The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[Moonwood the Hare]

Can I now say I am okay with Keep the Reason's position on Christians in politics and with anyone else who is following a similar line. It looked at first as if he was saying he saw all Christians as potentially about to start a nuclear war because of their eschatological views and I now realise he was limiting this to those who have expressed such views. I also agree that this kind of eschatology has had a disastrous effect on the situation in the middle east, probably more so than most people realise. The question there is how these minority views which were formulated by members of an obscure sect in the early nineteenth century have come to be regarded as mainstream evangelical. The report you give regarding Reagan is much as I recall - and I would still say the evidence is more that he toyed with these ideas than allowed them to have any real influence on policy.

[humanguy]

Hi Moon. How do you know what little you know about God?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Hi Moon. How do you know what little you know about God?

Do you mean how do I know God is Self Existent? I take that to mean how do I know there is not something more ultimate than God on which God depends for his existence. If there was something more ultimate than God on which God depended, I'd call that God. I suppose that raises the question could the God I experience depend on something within the cosmos for his existence? I suppose I put that into the same category as questions like, 'Could we all be brains in vats?' or 'Might the material world not really exist?' I just don't know what to do with that kind of scepticism, it's very abstract. Does that answer the question at all? If not can you clarify what you are asking?

[Moonwood the Hare]

When Humanguy asks,

What little of God as he is in himself do you know, then?

and you reply with,

I would go with John Calvin and say all we can know of God as he is in himself is that he is self existent and eternal.

you're alienating yourself right there. You think you're saving yourself a significant amount of typing because you're thoroughly versed with John Calvin's philosophical based ideas, whereas all that people like Humanguy and myself (ie: Joe Average – and yet Humanguy and myself, as people, are nothing alike. For instance, he can make music whereas I can only replay it) hear is that you don't have your own opinion and choose to instead hang off somebody else's opinion.
Ant

I meant to reply to this. If I express an idea that might be unusual or controversial then I sometimes like to point out that it is a view I share with some major Christian thinkers even though people may not realise that was their view. I certainly did not notice that Calvin said this and Roy Clouser had to point it out to me and in fact practically rub my nose in it to make me see it. But I can see why that kind of reference might alienate people. The other thing is I don't like to pretend to be original when I am relying on other people's ideas. Drawing on other people's ideas does not seem to me to mean not having an opinion but as good old C. S. Lewis said what we have to ask about any idea is not, 'is it mine?' but rather, 'is it true?' Like it or not we are all influenced by other people's ideas so to me the point is not to hide that but to be aware of it. There is a thing I love that when John Stuart Mill was little and he learned from his father about philosophy, he asked his dad why philosophers don't rule the world and his dad replied they do silly, they just do it 200 years after they die.

[humanguy]

I see. So basically you're a pretty traditional Christian because you agree with what a lot of other Christians have said.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I see. So basically you're a pretty traditional Christian because you agree with what a lot of other Christians have said.

I'm a pretty traditional Christian because I believe traditional Christianity or something much like it is true.

[Keep The Reason]

I think you miss the irony in humanguys comment. Your citations of other humans claims towards Christianity, including the humanly written bible, is the only actual reason you believe in Christian ideology. You don't have any specialed experience that could be cited as to why you're a Christian. You saw no burning bush, have heard no well modulated voice, you did not fall fom your mount on the road to Damascus.

Basically, you read, heard, or were told this information from other humans, none any more or less special or having had any specialized experiences themselves, and you said, "Hmmm, yeah. That."

The other option is, you have had some specialized knowledge or experience, and if so, then we get to ask you how you know that experience is valid, and not, say, the product of a delusion or hallucination (cue mitch's stock in trade diatribe here).

[cleve]

... "Hmmm, yeah. That."

[Moonwood the Hare]

I think you miss the irony in humanguys comment. Your citations of other humans claims towards Christianity, including the humanly written bible, is the only actual reason you believe in Christian ideology. You don't have any specialed experience that could be cited as to why you're a Christian. You saw no burning bush, have heard no well modulated voice, you did not fall fom your mount on the road to Damascus.

Basically, you read, heard, or were told this information from other humans, none any more or less special or having had any specialized experiences themselves, and you said, "Hmmm, yeah. That."

The other option is, you have had some specialized knowledge or experience, and if so, then we get to ask you how you know that experience is valid, and not, say, the product of a delusion or hallucination (cue mitch's stock in trade diatribe here).

The assumption here is that it is the extra-normal accompaniments of religious experience that make it valid but I don't accept this. Much of our experience is within a tradition and that includes most of what we know by direct experience. For example I accept the law of identity as true because I experience it as true and am experiencing it as true now but that does not deny that this law has a human history and a number of different possible formulations.

[Keep The Reason]

The assumption here is that it is the extra-normal accompaniments of religious experience that make it valid but I don't accept this. Much of our experience is within a tradition and that includes most of what we know by direct experience. For example I accept the law of identity as true because I experience it as true and am experiencing it as true now but that does not deny that this law has a human history and a number of different possible formulations.

