‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
 
   
 

If God made us, why did he make us so stupid?

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
11 May 2019 13:25
 
Jefe - 11 May 2019 01:11 PM
TwoSeven1 - 11 May 2019 10:23 AM
proximacentauri - 11 May 2019 09:46 AM
TwoSeven1 - 10 May 2019 10:30 AM

You assume that a group is suffering, then you use broad terminology to say that we need more laws and regulations.  I am simply trying to moderate your perspective.

Exactly how should one who stands against discrimination of LBGT “moderate their perspective”?

Laws prohibiting discriminatory business practices against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transsexuals are needed precisely because business owners with your mindset would discriminate against them.

Let my discussion with Jefe run it’s course.

I pretty much agree with proximacentauri here and welcome his input to the thread.

Cheers

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 May 2019 09:39
 
proximacentauri - 11 May 2019 01:21 PM
TwoSeven1 - 11 May 2019 10:23 AM
proximacentauri - 11 May 2019 09:46 AM
TwoSeven1 - 10 May 2019 10:30 AM

You assume that a group is suffering, then you use broad terminology to say that we need more laws and regulations.  I am simply trying to moderate your perspective.

Exactly how should one who stands against discrimination of LBGT “moderate their perspective”?

Laws prohibiting discriminatory business practices against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transsexuals are needed precisely because business owners with your mindset would discriminate against them.

Let my discussion with Jefe run it’s course.

You don’t have the privilege to a private discussion in an open forum format. What you do have here, however, is the right to be a bigot. Which you appear to be exercising fully.

“You don’t have the privilege to a private discussion in an open forum format.”  It’s not a question of privelege.  No one is entitled to a response on this forum.  I’m not compelled to respond to every question I receive, and a scoffing attitude all but ensures that I won’t be answering your questions.

“What you do have here, however, is the right to be a bigot. Which you appear to be exercising fully.”  The irony (read hypocrisy) here is glaring.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6339
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
13 May 2019 10:01
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 09:39 AM

  No one is entitled to a response on this forum.  I’m not compelled to respond to every question I receive, and a scoffing attitude all but ensures that I won’t be answering your questions.

The irony (read hypocrisy) here is glaring.

Any thread is open to all patrons with a comment. Thread authors may select who they respond to but discussion is the point of the forum. That includes responses the author is unprepared for.

There is an ‘ignore’ function for excessive glare.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 May 2019 10:37
 
Nhoj Morley - 13 May 2019 10:01 AM
TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 09:39 AM

  No one is entitled to a response on this forum.  I’m not compelled to respond to every question I receive, and a scoffing attitude all but ensures that I won’t be answering your questions.

The irony (read hypocrisy) here is glaring.

Any thread is open to all patrons with a comment. Thread authors may select who they respond to but discussion is the point of the forum. That includes responses the author is unprepared for.

There is an ‘ignore’ function for excessive glare.

“That includes responses the author is unprepared for.”  Don’t you think you’re assuming a little too often?  If I decide not to respond to someone’s question, that means it took me off guard?

As a general comment:  When discussing things with someone and trying to make points, it’s more efficient to see a line of thinking through to conclusion than it is to pause for each question that might arise from an observer.  If I choose not to answer a question, that does not mean that I have no thoughtful answer to give.

Jefe and I were on track to answer proximacentauri’s question.

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
13 May 2019 10:52
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 09:39 AM
proximacentauri - 11 May 2019 01:21 PM
TwoSeven1 - 11 May 2019 10:23 AM
proximacentauri - 11 May 2019 09:46 AM
TwoSeven1 - 10 May 2019 10:30 AM

You assume that a group is suffering, then you use broad terminology to say that we need more laws and regulations.  I am simply trying to moderate your perspective.

Exactly how should one who stands against discrimination of LBGT “moderate their perspective”?

Laws prohibiting discriminatory business practices against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transsexuals are needed precisely because business owners with your mindset would discriminate against them.

Let my discussion with Jefe run it’s course.

