Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------allowing a "divine foot in the door."
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------allowing a "divine foot in the door."
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------allowing a "divine foot in the door."
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------allowing a "divine foot in the door."
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------.................................................
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here toallowing a "divine foot in the door."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
If you want a dangerous idea try Sola Fides, which is corrosive of morals.
--
alias Ernest Major
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
If you want a dangerous idea try Sola Fides, which is corrosive of morals.
--
alias Ernest Major
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
--
alias Ernest Major
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------allowing a "divine foot in the door."
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------.................................................
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
If you want to start arguing motives, then the discussion is already doomed. Your arguments do not allow a "divine foot in the door," at all. They just allow an undefined foot in the door. None of the positive characteristics you ascribe to theChristian God are derivable from the (hypothetical) need for a non-naturalistic explanation of OoL.
The idea that people reject your "explanatory gap" argument because they do not want to behave justly is, to put it mildly, a self-serving cop-out. People reject your argument because it is nothing but gussied up "God-of-the Gaps," which is actuallymore offensive to the Christian I was once than to the atheist I am now.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:where implemented?"
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
--
alias Ernest Major
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:where implemented?"
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good
epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
--
alias Ernest Major
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 6:50:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote: >>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore >>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
I don't think that that is the argument. The argument is that religious people on average behave no better (or worse) than non-religious people and that therefore, the idea that people reject religion because they want to behave badly doesn't fly.
But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good
epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
--
alias Ernest Major
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:25:45 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962.................................................
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
Christian God are derivable from the (hypothetical) need for a non-naturalistic explanation of OoL.If you want to start arguing motives, then the discussion is already doomed. Your arguments do not allow a "divine foot in the door," at all. They just allow an undefined foot in the door. None of the positive characteristics you ascribe to the
more offensive to the Christian I was once than to the atheist I am now.The idea that people reject your "explanatory gap" argument because they do not want to behave justly is, to put it mildly, a self-serving cop-out. People reject your argument because it is nothing but gussied up "God-of-the Gaps," which is actually
“…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hiddenphilosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.” (Source to be revealed elsewhere)
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:25:45 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962.................................................
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
Christian God are derivable from the (hypothetical) need for a non-naturalistic explanation of OoL.If you want to start arguing motives, then the discussion is already doomed. Your arguments do not allow a "divine foot in the door," at all. They just allow an undefined foot in the door. None of the positive characteristics you ascribe to the
more offensive to the Christian I was once than to the atheist I am now.The idea that people reject your "explanatory gap" argument because they do not want to behave justly is, to put it mildly, a self-serving cop-out. People reject your argument because it is nothing but gussied up "God-of-the Gaps," which is actually
“…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people
cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism
is a hidden philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible
the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.” (Source to be revealed elsewhere)
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:where implemented?"
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
.https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:where implemented?"
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot in the door for bigotry.1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
Well, your author argued that
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
In the context of this facile argument (especially as he really does not make the case
for 2 the way he reasoned) that seems fair enough - not to discount religion but the specific
argument in favour of religion that your source made
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:if where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
to allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
Well, your author argued thatNope.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some peopleare going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil,
In the context of this facile argument (especially as he really does not make the case
for 2 the way he reasoned) that seems fair enough - not to discount religion but the specific
argument in favour of religion that your source made
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:better if where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil,https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
Well, your author argued thatNope.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people
Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life ismeaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil,Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued that1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither >>>>>> necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for >>>>>> religion in general.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ >>>>>>>
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, >>>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore >>>>>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of >>>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot >>>>>> in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people
is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:10:44 AM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 >> ------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
I don't think Christianity is quite as bad, overall, as Peter Hitchens makes it look
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------allowing a "divine foot in the door."
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote: >>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, >>>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things. >>>>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of >>>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate >>>>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life
.Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our species as social animals. So there.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, >>>>>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things. >>>>>>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of >>>>>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate >>>>>>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot >>>>>>>> in the door for bigotry.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life
.Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... >>> fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part, but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation. It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent. Happily, I didn't experience that.
So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, >>>>>>>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things. >>>>>>>>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of >>>>>>>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate >>>>>>>>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human
..Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... >>>>> fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology. >>>>>
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and >>>> justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our >>>> species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part, >>> but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly.
not what MarkE thinks it is.
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me. >>> I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had >>> within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about >>> developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection.
in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an
instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need
apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection,
rules that allow a society to function.
My conception of a Platonic Ideal includes that it reflect a mathematical truth. Then, flicking a wand and annunciating a charm in a manner approved
of by Hermione Granger, with a touch a Game Theory, I think most "good" aspects of morality sync up both with your social selection concept and
my assertion of Platonic Ideals. The deviations come with inter-tribal fighting.
