next »

[merce]

We would make a rather cute couple, wouldn't we?  Disfunctional, but cute.

Perhaps, but at parties everyone would place bets on how long before the bickering began.
<hey, how did I get pulled into this...I'm supposed to be finishing my paper!>

[invinoveritas]

Wow.

dark globe,

Your comment (in response to hvernon's distorting quote) is revealing.  It shows that both you and hvernon do not understand what an appeal to authority fallacy really is.  I never appealed to Dawkins as a deciding source of authority.  Hvernon's criticism on that basis was foolish.  I never based any comment or argument you've seen here on Dawkins' authority.  Please don't add to the incredible distortion here....only comment if you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion.  I'm getting quite tired of weeding through the unfounded rhetoric here.

hvernon,

Point taken.  I'll try to refrain myself (somewhat) from addressing you directly and simply address your arguments as objectively as possible (however, from what you've said, I think you have a kind of 'postmodern' mindset and distaste for reason.  I fundamentally disagree with this at the end of the day, but I will admit that I have a fondness for some early 'continental thinkers' like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger....anyways....I understand all about 'thinking outside the box'....my dissertation topic was on 'early continental thought'.)

But back to the argument you provided in your last post.  I won't debate the connotations of the term 'cognitive' with you.  From what I can tell, the main point of contention is summarized in your statement that: "faith is given by grace, so an exclusively anthropological system is not helpful to discussion of faith."

Faith is given by grace.  What does this mean?  Well, the definition of grace is: the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God (unless you disagree...but if you do, a different definition must be forthcoming from you).

According to this point of view, faith is construed as a gift from God rather than an epistemological procedure.  Ok....I'm willing to accept this for the sake of argument if this is how you would like to 'frame the debate'.  If this is the case, then the discussion must move to a new level.  

Just for the record, I hold that it is logically impossible to reconcile reason and faith.  You've introduced a different way of thinking about the whole thing with the idea of 'grace'.  Here is the basic problem with this line of argument: any discussion of 'grace' assumes that God exists and loves certain people (and not others).  

So, to be frank, you have resorted to a position that assumes that God exists.  How do you justify this assumption?  How do you know that God exists and has 'graced' some people?  God's grace has informed you of this?  The clear circularity of this position should be apparent to anyone with an inkling of logical sense.

Are the faithful beneficiaries of God's grace and 'the infidels' unfortunate in this regard?  Non-Christians haven't been 'blessed' with the favor of God according to 'the grace defense' (the incomprehensible being that you have yet to provide any evidence for?)  Wow....Christians must be really special....according to this argument Christians have a special epistemological privilege because they have faith...but faith is given by grace right?  The logical incoherency here is blatant.

Unless you can somehow demonstate your assumption without circular reasoning, the argument fails.....not to mention the huge problem of explaining how Christianity is the 'true religion' and all others are false.

The number of unfounded assumptions here and the complete flouting of reason is incredible.  How do you know that I am not Jesus re-incarnate.....just testing you on your faith?  That's ridiculous right?  But if you do not trust reason, then anything goes and anything is possible...no matter how absurd or logically incoherent.

The knife doesn't 'cut both ways'.  I have not been shy, doubtful, or ashamed of my beliefs.  Your attempt to 'psychologize' me is laughable.  I have been forthright and honest about everything I've stated here.  I don't think religious people are poor or ignorant....I think they are delusional because all religious people hold fixed false beliefs that are resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

Some defenses of religion may appear rational, but in any defense of the supernatural, you will always find a whole elaborate structure of supporting beliefs for which there is lack of evidence.

As far as Tertullian and Luther go, I'd love to hear the 'context' that validates their statements.  Please validate the following excepts by explaing the context:

"And the son of god died; it is by all means to believe because it is absurd.  And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible." - Tertullian

"After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research.  When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin to believe that there is nothing which we have to believe."  - Tertullian

"My first principle is this.  Christ laid down one definite system of truth whcih the world must believe without qualification." - Tertullian

Luther called reason "the devil's bride, a beautiful whore, and God's worst enemy."

He also said: " There is on earth among all dangers, no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God.  For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."

And further: "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it see it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."

This is gross irrationalism.  I'd love to hear you explain 'the context' and defend these assertions.  Feel free to borrow from Milbank and Barth (the authors you mentioned that I've read)....I'm sure their ideas will help you to defend the view you have been championing.  I'm sure any person with any sense of respect for logical thought will see through it.