You don’t have the privilege to a private discussion in an open forum format. What you do have here, however, is the right to be a bigot. Which you appear to be exercising fully.

“You don’t have the privilege to a private discussion in an open forum format.”  It’s not a question of privelege.  No one is entitled to a response on this forum.  I’m not compelled to respond to every question I receive, and a scoffing attitude all but ensures that I won’t be answering your questions.

“What you do have here, however, is the right to be a bigot. Which you appear to be exercising fully.”  The irony (read hypocrisy) here is glaring.

Taking a stance against bigotry is not bigotry in itself. Opposition of intolerance is not intolerance in itself.

Christian fundamentalism often, but not always, influences one to hold bigoted views. When I was a Christian I witnessed bigotry firsthand against LGBT people by other Christians. I took issue with it then, same as I do now as an Atheist.

Your biblically based ‘objective’ moralism lends itself to bigotry. I’m sure you’re convinced it does not and that’s the crux of the problem.

You’ve chosen to post your fundamentalist informed opinions/beliefs on a forum dedicated to reason. If your viewpoints are bigoted- in this case against LBGT, and in another thread bigoted against factual science - you will get called out on them.

And no, you are not using reason to justify your points. Even though you think you are.

[ Edited: 13 May 2019 11:12 by proximacentauri]
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7082
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
13 May 2019 12:04
 
proximacentauri - 13 May 2019 10:52 AM

Taking a stance against bigotry is not bigotry in itself. Opposition of intolerance is not intolerance in itself.

Quite so.
And this institutionalised discrimination serves as a further example of fundamentalist hypocracy.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 May 2019 14:05
 
proximacentauri - 13 May 2019 10:52 AM
TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 09:39 AM
proximacentauri - 11 May 2019 01:21 PM
TwoSeven1 - 11 May 2019 10:23 AM
proximacentauri - 11 May 2019 09:46 AM
TwoSeven1 - 10 May 2019 10:30 AM

You assume that a group is suffering, then you use broad terminology to say that we need more laws and regulations.  I am simply trying to moderate your perspective.

Exactly how should one who stands against discrimination of LBGT “moderate their perspective”?

Laws prohibiting discriminatory business practices against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transsexuals are needed precisely because business owners with your mindset would discriminate against them.

Let my discussion with Jefe run it’s course.

You don’t have the privilege to a private discussion in an open forum format. What you do have here, however, is the right to be a bigot. Which you appear to be exercising fully.

“You don’t have the privilege to a private discussion in an open forum format.”  It’s not a question of privelege.  No one is entitled to a response on this forum.  I’m not compelled to respond to every question I receive, and a scoffing attitude all but ensures that I won’t be answering your questions.

“What you do have here, however, is the right to be a bigot. Which you appear to be exercising fully.”  The irony (read hypocrisy) here is glaring.

Taking a stance against bigotry is not bigotry in itself. Opposition of intolerance is not intolerance in itself.

Christian fundamentalism often, but not always, influences one to hold bigoted views. When I was a Christian I witnessed bigotry firsthand against LGBT people by other Christians. I took issue with it then, same as I do now as an Atheist.

Your biblically based ‘objective’ moralism lends itself to bigotry. I’m sure you’re convinced it does not and that’s the crux of the problem.

You’ve chosen to post your fundamentalist informed opinions/beliefs on a forum dedicated to reason. If your viewpoints are bigoted- in this case against LBGT, and in another thread bigoted against factual science - you will get called out on them.

And no, you are not using reason to justify your points. Even though you think you are.

“Taking a stance against bigotry is not bigotry in itself. Opposition of intolerance is not intolerance in itself.”  Seems to me that you’re conveniently attempting to elevate yourself above reproach.

“Your biblically based ‘objective’ moralism lends itself to bigotry. I’m sure you’re convinced it does not and that’s the crux of the problem.”  At what point in this thread have I shown intolerance, and specifically, intolerance of what?