My People vs your People is in too many occasions an evolutionarily (short-term)
advantageous context.
Higher Morality, as such exists, transcends the immediate circumstances
to look at a broader scale and broader set of consequences. The potential
to consider a suite of "what if ..." propositions changes the game from the limitations of __is__ that constrain the social evolution scheme.
.
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma,.
the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define
goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually
think about it.
Luckily, I can't agree with your "most". Yes to some. Perhaps I'm lucky in my associations.
And of course, there is no fix in the invocation you cite. I just don't know many who do so.
.Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Imagine a group, wearing red hats, crying, leaving a school board meeting where
they failed in getting their selection of books banned from the library.
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things. >>>>>>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate >>>>>>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human
..Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... >>> fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and >> justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our >> species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly.
not what MarkE thinks it is.
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection.
in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need
apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection, rules that allow a society to function.
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma,.
the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define
goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually think about it.
.Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if whereimplemented?"
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore,
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962 ------------------------------------------------------------allowing a "divine foot in the door."
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil,Nope.Well, your author argued that1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ >>>>>>
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for >>>>> religion in general.
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, >>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore >>>>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of >>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot >>>>> in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people
Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life ismeaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.
Many Christians imagine that if they lost their faith (1) they would go on a vice driven rampage and (2) life would cease to have any meaning. I can tell you, having myself been a Christian who lost faith, that neither of those things happened to me.Nor has it happened to many de-converts that I have known.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:where implemented?"
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if
therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and,
allowing a "divine foot in the door."
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil,Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued that1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither >>>>>> necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for >>>>>> religion in general.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ >>>>>>>
PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin, >>>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore >>>>>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of >>>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot >>>>>> in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people
is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
On 9/22/23 11:37 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things. >>>>>>>>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate >>>>>>>>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good >>>>>>>> 2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human
..Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—" >>>>> .
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology. >>>>>
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard >>>> separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our >>>> species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly >> not what MarkE thinks it is..
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection >> in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an.
instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need
apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection, >> rules that allow a society to function.
My conception of a Platonic Ideal includes that it reflect a mathematical truth. Then, flicking a wand and annunciating a charm in a manner approved of by Hermione Granger, with a touch a Game Theory, I think most "good" aspects of morality sync up both with your social selection concept and
my assertion of Platonic Ideals. The deviations come with inter-tribal fighting.
My People vs your People is in too many occasions an evolutionarily (short-term)
advantageous context.
Higher Morality, as such exists, transcends the immediate circumstancesI have received only two sorts of responses to the dilemma. The first,
to look at a broader scale and broader set of consequences. The potential to consider a suite of "what if ..." propositions changes the game from the
limitations of __is__ that constrain the social evolution scheme.
.
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma,.
the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define
goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually >> think about it.
Luckily, I can't agree with your "most". Yes to some. Perhaps I'm lucky in my associations.
And of course, there is no fix in the invocation you cite. I just don't know many who do so.
the attempted escape cited above. The second is more disturbing:
acceptance that you should just do whatever God says regardless of your personal sense of morality, as Abraham was willing to do with Isaac.
Owning the Trumpies? It would be more satisfying if there were just.Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Imagine a group, wearing red hats, crying, leaving a school board meeting where
they failed in getting their selection of books banned from the library.
fewer of them.
This is I think an important and challenging question for Christians.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 4:55:47 AM UTC+10, John Harshman wrote:people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
On 9/22/23 11:37 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good >>>>>>>> 2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that
of right and wrong. God remains the source and arbiter of morality, but we are enabled to understand and agree with this, which may in part address the concern of arbitraryness...Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the >>>> foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard >>>> separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—" >>>>> .
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology. >>>>>
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly >> not what MarkE thinks it is..
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection >> in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an >> instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need.
apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection, >> rules that allow a society to function.
My conception of a Platonic Ideal includes that it reflect a mathematical
truth. Then, flicking a wand and annunciating a charm in a manner approved
of by Hermione Granger, with a touch a Game Theory, I think most "good" aspects of morality sync up both with your social selection concept and my assertion of Platonic Ideals. The deviations come with inter-tribal fighting.
My People vs your People is in too many occasions an evolutionarily (short-term)
advantageous context.
This is I think an important and challenging question for Christians. The following thinking out loud response is patchy and incomplete, but hey...Higher Morality, as such exists, transcends the immediate circumstances to look at a broader scale and broader set of consequences. The potentialI have received only two sorts of responses to the dilemma. The first,
to consider a suite of "what if ..." propositions changes the game from the
limitations of __is__ that constrain the social evolution scheme.