I'll be honest again with my unpopluar opinion:

It is worth repeating: LUTHER SAID: "REASON MUST BE DELUDED, BLINDED, AND DESTROYED."  This is what Christians have been trying to do for centuries and this is part of what has occured in previous posts here.  Why?  It's quite simple once you cut through all the rhetoric....Christianity (and all religions) are enemies of reason.  They despise it (all the while acting like they respect it...which is incredibly inauthentic and hypocritical) because it is the path to understanding why their tenets are imaginary and false.

[_neo_]

So, Arete, what do you do for fun? Do you participate in any conversations that aren't about religion? Do you have any hobbies? A social circle? What do you do, exactly?

[invinoveritas]

I am a professor of philosophy most of the time.  I'm also a father....a husband.  I play guitar.  I love to ski when I have the chance.  I golf.  I 'participate' in all kinds of conversations daily.  I love comedy.  I read excessively.  I love Italian wine and food.  I've published papers on ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology (sometimes relating to religion...but not always).  I read literature and history when I have the time.  And I love kit kats dipped in peanut butter.  My social circle consists mostly of family and friends that I've known since grammar school, though I am 'friendly' with a good number of persons and associates outside of those I've known for most of my life.  I was raised Catholic and educated well by Jesuits.  I'm thankful to them for what they taught me even though I now disagree with them on a number of fundamental issues pertaining to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics....etc.

Why do I usually choose to enter into debates about religion?  Primarily because I think a person's worldview usually determines what they think about ethics and politics and this has practical consequences that affect people.  I think religious worldviews are factually mistaken.  In turn, they have effects that are damaging to a freethinking, ethical society and they perpetuate a climate of irrationality. They also sometimes lead to wars.  Delusional beliefs are often dangerous.  Although many readers of these threads probably judge me negatively, I can only hope that I get through to some of those who are blinded by relgious irrationality. I am optomistic in that I have hope that most people are pretty intelligent and will see religion for what it is if they use their basic powers of observation and listen to their reason rather than accept what is clearly absurd because someone told them to and threatened them with eternal hellfire if they thought differently.

If you reflect upon human history, it becomes evident that religion has been the cause of more human misery and suffering than any other human phenomena.  All religions are based on irrational interpretations of the world and our place in it.  I defend rationality because I think it is a noble, and perhaps more importantly, an 'ethical' endeavor.

And.....I also just simply find it fun to debate (anything).

[husqvarna]

As far as Tertullian and Luther go, I'd love to hear the 'context' that validates their statements.  Please validate the following excepts by explaing the context:

"And the son of god died; it is by all means to believe because it is absurd.  And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible." – Tertullian

So as not to reinvent the wheel, I’ll quote from the article I recommended to you.  More posts to follow…

“Let us then place this text within its proper context.  The purpose of De carne Christi is to refute those who disparage the flesh, and especially its resurrection.  In a sense, it is the first part of a whole whose second part is De resurrectione mortuorum.  Tertullian’s opponents here are Marcion, Apelles, Basilides and Valentinus.  However, in the first five chapters of De carne Christi- which are the center of our concern here- he is basically refuting the views which he assigns to Marcion.  This is significant, for this means that the main thrust of the entire section is not, as has often been assumed, toward discontinuity between creation and redemption, nature and grace, reason and revelation, but rather toward their continuity.  Here Marcion is the champion of discontinuity.  Tertullian is arguing that the God revealed in Jesus is also the God revealed in creation, and that the flesh of Jesus is the same as human created flesh.  It would indeed be strange if he were trying to prove this point by claiming that Christian reason is opposed to natural reason, and that this opposition is such that natural absurdity constitutes Christian proof!  This is precisely what he is not doing in spite of many opinions to the contrary. […continues to discuss Tertullian’s argument that the incarnation was not impossible and not unbecoming of God… continues to discuss how the quote “the fact is certain because it is impossible” is the climax of a discussion of the Pauline passage, “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.”]
   “…what he is saying is simply that these things, which seem impossible, are not really such, because God willed them to happen.  In other words, he is not saying that the criterion for truth is impossibility.  He is saying that the criterion of natural reason, usually valid, is not always ultimately valid, for the reason itself shows that God, who is the ultimate deciding factor, does not have to subject himself to it.  He is also saying that in such cases the criterion of truth is not some inner logic which one can discover by purely rational investigation, but rather whether God did or did not will the event in question- in this case the incarnation and its sequel- to happen…
   “To claim that ‘Athens’ here is a synonym for reason, and that ‘Jerusalem’ stands for faith or for revelation, is again to make Tertullian into an anti-rationalist…To him, the question is not one of reason versus faith as sources of authority but is rather a question of two different sorts of reason.  One is the reason of ‘Athens’; the other is the reason of ‘Jerusalem.’  One could be called ‘dialectical reason”; the other would then be ‘historical reason.’  The former turns to itself, and achieves nothing because it is applied to and ruled by nothing but itself.  The latter turns to given facts- in this case, the historical ‘disciplina’ of Jesus, as summarized in the ‘rule of faith’- and arrives at conclusions on the basis of such facts.  Dialectical reason asks whether or not God can do a certain thing; historical reason asks whether or not he in fact has done it and then applies itself to that given fact.” “Athens and Jerusalem Revisited: Reason and Authority in Tertullian” by Justo Gonzalez, in Church History, 43.1 (1974), p. 19-22.

