Response to Tektonics - Part VIII
What follows is round 8 with my debate with JP Holding. In last the last round, JPH said:
JPH>Hey ho! Grandstanding, huh! :) Here's your punishment: I had
JPH>time to respond right away! God is gonna get ya for that! :)
Okay, so I guess I shoulda avoided the grandstanding. In general, from my perspective, your latest round was stronger than your previous round. I thought your prior round wasn't very good. Anyway, on to this round.
PJ> I find it rather humorous (and a bit annoying) how quickly you
PJ> change from, “gee I don’t have to have an answer, God can do
PJ> anything” when it suits your purposes
JPH> Eh? Where have I done that?
I thought I've been pretty clear about this. I've said that an omniscient Being should be able to create a world where nothing bad happens without violating free will. You've asked me how, and haven't accepted simply "by omnipotence" as an answer. But when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the chances that they need to choose salvation, you have simply offered "by omnipotence". I think this should be pretty obvious to the most casual of observer.
JPH> It's just as reasonable for ancient narrative histories as
JPH>for any myth, is it not? Do you read Tacitus with an
JPH>assumption that he shared your values and perceptions?
I'm, um, afraid I haven't read Tacitus lately. But I can see some validity to the point. To be able to understand what Tacitus was saying, one would be wise to try to learn a bit about his perspective. Bottom line is, I doubt I could fully understand Tacitus (or the Bible) even if I had strong motivation to do so. However, I haven't found arguments that I should have strong motivation to understand the Bible any more compelling that arguments that I should try to to understand the Koran or the Book of Mormon. I haven't seen any compelling reason to think that they aren't all just books of myths -- with perhaps some valid history thrown in.
PJ> Well, for one, that says that the ancients viewed shame
PJ> as a “punishment”—something undesirable and worth the
PJ> effort to try to avoid.
JPH> If you define punishment so broadly, well and well. Is it
JPH> punishment for our mothers too look at us and say, tsk tsk?
A very mild form of punishment--too mild to be effective generally speaking, particularly in today's society. But yes, I would call that a form of punishment.
PJ> Well, that’s just not an answer--smiley or no smiley. Basically,
PJ> what you said (paraphrased) is, “I believe it because that is what
PJ> my religion says.”
JPH> I can do little else without devolving into what would be a tangent
JPH> in context for this conversation, and also something beyond my
JPH> normal scope of study. Can you grant that?
On one hand, yeah, I can grant that some things are difficult to answer briefly. I am often annoyed with Creationists that take pot shots at evolution. But to explain why the "pot shot" is off base is often much more difficult to do--the defense is often much harder than the criticism. So, I can appreciate that you might likewise feel that your defense of the subject is much harder than my "pot shot". But, at least from my perspective, until someone produces a defense, then I feel my "pot shot" is likely on target.
JPH> Given the number of persons who have lived, there
JPH> may well be some who could do with or without [our
JPH> contiguous reality] just as well;
Considering the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, (particularly prior to the 20th century,) and assuming that the Christians that argue that fetuses have a soul, then the *majority* of people apparently do not need a contiguous reality. Seems very strange that anybody does, doesn't it?
JPH> as well as that there is really no way to experimentally know
JPH> these things, which renders objections such as yours -- what
JPH> shall I say? Unfalsifiable?
Hmmm, I suppose that indeed many of my claims are unfalsifiable. But if you are going to play the "unfalsifiable" card, I think I can safely dismiss just about everything you've said as unfalsifiable as well. So, where does that leave us?
JPH> And really, do you mean "every" possible alternative? Branch Davidianism? Mithraism?
Imagine two people were having a similar conversation as us, about 1930 years ago, say an atheist and a Jew. The Jew might well say, "Do you really mean *every* possible alternative? Mithraism? Christianity?" One man's Mithraism is another man's Christianity. At least that is the way it looks to me.
JPH>That is so. But it remains that for some, no amount of subtle
JPH> encouragement will be enough to do more than reinforce
JPH> their own proclivity not to, i.e., repay the debt.
Well, I could play the "unfalsifiable" card here. For one, how much encouragement still falls under the catagory of "subtle"? If God were to boom in god-like voice YOU ARE GOING TO HELL IF YOU DON'T PAY THAT MONEY BACK every five minutes, while projecting imagines of agony and wailing on the wall beyond "subtle"? If so, why, I can scream in your ear all day long and that won't *force* you to do anything. The point I'm getting at is, you can't really define what is subtle and what isn't. And even if you could, you can't prove that there are some people that cannot be encouraged by the proper subtle encouragement at the proper time. You could try to point to hardened criminals that seem totally immune to all forms of punishment. But, an omniscient God would know better what encouragement would work for what individuals. I can't prove that, but would you deny that God would know better what encouragement would work best for different people?
JPH> there are points where a theory becomes unfalsifiable and thus worthless
I agree with this. But I think I could respond to most every claim of your as "unfalsifiable and thus worthless"
JPH> Yet you would also still believe that it is an absurd way to be saved,
And I believe that making someone believe in the unbelievable (the basic tenants of Christianity) is likewise an absurd way to be saved.
JPH> Remember that true faith is not merely assent to a proposition, but earnest loyalty to it.
I kind of prefer some other definitions of faith, here are a couple of my favorites. "Faith is admitting that your belief does not stand on its own merits, beliefs that stand on their own merits do not require faith." "Faith is convincing yourself to believe that which you really know cannot be true". At any rate, as far as the validity of faith, even in your terms, as to why it is of value to God and to salvation, remains a mystery.
