Christianity as a philosophical system?

[juvenissun]

Our behaviors are guided by telos to an extent, I'm not saying otherwise, except that our telos should be dynamic. We shouldn't have one end goal in mind and dismiss any other as insufficient or unnecessary. If my overall goal in my life is to help the world and improve our state of knowledge/wisdom about some subject, then that's what will motivate me.


And now you're just getting into meta ethical questions. Determining what good is doesn't necessarily require a teleological model. Nor does determining why you should be good require an end goal in mind.

A general principle of the Golden Rule would suffice in itself as to why one should be good by virtue of sympathy and mutual understanding. You don't need any goal necessarily to see why you should be good. But you don't need to know exactly what your future is in order to still have some goal in mind.

There are many good things. However, some good things could be situational and some bad things are not always bad. That adds many confusions. For example, I could try to become a perfect cheater, so I can benefit myself, and all the have-nos, by take a little bit from the haves.

A goal dependent evaluation could make the judgment easier. So a goal is critical in telling good from bad. Also, good things are timeless. So a good goal should also be timeless. If the perfect cheater dies, the have-nos still exist and the haves will also exist. Nothing will be changed. So, the goal is not good enough. Human history proves that again and again.

The goal set by Christianity is a perfect one. It is focused and is timeless, It is wide, complete, achievable and structurally accomplished.

 

[juvenissun]

Any philosophical system does not merely present positions, but presents carefully reasoned justifications for those positions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And why do you think Christianity does not do that (position ~ reasoned justification) or does not do that enough? An example would be good.

 

[juvenissun]

In short, this boils down again to the notion that Christianity is objectively perfect, regardless and independent of our mind's investigation of it. And this just seems to really make your statement pointless, because we can't ever demonstrate it, it's just an axiom to answer the objection that debate wouldn't make a system perfect in itself or self evidently so. You're saying that we have subjective relationships to this objectively perfect system, so that even if it APPEARS to be imperfect, it's still ACTUALLY perfect regardless of if it appears to be so or not.

That only compels debate and discussion in a limited sense, since we have believers already certain that the system is perfect even if they don't have any significant evidence. Instead, they view the diversity and even blatant contradictions within the system as somehow manifestations of a greater perfection than we can understand. And that just seems to smack of normative relativism, that is, everything is basically equal because we can't know anything with certainty that is objectively so.

No, no. I am saying that it is not only appeared perfect, but it IS actually perfect, even we may not agree on the content. In other words, disagreement on interpretation IS allowed (in fact, encouraged) and is logically included as a part of the system.

That is what a perfect system should look like. This is one of the major difference between Christianity and Islam. In other words, Islam, on this regard, is less perfect.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hey guys, check it out! A christian thinks christianity is awesome! I've never seen that before!

More like a Christian thinks Christianity is awesome because it's the religion most like Christianity.

 

[quatona]

OK, it seems you are seeking a challenge.

What part of my post made you think so?

Here it is one for you:

What is the purpose of your (or my) life on the earth?

That´s a meaningless question based on a wrong preassumption, in my worldview.
I understand that may be meaningful and even urgent in a worldview that assumes a purpose-giving entity/authority, though.

The point of this question is try to point out a potential problem of your view, if it is something different from that in Christianity.

I see how it poses a problem to you once you superimpose the paradigms of your worldview upon mine.

 

[quatona]

Depends on the human nature, which should only have one version.

Well, since you and I quite obviously do not hold the same worldview and paradigms that they are based upon we probably also disagree which version human nature should have.
My question was a very simple and pragmatic one. Like - if you want to base the discussion on the paradigm that a God exists you´ll have won before we have even started. Likewise, I could also stack the deck by making my paradigms the premise of the discussion.

 

[quatona]

Your second paragraph argued against your first paragraph. If just one axiom is needed to solve big problems, it must be an excellent one.

Except that I didn´t say "just one axiom is needed to solve big problems".

