toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[WizardofOz]

Per, like TH and Nicholsmom, I too have been sizing up whether you are really kind and moral. In you I didn’t detect any propensity towards the wanton slaughter of infants, as was commanded by TH’s and Nocholsmom’s God in times of old, so I can’t accuse you there. No apparent raping, like with the tens of thousands of virgin teenage girls spared to be taken as property by God’s soldiers after the rest of the girl’s family members were killed. Wholesale lying, robbery, cheating, nope – can’t get you on those. But Th and Nicholsmom caught you in a serious demonstration of depravity when you chose to rather accurately describe their deity as a “magic man”. Notice how deep and substantive TH and Nicholsmom’s claims against you are? (But I do wonder what their reaction would have been if you had let it be known that had at some point emulated so many Biblical actions of God’s followers and actually lied or had a mistress or pillaged or been a drunkard or …

Being a Christian is unkind and immoral?

 

[zippy2006]

Therein lies the rub, as they say. While I have thoroughly informed myself about Catholic as well as Protestant dogma, I suspect you have not done the same. Augustinian thought is pervasive in many Reformed doctrines, and you would do well to learn more about the views of those you like to take to task by reading the masters that have come before us. I suspect you have read any serious treatment of classical Reformed theology. I will also venture to say that you have not read a serious Catholic systematic theology, too. I am happy to be proven wrong here, but much of what you have to say about this or that matter of doctrine does not comport with one who has read the topics deeply. We can all glean a few nuggets from discussion sites, blogs, and what not, but nothing beats reading the masters.

You might consider these four volumes as a starting place for a grounding in the classical theology of Protestant Reformed thought:

http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

You might also consider the following as one from a Catholic perspective:

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091

Neither group denies man's free will. Instead both define carefully what "free" means in the context of a living and sovereign God. You and I are free moral agents, but we are not as free as we would like to be, nor as free as God Almighty. That said, don't take my word for it. Instead, make the remainder of 2011 a time when you will dig deep into a few good treatments and I will guarantee that your perspectives will be altered, or at least more tempered.

AMR

A few quick things here. Certainly you know much more than me about theology in general, no argument there. What is at stake here is whether the Reformed tradition denies man's free will and whether it breaks with classical theism in doing that. My knowledge apart from that topic isn't overly relevant.

Now nothing I have read or listened to from you or anyone else on either side of the issue has led me to believe that the Reformed tradition believes that man is free in any meaningful sense. In fact I consider my last off-line conversation with you to be a sort of confirmation of that suspicion. I think the relevant sense of freedom being spoken about (and, not coincidentally, moral responsibility) can be accessed rather easily by asking whether Adam could have acted differently. The Reformed tradition seems to break with orthodoxy in answering with an emphatic "no." My signature is one example of Augustine separating himself from such thought which you have also held to in general on TOL.

Thanks for the links
-zip :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Per, like TH and Nicholsmom, I too have been sizing up whether you are really kind and moral. In you I didn’t detect any propensity towards the wanton slaughter of infants, as was commanded by TH’s and Nocholsmom’s God in times of old, so I can’t accuse you there. No apparent raping, like with the tens of thousands of virgin teenage girls spared to be taken as property by God’s soldiers after the rest of the girl’s family members were killed. Wholesale lying, robbery, cheating, nope – can’t get you on those. But Th and Nicholsmom caught you in a serious demonstration of depravity when you chose to rather accurately describe their deity as a “magic man”. Notice how deep and substantive TH and Nicholsmom’s claims against you are? (But I do wonder what their reaction would have been if you had let it be known that had at some point emulated so many Biblical actions of God’s followers and actually lied or had a mistress or pillaged or been a drunkard or …

Your whole dramatic case here is built on a simple non-sequitur. It was pointed out that God is required for morality, not belief in God, which is how you mis-construed it. And now you are quite typically resorting to your usual lines against a specific interpretation of Biblical passages instead of addressing the actual points. :idunno:

 

[alwight]

Morality of the populace is important for the government, but morality is even more important for the individual - which is not, or shouldn't be, simply the consensus of human opinion. One must seek for themselves, ask oneself questions of what is right and wrong and one must individually pursue truth. Regardless of what society thinks, its what the individual thinks and does which matters.

