.JPG){kind=small}
Posts
Benjamin Steventon vs Mark II.
Greetings everyone, for the benefit of my own readers, I have finally had a debate with an old childhood friend of mine. So I am having this debate on a Facebook wall, so I thought I'd post the exchange here as well.
Mark IIMark II
It is a shame since humanism is a false paradigm. For a humanist to try to "better" anything is inconsistent, arbitrary, and it flies in the face of a reductio ad absurdum, I will even argue meaningless. By what standard can they appeal to to even say "this is better or that is better"? If they point to a standard (or rule), it is merely a subjective standard, hence the arbitrariness of presuming upon people their own ideals. Ergo, they are merely moralistic for the sake of being moral, thus the reductio ad absurdum, because they must commit circular argumentation in order to support their foundation, which by their own definition of any ethical standard is firmly founded in midair. Without the existence of the Triune God of Scripture, to even reason about "well-being" is meaningless. Joe, the statement that you posted can be true depending upon the context. If in a temporal sense, then no. But if in an ultimate sense then it is true.
Benjamin Steventon
Most people, if their aim is to improve the human condition, do so in whatever way they see best... you do this too, Mark, though it seems to be inspired by dogmatic based faith. I think it's absurd to claim that no one can know "what's good" without the aid of ancient authors who claimed to know your triune god. It sounds more like you're trying to fit the universe into your box of thinking, getting tripped up by your assumed truths. I guess that's why you need faith - it fills in those gaps where evidences don't mesh well. I'm just glad that none of us are living in the world that you believe to exist. I'm not a humanist, but if ANYONE would resolve to improve their conditions (and the conditions of those around them), I think it should be praised, not ridiculed simply because their not on YOUR "religious team". ;)
Most people, if their aim is to improve the human condition, do so in whatever way they see best... you do this too, Mark, though it seems to be inspired by dogmatic based faith. I think it's absurd to claim that no one can know "what's good" without the aid of ancient authors who claimed to know your triune god. It sounds more like you're trying to fit the universe into your box of thinking, getting tripped up by your assumed truths. I guess that's why you need faith - it fills in those gaps where evidences don't mesh well. I'm just glad that none of us are living in the world that you believe to exist. I'm not a humanist, but if ANYONE would resolve to improve their conditions (and the conditions of those around them), I think it should be praised, not ridiculed simply because their not on YOUR "religious team". ;)
Mark II
I'm not questioning by any means that people try to answer life's questions through their worldview. What I'm bringing into question is the validity and consistency of the specific presuppositions of the given worldview. I know that I answer questions from certain specific guidelines that under gird my understanding of the universe. Of course faith is intrinsically involved, its involved with every worldview in some way or another. Even the humanist has faith in his or her own capabilities of reasoning (i.e. that their functioning properly). But faith is only as good as that in which it is placed in. I never claimed that people can't know what is good. I said that apart from the Truine God of Scripture one cannot account for “good”. Scripture even teaches that we have a conscience, that the law of God is written upon our hearts, that it bears witness against us, and that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. I'm not trying to fit anything into a box. The Christian should be the first to admit that God is the only one who is transcendent, and far above our capabilities of understanding. However, without God's revelation of Himself and His works, one is left up to epistemological and ethical relativism. So, I'm not quite sure how I'm getting “tripped up”. I don't hold to any sort of a “God of the gaps” theory. My propositions are far more bold and profound than that. I'm saying that apart from a revelatory epistemological standpoint it is meaningless to even assume that we're having a conversation. Your statement, “I'm just glad that none of us are living in the world that you believe to exist.” This does not surprise me in the least. Since I am theologically a Calvinist, this makes perfect sense to me. Because apart from God's enacting Grace, I would expect you to say that. It would make me more curious if you said otherwise. Your last statement was the most intriguing for me since it reveals the complete relativism to which you are subject to. But even then, your statement is a totalizing claim, it is one of your highest dogmatic ethical rules, that even yourself, has to take on a faith basis. Why should we praise those who try to better conditions? Why is praise a good thing? What does it even mean to say that it is a good thing? What is the point of reference that you appeal to by which you can even define what “better conditions” are? Even then, why should we follow it? I'm glad that none of us Christians have to live in this kind of world that you believe to exist. I never ridiculed anyone. All I was basically saying is that, it is foolish to follow a false worldview, and then I went on to point out why it is fallacious. If this is ridicule, then what are you doing to me?
