Why your faith?

[2PhiloVoid]

Richard Carrier is a ancient historian, but not a New Testement historian. His work on Jesus was panned by fellow athiest scholars, and disagrees with all scholars in the last 50 years in the the matter of Jesus' historicity. His arguments in his book on the matter rely on premises that were falsified in the 1950s and 1960s due to archeological finds and various troves of textual finds that corroborate a historical Jesus.

He is destroyed by an actual historical Jesus scholar William Lane Craig.

Carriers Classical history may be good, I'm unfamiliar with it, but he appears to have an axe to grind with regards to Jesus' history, and abandons the basics of historiography to misrepresent a false narrative.

In my book when an expert falsifies the record to manipulate people to his view, rather than relying on the data, superlatives like "great" go out the window!

It might help the rest of us if you list some names of those "other" atheists who have panned Richard Carrier's work.

 

[Uber Genius]

It might help the rest of us if you list some names of those "other" atheists who have panned Richard Carrier's work.

Bart Erhman (who calls himself an atheist), did in an article in Huffington post circa 2012 and in the following video

Although it doesn't mention Carrier per name it hits every one of Carriers key points, and Carrier responds with multiple tyraids on his internet BLOG referring to Erhman.

Mythicism is no longer held due to the inherently Jewish nature of the gospels!

Secondly, even the most liberal scholars such as the Jesus Seminar hold to an actual Jesus existing (john Dominic Crossen although an atheist nevertheless rejected mythicism as unsupportable for many of the reasons Bart gives).

When one is a classical historian and chooses to attract the historicity of figures from 2000 years ago using a method that would destroy all other figures of that age being historical we can see special pleading.

Carrier, as Bart rightly points out, would have to deny the very individuals he has spent his career defending, are anything other than myth given his historiography he applied to Jesus.

Carriers upcoming books:

Julius Ceasar was a myth
PLato, Socrates, Aristotle all myths
Cicero, The Great Roman Orator was a Myth

Glad to help.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're a humanist, supposedly. Is the concept of believing a certain viewpoint is superior without necessarily going out of your way to try to force it down everyone else's throat really so foreign to you?

There is a difference between wanting to convince somebody of an idea and wanting to force it down their throat. I am talking about wanting to convince somebody of an idea.

Yes, I do. It failed as an explanation.

In what way did my explanation for the reason that humanists have for respecting others fail as an explanation? We have an excellent reason for respecting others. We do not need to resort to making up gods, or adopting a religion we don't believe in to arrive at that.

This is why walking up to people and insisting that they give you bullet point reasons to believe is problematic.

You implied that we can be confident that the source of the universe had intellect and will. I note that you have made no attempt to justify that claim. You just make the claim, and refuse to give one tiny bit of evidence.

Do you really want to contribute to the picture of atheists as a bunch of angry young men who irrationally hate religion?

No.

That is why I have said nothing here that is an angry statement or irrational hatred of religion.

I have simply asked you what evidence you have for your claim that the source of reality had intellect and will.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Uber Genius said: ↑
If you said, "The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing," would anyone be okay with that? You physics teacher and philosophy professors would certainly not be okay with that.

You responded:
Could you please address what I actually said? Because I have stated what I think is behind the Big Bang, and it is not""The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing." Why not deal with what I said rather than this straw man?

So my response is in no way a straw man! Please refer to the definition before attempting to misrepresent my post.

I said "If your said," so every reader knows that it is a conditional clause that represents your approach but not verbatim. I was identifying your actual method of relying on magic and rhetoric that no philosopher would except. But I will gladly spell it out for you.

You said, "If we accept a Big Bang, and some incomprehensible "eternity" beyond it, it seems it is difficult to make any definitive statements about that eternity." We are not making definitive statements but rather examining alternative explanations to see which best explains a universe coming into being from no space, no time, no matter,no energy, as the Big Bang model represents!"

You go on to say, "At a minimum it could just be that "nothing" really is impossible so there are various somethings out there, and one of those somethings is an eternally expanding "space-time" with quantum effects that creates universes."

This is not philosophy!

The fact that modern science in the last 50 years has stumbled upon a universe that came from timeless, spaceless, without energy and matter, runs into a 3500 year old religious explanation of a timeless spaceless immaterial creator God seem pretty spectacular to atheist philosophers and cosmologists alike but you conclude it is "difficult to make any definitive statements."

