@flamegrilled - you are arguing for "this is possible"
I am beyond that to "what is probable"
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Witness My Fury
This thread has been very useful to read thru (despite efforts to derail it), thankyou Cofty.
-
adamah
Adam said- The claim is actually an 'appeal to ignorance', following the general form of, "humans don't know X (which in some cases IS true), but THEREFORE we should do Y".
flamegrilled said- I don't think that is an accurate way of presenting the way most of us Theists are motivated.
Note I said the general form, and not the specific, i.e. I allowed for the possibility of variations on the theme, since the fact is most beliefs are supported by an even-longer string of pre-suppositions with multiple elements, of which only one must be questionabe for the entire belief system to come tumbling down.
And actually, a string is not the best metaphor here (maybe something more like a foundation), since a break anywhere along the length of a string that holds a weight suspended in air threatens the functionality, when that's not often the case with belief systems; it usually takes erosion of many elements (i.e. nagging questions) for the system to become unstable and topple.
In my case, it was at 12 y.o. when the "Why does evil exist in the Universe, since God made 'all things?' question that arose in my mind, and I didn't find the responses compelling, and knew post-hoc rationalization (AKA making excuses) when I saw it. Later I went on to learn about how the World actually operates (eg evolution, physics, etc), which only provided more support for the prior decision. But to suggest that EVERYONE would come to the same conclusion is foolish: as I said, my brothers and sisters didn't blink one bit, and swallowed the answer provided by the WTBTS as completely satisfying. They weren't dumb, I wasn't smarter than them, it's just they likely had some other emotional need or even <gasp!> different VALUES than I did, hence they didn't see it as a problem as I did.
flamegrilled said- We do Y because of Z (which is not part of this discussion), and at the same time acknowledge that we may not know X. Nevertheless the evidence of Z is so compelling (to us) that we are prepared to reserve judgement on X and not allow an absence of information in this area to lead us to conclusion Q in spite of Z.
Cofty's argument is that we must reach conclusion Q based upon his interpretation of X. No allowance can be made for Z, and an admission that we may not know X is to be scorned rather than acknowledged.
There ALWAYS will be things we don't know, and hence our ignorance of all the facts must be acknowledged, but should not hold us back from making decisions (refusing to act often results from 'paralysis of analysis', over-thinking the decision and always seeking out more facts, when they may not even exist).
Acknowledging the lack of omniscience is NOT automatically creating an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy, since the fallacy occurs when someone says that we should choose ONE of the alternatives by saying that we don't KNOW otherwise so we should do X, without supporting the conclusion they suggest we accept with valid reasoning to justify doing X.
Here's an argument which LOOKS like an appeal to ignorance, but isn't:
"We don't know for sure either way, but let's allow the people most directly involved in suffering the consequences of the choice make it for themselves."
That reflects the concept of 'adverse consequences' doctine, when ignorant of all of the facts, and in lieu of firm direction to decide either way, we allow those with the most 'skin in the game' to decide, to "pick their own poison". It applies to the freedom to choose one's religion (since the State lacks a compelling interest to FORCE anyone to worship in a certain manner), and it applies to belief in God.
Cofty doesn't seem to recognize that two equally-intelligent people can view the same-exact ethical scenario, and each reach quite different conclusions via the use of logic, but simply from possessing different VALUES. Some people don't value the sense of maintaining a certain logical consistency (ALA Mr Spock) as much as they value the way those decisions make them feel. Many haven't even started to comprehend the influence their emotions have over their decision-making processes, and thus cannot even begin to figure out which is having an influence on them, so cannot begin to counter it.
Adam
-
flamegrilled
We're not stupid. We're not pets. We're sentient beings who can reason. Simon
I agree we're not stupid. I agree we are not pets. I agree we can reason.
Furthermore I believe that some other animals can make decisions based upon available information just as we can, but to a different degree . I don't think that sentience and reason are binary things which your statement above implies.
I believe that higher beings can reason to a greater degree than lower beings. I believe that higher beings can work on a data set that is greater than that of lower beings.
In this context "stupid" is not a useful definition of anything.
If sentince and reason were to equate to omniscinece then I would see your POV, but they do not.