.
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma, >> the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define.
goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually
think about it.
Luckily, I can't agree with your "most". Yes to some. Perhaps I'm lucky in my associations.
And of course, there is no fix in the invocation you cite. I just don't know many who do so.
the attempted escape cited above. The second is more disturbing: acceptance that you should just do whatever God says regardless of your personal sense of morality, as Abraham was willing to do with Isaac.
FIRST RESPONSE - "God *is* goodness":
You might see this as "the most powerful being gets to define morality", and find that arbitrary. I can appreciate that. The Bible describes humans as made in God's image/likeness, which includes us having a God-given conscience and sense of justice,
More foundationally, the God of the Bible is the creator of all things, and therefore by necessity the originator of morality. How then can we know if God is perfectly good, or only good sometimes, or actually not good? Presumably we can't bycomparison to some benchmark of goodness that exists independently of God, since by definition, nothing exists independently of God. So no avenue for "primary" verification is available to us as creatures. As to "secondary" assessment of God's goodness?
SECOND RESPONSE - the "more disturbing" one:statements of this is in Romans 9:14-21
The doctrine of grace I think addresses Euthypro's Dilemma for Christianity, i.e. God loves us *not* because of any piousness or righteousness on our part. A biblical "dilemma" possibly related is the question of Predestination. One of the most direct
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,is able to resist his will?", and confrontingly offers no justifcation, but chastises the question and declares--you might say disturbingly--don't answer back, God is God.
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might
display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens
whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?’ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what
is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery
for special purposes and some for common use?"
You might say that quoting this really is making it hard for myself. For Christians this is a challenging teaching. Notably too, the author of the passage, the Apostle Paul, anticipates the "moral" objection: "Then why does God still blame us? For who
Now this must read in the context of the rest of Scripture - the many assurances and demonstrations of God's goodness. But it also does some else vitally important: it reminds us that we may approach this God only entirely on his terms. We must firstgo to the place of humility that as his creation, we are clay. As our creator, God has rights over us which are not merely function of a power differential, but because creation ex nihilo confers absolute ownership. Therefore, for example, God is free to
That's enough for now.
Owning the Trumpies? It would be more satisfying if there were just.Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Imagine a group, wearing red hats, crying, leaving a school board meeting where
they failed in getting their selection of books banned from the library.
fewer of them.
You can probably see the problem here.
God's justice means that justice can be achieved by
punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for someone else's
(well, everybody else's) wrong doings.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:25:46 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 4:55:47 AM UTC+10, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 11:37 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good >>>>>>>> 2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication,
human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that
of right and wrong. God remains the source and arbiter of morality, but we are enabled to understand and agree with this, which may in part address the concern of arbitraryness...Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the >>>> foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—" >>>>> .
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly.
not what MarkE thinks it is.
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection.
in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an >> instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need >> apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection,
rules that allow a society to function.
My conception of a Platonic Ideal includes that it reflect a mathematical
truth. Then, flicking a wand and annunciating a charm in a manner approved
of by Hermione Granger, with a touch a Game Theory, I think most "good"
aspects of morality sync up both with your social selection concept and
my assertion of Platonic Ideals. The deviations come with inter-tribal fighting.
My People vs your People is in too many occasions an evolutionarily (short-term)
advantageous context.
This is I think an important and challenging question for Christians. The following thinking out loud response is patchy and incomplete, but hey...Higher Morality, as such exists, transcends the immediate circumstancesI have received only two sorts of responses to the dilemma. The first, the attempted escape cited above. The second is more disturbing: acceptance that you should just do whatever God says regardless of your personal sense of morality, as Abraham was willing to do with Isaac.
to look at a broader scale and broader set of consequences. The potential
to consider a suite of "what if ..." propositions changes the game from the
limitations of __is__ that constrain the social evolution scheme.
.
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma, >> the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define.
goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually
think about it.
Luckily, I can't agree with your "most". Yes to some. Perhaps I'm lucky in my associations.
And of course, there is no fix in the invocation you cite. I just don't know many who do so.