And then give us a much less plausible offering:

"Nothing is impossible." Eternally expanding universes with an actual infinite regress of causes. This is the "magic" portion where your suggestion destroys all scientific inferences. By punting your cause to a infinite series of causes of which we will, "definitionally," never be able to scientifically collect data about, you produce, not a scientific, or a philosophical (as actual infinites don't exist, and you have reversed one of the central maxims of philosophy, out of nothing nothing comes), but a meaningless hypothesis based on a word game that no atheist philosopher, or cosmologist would support.

Word games, word games, magic, fake philosophy, oh and let's play some more word games.

All you have done is again play a word game by saying nothing is impossible.

"One could also postulate that another something that exists is some sort of sentient god, but I see no way of knowing that."

Again here you have circularly achieved your conclusion, based on word games and your elimination of any premise that supports knowing there is a sentient God.

Are you done yet?

We have not stumbled upon "a universe that came from timeless, spaceless, without energy and matter". We have stumbled upon a big bang from an incredibly dense ball. beyond that we simply do not know. The laws of physics as we know them simply break down at the big bang, but it appears to lead back to a singularity beyond which space/time as we know it has no meaning. We can say we think there was some sort of cause, but we can say nothing specific about that cause. If you know something about that cause, please state what you know and tell us how you know it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Christianity provides a worldview in which humans are by their nature made in God's image and therefore worthy of dignity. It provides a standard of a fully realized life in the service of others, and makes that standard absolute by declaring it God in the flesh.

Did you miss the part where you said you were agnostic about Christianity? Did you miss the part where you evade any claim any this is actually true?

I think you say there is no truth to the claim that God made us in his image. If it is not true, why even tell people that?

In your story, did God made all animals in his image, or just humans? Should we treat a man and a snake equally?

I have given you a humanistic reason for showing respect for both, but more for the human. You say my reason is no good. Fine, and what reason can you give to treat humans with respect? Can you do nothing better than make up stories without truth value, and hope people either believe them or pretend to believe them?

 

[Silmarien]

Did you miss the part where you said you were agnostic about Christianity? Did you miss the part where you evade any claim any this is actually true?

I think you say there is no truth to the claim that God made us in his image. If it is not true, why even tell people that?

In your story, did God made all animals in his image, or just humans? Should we treat a man and a snake equally?

I have given you a humanistic reason for showing respect for both, but more for the human. You say my reason is no good. Fine, and what reason can you give to treat humans with respect? Can you do nothing better than make up stories without truth value, and hope people either believe them or pretend to believe them?

Why on earth are you quoting me multiple times? I was going to take your advice and disengage, since the atheistic fundamentalism on display here is really not the sort of thing I'm interested in. I'm sure you can find plenty of people here more interested in fighting with you. Though for the record, my starting place is Plato, not Genesis.

But no, your utilitarian defense of humanism does not work. You are treating respect for other people as a means to an end, the end being the good of society. If eugenics is good for society, then eugenics is fully moral and in this context respect for other people ought to be limited... for the good of society. This is a dangerous place to ground ethics, as opinions concerning what society should be and what is good for it are variable.

You are welcome to provide an alternative defense of secular humanism, but so far you have not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

your utilitarian defense of humanism does not work. You are treating respect for other people as a means to an end, the end being the good of society. If eugenics is good for society, then eugenics is fully moral and in this context respect for other people ought to be limited... for the good of society. This is a dangerous place to ground ethics, as opinions concerning what society should be and what is good for it are variable.

OK, so you think the good of humanity is not a good ground for morality.

What is a good ground for morality? Following that which is "intrinsically good"? OK, but who gets to define what is intrinsically good? God? OK, but what if God defines eugenics, raping, pillaging and plundering as moral? Are we then forced to do those things because the ultimate source tells us to? Is this nothing more than "might makes right"? Is this argument nothing more than saying that, since God is the most powerful guy in the block, we all better pay homage to him?

You pick eugenics as a moral action we should fear. Why? I think you pick it because you know that you would not like to live in such a society, and because most people wouldn't. But if people overwhelmingly wouldn't want that, then morality based on the common good would lead most people to reject that which you fear. So morality based on the common good would solve this problem you fear.

Suppose God is not only powerful but "good". Do you have any reliable way of knowing what he wants? Without a reliable way of knowing what he wants, how can this be a reliable way of determining morality? You distance yourself from Christianity as the source:

How is this relevant to the question of whether there are reasons for an agnostic to embrace Christianity? My argument has never been about the truth value of the religion.