Your second paragraph addressed a problem on the property of God, which is indeed a topic in Christianity. Christianity does have a good answer to this problem.

As I said before: Christianity may provide good answers to questions that wouldn´t even exist without Christianity´s preassumptions.

On another note, even if I agreed for argument´s sake with the idea that a god exists, I haven´t yet seen a good answer to the question as to why god should be acknowledged as an authority of sorts.
I´m sure you find your answer (whatever it is) excellent, but that doesn´t necessarily mean that I will, too. I´m pretty positive that your satisfaction with your answer is based on further additional axioms (beyond the one additional that a god exists) that I most likely do not share.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There should be a way to pick one and to focus on. It is a very important choice and one could not do that just according to one's feeling. More importantly, the one you pick should last. You could not focus on this one today and on that one tomorrow. The one you focused on should be a life-time one.

May be your focus to relieve the worldly pain. But what about pain outside this world? How do you know it does not matter? How do you know that there isn't one which is above all these second level concerns?

One can have a certain foundational set of beliefs, perhaps, but to take them as unwaveringly true is still dangerous. Believing our senses are reliable and that we are not being deceived, for instance, is something virtually all people hold as a foundational belief.

Just because I choose Buddhism as something of a root/foundational system does not mean I am prevented or precluded from any investigation into other systems, like Daoism, Satanism (gasp) and other varieties, like Jainism.

My focus is multifaceted. Part of it is relieving pain, but I cannot eliminate all pain from a world that is beyond my general control. Any control I exert is particular and limited by nature.

How do I know that the focus I have chosen is good? Because it is flexible, sufficient and not bound into any one paradigm, which would exclude others completely.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, no. I am saying that it is not only appeared perfect, but it IS actually perfect, even we may not agree on the content. In other words, disagreement on interpretation IS allowed (in fact, encouraged) and is logically included as a part of the system.

That is what a perfect system should look like. This is one of the major difference between Christianity and Islam. In other words, Islam, on this regard, is less perfect.

You seem to really just want to have diversity in a system that's supposed to also have consistent answers. Assuming consistency is part of being perfect, you cannot have disagreement on interpretation, especially on fundamental issues within a philosophical system, without that system collapsing on itself because it holds contradictory beliefs to be compatible and also exist within a perfect system.

So just because Islam has suppressed the majority of discussions and interpretations on its philosophical questions, makes it less perfect? THey could argue that makes it more perfect in that there is, like I pointed above, no internal inconsistencies that would render the system imperfect, which is why they claim Christianity is an imperfect philosophical system.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There are many good things. However, some good things could be situational and some bad things are not always bad. That adds many confusions. For example, I could try to become a perfect cheater, so I can benefit myself, and all the have-nos, by take a little bit from the haves.

A goal dependent evaluation could make the judgment easier. So a goal is critical in telling good from bad. Also, good things are timeless. So a good goal should also be timeless. If the perfect cheater dies, the have-nos still exist and the haves will also exist. Nothing will be changed. So, the goal is not good enough. Human history proves that again and again.

The goal set by Christianity is a perfect one. It is focused and is timeless, It is wide, complete, achievable and structurally accomplished.

The reason being a perfect cheater is not overall good is because it is not something you would want everyone else to do. If we use Kant's categorical imperative as an example, then we have something of a way to contend that the best ethical principles are those that you would want to implement as a universal law, without contradiction or inconsistencies.

You just said good things can be situational, which means that not all good things are timeless, since there could be a time when the good thing in question was no longer good.

Goals are usually more situational and contextual than we prefer to admit. Even Christianity's goal of immortality through belief in a messiah that will allow them entrance into heaven for that imbued righteousness is not without a bias and a situational goodness. I, for one, see no goodness in living forever. Would this not reduce the perfect goodness that you allege the goal of Christianity possesses?

If the goal of Christianity is accomplished and yet it is achievable, does this not imply some contradiction in terms?

