisfactorily answer the questions I have. Thus, unless you present a substantially new Christian concept, I am not willing to take a long and troublesome journey that has already proven frustrating to me numerous times.

(And, as a side note: should you indeed present some substantially new concepts, we would be discussing your personal philosophical concepts, but not "Christianity as a philosophical system".)

Notwithstanding my unwillingness to walk with you through through the details of your theology, I will at least give you a feedback concerning your "axiom" ('There is something a. supernatural and b. authoritative.' I'll call it "God".)
1. Previously you said that everything else in your "Christian philosophy (theology)" followed logically and necessarily from this "axiom", i.e. there won´t be any more unnecessary assumptions involved. Again, please don´t take it personally, but I highly doubt that.
2. I have my problems with the term "supernatural". In my experience it is used as a mere ex-negativo concept (without a positive definition). It opens the door to non-explanations presented as explanations. IOW, it will allow you to answer any question with the non-answer "This is beyond your/our understanding - it´s the supernatural, after all."
3. I see (and have experienced countless times) a similar problem with the unnecessary assumption that there is an "authoritative" entity: It opens the door to non-explanations presented as explanations. I.e. you will be entitled to answer any why-questions with "Because God says so."

IOW: a discussion based on your premises would mean a stacked deck leaving you with all the argumentative wild-cards. That´s neither fun nor does it promise to result in inspiration or insight on either part.

Now, don´t mistake my indifference towards the way you construct your worldview from your unnecessary premises for a general disinterest in your ideas and thoughts. It´s just that I would be more interested in finding out why you (or anyone, for that matter) arrives at their premises (or "axioms", as you call them). E.g. I would be highly interested to learn why anyone would even desire there to be a supernatural authority (a desire that is completely alien to me), and what they hope to gain from such existing. Unfortunately, this is not what this thread is about (to the contrary, it explicitly asks me to abstain from taking a closer look at the premises and the psychology behind them), and I will respect that.
Eventually I might make a separate thread for discussing these things.

 

[quatona]

Sorry for that. I thought about what should I do to what you said.

One possibility is that I start a discussion on your idea, most likely argue against it. Or, I just take a note of it. The "purpose of life" as you described it is, in fact, not a surprise (or new) to me. One criticism I would give immediately is that it is too "narrow", in both domain and duration. One question I could ask you in response was: do you believe life after life? According to my understanding from your statement, the answer seems to be negative. I was not trying to get into that debate, so I shut up.

Thanks for explaining! Makes me glad I have asked.
I think this confirms what I was expecting, in the first place:
The barrier between the paradigms of your and my views prevents a meaningful communication based on the terms "purpose" and "meaning".
My use of these words doesn´t do justice to your worldview, and vice versa.
And, yes, I would agree that it was a good decision of yours to abstain from even starting such a discussion.

Hey, and concerning your assumption that there is "life after life":
Is that another, addditional unnecessary assumption ("axiom") of yours that I would have to accept for purposes of the discussion of the consistency of your philosophy - or do you think it follows necessarily and logically from your "axiom" that there is something supernatural and authoritative?
(In the first case I would feel confirmed in my expectation - feel free to call it "paranoia" - that (contrary to your initial claim) I will find myself confrontated with unnecessary assumption shifted upon unnecessary assumption, whilst in the latter case you might indeed have gotten me intrigued: How does that follow logically and necessarily?)

No response does not mean no thought. In fact, it could be a thoughtful reaction.

Agreed and conceded.

I am glad you did not let it go. Now you know. If you like to talk about it more, we can do that.

No, that´s not the problem. The problem is rather that I didn´t want to talk about it, in the first place, because it was predictable that it wouldn´t help the actual discussion we were having.

I am also interested in what Christian cults said. Two major ones I am familiar with are Jehovah Witnesses, and the Mormon. The Unitarian Church to me is simply a joke. They do not know which one to choose, so they put all gods together into one theology. That bounds to have numerous flaws (logic contradictions). So I did not even spend time to know its fragmented doctrine. In fact, I treat them as a political group.

I say something could be "important" to me, means something you said may be "new" to me, particularly in Christian theology. There is not much news attracted to me any more in my life. Usually, I have to discover new things by myself. This thread is posted with such a purpose.