OK, so we apparently can't trust the Christian claims here to the truth.

Though for the record, my starting place is Plato, not Genesis.

Ah, so you are speaking for the record that your source on morality is Plato? If I read Plato, can I take him as an authority on right and wrong? How is it you know that Plato got it right?

You are welcome to provide an alternative defense of secular humanism, but so far you have not.

Ah, you are going to ignore my argument and declare victory. I have explained how humanism sees the value in humanity, and based on that, proposes a high moral standard of respect for other humans. You have not attempted to show us where that is wrong. You just pretend that I haven't said that and declare victory.

 

[Silmarien]

What is a good ground for morality? Following that which is "intrinsically good"? OK, but who gets to define what is intrinsically good? God? OK, but what if God defines eugenics, raping, pillaging and plundering as moral? Are we then forced to do those things because the ultimate source tells us to? Is this nothing more than "might makes right"? Is this argument nothing more than saying that, since God is the most powerful guy in the block, we all better pay homage to him?

I agree, this is precisely the consequence of that particular approach. There are divine command theorists on this forum, if you would like to argue with one of them. It is a view I reject.

Ah, so you are speaking for the record that your source on morality is Plato? If I read Plato, can I take him as an authority on right and wrong? How is it you know that Plato got it right?

No, being a Platonist doesn't mean taking Plato on authority as the giver of moral truths or saying he got everything right. Reading Plato would be a good starting place, however.

Ah, you are going to ignore my argument and declare victory. I have explained how humanism sees the value in humanity, and based on that, proposes a high moral standard of respect for other humans. You have not attempted to show us where that is wrong. You just pretend that I haven't said that and declare victory.

What argument have I ignored? You presented an argument, I addressed it.

Now you either seem to be saying that there is no such thing as the Good, and therefore no grounds whatsoever for morality (which defeats your humanism), or that morality ought to be based on what the majority of people think is necessary for the common good, which is a disturbing sort of mob rule approach to morality that also defeats your humanism. Because throughout most of human history, the "common good" has relegated women to a second class status.

You have not yet explained how humanism sees value in humanity. You have only talked about the common good so far, which is not nearly as impressive an argument as you seem to think. If you've presented a separate argument and I somehow missed it, please share it again.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I agree, this is precisely the consequence of that particular approach. There are divine command theorists on this forum, if you would like to argue with one of them. It is a view I reject.

Ok, so you have no answer on who gets to define what is intrinsically good. All you can say is not us and not God. Fine, who does get to define it?

You refuse to answer because you have no answer, yes?

How can you claim any basis for morality if nobody or no thing can define what is moral?

No, being a Platonist doesn't mean taking Plato on authority as the giver of moral truths or saying he got everything right. Reading Plato would be a good starting place, however.

Plato wrote some good things, yes.

So did Richard carrier.

What argument have I ignored? You presented an argument, I addressed it.

You have ignored the argument where I explained to you that the human mind is the most marvelous thing I know in the universe. Since every person we meet has a human mind, that is a reason for treating all with respect.

Now you either seem to be saying ... that morality ought to be based on what the majority of people think is necessary for the common good, which is a disturbing sort of mob rule approach to morality that also defeats your humanism. Because throughout most of human history, the "common good" has relegated women to a second class status.

Your argument seems to be an argument against democracy. Sure, democracies are neither perfect nor a panacea, but they are a great way to work for the common good. Got any better suggestions?

 

[Silmarien]

Ok, so you have no answer on who gets to define what is intrinsically good. All you can say is not us and not God. Fine, who does get to define it?

You refuse to answer because you have no answer, yes?

How can you claim any basis for morality if nobody or no thing can define what is moral?

I have answered: I am a Platonist. This actually means something. You've demonstrated that you're not genuinely interested in other perspectives, though, so I won't waste either of our time trying to explain it.

You have ignored the argument where I explained to you that the human mind is the most marvelous thing I know in the universe. Since every person we meet has a human mind, that is a reason for treating all with respect.

Oh, I see. I got distracted by your silly dog and did in fact miss that argument the first time around. You said:

"I find the human mind to be the most marvelous thing in all of reality. I know from personal experience what it is like to have a human mind, and know it is good. Since every person I meet must also have a human mind, I find a intrinsic value in everybody I meet."