“And no, you are not using reason to justify your points. Even though you think you are.”  What is your justification for this statement?  It’s easy to say something is so, but it takes effort to show how something is so.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 May 2019 03:06
 

TwoSeven1

I have enjoyed your contribution to this thread, admired your composure, and I look forward to your continued posting.  For my part, I’ll refer back to your second post.

Assuming that you are an atheist, what does it matter if humanity’s existence continues or doesn’t continue?  I’ve heard many atheists say that we have to ensure the continuity of humanity.  Why?  If death is final, what reason would an atheist have to care about the continuity of humanity?

One possibility is that it’s not a matter of insuring that humanity’s existence continues as much as it is living up to reciprocal obligations between generations.  Living up to these obligations makes it look like the interest is the future of humanity, when in fact the interest is obligations to each other.

For instance, society is intergenerational.  My generation benefits from the work of the last one, and it inherited the problems the last one created, just as this previous generation now benefits from mine’s work.  Similarly, my generation also benefits from the next one, and that one inherits the problems we create.  And it benefits from the work of mine.  Given this intergenerational nature of society, it seems to me that since a preceding generation would not be able to thrive, or even exist, absent the work of the one after it, that preceding generation has an obligation not to impose problems that offset the benefits it itself gains.  Similarly, the succeeding generation has an obligation to the preceding one because it benefits, and so forth.  The result of generations looking out for each other in this way creates the idea that the continuation of the species is the moral issue, when in fact the moral issue is much simpler: reciprocal obligations and benefits—an idea shared with the Christian worldview, I believe.

Reducing even further, if the Bible isn’t the truth, what would anything matter at all…You need to have a concrete foundation for morality and the meaning of life if you are going to say that anything can be dangerous or unfounded.

Why? And relatedly, why the Bible and not the Quran?

 

[ Edited: 14 May 2019 03:10 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 May 2019 12:18
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 May 2019 03:06 AM

TwoSeven1

I have enjoyed your contribution to this thread, admired your composure, and I look forward to your continued posting.  For my part, I’ll refer back to your second post.

Assuming that you are an atheist, what does it matter if humanity’s existence continues or doesn’t continue?  I’ve heard many atheists say that we have to ensure the continuity of humanity.  Why?  If death is final, what reason would an atheist have to care about the continuity of humanity?

One possibility is that it’s not a matter of insuring that humanity’s existence continues as much as it is living up to reciprocal obligations between generations.  Living up to these obligations makes it look like the interest is the future of humanity, when in fact the interest is obligations to each other.

For instance, society is intergenerational.  My generation benefits from the work of the last one, and it inherited the problems the last one created, just as this previous generation now benefits from mine’s work.  Similarly, my generation also benefits from the next one, and that one inherits the problems we create.  And it benefits from the work of mine.  Given this intergenerational nature of society, it seems to me that since a preceding generation would not be able to thrive, or even exist, absent the work of the one after it, that preceding generation has an obligation not to impose problems that offset the benefits it itself gains.  Similarly, the succeeding generation has an obligation to the preceding one because it benefits, and so forth.  The result of generations looking out for each other in this way creates the idea that the continuation of the species is the moral issue, when in fact the moral issue is much simpler: reciprocal obligations and benefits—an idea shared with the Christian worldview, I believe.

Reducing even further, if the Bible isn’t the truth, what would anything matter at all…You need to have a concrete foundation for morality and the meaning of life if you are going to say that anything can be dangerous or unfounded.

Why? And relatedly, why the Bible and not the Quran?

“I have enjoyed your contribution to this thread, admired your composure, and I look forward to your continued posting.”  Thank you for the kind words!

The generational obligation that you detail undoubtedly exists.  I can agree with your conclusions related to it as well.  If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend reading Ecclesiastes because it is highly relevant.

“Why? And relatedly, why the Bible and not the Quran?”  I’ll answer the Bible/Quran question first -

The summarized answer is that I choose the Bible because of the preponderance of the evidence supporting what it says.  Because of what they say, the Bible and the Quran are mutually exclusive.