Again, please allow me a feedback as an aside:
Note how you single-handedly wipe away worldviews the holders of which find they answer their questions satisfactorily, simply by pointing to the fact that they are not new or interesting to you.
But, on the other hand, you would like me to treat your ideas as though they were new and interesting to me.
How come you expect others to summon up the time and effort to walk with you through the details of your theology even though it is founded on unnecessary assumptions they don´t share?

Anyway, remember: I hadn´t brought up these brands of Christianity because I meant to suggest they had it right. The reason was to demonstrate the fact that there is no such thing as "the Christian philosophical system", and that - if you want your philosophical system to be criticized - you´d first have to outline it.

Finally, and just for the heck of it (rather than asking for a discussion - I don´t want to derail your thread, after all) let me present you a view that would have to pass as "Christian" and that I personally find no fault with:
All those "supernatural" entities as depicted in the bible are meant to be metaphores for human traits, feelings, desires, drives etc.
This is, to this day, not an uncommon technique in literature:
a. externalizing inner processes
b. describing inner conflicts by picturing them as separate persons/entities struggling with each other.

 

[juvenissun]

The axiom of God's existence assumes too much, and it acts literally as a deus ex machina. "Goddidit" does not actually answer anything -- it is a complex assumption masquerading as an answer.

It would be reasonable for me to have as an axiom that "I am capable of abstract thought". It would be absurd (even self-contradictory) to deny this, and the capability of abstract thought is fully self-evident in the very act of considering an axiom.

I realize that you may believe that you experience God directly, such that God's existence seems self-evident to you, but it isn't self-evident to everyone, and isn't self-evident enough for axioms. It's not basic enough, and it's far too debatable. For instance, I personally don't believe there is any need for a divine orderer of the universe in order for the universe to be intelligable, and so there is no reason at all for me to even consider a need for God as an axiom.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Fine. Then you have a question: what is the source of intelligence? What is your answer?

 

[juvenissun]

Trinity is an axiom in that you believe that in order to make sense of the rest of your system. It's part of the most common Christian creed, which is, if I remember right, part of the rules as determines what a "true Christian" is. So that seems to be a clear axiom of the Christin system, so as to distinguish it from Judaism or Islam. They both hold the axiom fundamental to theistic religion that "God exists", but you need further axioms to justify the beliefs particular to your religious philosophy, like "God is Trinity/Triune" or "God is personal".

If you don't know how it works, but it has to be that way, then you've pretty much defined an axiom. Christian axioms, like many religious axioms, as opposed to philosophical axioms, however, are more mysterious and cryptic than genuinely axiomatic in that they have some explanation for themselves, at least on a practical level. With these mysterious "axioms" you posit, they aren't explained. In fact, any of your arguments, if they were seen as a valid proof of God, would render their status as axioms void.

Axioms are a priori, before the facts we observe, whereas premises and the like are a posteriori, after the fact. Perhaps God as Trinity is a posteriori, in the sense that you think God's trinity can be observed after the fact of your axiomatic a priori belief that God exists. But then that's just creating more problems, because philosophically, you can't use your holy text to prove this. in order to be a defensible premise, you have to be able to demonstrate in some way that it is true from basic facts we can observe. But how can you observe god is trinity without recourse to the Bible?

As I told you, the Trinity is NOT an axiom but is a necessity. If you like to hear, I would try to explain it (well or not well) to you.

 

[quatona]

Fine. Then you have a question: what is the source of intelligence? What is your answer?

For purposes of this thread: Are we permitting each other to make exceptional claims for an answer?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Fine. Then you have a question: what is the source of intelligence? What is your answer?

Living beings. Notably, human beings.

That's assuming I understand your question correctly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

As I told you, the Trinity is NOT an axiom but is a necessity. If you like to hear, I would try to explain it (well or not well) to you.

I certainly would like to hear this deduction.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to want some overarching and comprehensive answer and metaphysics to the process of rebirth/reincarnation, when that's not as important as the psychological insight that you can gain in seeing that your own life is not necessarily so different from another's life. You'll both die and then the future will be unknown.

To simplify the argument, I isolate this theme.

I do think human life is different, very different from lives of other animals. Human life is far more valuable. I think Buddhism does not recognize this view. What is the value of life anyway?

As a result, a chicken may not need to know what its future will be, but a human SHOULD and NEED to know.