This isn't too bad, but I'd say there's still a danger in assigning value to a specific attribute. Someone could say that they find the female ability to bring new life into the world the most marvelous thing in all of reality, and that they therefore find women to be of more intrinsic value than men. Similarly, if the human mind is the measure of all things, we could wonder whether more intelligent or talented people are not of greater intrinsic value, and the mentally ill or intellectually disabled somehow less.

It's a lot better than utilitarianism, though. My only question is this: would you hold that the human mind is objectively good and that all people have intrinsic value by nature, or do you think that it is just your subjective impression that human minds are marvelous, that you have effectively made up the concept of "good" to apply to these things that are in and of themselves no more or less special than a bunch of rocks sitting on the side of the street? Is this intrinsic value that you're talking about actually an aspect of reality, or are you instead proclaiming your own admiration for the human mind through the use of traditional moral language?

This is actually an important distinction.

Your argument seems to be an argument against democracy. Sure, democracies are neither perfect nor a panacea, but they are a great way to work for the common good. Got any better suggestions?

Yes, actually. Republics are significantly better forms of government than pure democracies, since the latter are vulnerable to tyranny of the majority, amongst other problems.

I don't view morality as something that can be democratically decided, though. I would consider slavery to have always been an evil, even when it was a socially acceptable practice.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have answered: I am a Platonist. This actually means something. .

Ok, so you have no answer on who gets to define what is intrinsically good. All you can say is not us and not God. Fine, who does get to define it?

You refuse to answer because you have no answer, yes?

How can you claim any basis for morality if nobody or no thing can define what is moral?

Please answer.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok, so you have no answer on who gets to define what is intrinsically good. All you can say is not us and not God. Fine, who does get to define it?

You refuse to answer because you have no answer, yes?

How can you claim any basis for morality if nobody or no thing can define what is moral?

Please answer.

Who defines that 1+1=2? Is this the sort of relation that is defined into existence or is it a mathematical truth?

I am a Platonist. You can look that up if you want to and try to figure out what it actually means. Or don't. Either way, I think it's about time to call it a day here. Good night and happy 4th of July.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who defines that 1+1=2?

Oxford dictionary.

Webster's dictionary.

Etc.

What you just gave is the definition of two.

I am a Platonist. You can look that up if you want to and try to figure out what it actually means. Or don't.

I understand the concept of platonic ideals. Again my question is who wrote this platonic ideal of right and wrong that you keep referring to. You refuse to answer. Fine, refuse if you don't want to answer, but then all we can do is guess what you think. Would you rather have us guess what you think instead of you answering us?

i think you are saying nobody defined right and wrong. It just is.

If I guessed wrong, please don't get upset. I would not be guessing if you would simply answer the question.

What if this platonic morality that nobody wrote demanded eugenics, raping , pillaging and plundering? Then would you be forced to do these things, simply because this platonic ideal that nobody wrote demands it?

is God himself unable to override this platonic ideal that nobody wrote? Is this abstract ideal more powerful than God?

Suppose it is true. Do you have a reliable way of knowing what actions are right and wrong as dictated by this platonic ideal? If so, how do you know? If not, what good is it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Someone could say that they find the female ability to bring new life into the world the most marvelous thing in all of reality, and that they therefore find women to be of more intrinsic value than men. Similarly, if the human mind is the measure of all things, we could wonder whether more intelligent or talented people are not of greater intrinsic value, and the mentally ill or intellectually disabled somehow less.

Someone could say many wrong things, yes.

Happens all the time.

My only question is this: would you hold that the human mind is objectively good and that all people have intrinsic value by nature, or do you think that it is just your subjective impression that human minds are marvelous, that you have effectively made up the concept of "good" to apply to these things that are in and of themselves no more or less special than a bunch of rocks sitting on the side of the street?

it is my opinion that people should be respected, and most people agree with me on this. I cannot offer a mathematical proof to prove this with absolute certainty. Can you?

Yes, actually. Republics are significantly better forms of government than pure democracies, since the latter are vulnerable to tyranny of the majority, amongst other problems.

Or so the argument goes.

What if the majority of representatives are tyrannical? We get the same problem. Any power can be tyranical.

The solution is government that is not tyrannical. And the way to achieve that is to get people to understand that, in the long run, tyranny is not in their best interests.

I don't view morality as something that can be democratically decided, though. I would consider slavery to have always been an evil, even when it was a socially acceptable practice.