To answer the “why” question, I have to clarify that no one necessarily has to adhere to the truth in order to converse with others.  However, in order to have a comprehensive and logically valid philosophy, there must be adherance to truth.  We can’t say that there is no knowable, universal truth and simultaneously argue that some things are good or bad, or that some things are so or not so.  We need a foundation that is absolute in order to make valid arguments.

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
14 May 2019 12:31
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 02:05 PM

“Taking a stance against bigotry is not bigotry in itself. Opposition of intolerance is not intolerance in itself.”  Seems to me that you’re conveniently attempting to elevate yourself above reproach.

This is psychological projection on your part. You believe ‘objective’ morality is above reproach because it comes from the ultimate authority. How convenient for you that you were born into the one true religion with the one true god and the one true morality?

TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 02:05 PM

“Your biblically based ‘objective’ moralism lends itself to bigotry. I’m sure you’re convinced it does not and that’s the crux of the problem.”  At what point in this thread have I shown intolerance, and specifically, intolerance of what?


Perhaps you should review what you’ve posted. Put your self in the shoes of the LBGT person being refused service. You may not be cognitively capable of doing this but give it a shot.

TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 02:05 PM

“And no, you are not using reason to justify your points. Even though you think you are.”  What is your justification for this statement?  It’s easy to say something is so, but it takes effort to show how something is so.

You’re psychologically projecting again. Your argument is tied to an ‘objective morality’ that forbids homosexual behavior. But this ‘objective morality’ hinges on a ‘god’ for whom no objective evidence exists. How ironic. But how easily you proclaim this as truth when it’s quite impossible for you to objectively prove this is so. An argument rooted in dogma does not require reason and is often antithetical to it.

[ Edited: 14 May 2019 12:33 by proximacentauri]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1843
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
14 May 2019 13:46
 
TwoSeven1 - 14 May 2019 12:18 PM

The summarized answer is that I choose the Bible because of the preponderance of the evidence supporting what it says.

Interesting. Where is the preponderance of evidence that supports talking snakes, virgin births, a 500 year old man building a boat big enough to accommodate all the varied creatures on the planet, a man living inside a whale for 3 days, another man turning water into wine, a dragon flinging a third of the stars in the heavens to the Earth, etc.? And, if it could be shown that the Bible contains errors and/or contradictions, would that change your mind about it’s credibility?

Ron

[ Edited: 14 May 2019 13:49 by MrRon]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 May 2019 14:49
 
proximacentauri - 14 May 2019 12:31 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 02:05 PM

“Taking a stance against bigotry is not bigotry in itself. Opposition of intolerance is not intolerance in itself.”  Seems to me that you’re conveniently attempting to elevate yourself above reproach.

This is psychological projection on your part. You believe ‘objective’ morality is above reproach because it comes from the ultimate authority. How convenient for you that you were born into the one true religion with the one true god and the one true morality?

TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 02:05 PM

“Your biblically based ‘objective’ moralism lends itself to bigotry. I’m sure you’re convinced it does not and that’s the crux of the problem.”  At what point in this thread have I shown intolerance, and specifically, intolerance of what?


Perhaps you should review what you’ve posted. Put your self in the shoes of the LBGT person being refused service. You may not be cognitively capable of doing this but give it a shot.

TwoSeven1 - 13 May 2019 02:05 PM

“And no, you are not using reason to justify your points. Even though you think you are.”  What is your justification for this statement?  It’s easy to say something is so, but it takes effort to show how something is so.

You’re psychologically projecting again. Your argument is tied to an ‘objective morality’ that forbids homosexual behavior. But this ‘objective morality’ hinges on a ‘god’ for whom no objective evidence exists. How ironic. But how easily you proclaim this as truth when it’s quite impossible for you to objectively prove this is so. An argument rooted in dogma does not require reason and is often antithetical to it.

“This is psychological projection on your part.”  If you are intolerant of my perspective then I’m not projecting anything.

“How convenient for you that you were born into the one true religion with the one true god and the one true morality?”  Aren’t you assuming here?