A Buddhist does not know what his next life would be like. But he is trying to be "good" or to become "better" in this life, and expects something better will happen after this life. This is an understanding and is very critical. In order to do this meaningfully, he must have some recognitions in his mind on what is good, bad, worse or better about life. So, if you could, please tell me what would be a "better" life? Or is there something like "the best" life? How would a Buddhist do in this life have anything to do to the afterlife? If he does not think about the next life, then why does he do what he is doing in this life? Should it be repeated in his next life?

 

[juvenissun]

Importance seems to hinge on practical concerns. If we answer a question about language, is it important to people? If we answer a question about ethics or morality, is it important to people? If we answer a question about ontological empiricism, is it important to people? of course, there's a difficulty in determining what is overall important to people as opposed to particularly important to people. Not everyone cares about the arts as much as some do about the sciences and vice versa. But everyone considers ethical problems and such things as how we come to believe what we believe about things.

The reason I don't care about cosmogony or eschatology or soteriology is because those things, for the most part, just muddle up things and only make our thinking less clear about the things that are more important, like issues of ethics and application of ethics.

Interpersonal issues seem more important than overly academic issues that most people will not care about or even think about most of the time. Admittedly we will need general ideas about epistemology, logic and metaphysics, but only to the extent that we don't lose ourselves in speculation and contemplation to the loss of application and actively practicing the philosophical path.

Yes, our mind is sort of limited and we can only handle so much things in a meaningful way. If we are occupied by details of this life, then we can not think anything about afterlife clearly.

This is exactly the value of religion. It is a established thought. We do not have to invent our own religion (my friend did and it does not go far). We need only to evaluate established religions as a start. However, the religion must have the content to address the concern we do not have the mind to think about. Christianity presents such a system, and Buddhism does not.

 

[juvenissun]

Now, don´t mistake my indifference towards the way you construct your worldview from your unnecessary premises for a general disinterest in your ideas and thoughts. It´s just that I would be more interested in finding out why you (or anyone, for that matter) arrives at their premises (or "axioms", as you call them). E.g. I would be highly interested to learn why anyone would even desire there to be a supernatural authority (a desire that is completely alien to me), and what they hope to gain from such existing. Unfortunately, this is not what this thread is about (to the contrary, it explicitly asks me to abstain from taking a closer look at the premises and the psychology behind them), and I will respect that.
Eventually I might make a separate thread for discussing these things.

You make a new thread only when you want to deal with response from many people. That means you desired to have a wider input. I should be interested to see that.

Things thought as supernatural 1000 years ago are not supernatural now in appearance. For example, where does the rain come from. But it is still supernatural afterall. For example, we still do not know what makes it rain so much over such an area at such a time. So, the idea of supernatural is not time bounded. This explanation may ease your doubt a little bit. In the Book of Job, God ask Job (and me and you and everyone in the past, now and future): Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; 38:26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;. It is one of the best illustration of supernatural regards to raining.

I never like the excuse such as "God says so" or "God did it". And I never use it in any argument so far. I put authority in the axiom because if it were not there, then we could be god and many other thing could also be god, because many things are supernatural. The function is more preventative, rather than constructive. We do not want a god which is supernatural but is powerless. because it would not be useful in the system construction.

 

[juvenissun]

Hey, and concerning your assumption that there is "life after life":
Is that another, addditional unnecessary assumption ("axiom") of yours that I would have to accept for purposes of the discussion of the consistency of your philosophy - or do you think it follows necessarily and logically from your "axiom" that there is something supernatural and authoritative?
(In the first case I would feel confirmed in my expectation - feel free to call it "paranoia" - that (contrary to your initial claim) I will find myself confrontated with unnecessary assumption shifted upon unnecessary assumption, whilst in the latter case you might indeed have gotten me intrigued: How does that follow logically and necessarily?)

It is purely logical.

The argument is (not sure if it is complete): If there were no life after this life, then this life would be meaningless. But this life has to be meaningful, so, there must be (my) life after this life. In fact, this has been illustrated very well by what's said in the Book of Job. (believe me, all arguments in there are pretty logical based on the axiom I mentioned)

That is why I asked you what is the meaning of (this) life to you? And I don't like your answer (not satisfied by logic reasons). You may say this is MY recognition. But such a recognition of mine comes from Christianity. If there were no Christianity, I will not have such an understanding. And my understanding is not deviated from Christianity. So even it is mine, but it still belongs to Christianity.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I do think human life is different, very different from lives of other animals. Human life is far more valuable. I think Buddhism does not recognize this view. What is the value of life anyway?