Government cannot decide morality, beauty, humor, etc. What it can do is decide what rules to make for the good of the people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The solution is government that is not tyrannical. And the way to achieve that is to get people to understand that, in the long run, tyranny is not in their best interests.

Government cannot decide morality, beauty, humor, etc. What it can do is decide what rules to make for the good of the people.

....sorry, I just couldn't help myself after reading these ambiguous comments of yours. Good luck with fully believing all that! (....and no, I'm not advocating something absolutely crazy like anarchy or communism in making this rejoinder!)

 

[doubtingmerle]

....sorry, I just couldn't help myself after reading these ambiguous comments of yours. Good luck with fully believing all that! (....and no, I'm not advocating something absolutely crazy like anarchy or communism in making this rejoinder!)

Ok you don't fully believe in democracy or republic with the people understanding the principles of cooperation, don't believe in communism and don't believe in anarchy? What in the carnation do you want?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. The birds are chirping. The flowers are vibrantly colored. "I am glad we are moving here," I inform my dog, "but it seems a little deserted this morning. Perhaps everyone went to church."

"Oh yes," you explain to me over the fence later that day. "Many of us take our faith quite seriously here".

"That's interesting", I respond. "I personally don't have much faith in any deity. Seriously, why should I adopt your faith?"

You step back, pause, and reply...

Hmmm, well, nihilism has no mention of faith or deities but I will tell you that nihilism is the most accurate assessment of logic and mathematics. Consider the fact that logic and mathematics are purely assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; no other notion exists in these fields. Further, consider that nothing can actually be proven from just assumptions and definitions. Finally, acknowledge that mathematics and logic are merely collections of conditional propositions which have no factual basis in and of themselves. And remember,
2+2={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok you don't fully believe in democracy or republic with the people understanding the principles of cooperation, don't believe in communism and don't believe in anarchy? What in the carnation do you want?

It doesn't really matter what I want since the world is going to continue to do what the world always does----it's own thing. Moreover, I'm sure that what I would like to have politically in the world can't be had ... at least not without God's help. So, I guess I'll just have to "settle" for good ol' late modern Capitalist Democracy in the meantime. (*yay*!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmmm, well, nihilism has no mention of faith or deities but I will tell you that nihilism is the most accurate assessment of logic and mathematics. Consider the fact that logic and mathematics are purely assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; no other notion exists in these fields. Further, consider that nothing can actually be proven from just assumptions and definitions. Finally, acknowledge that mathematics and logic are merely collections of conditional propositions which have no factual basis in and of themselves. And remember,
2+2={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}.

Well, thank goodness that logic and mathematics aren't the only things we have to assess, otherwise it really would be nothing but ...

Oh, how I still love this song!

 

[SolomonVII]

To your health then! It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, not those who consider themselves righteous who need God, but sinners.
There comes a point in any Christians life when they got It pretty much figured out. They know the bottom line in everyhomily, the punchline of every joke before the priest even says it.
Why not set back with a cool one and watch the hummingbirds flit in the back yard instead of kneeling in the stifling heat of the church then?

I suppose, the best answer for many of us is that we are not there mainly for ourselves anymore,but to show our face as believers for those who really need the assurance in their lives that there is something still worthwhile to believe in, after life has chewed them out and spat them out. They need to believe there is life after the death of their children, or a reason to carry on after their husband has traded them in for a sleeker, sportier model of wife.
We are not out there for the hale, and the hearty,and the happy,but we come to show the people who may look up to us and respect our opinions that the community as a whole, smart and dumb, rich and poor, leaders and the shakers, and the clingers on too,see in God something worth while to believe in.

In the end, it is not a totally selfless act either, to forgo the cool one and spend time among the sinners and the ailing. No man is an island. A community filled with spiritually healthy people is in every one’s greater interest, I think.

Along with declines in the number of people hearing the commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” there is a predictable decline in neighborliness itself. Fewer Americans know their next-door neighbors. Fewer still regularly interact with them. Personally, this is the change I’ve noticed most in my own life. On a larger level, there are declines in everyday charity and philanthropy, and declines in civic and ethnic organizations.

When I talk to people, I refer to these trends as the depletion and disappearance of a social treasury. GDP goes up. Incomes sometimes go up. Real wages tick up. But, at a basic level, people live in a world where fewer and fewer people owe them consideration, compassion, favors, tips for getting ahead in a career, or consolation for getting through life’s disasters.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/social-treasury-of-america-is-depleting/