Question 5 for Christians

[vyo476]

Churches, or organized religion, is in the business of attaining a humane society in the here and now. In this sense, churches are political associations, more than anything.

I've found this ironic for a long time - that religious institutions, which rely so heavily on a description of an afterlife that is unseen, fantastical, and very, very different from the contemporary world, in essence seek to promote social order in this life.

Remember, I was raised almost completely without religion in my life - questions like, "Mom, if Heaven is so great, why don't people just let themselves die?" were often swept under the rug when I was five.

Numinus, you talk about "moral goods" quite often. I wonder - could you provide an example or a scenario detailing one such "moral good"? I don't think I'm the only one around here who finds your descriptions of them a little vague.

Oh, and skip the retort where you think I ought to be able to figure it out on my own (or all the "rolling on the floor laughing" you seem to do). Just humor me.

 

[numinus]

I've found this ironic for a long time - that religious institutions, which rely so heavily on a description of an afterlife that is unseen, fantastical, and very, very different from the contemporary world, in essence seek to promote social order in this life.

Remember, I was raised almost completely without religion in my life - questions like, "Mom, if Heaven is so great, why don't people just let themselves die?" were often swept under the rug when I was five.

Numinus, you talk about "moral goods" quite often. I wonder - could you provide an example or a scenario detailing one such "moral good"? I don't think I'm the only one around here who finds your descriptions of them a little vague.

Oh, and skip the retort where you think I ought to be able to figure it out on my own (or all the "rolling on the floor laughing" you seem to do). Just humor me.

Kant outlines the formula for determining a moral good -- or what he referred to as a categorical imperative.

1. It is rational -- that is, there is a logical relationship between the action and the good that it is meant to obtain.

2. That the good is a good in itself and no longer accrues to a further or higher good.

3. That the good conforms with a universal principle.

4. It is done out of a sense of duty without regard for a subjective or personal good that may be gained incidentally from it.

If you really wish for an indepth understanding, everything I am saying may be found in kant's general principle of the metaphysics of morals. I am quite sure I have left out an important point. I am probably not doing his work justice.

 

[The Scotsman]

The claims of events that are related in the Bible happened thousands of years ago - why should we accept this as fact, when there is no evidence, and some parts of the bible even have anonymous authors?

Hi Masher - I've always wondered why the defining events of one of the World's major religions doesn't know on which day to celebrate the birth and/or death of its figure head?

Christmas for example is supposed to celebrate the birth of Christ, however, its a bastardisation of the Roman festival of Sol Invictus and sod all to do with the birth of Christ - why??? Also Christians celebrate the death of the poor lad anywhere from mid-March to Mid-April.....again why????

Don't they know when he died - they seem pretty certain when he was born (although not the right festival!!??) did someone not note in his diary the fact that he was dangling from a crucifix or did they just make it up in the hope no one would notice? Was the last supper a kind of moving feast, you know.... one day it was over at Silas's place then the next night James flat then Barny's house and so on until finally someone remarked....Duuuuh where's the Boss?

As you say, no wonder there are a bunch of anonymous authors.....

 

[Libsmasher]

Hi Masher - I've always wondered why the defining events of one of the World's major religions doesn't know on which day to celebrate the birth and/or death of its figure head?

Christmas for example is supposed to celebrate the birth of Christ, however, its a bastardisation of the Roman festival of Sol Invictus and sod all to do with the birth of Christ - why??? Also Christians celebrate the death of the poor lad anywhere from mid-March to Mid-April.....again why????

Don't they know when he died - they seem pretty certain when he was born (although not the right festival!!??) did someone not note in his diary the fact that he was dangling from a crucifix or did they just make it up in the hope no one would notice? Was the last supper a kind of moving feast, you know.... one day it was over at Silas's place then the next night James flat then Barny's house and so on until finally someone remarked....Duuuuh where's the Boss?

As you say, no wonder there are a bunch of anonymous authors.....

The dates of the major holy days were obviously chosen as a practical means of co-opting various pagan celebrations - I have no problem with that. As for the crucifix, it is a powerful, one might even say scary symbol. It was a very good choice of symbols in that regard, however I prefer the symbol I saw in catacombs outside Rome one time - parallel wavy blue lines, suggesting I think baptism. The last supper, a passover seder, is very believable as it is a ceremony that is known to have occurred for thousands of years. I have to say that a lot of Christian moral doctrine has the ring of truth.

 

[Sharon den Adel]

The claims of events that are related in the Bible happened thousands of years ago - why should we accept this as fact, when there is no evidence, and some parts of the bible even have anonymous authors?

I have no issue with those people who say they have faith - that is, that they believe because of their faith. I do, however, take issue with those Christians who insist that God exists, without being able to provide a shred of proof.
It is one thing to have faith, but another thing entirely when you insist something to be fact when you are unable to provide proof of your claims.

When I've asked Christians about this before, they say you should have faith.

I've been told this also when I ask the same questions. But how can I be expected to believe in someone who I have never seen or heard? How can one believe in someone when we don't have proof of their existance?

(and in case you haven't guessed, I am non - religious)

 

[numinus]

I have no issue with those people who say they have faith - that is, that they believe because of their faith. I do, however, take issue with those Christians who insist that God exists, without being able to provide a shred of proof.
It is one thing to have faith, but another thing entirely when you insist something to be fact when you are unable to provide proof of your claims.



I've been told this also when I ask the same questions. But how can I be expected to believe in someone who I have never seen or heard? How can one believe in someone when we don't have proof of their existance?

(and in case you haven't guessed, I am non - religious)

Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

"Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

The cosmological argument can only speculate about the existence of God from claims about the entire universe, unless the "first cause" is taken to mean the same thing as "God". Thus, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist because the universe needs a cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe — generally assumed to be God — is that explanation.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. "

Proof enough for you or are you prepared to discuss cosmology?

 

[Sharon den Adel]

Doesn't prove there is a God. God is not FACT, and cannot be, until his very existance is proven, and it can't be.

 

[numinus]

Doesn't prove there is a God. God is not FACT, and cannot be, until his very existance is proven, and it can't be.

And yet, you cannot point out the fallacy in the above argument, eh?

Truth value does not depend on your say so. It depends on FACTS AND LOGIC.

 

[Libsmasher]

And yet, you cannot point out the fallacy in the above argument, eh?

Truth value does not depend on your say so. It depends on FACTS AND LOGIC.

One argument against the "first cause" definition of God, is that there is no logical argument against an infinite series of causes and effects, stretching infinitely back into the past.

 

[numinus]

One argument against the "first cause" definition of God, is that there is no logical argument against an infinite series of causes and effects, stretching infinitely back into the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed."

So, you see, causality becomes irrational in the face of an infinite regress. You might as well say 'because god made it so' -- which is precisely the conclusion of the cosmological argument.

 

[Here We Go]

When the number of exposures increases, the correlation of the actual with the theoretical increases as well.