FIRST RESPONSE - "God *is* goodness":
You might see this as "the most powerful being gets to define morality", and find that arbitrary. I can appreciate that. The Bible describes humans as made in God's image/likeness, which includes us having a God-given conscience and sense of justice,
comparison to some benchmark of goodness that exists independently of God, since by definition, nothing exists independently of God. So no avenue for "primary" verification is available to us as creatures. As to "secondary" assessment of God's goodness?More foundationally, the God of the Bible is the creator of all things, and therefore by necessity the originator of morality. How then can we know if God is perfectly good, or only good sometimes, or actually not good? Presumably we can't by
You can probably see the problem here. God's justice means that justice can be achieved by punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for someone else's (well, everybody else's) wrong doings. That does not square with what most people consider justice, theirsecondary assessment, in your terms. A secondary assessment also does not look very kindly upon, say, childhood cancers, natural disasters, and other evils that do not depend on bad people doing them, and even then, my own secondary assessment would not
direct statements of this is in Romans 9:14-21SECOND RESPONSE - the "more disturbing" one:
The doctrine of grace I think addresses Euthypro's Dilemma for Christianity, i.e. God loves us *not* because of any piousness or righteousness on our part. A biblical "dilemma" possibly related is the question of Predestination. One of the most
who is able to resist his will?", and confrontingly offers no justifcation, but chastises the question and declares--you might say disturbingly--don't answer back, God is God."What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might
display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens
whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?’ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what
is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery
for special purposes and some for common use?"
You might say that quoting this really is making it hard for myself. For Christians this is a challenging teaching. Notably too, the author of the passage, the Apostle Paul, anticipates the "moral" objection: "Then why does God still blame us? For
go to the place of humility that as his creation, we are clay. As our creator, God has rights over us which are not merely function of a power differential, but because creation ex nihilo confers absolute ownership. Therefore, for example, God is free toNow this must read in the context of the rest of Scripture - the many assurances and demonstrations of God's goodness. But it also does some else vitally important: it reminds us that we may approach this God only entirely on his terms. We must first
Yes, this is more of a might makes right approach, that many people would find difficult to agree to. Certainly a God who hardened Phaoah's heart is not one I'd think worthy of worship, even if he had the power to make me eternally miserable for notdoing so.
That's enough for now.
Owning the Trumpies? It would be more satisfying if there were just fewer of them..Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Imagine a group, wearing red hats, crying, leaving a school board meeting where
they failed in getting their selection of books banned from the library.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:10:47 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:25:46 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 4:55:47 AM UTC+10, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 11:37 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good >>>>>>>> 2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication,
human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that
justice, of right and wrong. God remains the source and arbiter of morality, but we are enabled to understand and agree with this, which may in part address the concern of arbitraryness...Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE >>>>> THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion. >>>>> A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly.
not what MarkE thinks it is.
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection.
in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an
instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need
apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection,
rules that allow a society to function.
My conception of a Platonic Ideal includes that it reflect a mathematical
truth. Then, flicking a wand and annunciating a charm in a manner approved
of by Hermione Granger, with a touch a Game Theory, I think most "good"
aspects of morality sync up both with your social selection concept and
my assertion of Platonic Ideals. The deviations come with inter-tribal fighting.
My People vs your People is in too many occasions an evolutionarily (short-term)
advantageous context.
This is I think an important and challenging question for Christians. The following thinking out loud response is patchy and incomplete, but hey...Higher Morality, as such exists, transcends the immediate circumstancesI have received only two sorts of responses to the dilemma. The first, the attempted escape cited above. The second is more disturbing: acceptance that you should just do whatever God says regardless of your
to look at a broader scale and broader set of consequences. The potential
to consider a suite of "what if ..." propositions changes the game from the
limitations of __is__ that constrain the social evolution scheme.
.
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma,.
the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define >> goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually
think about it.
Luckily, I can't agree with your "most". Yes to some. Perhaps I'm lucky in my associations.
And of course, there is no fix in the invocation you cite. I just don't know many who do so.
personal sense of morality, as Abraham was willing to do with Isaac.
FIRST RESPONSE - "God *is* goodness":
You might see this as "the most powerful being gets to define morality", and find that arbitrary. I can appreciate that. The Bible describes humans as made in God's image/likeness, which includes us having a God-given conscience and sense of
comparison to some benchmark of goodness that exists independently of God, since by definition, nothing exists independently of God. So no avenue for "primary" verification is available to us as creatures. As to "secondary" assessment of God's goodness?More foundationally, the God of the Bible is the creator of all things, and therefore by necessity the originator of morality. How then can we know if God is perfectly good, or only good sometimes, or actually not good? Presumably we can't by
their secondary assessment, in your terms. A secondary assessment also does not look very kindly upon, say, childhood cancers, natural disasters, and other evils that do not depend on bad people doing them, and even then, my own secondary assessmentYou can probably see the problem here. God's justice means that justice can be achieved by punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for someone else's (well, everybody else's) wrong doings. That does not square with what most people consider justice,
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This
direct statements of this is in Romans 9:14-21SECOND RESPONSE - the "more disturbing" one:
The doctrine of grace I think addresses Euthypro's Dilemma for Christianity, i.e. God loves us *not* because of any piousness or righteousness on our part. A biblical "dilemma" possibly related is the question of Predestination. One of the most
who is able to resist his will?", and confrontingly offers no justifcation, but chastises the question and declares--you might say disturbingly--don't answer back, God is God."What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might
display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens
whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?’ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what
is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery
for special purposes and some for common use?"