Buddhists don't deny that the quality and/or nature of human life is distinct from animals or the like, but the overall value of life is equalized across the spectrum in Buddhism. For you to say otherwise seems to betray a vast ignorance on the practice of pacifism and vegetarianism in Buddhism that overshadows any amount of that in Christianity. The value of life shouldn't be a matter of where you go, but your capacity to realize life more fully. In Buddhism, reaching enlightenment is supposedly possible from any state of the 6 realms, but the human realm is the most likely for that realization.

As a result, a chicken may not need to know what its future will be, but a human SHOULD and NEED to know.

Where do you get this justification? Your previous argument presumes that the afterlife is static and free of any degree of change, whereas a Buddhist afterlife is not static, but dynamic in that enlightenment is in some sense interchangeable with one's ignorance, the cycle of samsara is interrelated with the freedom from that cycle in nirvana, etc. I don't know what my future will be and that's what motivates me to behave mindfully in the present moment, always shifting.

A Buddhist does not know what his next life would be like. But he is trying to be "good" or to become "better" in this life, and expects something better will happen after this life. This is an understanding and is very critical. In order to do this meaningfully, he must have some recognitions in his mind on what is good, bad, worse or better about life. So, if you could, please tell me what would be a "better" life? Or is there something like "the best" life? How would a Buddhist do in this life have anything to do to the afterlife? If he does not think about the next life, then why does he do what he is doing in this life? Should it be repeated in his next life?

Nirvana is not necessarily after this life, nor is rebirth after life in the strict sense of a completely separate plane of existence. Buddhists don't deny there are certain things that are universally bad, but karma works itself out through basic causality; if I kill someone, I can expect to possibly be killed myself just by a basic relation to my disposition of killing someone making me a target for others killing me.

Buddhists behave for the goal of enlightenment, but that does not mean they are attached to enlightenment as something that can be explained in words, no more than Christians can explain what heaven is like, unless of course you believe in a strictly material heaven, which is not impossible given a reading of Revelation.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Yes, our mind is sort of limited and we can only handle so much things in a meaningful way. If we are occupied by details of this life, then we can not think anything about afterlife clearly.

Again this assumes that the afterlife in every religion is necessarily distinct from the present life. Nirvana, as I understand it in a limited sense, is not distinct from this life, but intertwined with it in that nirvana is more a state of mind than a strict state of physical existence.

This is exactly the value of religion. It is a established thought. We do not have to invent our own religion (my friend did and it does not go far). We need only to evaluate established religions as a start. However, the religion must have the content to address the concern we do not have the mind to think about. Christianity presents such a system, and Buddhism does not.

I thought we were talking about philosophy, not religion. Both are somewhat established schools of thought, but philosophy enables more innovation and adjustment by rational and reasonable consideration of the beliefs themselves held by virtue of argument, whereas religion's traditions change more with culture in some degree or another (gay marriage, for a stark example of change within religions). How can a religion address concerns we aren't capable of thinking of? If a religion is even to be called adequate, one would think it would be able to answer every possible question we are able to think of. But to say it can answer questions we don't even think of seems absurd and a moot point when those questions are void in terms of actual consideration, since we can't actually conceive of them.

This seems to boil down to whether a religion is adequate for a person or truly gives them contentment in some deeper sense. Buddhism gives me a sense of contentment, whereas Christianity is, in fact, insufficient and inadequate for my psychological disposition. There are other religions that might be adequate for me, such as Daoism or Jainism, which I admittedly can draw from in terms of insights. So in that sense, I am not strictly bound by Buddhist ideas in my exploration, so technically, I seem to be an anomaly in this theory you have about people's relations to religions. I can find multiple religions satisfying my questions to varying degrees, just as each person varies in what religion or religions they find compelling.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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

- snip -

I do think Christianity is a perfect philosophical system.

That is your problem. Not mine.

 

[juvenissun]

That is your problem. Not mine.

A property of perfection is inclusive. If it is perfect, then you will be part of it, like it or not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The argument is (not sure if it is complete): If there were no life after this life, then this life would be meaningless. But this life has to be meaningful, so, there must be (my) life after this life. In fact, this has been illustrated very well by what's said in the Book of Job. (believe me, all arguments in there are pretty logical based on the axiom I mentioned)

It sounds to me like you are not presenting axioms at all, but rather what some call "personal truths", by which I mean foundational ideas in one's worldview that tie the entire worldview together and cause it to "make perfect sense", at least when considered rationalistically.