Yes I agree pretty much but that is still defining a very relative morality afaic.
How would Christians say be able to conclude a higher morality from this rather than to simply aspire?
Maybe just aspiring is sufficient then? :think:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Being a Christian is unkind and immoral?

Christianity is for unkind and immoral people. After all, those who are well don't need a doctor.

 

[WizardofOz]

Christianity is for unkind and immoral people. After all, those who are well don't need a doctor.

I follow, I just didn't realize that the very "act" of being Christian was inherently unkind and/or immoral as was implied by DBJ :idunno:

I guess I learned something new today!

 

[badp]

I've been an atheist nearly all my days, I'm also a rather kind, decent and polite person. I didn't need a story about a magic man to make me that way.

Don't kid yourself. You're evil and you know it.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I follow, I just didn't realize that the very "act" of being Christian was inherently unkind and/or immoral as was implied by DBJ :idunno:

Well, you know -- he thinks God is evil, so obviously, all His followers must be as well.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Don't kid yourself. You're evil and you know it.

Aren't we all?

 

[DavisBJ]

Your whole dramatic case here is built on a simple non-sequitur. It was pointed out that God is required for morality, not belief in God, which is how you mis-construed it. And now you are quite typically resorting to your usual lines against a specific interpretation of Biblical passages instead of addressing the actual points. :idunno:

Because I failed to differentiate between belief in God and God actually existing, you elect to avoid the issues I mentioned in my post. Just like the offense of calling your God a magic man, you focus on minutia and avoid substance.

 

[csuguy]

Yes I agree pretty much but that is still defining a very relative morality afaic.
How would Christians say be able to conclude a higher morality from this rather than to simply aspire?
Maybe just aspiring is sufficient then? :think:

Morality is absolute for the Christian in that morality is revealed via revelation recorded down in scripture. Non-Christians, atheistic or otherwise, must also identify a basis for morality in their lives which serves as absolute for them. A common one is the Golden Rule, but also alternative religious authorities. Even those who try to claim morality is completely relativistic ultimately break down and recognize that there are definite evils, though they might not recognize an absolute basis for defining those evils as such.

While there may not be an established paradigm via which everyone models their morality, yet all recognize the necessity of morality (or ethics, if they want to be picky about terminology) in our lives. And, again, morality - though it lacks a universal paradigm like scientific forms of knowledge - is yet so vastly more important in our lives than science that there can't even be a proper comparison.

 

[DavisBJ]

Do you mean that no one gets away with murder? I beg to differ.

Wow, that was a stretch. Differ all you want, since I said no such thing.

For the less intelligent among us, this may be true, but for a smart person, consequences are just a factor in the equation of deciding on a course of action - "things to avoid to avoid consequences" would be on the list.

You seem to be intent on making a mountain out of my use of a common phrase that, without you pathetically stretching it, most people agree with.

Wait. I thought you were an atheist. If it is true, as you must believe if there is no god, that we are all products of random chance and natural selection, then there are no such things as "genuine feelings" :nono:

Your statement only holds if by “genuine feelings”, they must all come from a common universal source (God?). I never said as much, and certainly do not believe it. Are you resistant to the idea that people, in growing up, see that the types of actions that hurt them often hurt others as well? Are you incapable of discerning that without first getting a “This idea is sanctioned by God” seal?

The things we perceive as feelings are just biochemical reactions to stimuli - said reactions programmed in by way of genetics and past input to the program (what we theists call experiences). If there is no god, there is no guidance, no purpose, no reason other than biochemical/survivalistic reaction for any action or "feeling."