“Perhaps you should review what you’ve posted. Put your self in the shoes of the LBGT person being refused service. You may not be cognitively capable of doing this but give it a shot.”  I have not said that LGBT people should be discriminated against.  If a homosexual couple walks into a shop to buy a wedding cake, but the Christian business owner doesn’t want to fulfill their request because of his beliefs, whose liberty has the potential of being violated?  Is liberty the same as entitlement or privelege?

“You’re psychologically projecting again.”  Asking you a question on how you arrive at your conclusion is not projecting.

“But this ‘objective morality’ hinges on a ‘god’ for whom no objective evidence exists.”  I disagree.

“But how easily you proclaim this as truth when it’s quite impossible for you to objectively prove this is so.”  What would you accept as objective proof?

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 May 2019 18:33
 

TwoSeven1

It so happens that the Very Bad Wizard’s podcast on Ecclesiastes is next on my listening list.  I’ll look for any parallels then.

I am not sure what “preponderance of evidence” you could be referring to.  Every claim to natural knowledge in the Bible has been sufficiently refuted, and much of the historical parts called into doubt.  In any case, what does evidence have to do with faith in the first place?  Is not faith belief without the need for evidence or justification?  I have faith in the love in my marriage, not knowledge per se.  It requires no evidence and needs no justification.  I just believe in it.  How is faith in “God” any different?

in order to have a comprehensive and logically valid philosophy, there must be adherance to truth.  We can’t say that there is no knowable, universal truth and simultaneously argue that some things are good or bad, or that some things are so or not so.  We need a foundation that is absolute in order to make valid arguments.

Why do we need this absolute foundation?  I don’t need to know the ultimate causes of the events around me in order to understand them, only the local factors that come into play in the local effects.  And I can certainly make claims about the objects in my field of view without some vantage point from which to view them all at once, in some perfect comprehension.  Why is knowledge of good and bad or so and not so any different—local, probable knowledge instead of ultimate universals?  It seems to me universals are both an unnecessary and unattainable basis for knowing.  In fact, the very search for this foundation seems to me fundamentally misguided.  To the point that it is unnecessary, people come to accord in matters of good and truth all the time without recourse to absolutes and universals.  To the point that it is unattainable, no one has been able to demonstrate one in 2500 years of effort, so why not quit trying?

 

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
15 May 2019 14:13
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 May 2019 06:33 PM

TwoSeven1

It so happens that the Very Bad Wizard’s podcast on Ecclesiastes is next on my listening list.  I’ll look for any parallels then.

I am not sure what “preponderance of evidence” you could be referring to.  Every claim to natural knowledge in the Bible has been sufficiently refuted, and much of the historical parts called into doubt.  In any case, what does evidence have to do with faith in the first place?  Is not faith belief without the need for evidence or justification?  I have faith in the love in my marriage, not knowledge per se.  It requires no evidence and needs no justification.  I just believe in it.  How is faith in “God” any different?

in order to have a comprehensive and logically valid philosophy, there must be adherance to truth.  We can’t say that there is no knowable, universal truth and simultaneously argue that some things are good or bad, or that some things are so or not so.  We need a foundation that is absolute in order to make valid arguments.

Why do we need this absolute foundation?  I don’t need to know the ultimate causes of the events around me in order to understand them, only the local factors that come into play in the local effects.  And I can certainly make claims about the objects in my field of view without some vantage point from which to view them all at once, in some perfect comprehension.  Why is knowledge of good and bad or so and not so any different—local, probable knowledge instead of ultimate universals?  It seems to me universals are both an unnecessary and unattainable basis for knowing.  In fact, the very search for this foundation seems to me fundamentally misguided.  To the point that it is unnecessary, people come to accord in matters of good and truth all the time without recourse to absolutes and universals.  To the point that it is unattainable, no one has been able to demonstrate one in 2500 years of effort, so why not quit trying?

“It so happens that the Very Bad Wizard’s podcast on Ecclesiastes is next on my listening list.  I’ll look for any parallels then.”  If you care to let me know what you think after listening, I’m interested to know.