You might say that quoting this really is making it hard for myself. For Christians this is a challenging teaching. Notably too, the author of the passage, the Apostle Paul, anticipates the "moral" objection: "Then why does God still blame us? For
first go to the place of humility that as his creation, we are clay. As our creator, God has rights over us which are not merely function of a power differential, but because creation ex nihilo confers absolute ownership. Therefore, for example, God isNow this must read in the context of the rest of Scripture - the many assurances and demonstrations of God's goodness. But it also does some else vitally important: it reminds us that we may approach this God only entirely on his terms. We must
doing so.Yes, this is more of a might makes right approach, that many people would find difficult to agree to. Certainly a God who hardened Phaoah's heart is not one I'd think worthy of worship, even if he had the power to make me eternally miserable for not
That's enough for now.
Owning the Trumpies? It would be more satisfying if there were just fewer of them..Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Imagine a group, wearing red hats, crying, leaving a school board meeting where
they failed in getting their selection of books banned from the library.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:10:47 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:25:46 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 4:55:47 AM UTC+10, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 11:37 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication,
that human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or
justice, of right and wrong. God remains the source and arbiter of morality, but we are enabled to understand and agree with this, which may in part address the concern of arbitraryness...Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE >>>>> THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE >>>>> AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE >>>>> IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion. >>>>> A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly.
not what MarkE thinks it is.
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection.
in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an
instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need
apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection,
rules that allow a society to function.
My conception of a Platonic Ideal includes that it reflect a mathematical
truth. Then, flicking a wand and annunciating a charm in a manner approved
of by Hermione Granger, with a touch a Game Theory, I think most "good"
aspects of morality sync up both with your social selection concept and
my assertion of Platonic Ideals. The deviations come with inter-tribal fighting.
My People vs your People is in too many occasions an evolutionarily (short-term)
advantageous context.
This is I think an important and challenging question for Christians. The following thinking out loud response is patchy and incomplete, but hey...Higher Morality, as such exists, transcends the immediate circumstancesI have received only two sorts of responses to the dilemma. The first,
to look at a broader scale and broader set of consequences. The potential
to consider a suite of "what if ..." propositions changes the game from the
limitations of __is__ that constrain the social evolution scheme. .
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma,.
the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define
goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually
think about it.
Luckily, I can't agree with your "most". Yes to some. Perhaps I'm lucky in my associations.
And of course, there is no fix in the invocation you cite. I just don't know many who do so.
the attempted escape cited above. The second is more disturbing: acceptance that you should just do whatever God says regardless of your
personal sense of morality, as Abraham was willing to do with Isaac.
FIRST RESPONSE - "God *is* goodness":
You might see this as "the most powerful being gets to define morality", and find that arbitrary. I can appreciate that. The Bible describes humans as made in God's image/likeness, which includes us having a God-given conscience and sense of
comparison to some benchmark of goodness that exists independently of God, since by definition, nothing exists independently of God. So no avenue for "primary" verification is available to us as creatures. As to "secondary" assessment of God's goodness?More foundationally, the God of the Bible is the creator of all things, and therefore by necessity the originator of morality. How then can we know if God is perfectly good, or only good sometimes, or actually not good? Presumably we can't by
their secondary assessment, in your terms. A secondary assessment also does not look very kindly upon, say, childhood cancers, natural disasters, and other evils that do not depend on bad people doing them, and even then, my own secondary assessmentYou can probably see the problem here. God's justice means that justice can be achieved by punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for someone else's (well, everybody else's) wrong doings. That does not square with what most people consider justice,
.......commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This
Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing aninnocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just. I'm familiar with the argument that God had a dilemma - how to simultaneously fulfill the demands of both justice and mercy - and that while mercy is served by his forgiving sinners's sins,
And note, here we are talking about my objections to Christianity, and among those objections you will not find the idea that somehow finding a plausible pathway for the origin of life would rule out Christianity (because it wouldn't; it's completelyirrelevant to the question).
direct statements of this is in Romans 9:14-21SECOND RESPONSE - the "more disturbing" one:
The doctrine of grace I think addresses Euthypro's Dilemma for Christianity, i.e. God loves us *not* because of any piousness or righteousness on our part. A biblical "dilemma" possibly related is the question of Predestination. One of the most
For who is able to resist his will?", and confrontingly offers no justifcation, but chastises the question and declares--you might say disturbingly--don't answer back, God is God."What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might
display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens
whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?’ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what
is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery
for special purposes and some for common use?"