Yes, but that doesn't mean your belief is grounded in validity. See, theists are in this trap of trying to analogize with materialism how their beliefs are somehow equally attained or manage to deserve the same graitas of respectability as are those of a demosntrative nature. In some instances, sure, they are equally attained. I have no quarrel admitting that my materialism is offered to me via the expression of human cognition, thoughts, and information. But the difference between you and I is that I stop there, admit there could be a mistake, but then don't go off into a wilderness of assertions that my perspective comes from some realm of spirit or divinity or... well, whatever it is you claim your Christianity is experientially grounded in.

But you do not simply accept the law of identity as true because you just "experience" it as true-- the fact is, we can demonstrate it's true quite consistently. Every word you are reading here demonstrates that the law of identity is in fact a valid axiom. The same of course cannot be said of god, heaven, hell, sin, Jesus, ressurrection, etc. This is the chasm we can not come to grips with, and while you are welcoime to believe these things, what you cannot expect is that your claims of theistic bent have the same weight as the demonstrable claims of the materialist. The best you can do is suggest that some of the materialists' view might not be demonstrable, but that doesn't do a thing to relieve the onerous burden that your spiritual views are at the core completely undemonstrable all the time, without exception.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Yes, but that doesn't mean your belief is grounded in validity. See, theists are in this trap of trying to analogize with materialism how their beliefs are somehow equally attained or manage to deserve the same graitas of respectability as are those of a demosntrative nature. In some instances, sure, they are equally attained. I have no quarrel admitting that my materialism is offered to me via the expression of human cognition, thoughts, and information. But the difference between you and I is that I stop there, admit there could be a mistake, but then don't go off into a wilderness of assertions that my perspective comes from some realm of spirit or divinity or... well, whatever it is you claim your Christianity is experientially grounded in.

Well I'm with you so far. I'm really not claiming infallibility. I take it for granted that I could be mistaken in detail or in general.

But you do not simply accept the law of identity as true because you just "experience" it as true-- the fact is, we can demonstrate it's true quite consistently. Every word you are reading here demonstrates that the law of identity is in fact a valid axiom. The same of course cannot be said of god, heaven, hell, sin, Jesus, ressurrection, etc. This is the chasm we can not come to grips with, and while you are welcoime to believe these things, what you cannot expect is that your claims of theistic bent have the same weight as the demonstrable claims of the materialist. The best you can do is suggest that some of the materialists' view might not be demonstrable, but that doesn't do a thing to relieve the onerous burden that your spiritual views are at the core completely undemonstrable all the time, without exception.

I'm taking the law of identity to be a universal law and as such non-demonstrable by definition. If you wish to reformulate it as a description of past and present experience then you are modifying it's meaning. But as we pursue this we will run once again into the old problem that I am never sure what you mean by demonstrable and you have never been able to clearly define the term. I will make my point again. If demonstrable only means to point to some facts consistent with then the law of identity is demonstrable but so is the existence of God.

[Keep The Reason]

I'm taking the law of identity to be a universal law and as such non-demonstrable by definition. If you wish to reformulate it as a description of past and present experience then you are modifying it's meaning. But as we pursue this we will run once again into the old problem that I am never sure what you mean by demonstrable and you have never been able to clearly define the term. I will make my point again. If demonstrable only means to point to some facts consistent with then the law of identity is demonstrable but so is the existence of God.

By demonstrable I can point out to you the fact that each of these strings of symbols we call words have specific identity, meanings that are either what they are, or not. Given this law, you can decipher what I am saying, and so can others all assuming they understand this particular langauge and the symbols; indentity is thus demonstrated in a consistent and materialistic manner. As best as is possible, we have a demonstration of a claim or belief that words (or letters) strung together in specific ways, supports the assertion that there is a law of identity. That the letter A means the letter A and not the letter Z or the number 12 or... etc.

When you can show me the same regarding the assertions of Christianity, such as sin, gods, ressurrection and so on, you'll have something worth investigating. But as it stands, you don't have anything that even remotely comes up to this simple and basic criteria, and indeed, you will immediately have to submit to the law of identity by default in order to offer such demontration in the first place. The best you can offer is that the materialist, at some times, does have "Articles of faith" as well. Sure, ok. We just don't have them across the board for our core worldview.

[humanguy]

I think you miss the irony in humanguys comment. Your citations of other humans claims towards Christianity, including the humanly written bible, is the only actual reason you believe in Christian ideology. You don't have any specialed experience that could be cited as to why you're a Christian. You saw no burning bush, have heard no well modulated voice, you did not fall fom your mount on the road to Damascus.

Basically, you read, heard, or were told this information from other humans, none any more or less special or having had any specialized experiences themselves, and you said, "Hmmm, yeah. That."

The other option is, you have had some specialized knowledge or experience, and if so, then we get to ask you how you know that experience is valid, and not, say, the product of a delusion or hallucination (cue mitch's stock in trade diatribe here).

The assumption here is that it is the extra-normal accompaniments of religious experience that make it valid but I don't accept this. Much of our experience is within a tradition and that includes most of what we know by direct experience. For example I accept the law of identity as true because I experience it as true and am experiencing it as true now but that does not deny that this law has a human history and a number of different possible formulations.

That's an answer?

[Moonwood the Hare]

That's an answer?

Only if that's a question.

[humanguy]

That's an answer?

Only if that's a question.

Hey look, Moonwood the Hare is being pithy. Well done, young man.