 

[juvenissun]

Except that I didn´t say "just one axiom is needed to solve big problems".


As I said before: Christianity may provide good answers to questions that wouldn´t even exist without Christianity´s preassumptions.

On another note, even if I agreed for argument´s sake with the idea that a god exists, I haven´t yet seen a good answer to the question as to why god should be acknowledged as an authority of sorts.
I´m sure you find your answer (whatever it is) excellent, but that doesn´t necessarily mean that I will, too. I´m pretty positive that your satisfaction with your answer is based on further additional axioms (beyond the one additional that a god exists) that I most likely do not share.

If we assume that God exists, then we need to give this God a definition. I think authority is a necessary ingredient in the definition. The problem is how much authority? This would related to what God will do and how will He do it. You can see now that the introduction of this extra axiom into any philosophical system becomes very critical and. In fact, it starts to dictate whatever else included in the framework of the philosophy.

For example, if God exists, what should be our relationship with God? Regardless what the answer is, a multiple levels of questions will follow. Are you sure you know what does Christianity say about this? I wish you do. Because it is so beautiful and is beyond the imagination of human beings. I really like to know a comparable one from other religion or philosophy. But I have never found even a complete one, needless to say the quality.

For example, someone asked earlier: Why would God create human, and then makes so many of them ended in hell? That is an excellent question. If Christianity is "designed" with a simple mind, then this question will make it look stupid and is unanswerable.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Seems that if Christianity is designed with simplicity, one could argue it should be self evident. But you're suggesting God is ultimately complex, which, unless you qualify that, might only beg the question of where God came from. But if you argue God is simple in nature, but complex in mind, one has to generally wonder where the complexity of the mind comes from if not from a complex nature?

 

[juvenissun]

What part of my post made you think so?

That´s a meaningless question based on a wrong preassumption, in my worldview.
I understand that may be meaningful and even urgent in a worldview that assumes a purpose-giving entity/authority, though.


I see how it poses a problem to you once you superimpose the paradigms of your worldview upon mine.

If you think my question is meaningless, are you also suggesting that our lives on the earth is meaningless? If not, why is then my question meaningless?

You can see I have no pre-assumption in my question. It is simply a question with a logic consequence on its answer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And why do you think Christianity does not do that (position ~ reasoned justification) or does not do that enough? An example would be good.

Compare the Bible to, say, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics or Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, and notice the difference. The Bible does not present philosophical arguments. The latter two do.

An example is that the Bible does not bother to present a reasoned argument to establish the existence of God. It merely asserts God's existence, and reassures the flock that this is obvious and that anyone who disagrees is a fool.

However, Aristotle argues for his godlike Prime Mover, and Thomas Aquinas presents several arguments in favor of the Christian God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

If we assume that God exists, then we need to give this God a definition. I think authority is a necessary ingredient in the definition.

And beyond "I think so" - is there any argument as to why it is a necessary ingredient of the definition?

The problem is how much authority?

We can discuss that once you have shown that authority is a necessary ingredient of a god definition. Until then, I consider it just another additional axiom of yours.

This would related to what God will do and how will He do it.

Ah, God is a He, and God acts. More unnecessary assertions.

You can see now that the introduction of this extra axiom into any philosophical system becomes very critical and. In fact, it starts to dictate whatever else included in the framework of the philosophy.

All I see is that you have introduced a couple of other extra axioms along with "god exists". Not that there is anything wrong with that...

For example, if God exists, what should be our relationship with God?

You almost make it sound like you have already established that god is an entity that one can have a relationship with, plus that there are correct and incorrect forms of relationships between humans and god, plus that there is an entity that determines what human-god relationships should be like. All of these assertions being more extra axioms, so far.

Regardless what the answer is, a multiple levels of questions will follow.

Yes, I do have noticed (and said several times now) that Christianity creates a lot of logical problems and questions due to its extra axioms.

Are you sure you know what does Christianity say about this?