I'm not questioning by any means that people try to answer life's questions through their worldview. What I'm bringing into question is the validity and consistency of the specific presuppositions of the given worldview. I know that I answer questions from certain specific guidelines that under gird my understanding of the universe. Of course faith is intrinsically involved, its involved with every worldview in some way or another. Even the humanist has faith in his or her own capabilities of reasoning (i.e. that their functioning properly). But faith is only as good as that in which it is placed in. I never claimed that people can't know what is good. I said that apart from the Truine God of Scripture one cannot account for “good”. Scripture even teaches that we have a conscience, that the law of God is written upon our hearts, that it bears witness against us, and that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. I'm not trying to fit anything into a box. The Christian should be the first to admit that God is the only one who is transcendent, and far above our capabilities of understanding. However, without God's revelation of Himself and His works, one is left up to epistemological and ethical relativism. So, I'm not quite sure how I'm getting “tripped up”. I don't hold to any sort of a “God of the gaps” theory. My propositions are far more bold and profound than that. I'm saying that apart from a revelatory epistemological standpoint it is meaningless to even assume that we're having a conversation. Your statement, “I'm just glad that none of us are living in the world that you believe to exist.” This does not surprise me in the least. Since I am theologically a Calvinist, this makes perfect sense to me. Because apart from God's enacting Grace, I would expect you to say that. It would make me more curious if you said otherwise. Your last statement was the most intriguing for me since it reveals the complete relativism to which you are subject to. But even then, your statement is a totalizing claim, it is one of your highest dogmatic ethical rules, that even yourself, has to take on a faith basis. Why should we praise those who try to better conditions? Why is praise a good thing? What does it even mean to say that it is a good thing? What is the point of reference that you appeal to by which you can even define what “better conditions” are? Even then, why should we follow it? I'm glad that none of us Christians have to live in this kind of world that you believe to exist. I never ridiculed anyone. All I was basically saying is that, it is foolish to follow a false worldview, and then I went on to point out why it is fallacious. If this is ridicule, then what are you doing to me?
Benjamin Steventon
You say that you were pointing out the flaws in their world view, but I still only see your slightly scriptural suppositions - no founded evidence. You're so busy telling us that all views (besides your's) are "relativistic", not having a set standard of truth, yet the very writings you cherish are riddled with moral inconsistencies... See the great Hebrew conquests and ask that relativistic question "is killing people right or wrong when god tells you too?" Thank goodness we're not still living in an era where your god still says it's okay to rid "promised lands" of their inhabitants at sword point. Right and wrong have always been recognizable to the majority of humanity; religion has to sell itself somehow, that's why you're told that you're no good and that you can't know well-being without it's view. I think such views, themselves, are a disease of mind upon the Earth. Don't misunderstand me, you do have truth within your possession, but it's a partial truth tainted by culture and perspective. Your thought processes aren't bad on this subject but I believe they need some refining, even within your own structure. Cheers!
You say that you were pointing out the flaws in their world view, but I still only see your slightly scriptural suppositions - no founded evidence. You're so busy telling us that all views (besides your's) are "relativistic", not having a set standard of truth, yet the very writings you cherish are riddled with moral inconsistencies... See the great Hebrew conquests and ask that relativistic question "is killing people right or wrong when god tells you too?" Thank goodness we're not still living in an era where your god still says it's okay to rid "promised lands" of their inhabitants at sword point. Right and wrong have always been recognizable to the majority of humanity; religion has to sell itself somehow, that's why you're told that you're no good and that you can't know well-being without it's view. I think such views, themselves, are a disease of mind upon the Earth. Don't misunderstand me, you do have truth within your possession, but it's a partial truth tainted by culture and perspective. Your thought processes aren't bad on this subject but I believe they need some refining, even within your own structure. Cheers!
Mark II
Depends on what you consider to be “evidence”. If you're asking me to show you evidence for Christianity from a merely naturalistic monistic worldview, that is absurd. That's the same as me asking a Theist to demonstrate that God does not exist. Evidence must be interpreted, there is no such thing as neutrality. So you'll have to explain what you mean by evidence. In response to the first thing you said, explain to me how my objections were wrong. What's wrong with having Scriptural suppositions? I believe the Bible to be true, so why would I argue from something else? Is there something “more true” than that which is theopneustos (God breathed)?