You might say that quoting this really is making it hard for myself. For Christians this is a challenging teaching. Notably too, the author of the passage, the Apostle Paul, anticipates the "moral" objection: "Then why does God still blame us?
first go to the place of humility that as his creation, we are clay. As our creator, God has rights over us which are not merely function of a power differential, but because creation ex nihilo confers absolute ownership. Therefore, for example, God isNow this must read in the context of the rest of Scripture - the many assurances and demonstrations of God's goodness. But it also does some else vitally important: it reminds us that we may approach this God only entirely on his terms. We must
not doing so.Yes, this is more of a might makes right approach, that many people would find difficult to agree to. Certainly a God who hardened Phaoah's heart is not one I'd think worthy of worship, even if he had the power to make me eternally miserable for
That's enough for now.
Owning the Trumpies? It would be more satisfying if there were just fewer of them..Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Imagine a group, wearing red hats, crying, leaving a school board meeting where
they failed in getting their selection of books banned from the library.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:10:47 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:25:46 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 4:55:47 AM UTC+10, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 11:37 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 9:16 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.Nope.Well, your author argued thatWhen one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.
Hard to argue with that.
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true
Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication,
that human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or
justice, of right and wrong. God remains the source and arbiter of morality, but we are enabled to understand and agree with this, which may in part address the concern of arbitraryness...Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
* * * * *
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
fantasies to make life bearable."
.
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
.
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE >>>>> THE LITTLE LIES.
.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
.
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
.
"They're not the same at all!"
.
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE >>>>> AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE >>>>> IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
.
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
.
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion. >>>>> A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
species as social animals. So there.
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation.
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.
Sure, but a foundation built on sand is not a proper one, and certainly.
not what MarkE thinks it is.
.One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent.
Happily, I didn't experience that.
I think the moral sense is partly an evolved trait, formed by selection.
in social species. Research shows that several monkey species have an
instinctive idea of "fairness", for example. No Platonic ideals need
apply. This sense is trained and refined culturally, and those
refinements are themselves the product of a form of cultural selection,
rules that allow a society to function.
My conception of a Platonic Ideal includes that it reflect a mathematical
truth. Then, flicking a wand and annunciating a charm in a manner approved
of by Hermione Granger, with a touch a Game Theory, I think most "good"
aspects of morality sync up both with your social selection concept and
my assertion of Platonic Ideals. The deviations come with inter-tribal fighting.
My People vs your People is in too many occasions an evolutionarily (short-term)
advantageous context.
This is I think an important and challenging question for Christians. The following thinking out loud response is patchy and incomplete, but hey...Higher Morality, as such exists, transcends the immediate circumstancesI have received only two sorts of responses to the dilemma. The first,
to look at a broader scale and broader set of consequences. The potential
to consider a suite of "what if ..." propositions changes the game from the
limitations of __is__ that constrain the social evolution scheme. .
.So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.
Most Christians, I find, either ignore or reject Euthyphro's dilemma,.
the latter by use of meaning-free claims, like "God doesn't define
goodness; God *is* goodness". Of course that isn't a fix if you actually
think about it.
Luckily, I can't agree with your "most". Yes to some. Perhaps I'm lucky in my associations.
And of course, there is no fix in the invocation you cite. I just don't know many who do so.
the attempted escape cited above. The second is more disturbing: acceptance that you should just do whatever God says regardless of your
personal sense of morality, as Abraham was willing to do with Isaac.
FIRST RESPONSE - "God *is* goodness":
You might see this as "the most powerful being gets to define morality", and find that arbitrary. I can appreciate that. The Bible describes humans as made in God's image/likeness, which includes us having a God-given conscience and sense of
comparison to some benchmark of goodness that exists independently of God, since by definition, nothing exists independently of God. So no avenue for "primary" verification is available to us as creatures. As to "secondary" assessment of God's goodness?More foundationally, the God of the Bible is the creator of all things, and therefore by necessity the originator of morality. How then can we know if God is perfectly good, or only good sometimes, or actually not good? Presumably we can't by
their secondary assessment, in your terms. A secondary assessment also does not look very kindly upon, say, childhood cancers, natural disasters, and other evils that do not depend on bad people doing them, and even then, my own secondary assessmentYou can probably see the problem here. God's justice means that justice can be achieved by punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for someone else's (well, everybody else's) wrong doings. That does not square with what most people consider justice,
.......commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This
Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing aninnocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.