JPH>Hey ho! Grandstanding, huh! :) Here's your punishment: I had
JPH>time to respond right away! God is gonna get ya for that! :)
Okay, so I guess I shoulda avoided the grandstanding. In general, from my perspective, your latest round was stronger than your previous round. I thought your prior round wasn't very good. Anyway, on to this round.
PJ> I find it rather humorous (and a bit annoying) how quickly you
PJ> change from, “gee I don’t have to have an answer, God can do
PJ> anything” when it suits your purposes
JPH> Eh? Where have I done that?
I thought I've been pretty clear about this. I've said that an omniscient Being should be able to create a world where nothing bad happens without violating free will. You've asked me how, and haven't accepted simply "by omnipotence" as an answer. But when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the chances that they need to choose salvation, you have simply offered "by omnipotence". I think this should be pretty obvious to the most casual of observer.
JPH> It's just as reasonable for ancient narrative histories as
JPH>for any myth, is it not? Do you read Tacitus with an
JPH>assumption that he shared your values and perceptions?
I'm, um, afraid I haven't read Tacitus lately. But I can see some validity to the point. To be able to understand what Tacitus was saying, one would be wise to try to learn a bit about his perspective. Bottom line is, I doubt I could fully understand Tacitus (or the Bible) even if I had strong motivation to do so. However, I haven't found arguments that I should have strong motivation to understand the Bible any more compelling that arguments that I should try to to understand the Koran or the Book of Mormon. I haven't seen any compelling reason to think that they aren't all just books of myths -- with perhaps some valid history thrown in.
PJ> Well, for one, that says that the ancients viewed shame
PJ> as a “punishment”—something undesirable and worth the
PJ> effort to try to avoid.
JPH> If you define punishment so broadly, well and well. Is it
JPH> punishment for our mothers too look at us and say, tsk tsk?
A very mild form of punishment--too mild to be effective generally speaking, particularly in today's society. But yes, I would call that a form of punishment.
PJ> Well, that’s just not an answer--smiley or no smiley. Basically,
PJ> what you said (paraphrased) is, “I believe it because that is what
PJ> my religion says.”
JPH> I can do little else without devolving into what would be a tangent
JPH> in context for this conversation, and also something beyond my
JPH> normal scope of study. Can you grant that?
On one hand, yeah, I can grant that some things are difficult to answer briefly. I am often annoyed with Creationists that take pot shots at evolution. But to explain why the "pot shot" is off base is often much more difficult to do--the defense is often much harder than the criticism. So, I can appreciate that you might likewise feel that your defense of the subject is much harder than my "pot shot". But, at least from my perspective, until someone produces a defense, then I feel my "pot shot" is likely on target.
JPH> Given the number of persons who have lived, there
JPH> may well be some who could do with or without [our
JPH> contiguous reality] just as well;
Considering the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, (particularly prior to the 20th century,) and assuming that the Christians that argue that fetuses have a soul, then the *majority* of people apparently do not need a contiguous reality. Seems very strange that anybody does, doesn't it?
JPH> as well as that there is really no way to experimentally know
JPH> these things, which renders objections such as yours -- what
JPH> shall I say? Unfalsifiable?
Hmmm, I suppose that indeed many of my claims are unfalsifiable. But if you are going to play the "unfalsifiable" card, I think I can safely dismiss just about everything you've said as unfalsifiable as well. So, where does that leave us?
JPH> And really, do you mean "every" possible alternative? Branch Davidianism? Mithraism?
Imagine two people were having a similar conversation as us, about 1930 years ago, say an atheist and a Jew. The Jew might well say, "Do you really mean *every* possible alternative? Mithraism? Christianity?" One man's Mithraism is another man's Christianity. At least that is the way it looks to me.
JPH>That is so. But it remains that for some, no amount of subtle
JPH> encouragement will be enough to do more than reinforce
JPH> their own proclivity not to, i.e., repay the debt.
Well, I could play the "unfalsifiable" card here. For one, how much encouragement still falls under the catagory of "subtle"? If God were to boom in god-like voice YOU ARE GOING TO HELL IF YOU DON'T PAY THAT MONEY BACK every five minutes, while projecting imagines of agony and wailing on the wall beyond "subtle"? If so, why, I can scream in your ear all day long and that won't *force* you to do anything. The point I'm getting at is, you can't really define what is subtle and what isn't. And even if you could, you can't prove that there are some people that cannot be encouraged by the proper subtle encouragement at the proper time. You could try to point to hardened criminals that seem totally immune to all forms of punishment. But, an omniscient God would know better what encouragement would work for what individuals. I can't prove that, but would you deny that God would know better what encouragement would work best for different people?
JPH> there are points where a theory becomes unfalsifiable and thus worthless
I agree with this. But I think I could respond to most every claim of your as "unfalsifiable and thus worthless"
JPH> Yet you would also still believe that it is an absurd way to be saved,
And I believe that making someone believe in the unbelievable (the basic tenants of Christianity) is likewise an absurd way to be saved.
JPH> Remember that true faith is not merely assent to a proposition, but earnest loyalty to it.
I kind of prefer some other definitions of faith, here are a couple of my favorites. "Faith is admitting that your belief does not stand on its own merits, beliefs that stand on their own merits do not require faith." "Faith is convincing yourself to believe that which you really know cannot be true". At any rate, as far as the validity of faith, even in your terms, as to why it is of value to God and to salvation, remains a mystery.