Again: Even if Christianity had perfect answers to the problems and questions caused by its unnecessary axioms - simply abstaining from these unnecessary axioms appears to be the more elegant method.

Secondly, yes, I think I am quite familiar with the solutions that Christianity offers for the problems it has created. Unfortunately it´s not like your statement suggests - rather there is a wide diversity of Christian denominations with very different extra axioms, very different problems resulting from those axioms and very different answers to those problems.

I wish you do. Because it is so beautiful and is beyond the imagination of human beings. I really like to know a comparable one from other religion or philosophy. But I have never found even a complete one, needless to say the quality.

I´m glad to hear your opinion is to your liking and satisfies your emotional needs.

 

[quatona]

If you think my question is meaningless, are you also suggesting that our lives on the earth is meaningless?

I fail to see how your ability to ask a question that is meaningless to me possibly suggests that our lives on earth are meaningless. Just doesn´t follow.
But to answer your question: I see no reason to preassume that my existence has a predetermined or inherent purpose.
Depending on the situation, though, I notice that I give my actions purposes or that others use me for their purposes. E.g. when someone asks me what time it is he assigns a certain purpose to me (and my existence, if you will).
Also, I notice that I give certain things/actions/beings (and their existence, if you will) certain meanings.

E.g. when I enter the badminton court I give my existence the purpose and meaning of playing badminton, and when I practice a particular tune on the guitar I give my existence the purpose and meaning of practicing that particular tune. (Although, if not hard pressed to use this pompous terminology I guess I would prefer a simpler wording).

Does that answer your question?

If not, why is then my question meaningless?

I have no idea what "purpose of existence" might possibly mean. I know what "purpose of an action" means - I know that I act purposefully (i.e. I give my actions a purpose and/or meaning). I don´t know, though, what "(inherent) purpose of a given state/condition" could possibly mean. It´s word salad, as far as I am concerned.
To me it is like the question "What is the smell of green?". Both words - "smell" and "green" - are meaningful words to me, yet the question isn´t meaningful to me because it is based on a preassumption that I don´t hold: That there is a specific smell to a particular colour.

You can see I have no pre-assumption in my question.

Of course you have. These preassumptions just come so naturally along with your worldview that you don´t even recognize them as preassumptions anymore.
The most basic preassumption of your question is that existence has a purpose, can have a purpose, must have a purpose and/or should have a purpose.
Another preassumption would be that either there is an external authority that gives purpose to our existence, or that there can be (inherent) purpose without a purpose-giving entity. Both being preassumptions that are neither part of my worldview nor of my terminology.

It is simply a question with a logic consequence on its answer.

Possibly it is, once you agree with the premises and preassumptions that it is loaded with.

 

[The Nihilist]

More like a Christian thinks Christianity is awesome because it's the religion most like Christianity.

I mean, I can certainly see the appeal. You get to be God's chosen, and people who don't like you are enemies of God. What's not to like about it?

 

[juvenissun]

And beyond "I think so" - is there any argument as to why it is a necessary ingredient of the definition?

We can discuss that once you have shown that authority is a necessary ingredient of a god definition. Until then, I consider it just another additional axiom of yours.
Ah, God is a He, and God acts. More unnecessary assertions.
All I see is that you have introduced a couple of other extra axioms along with "god exists". Not that there is anything wrong with that...

You almost make it sound like you have already established that god is an entity that one can have a relationship with, plus that there are correct and incorrect forms of relationships between humans and god, plus that there is an entity that determines what human-god relationships should be like. All of these assertions being more extra axioms, so far.
Yes, I do have noticed (and said several times now) that Christianity creates a lot of logical problems and questions due to its extra axioms.
Again: Even if Christianity had perfect answers to the problems and questions caused by its unnecessary axioms - simply abstaining from these unnecessary axioms appears to be the more elegant method.