I'm familiar with the argument that God had a dilemma - how to simultaneously fulfill the demands of both justice and mercy - and that while mercy >is served by his forgiving sinners's sins, justice has to be served somehow and the "price" for all thatsin has to be paid by somebody, specifically Jesus. Sorry, but it just seems too strained and arbitrary to take seriously.
And note, here we are talking about my objections to Christianity, and among those objections you will not find the idea that somehow finding a plausible pathway for the origin of life would rule out Christianity (because it wouldn't; it's completelyirrelevant to the question).
direct statements of this is in Romans 9:14-21SECOND RESPONSE - the "more disturbing" one:
The doctrine of grace I think addresses Euthypro's Dilemma for Christianity, i.e. God loves us *not* because of any piousness or righteousness on our part. A biblical "dilemma" possibly related is the question of Predestination. One of the most
For who is able to resist his will?", and confrontingly offers no justifcation, but chastises the question and declares--you might say disturbingly--don't answer back, God is God."What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might
display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens
whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?’ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what
is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery
for special purposes and some for common use?"
You might say that quoting this really is making it hard for myself. For Christians this is a challenging teaching. Notably too, the author of the passage, the Apostle Paul, anticipates the "moral" objection: "Then why does God still blame us?
first go to the place of humility that as his creation, we are clay. As our creator, God has rights over us which are not merely function of a power differential, but because creation ex nihilo confers absolute ownership. Therefore, for example, God isNow this must read in the context of the rest of Scripture - the many assurances and demonstrations of God's goodness. But it also does some else vitally important: it reminds us that we may approach this God only entirely on his terms. We must
not doing so.Yes, this is more of a might makes right approach, that many people would find difficult to agree to. Certainly a God who hardened Phaoah's heart is not one I'd think worthy of worship, even if he had the power to make me eternally miserable for
That's enough for now.
Owning the Trumpies? It would be more satisfying if there were just fewer of them..Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.
Not into lamentations, myself..
Imagine a group, wearing red hats, crying, leaving a school board meeting where
they failed in getting their selection of books banned from the library.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This
Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing aninnocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.
"And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us."
In that case both Y and Z (And Z1, Z2...Zn) have incurred a large debt against God (X)
At the same time, they have incurred multiple debts against each other. The deal then
is that X forgives the huge debts He holds against Y, Z etc etc "provided that" Y and Z
forgive each other the smaller debts they hold against each other (and which broadly
speaking will cancel themselves out "overall", that is my totality of credits against you, Z1,
Z2 will roughly be the same as the debt I'm in against Z3, Z4 etc
This means the right persons forgive their debts to each other, but encouraged by the
much larger debt-forgiveness that this then entails.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47 AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:[...]
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This
innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing an
You never read A Tale of Two Cities?
[...]
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:30:48 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47 AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:[...]
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.
innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing an
You never read A Tale of Two Cities?Sure, I have, and I don't consider the Terror to be a paradigm of justice.
[...]
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:00:48 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:30:48 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47 AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:[...]
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.
an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing
Do you regard Charles Darnay as part of the Terror?You never read A Tale of Two Cities?Sure, I have, and I don't consider the Terror to be a paradigm of justice.
[...]
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:05:47?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:This commandment I received from My Father. (John 10:17-18)
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:00:48?PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:30:48?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47?AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:[...]
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.
an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.
Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing
redemption.You never read A Tale of Two Cities?Sure, I have, and I don't consider the Terror to be a paradigm of justice. >> Do you regard Charles Darnay as part of the Terror?
No, but the situation which required the sacrifice was the result of the Terror. The sacrifice may have been a "far better thing than he had ever done before," but the Terror was unjust. I don't really think Tale of Two Cities is a good analogy for the
[...]
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:10:47 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
secondary assessment, in your terms. A secondary assessment also does not look very kindly upon, say, childhood cancers, natural disasters, and other evils that do not depend on bad people doing them, and even then, my own secondary assessment would notYou can probably see the problem here. God's justice means that justice can be achieved by punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for someone else's (well, everybody else's) wrong doings. That does not square with what most people consider justice, their
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:12:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:05:47?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:00:48?PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:30:48?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> > > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47?AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:[...]
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.
punishing an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.
Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would
the redemption.Do you regard Charles Darnay as part of the Terror?You never read A Tale of Two Cities?Sure, I have, and I don't consider the Terror to be a paradigm of justice.