“Every claim to natural knowledge in the Bible has been sufficiently refuted, and much of the historical parts called into doubt.”  I think the book of Daniel is a good example.  Chapter 9 contains a mathematically-precise prophecy regarding the timeline of God’s plan for Israel.  If Daniel 9 is historically accurate, then it comes with many implications.  Daniel seems to be one of the most contended books of the Bible between scholars and critics.

One of the key reasons that the book of Daniel is said to be inaccurate is the very first verse of chapter 9: “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans -“  Daniel refers to the first year of a specific person’s rule.  Darius the Mede is not popularly accepted as a factual historical ruler.  Many critics believe that he was a fictional ruler, which would therefore call the rest of the book of Daniel into question.  This seems to be a reasonable conclusion:

https://truthonlybible.com/2016/01/08/darius-the-mede-a-solution-to-his-identity/

“In any case, what does evidence have to do with faith in the first place?  Is not faith belief without the need for evidence or justification?”  You raise an interesting point with the faith that exists in your marriage.  An aspect of religious faith that I find interesting is its relation to the concept of faithfulness.  Hypothetically speaking, if your wife tells you something, and you believe her because you are faithful to her, then you have not believed her in blind faith.  In this same manner, and generally speaking, people who believe the Bible are being faithful to what it says.  In a non-religious sense, they are placing faith in what others have witnessed to.  Faith would seem unfounded without some form of knowledge surrounding it.

“Why do we need this absolute foundation?  I don’t need to know the ultimate causes of the events around me in order to understand them, only the local factors that come into play in the local effects.”  Can you truly understand events around you without knowing what causes them?  If you don’t know what causes them, then there is something that you don’t know about them.  Your understanding would be incomplete.

“And I can certainly make claims about the objects in my field of view without some vantage point from which to view them all at once, in some perfect comprehension.”  Agreed.  You certainly can do that.  My contention is that, if you simultaneously claim that there is no knowable, absolute truth, then logic is undermined.

“Why is knowledge of good and bad or so and not so any different—local, probable knowledge instead of ultimate universals?  It seems to me universals are both an unnecessary and unattainable basis for knowing.”  We know that universal truth exists.  How can mathematics exist if there is no universal truth that we can know?  How can we say that mathematics is useful for science if it is sometimes true, and sometimes not?  If mathematics is universally true, then what reason would we have for saying that truth doesn’t apply to other concepts such as good and evil, or so and not so?

“To the point that it is unnecessary, people come to accord in matters of good and truth all the time without recourse to absolutes and universals.”  This is true in relation to their arbitrary acceptance of what is good and what is truthful.  Who’s to say that the next group would not come to opposite conclusions?

“To the point that it is unattainable, no one has been able to demonstrate one in 2500 years of effort, so why not quit trying?”  In attempts to relate to others in various ways, it seems that many people accept truth as being relative.  Whether they continue doing so or not is up to them.  If the Bible is true, then right and wrong, good and evil, so and not so, are all very important.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
15 May 2019 15:46
 

TwoSeven1

The faith I have in mind isn’t related to how to interpret specific things she might say, or what others might say.  I would take those statements to be true or not based on the same kind of reasoning and evidence I would take any statement to be true.  They are matters of knowledge.  But a belief in our love doesn’t require, for me, evidence or justification.  I don’t weigh the truth of it according to a preponderance of evidence, or logical argument, one way or the other.  Instead of seeing the things she does and says as evidence for the love, I take them as our love being evident, period.  So I ask, why not this kind of faith without a need of evidence or justification for religious faith as well?  How is belief in “God” different than belief in something like the love between a parent and child, or between friends, or between a husband and wife?

1 John 4: 7-8 says: “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.  Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.”  And 4:12 says: ““No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.”  Why, then, do we not know “God” like we know love—a belief without a need for evidence or justification?

I’m tabling the rest for now because this issue is really what interests me.  But I think if we progress here we’ll see how they are related.

(I am still listening to the podcast.  If I have some thoughts, I’ll post them.)

[ Edited: 15 May 2019 15:52 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›