Secondly, yes, I think I am quite familiar with the solutions that Christianity offers for the problems it has created. Unfortunately it´s not like your statement suggests - rather there is a wide diversity of Christian denominations with very different extra axioms, very different problems resulting from those axioms and very different answers to those problems.

I´m glad to hear your opinion is to your liking and satisfies your emotional needs.

Your criticism of adding many extra axioms is not really true. I use to make definition this way:

God (a name) = functions (parameter 1, parameter 2, parameter 3, etc.)

This is what I said that after we introduced God into the system, then we can talk about what God is and what God does. This is a function set up, and is NOT adding more axioms to it. We can define the God as an unique identify, or we can define God as a group. We can add desirable parameters to describe the God.

Is this the way to construct a philosophical system? For example, I like this God to be an unique one, because this reason and that reason. Is this another axiom added to the system? Or is this only a property assigned to the original axiom for a reason?

For example, if God exists, and we exist. Then there will either be relationship between them or there is no relationship between them. And here is the "reason" for having a relationship: If there were no relationship, then I do not need to have God in the system. Since God is introduced into the system, then there should be a relationship. Sounds right? Did I just introduce another axiom?

An axiom has no source. It just popped out. But it makes consequence. Otherwise the axiom is redundant. Any consequence derived from an axiom is not another axiom. So what I said that once God exists, then we should have relationship with Him, is NOT another axiom.

 

[juvenissun]

I mean, I can certainly see the appeal. You get to be God's chosen, and people who don't like you are enemies of God. What's not to like about it?

Hey, show some intelligence. Don't let people ignore you.

 

[juvenissun]

I fail to see how your ability to ask a question that is meaningless to me possibly suggests that our lives on earth are meaningless. Just doesn´t follow.
But to answer your question: I see no reason to preassume that my existence has a predetermined or inherent purpose.
Depending on the situation, though, I notice that I give my actions purposes or that others use me for their purposes. E.g. when someone asks me what time it is he assigns a certain purpose to me (and my existence, if you will).
Also, I notice that I give certain things/actions/beings (and their existence, if you will) certain meanings.

E.g. when I enter the badminton court I give my existence the purpose and meaning of playing badminton, and when I practice a particular tune on the guitar I give my existence the purpose and meaning of practicing that particular tune. (Although, if not hard pressed to use this pompous terminology I guess I would prefer a simpler wording).

Does that answer your question?

I have no idea what "purpose of existence" might possibly mean. I know what "purpose of an action" means - I know that I act purposefully (i.e. I give my actions a purpose and/or meaning). I don´t know, though, what "(inherent) purpose of a given state/condition" could possibly mean. It´s word salad, as far as I am concerned.
To me it is like the question "What is the smell of green?". Both words - "smell" and "green" - are meaningful words to me, yet the question isn´t meaningful to me because it is based on a preassumption that I don´t hold: That there is a specific smell to a particular colour.


Of course you have. These preassumptions just come so naturally along with your worldview that you don´t even recognize them as preassumptions anymore.
The most basic preassumption of your question is that existence has a purpose, can have a purpose, must have a purpose and/or should have a purpose.
Another preassumption would be that either there is an external authority that gives purpose to our existence, or that there can be (inherent) purpose without a purpose-giving entity. Both being preassumptions that are neither part of my worldview nor of my terminology.
Possibly it is, once you agree with the premises and preassumptions that it is loaded with.

You devalued my question. What I expected from you is either saying that life has a purpose or life has no purpose. At most, you may say that life has some purposes. You do not need to say that my question has no meaning or has presumptions. Even "smell green" has a meaning. It simply says that green has no smell. That is a very good meaning (it actually says: energy is not material. Is it meaningful?)

According to your explanation, I can see that you are saying that a life has numerous purposes, because a life can have numerous actions. Each different action, will give a different purpose.

That is what I heard (read). But I don't believe that what you really think. After you performed so many actions in so many years, you must have some thoughts to summarize all those little "purposes" into a few representative ones. That is what I am interested to know. You are simply avoid my question.