We all have our "truths", and your "truths" may very well found an internally-consistent worldview, but then non-Christians can do the same. Christians are not the only system builders. Non-Christian systems can also make perfect sense to the people who hold them, and seem to explain everything, at least in the realm of philosophy.

I see little point in debating you over system building. If you want to rationalistically argue an afterlife into existence because your personal truths suggest that there has to be one for the sake of internal logical consistency, then enjoy yourself. Perhaps you can make an internally consistent system, but you won't necessarily make one consistent with reality.

So, this isn't going to satisfy anyone with even a tiny dab of empiricism in their worldview. It will seem to them that your personal truths should be thrown into doubt when so many unempirical beliefs are asserted simply in order to the system internally consistent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

It sounds to me like you are not presenting axioms at all, but rather what some call "personal truths", by which I mean foundational ideas in one's worldview that tie the entire worldview together and cause it to "make perfect sense", at least when considered rationalistically.

We all have our "truths", and your "truths" may very well found an internally-consistent worldview, but then non-Christians can do the same. Christians are not the only system builders. Non-Christian systems can also make perfect sense to the people who hold them, and seem to explain everything, at least in the realm of philosophy.

I see little point in debating you over system building. If you want to rationalistically argue an afterlife into existence because your personal truths suggest that there has to be one for the sake of internal logical consistency, then enjoy yourself. Perhaps you can make an internally consistent system, but you won't necessarily make one consistent with reality.

So, this isn't going to satisfy anyone with even a tiny dab of empiricism in their worldview. It will seem to them that your personal truths should be thrown into doubt when so many unempirical beliefs are asserted simply in order to the system internally consistent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You basically said that I have my truth and you have your truth. That is fine.

What I said in further is that my truth covers wider ground than your truth. And I do not see any argument against that.

My truth is called Christianity. What is the name of your truth? If there is no name, then I would say that it is most likely (>99% chance) not complete. I am not saying what you have is not true to you. I am saying whatever you have, it is too narrow and has a lot of questions unanswered.

If I asked you a question, you say I don't know or I haven't thought about it, or I don't care, that is not good. Is answering question a purpose of any philosophy?

 

[SithDoughnut]

My truth is called Christianity. What is the name of your truth? If there is no name, then I would say that it is most likely (>99% chance) not complete. I am not saying what you have is not true to you. I am saying whatever you have, it is too narrow and has a lot of questions unanswered.

If you think your truth is complete, all that means is that you're ignoring the missing pieces. You do not know everything, and it will do nothing for you to think that you do.

 

[juvenissun]

Again this assumes that the afterlife in every religion is necessarily distinct from the present life. Nirvana, as I understand it in a limited sense, is not distinct from this life, but intertwined with it in that nirvana is more a state of mind than a strict state of physical existence.



I thought we were talking about philosophy, not religion. Both are somewhat established schools of thought, but philosophy enables more innovation and adjustment by rational and reasonable consideration of the beliefs themselves held by virtue of argument, whereas religion's traditions change more with culture in some degree or another (gay marriage, for a stark example of change within religions). How can a religion address concerns we aren't capable of thinking of? If a religion is even to be called adequate, one would think it would be able to answer every possible question we are able to think of. But to say it can answer questions we don't even think of seems absurd and a moot point when those questions are void in terms of actual consideration, since we can't actually conceive of them.

This seems to boil down to whether a religion is adequate for a person or truly gives them contentment in some deeper sense. Buddhism gives me a sense of contentment, whereas Christianity is, in fact, insufficient and inadequate for my psychological disposition. There are other religions that might be adequate for me, such as Daoism or Jainism, which I admittedly can draw from in terms of insights. So in that sense, I am not strictly bound by Buddhist ideas in my exploration, so technically, I seem to be an anomaly in this theory you have about people's relations to religions. I can find multiple religions satisfying my questions to varying degrees, just as each person varies in what religion or religions they find compelling.

I am going to cut it in right here.

If so, there must be some questions in your mind that Christianity can not answer to your satisfaction. I like to know those questions. Would you share?

-----

Buddhism preaches: do this and you get peace.
Christianity preaches: you are a sinner, repent.

Which one would comfort people at the first touch? Why does the Christianity look stupid on this "recruiting effort"?

In order to evaluate a system seriously, one has to get in, to understand.