Whether or not you agree with Tertullian's ideas about "Christian" and "natural" reason, the point is that he is not an anti-rationalist, and he is not opposing faith to reason the way that you say that he is.  The point of contention is that you don't accept what this article describes as "Christian" reason, and so you see those who do ascribe to this understanding of reason as anti-rational.

[husqvarna]

Faith is given by grace.  What does this mean?  Well, the definition of grace is: the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God (unless you disagree...but if you do, a different definition must be forthcoming from you).

Wow, I’ve gotten arete to do some theology!  Sure, that definition of grace is fine with me for our purposes.

According to this point of view, faith is construed as a gift from God rather than an epistemological procedure.

I would disagree with this.  While faith is a gift and never possessed by humanity, it is still an “epistemological”… if not “procedure”, at least “event” in humanity.  It will do the same thing as a procedure, but is simply not a system.  It is like the manna in the desert for Israel… they really do eat the stuff and it’s there, but it’s new every morning, and you can’t take it home with you.

Here is the basic problem with this line of argument: any discussion of 'grace' assumes that God exists and loves certain people (and not others). 
So, to be frank, you have resorted to a position that assumes that God exists.  How do you justify this assumption?  How do you know that God exists and has 'graced' some people?  God's grace has informed you of this?  The clear circularity of this position should be apparent to anyone with an inkling of logical sense.

I don’t justify this assumption.  Justification comes from God epistemologically as much as it does soteriologically.  And you’re right about the apparent circularity of this position.  I don’t think I’ve every denied this…. But if you see it as circular to someone with “an inkling of logical sense”, you may want to review my previous quote on Tertullian and consider the fact that “logical sense”… “reason”… is a contested term, and Tertullian (interpreted by Gonzalez) has already accused “natural reason” of being just as circular insofar as it “is applied to and ruled by nothing but itself.”

Wow....Christians must be really special....according to this argument Christians have a special epistemological privilege because they have faith...but faith is given by grace right?  The logical incoherency here is blatant.

As I have said, faith is an epistemological event as well as an event of grace.  So your assertion of “epistemological privilege” is not (immediately, at least) contradictory.  That being said, Christians are also entirely natural, sinful, and ignorant just as are non-Christians, so your term “privilege” should be used extremely lightly.  It is Christ who is special in Christian theology, and until “we see face to face”, there is not going to be some massive enlightenment because of faith.  Just because one “knows God” through faith does not imply knowledge in the sense that I know the answer to some question you ask me about mathematics or what I had for breakfast.

[dark_globe]

Wow.

dark globe,

Your comment (in response to hvernon's distorting quote) is revealing.  It shows that both you and hvernon do not understand what an appeal to authority fallacy really is.  

No, it reveals I have a sense of humor! You should get one; they're really fun!

[husqvarna]

Wow.

dark globe,

Your comment (in response to hvernon's distorting quote) is revealing.  It shows that both you and hvernon do not understand what an appeal to authority fallacy really is.  

No, it reveals I have a sense of humor! You should get one; they're really fun!

Agreed!  And while I was mentioning Dawkins in seriousness, all I was trying to say was that you can't just assume that a particular person who claims to speak for a larger group has that group's endorsement.  I wasn't trying to dismiss Kant's statement simply because it was stated by Kant as an authoritative voice (I'm assuming this is what you thought re: the appeal to authority fallacy), I was just saying that one shouldn't automatically attribute Kant's statement to "all of the faithful".