Ok, first off, if society merely recognizes “right” and “wrong”, where does this objective standard come from? If you're saying that “right” and “wrong” are determined by variegated societal cultures, and roughly 80% of the U.S. Claims to be Christian, then Christianity is therefore true. Right? Or is that wrong? How can we even know? So, basically, if a man brutally rapes a little girl, burns her with cigarettes, uses brutally various objects on her for his own pleasure, we cannot deem it as a evil act, he is merely being anti-social. How can you condemn war under this kind of social theory of ethics? You'll probably respond with the postmodern concept of “as long as it doesn't hurt anyone”. But if one culture deems is appropriate to hurt another, who are you to chide in? You'll just come off as some sort of western bigot. Also, is it absolutely wrong to hurt people? If so, then you hold to a dogmatic absolutist moral.
Concerning your “moral inconsistencies” of Scripture. By what standard do you judge an ethic of another culture? Why is what happened in the Hebrew Scriptures inconsistent, and why is that bad or wrong? You merely pick and choose your truth, why should I think that you're being consistent in your reading of the Bible? Since you hold to a “herd-mentality” ethical standard, why do you object to Israel's conquests? For Israel, it was right for them. Who do you think you are imposing your narrow minded morality onto another culture? Nowhere in the Bible does it say “do not kill.” If you're reading the KJV, then I can understand your issues. The Hebrew word that is translated as “kill” in per se the ten commandments, would be better translated as “murder”.
How can you determine what is a disease and what is not? If you have no objective standard by which you can properly judge something, explain to me how you can judge something subjectively and then impose it as objective. You must have a lot of faith in your own reasoning capabilities.
Depends on what you consider to be “evidence”. If you're asking me to show you evidence for Christianity from a merely naturalistic monistic worldview, that is absurd. That's the same as me asking a Theist to demonstrate that God does not exist. Evidence must be interpreted, there is no such thing as neutrality. So you'll have to explain what you mean by evidence. In response to the first thing you said, explain to me how my objections were wrong. What's wrong with having Scriptural suppositions? I believe the Bible to be true, so why would I argue from something else? Is there something “more true” than that which is theopneustos (God breathed)?
Ok, first off, if society merely recognizes “right” and “wrong”, where does this objective standard come from? If you're saying that “right” and “wrong” are determined by variegated societal cultures, and roughly 80% of the U.S. Claims to be Christian, then Christianity is therefore true. Right? Or is that wrong? How can we even know? So, basically, if a man brutally rapes a little girl, burns her with cigarettes, uses brutally various objects on her for his own pleasure, we cannot deem it as a evil act, he is merely being anti-social. How can you condemn war under this kind of social theory of ethics? You'll probably respond with the postmodern concept of “as long as it doesn't hurt anyone”. But if one culture deems is appropriate to hurt another, who are you to chide in? You'll just come off as some sort of western bigot. Also, is it absolutely wrong to hurt people? If so, then you hold to a dogmatic absolutist moral.
Concerning your “moral inconsistencies” of Scripture. By what standard do you judge an ethic of another culture? Why is what happened in the Hebrew Scriptures inconsistent, and why is that bad or wrong? You merely pick and choose your truth, why should I think that you're being consistent in your reading of the Bible? Since you hold to a “herd-mentality” ethical standard, why do you object to Israel's conquests? For Israel, it was right for them. Who do you think you are imposing your narrow minded morality onto another culture? Nowhere in the Bible does it say “do not kill.” If you're reading the KJV, then I can understand your issues. The Hebrew word that is translated as “kill” in per se the ten commandments, would be better translated as “murder”.
How can you determine what is a disease and what is not? If you have no objective standard by which you can properly judge something, explain to me how you can judge something subjectively and then impose it as objective. You must have a lot of faith in your own reasoning capabilities.
Benjamin Steventon
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." ~Buddha
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." ~Buddha
Benjamin Steventon
Yep, I posted it there for you, and you alone. ;) You've been sufficiently entertaining. Thank you from all of us. =)
Yep, I posted it there for you, and you alone. ;) You've been sufficiently entertaining. Thank you from all of us. =)
No comments:
Post a Comment