No, but the situation which required the sacrifice was the result of the Terror. The sacrifice may have been a "far better thing than he had ever done before," but the Terror was unjust. I don't really think Tale of Two Cities is a good analogy for
It wasn't intended to be an analogy, I was just having a
tongue-in-cheek pop at "In no non-religious setting would punishing an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just." ;)
[...]
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:40:48 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:12:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:05:47?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:00:48?PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:30:48?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47?AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote: >> > > [...]
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up
punishing an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.
Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would
the redemption.Do you regard Charles Darnay as part of the Terror?You never read A Tale of Two Cities?Sure, I have, and I don't consider the Terror to be a paradigm of justice.
No, but the situation which required the sacrifice was the result of the Terror. The sacrifice may have been a "far better thing than he had ever done before," but the Terror was unjust. I don't really think Tale of Two Cities is a good analogy for
It wasn't intended to be an analogy, I was just having aSure, but I doubt you really think the punishment of Canton instead of Darnay was just, do you?
tongue-in-cheek pop at "In no non-religious setting would punishing an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just." ;)
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:10:47 PM UTC+10,
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
You can probably see the problem here. God's justice means that
justice can be achieved by punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for
someone else's (well, everybody else's) wrong doings. That does not
square with what most people consider justice, their secondary
assessment, in your terms. A secondary assessment also does not look
very kindly upon, say, childhood cancers, natural disasters, and
other evils that do not depend on bad people doing them, and even
then, my own secondary assessment would not look too kindly on the
idea that 6 million Jews had to die so that a bunch of Nazis could
have free will. A benevolent, omnipotent God should have found a
better way, if he were really out there.
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so
that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay
it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I
have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from
My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.
Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he lived for them.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:40:48?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17-18)
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:12:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:05:47?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:00:48?PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:30:48?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> > > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47?AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:[...]
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up
punishing an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.
Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would
the redemption.Do you regard Charles Darnay as part of the Terror?You never read A Tale of Two Cities?Sure, I have, and I don't consider the Terror to be a paradigm of justice.
No, but the situation which required the sacrifice was the result of the Terror. The sacrifice may have been a "far better thing than he had ever done before," but the Terror was unjust. I don't really think Tale of Two Cities is a good analogy for
It wasn't intended to be an analogy, I was just having a
tongue-in-cheek pop at "In no non-religious setting would punishing an
innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just." ;)
Sure, but I doubt you really think the punishment of Canton instead of Darnay was just, do you?
[...]
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
"Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
No hell below us, above us only sky.
Imagine all the people, livin' for today
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
criticize you if you do.
Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a.k.a. St. Paul.
Just read I Corinthians 15.
And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.
What's the matter, "Daggett", don't you want to say something extra about this?
Do you think John Lennon is an adequate refutation of St. Paul?
If so, perhaps you will also agree with all the Beatles --- what exactly did they mean
when they compared themselves to Jesus?
Don't get me wrong, they were a great group with some great songs,
and they weren't at all bad solo either. "My sweet Lord" was a great
song, readily applicable
to the "My Sweet Lord" of Christians once the "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama"
is appreciated only for the way there is sincere (but misguided) religion there.
And Paul McCartney's "Admiral Halsey/Uncle Albert" has been
great for getting me out of many a funk with its exuberant zaniness.
But I don't have such a rosy view of Lennon's "Imagine". Sorry about that.
Peter Nyikos
PS I've left in everything you did below, even though you made no comment on it.
[...]of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:
Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This
Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.
I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
a fair shake in life.
Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven [which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.
The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"
Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?
Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
lived for them.
So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:22:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:42:08 PM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:I can't parse that sentence.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track. >>>>>>>>>> The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled >>>>>>>>>> all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
"Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer." >>>>>>>>>>
That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir >>>>>>>>>> anyone else on this thread
to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective. >>>>>>>>
Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
No hell below us, above us only sky.
Imagine all the people, livin' for today
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
criticize you if you do.
Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness >>>>>>> is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got >>>>>>> help with it.
so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
towards Martin:
Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked[...]Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
once and for all. Who could disagree?
a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
usual flagrant double standards.
What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.
If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards >>>>> and being proud of it.
It's a non-sequitur only in the social sense of the word, and a narrow one
at that: netiquette, which does not fit the rough and tumble l that is
the hallmark of talk.origins.
You are surprised at the master of non-sequiturs posting a non-sequiter?
Not really. He sounds pretty distracted.
You should leave the gaslighting to your role model Harshman.
He is much better at it than you are.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 80:27:21 |
| Calls: | 6,916 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,382 |
| Messages: | 5,433,088 |