Again, you narrowly define the meanings of the terms – purpose, reason, etc - to only be valid if they come from your god. I find purpose and meaning and so on without having to measure each against some divine yardstick derived from ancient nomadic texts.

Why are you moral? Are you not very bright (and so cannot work out ways to avoid negative consequences)? Surely you aren't concerned for the survival of the human race - don't you, like most atheists, believe that we are overpopulating the planet? Shouldn't murder be a great way to deplete our numbers by way of eliminating the stupid and weak? Are you squeamish for some reason? Perhaps a product of your past input has made you think that murder and rape are wrong, because they make perfect sense for natural selection purposes. What's wrong with you, atheist?

This type of rationalization is sad. In some religions personal flagellation is honored, because it supposedly debases man and thereby elevates God. Your way is less extreme, but similar in approach. The filthier and uglier and more despicable you can portray natural man to be, the more you see evidence that God’s influence in your life has overcome those base characteristics. Except I choose to see goodness, and evil, on their own merits – whether I find them in church-goers or in unbelievers. I can’t image affiliating with a religious philosophy which pointed me towards a need to think of myself as a monstrous reprobate just so I would somehow love God more thereby. Sick, sick, sick.

 

[DavisBJ]

Well, you know -- he thinks God is evil, so obviously, all His followers must be as well.

Are you really desperate enough that you need to stoop to this, OEJ?

 

[DavisBJ]

I follow, I just didn't realize that the very "act" of being Christian was inherently unkind and/or immoral as was implied by DBJ :idunno:

I guess I learned something new today!

What did you read that gave you such a twisted version of my feelings about Christians?

 

[badp]

I can’t image affiliating with a religious philosophy which pointed me towards a need to think of myself as a monstrous reprobate just so I would somehow love God more thereby. Sick, sick, sick.

In other words, you wouldn't bear an honest evaluation of your nature and character.

 

[WizardofOz]

What did you read that gave you such a twisted version of my feelings about Christians?

Let's back up to pre-rant. Is calling the Christian God a "magic man" being kind and polite to Christians?

 

[DavisBJ]

I agree - knowledge should be critically examined. However, critical examination does not equate to scientific examination.

I agree that if something is not amenable to scientific examination, then science will not provide a good yardstick to measure it by. But hopefully, those things will be the exception, and not the norm.

Science has the advantage of immunity from religious preconceptions, from personal wants, and from national borders. If you are forced to use something other than science to evaluate an idea against, how do you assure that the evaluation is free from personal biases?

 

[rexlunae]

TOL in a classroom Cool.

Very much like that. Perhaps, TOL with a common reading assignment.

These in yellow seem to contradict your assertion that theology is simplistic - or more so than "science" - which is funny when you come to think of it. Theology deals with the varying views on God, Who is both infinite and infinitely more complex than the human brain considering Him.

I would say that theology is vast, but not terribly complex. And you don't really need a professional background in order for it to be accessible.

But even if you don't believe in a complex god, you must believe in the complexity of the human mind and of human thought. Surely, theology would have to be more complex considering it deals with millions of minds (believers), or at least thousands (theologians), each having different background (past input to the programmed response to things perceived as "god"), each having different brain composition. That's complex even on the surface...

I've just never found it very inaccessible. The same is not true with most branches of science, once you get past the edge.

:chuckle: You always keep me smiling, rex

I aim to please.

 

[DavisBJ]

In other words, you wouldn't bear an honest evaluation of your nature and character.

Do you also think that painting humanity as innately evil is a correct assessment?

 

[zippy2006]

If you are forced to use something other than science to evaluate an idea against, how do you assure that the evaluation is free from personal biases?

You keep saying this. Why? It is completely absurd and has no grounding whatsoever. You are whimsically adopting a demonstrably failed system--scientism--as if it is the only option. Science has never been self explanatory or the primary means of evaluation, why would it be now? It would take someone with a significant lack of historical and philosophical knowledge to make such an odd assumption. What do you evaluate science itself against? And if science is your starting point, then why?