-
flamegrilled
Adam - I appreciate your thought provoking comments. Although I'm evidently not on the same page as you in terms of my faith, I think you have made the most valuable contribution to the discussion in terms of logic and reason.
I completely acknowledge and agree that the "values" and "emotion" variables must necessarily have a hand in our personal conclusions, and that as a result full objectivity remains elusive.
I did not set out to prove that my foundation in Christian theism is truth. I only sought to counter Cofty's view that the tsunami presents a fatal flaw to it.
Of course, I know that you know this. I am simply reitterating it for the benefit of those who do not.
-
flamegrilled
@flamegrilled - you are arguing for "this is possible"
I am beyond that to "what is probable"
Besty - I have no arguments with you on that score. Once we get down to assessment of what is probable we will entertain a lot more data than 250K deaths in the Asian tsunami.
-
THE GLADIATOR
What has to be remembered, is that many on this forum have walked away from a spiritual belief system. We now live without the delusion that the Hebrew desert god will contain his temper for long enough to talk to us, save us, punish us, kill our enemies, bless us, provide food from heaven, or make us more important than others because we have faith.
We are alone, and that is fine. We don’t want to live forever or drift off to live a disembodied life in the sky. We have accepted that we will die, and that will be the end for us personally.
We don’t blame a non-existent god for suffering; ours or anyone else’s. We are not angry, vengeful, or seeking a showdown. We leave that childish pantomime to the various gods that have been impregnated into our long history.
We recognize how privileged we are to have had the opportunity to spend a short time on this beautiful, hostile and torn planet. In short, we have grown up. Cheers!
-
adamah
Simon said-
We're not stupid. We're not pets. We're sentient beings who can reason. No where in the bible is any explanation for anything that now corresponds to known facts.
Yeah, and Simon's getting to one of the many continuity errors in the Bible which shows it to be the work of clever men.
In the Genesis account, the Bible claims that humans were "made in God's image", which gave the author(s) carte blanche' to have God reasoning and feeling humanlike emotions (eg anger, sadness, etc). Humans obtained parity with God's and angelic morality by stealing the "wisdom of the Gods", such that Jehovah admitted as much, in Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
(The Hebrew word translated is 'elohim', a plural word referring to God and his angelic team).
The ONLY difference at that point was that spirit beings had immortality, and the humans mortality, since God BLOCKED access to the Tree of Life which they could eat to attain immortality to acheive full and complete parity with the spirit beings (angels).
So that's a contradiction for believers to resolve (TEC, who claims Adam and Eve WERE spirits even BEFORE the Fall? Even though the Genesis 2 has God fashioning humans out of clay, taken from the Earth, to give them physical fleshy form)?
Of course, my prior example of a doctor treating a baby suggests that some homo sapiens CAN be superior to others in their knowledge (so no one falsely accuse me of excluding alternatives needlessly again)
However, the later contributors to the Tanakh weren't content to leave Jehovah with humanlike traits, only, and increasingly transform Jehovah into the biggest, baddest, all-knowing, all-powerful God in the Universe (paradoxically even as the Jews increasingly got their asses kicked by their Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian/Greek/Roman neighbors). Isn't it odd how the claims about a big brother who isn't actually on the playground grow increasingly more extravagant, even as a kid gets whooped by all the other bullies? I have a strong suspicious that it boils down to the case of unlimited trash talk claiming that "my God can beat up your God!"
Adam
-
flamegrilled
In the Genesis account, the Bible claims that humans were "made in God's image", which gave the author(s) carte blanche' to have God reasoning and feeling humanlike emotions (eg anger, sadness, etc). Humans obtained parity with God's and angelic morality by stealing the "wisdom of the Gods", such that Jehovah admitted as much, in Genesis 3:22
Or it could just be true that humans were made in God's image in the sense of having his qualities in a limited sense.
The ONLY difference at that point was that spirit beings had immortality, and the humans mortality
I understand how you are applying this to the immediate context, but the Bible does not say in general that spirits are immortal.
To discuss the traits of Almighty God according to the Biblical narrative would certainly take this off-topic. I'm not being funny, but I truly don't wish to be accused of "hijacking" the thread as happened at the outset. It doesn't take much apparently.
-
jgnat
I apologize in advance. Rabbit trail ahead.