[invinoveritas]

dark globe,

Please....your attempt to act like you were making a joke is a joke itself.  It is clear that you are only 'joking' now because I called you out on your unfounded comment and you are trying to save face by acting like you were kidding.  That's what is really funny here.

hvernon,

I must admit that I am dumbstruck by your acceptance of such jargon and sophistry.  Gonzalez's attempt to defend Tertullian's blatant dismissal of reason and advocacy of blind faith is absurd.  Please read the quotes from Tertullian again.  Your talk of context does nothing to defend or establish this 'other type of reason' and if that is what Tertullian meant, then why didn't he say it?  But I'd rather not debate what he meant anyway because it is strikingly clear to anyone who reads it (except....it has been shown....by those who are deluded by faith).  He IS opposing faith to reason and he couldn't be any clearer about it.

Here are some questions that I think you need to answer (without the theological jargon please...):

How is faith an 'epistemological' event?  Again, if it is granted by God to some people and not others, you need to explain how and why.  And if you are going to characterize faith as epistemological, then it must satisfy the criteria of distinquishing truth from falsity, or it is not a 'variety of knowledge'.

You said: "you may want to review my previous quote on Tertullian and consider the fact that “logical sense”… “reason”… is a contested term, and Tertullian (interpreted by Gonzalez) has already accused “natural reason” of being just as circular insofar as it “is applied to and ruled by nothing but itself."

Do you not see that by criticizing reaon as being 'circular' you have used reason to criticize reason?  But if you dismiss reason, then you cannot do this without contradicting yourself.  You speak as if my defense of reason rests on a faith that is the same as your religious faith.  Allow me to explain why you are wrong:  my acceptance of reason as the proper criteria of knowledge is not capricious or arbitrary - it is mandatory.  The defense of reason does not rest upon faith because reason is quite capable of vindicating itself.....faith is not.  The only alternative....the denial of reason....is nonsense....have you forgotten the principle of non-contradiction? 

Gonzalez's talk of 'historical reason' suggests that Christian faith is based upon its history (though I'm not sure because I'm only guessing at what he means by this....and he never explains what 'historical reason' is other than that it assumes Jesus was divine).  I sure hope this is not the path you'd like to defend if you think you have a chance of making your case.  I'd be happy to debate the historical accuracy of the Bible if you'd like ...  Do you think every story in the Bible is historically accurate?

What is 'Christian reason' and how does it differ from 'reason'?  He calls it 'dialectical reason' as if it is a special kind of reason....it is clear for anyone who has studied the history of philosophy that I am not defending Hegel's dialectical reason here, and I don't know if that is what he meant or if he was just inventing a dichotomy to defend himself,....regardless, the burden is now on you to give some kind of clear explanation of what Christian reason is and how it differs from reason (and again....if you are going to put forth some definition of 'Christian reason' then you need to show how it can distinguish between truth and falsity, or you are using the term 'reason' in a nonsensical way)?

If Christianity is the 'true religion' yet rests on faith and grace from God, then how can you tell that this is true?  Islam preaches the same criteria for its dogma, yet fundamentally disagrees with the tenets of Christianity.  You need to explain the phenomena of religious diversity that accounts for its fact, yet validates Christianity's claim to 'exclusive truth'.

I said: "any discussion of 'grace' assumes that God exists and loves certain people (and not others)."  You said: "I don’t justify this assumption.  Justification comes from God epistemologically as much as it does soteriologically."

What?  Are you kidding?  Do you not assume God exists and some receive his grace?  That was the basis of your defense of faith!  Wait....let me guess....we don't know if God exists unless he 'graces' some of us with this knowledge.  I sure hope that is not what you meant, because if you did, then there's a pixie that lives in my closet and only I know she exists because she hasn't 'graced' anyone else with this knowledge.  Please expain yourself on this because it doesn't make any sense on the face of it.....it seems to contradict your whole defense.

I can't help but think that underneath all of your 'defense of faith' is a kind of universal skepticism.  You have suggested that I (as a defender of reason) face the same problem that you do....except that I place a kind of faith in reason and science instead of God and Christian revelation.  This ploy to vindicate religious faith is a double-failure.  I can give an intelligible meaning to my trust in reason and science by specifying and defending it.  Theologians are unable to defend a coherent and consistent definition of God, so religious faith is not only unjustified, it is also unintelligble.

[husqvarna]

Here are some questions that I think you need to answer (without the theological jargon please...):

I think we're done.  And I think this is just confirmation of the fact that we were done a long time ago.  Not because this is a cop-out and I can't defend myself properly, but because you're making an unacceptable request- you are insisting that I defend myself improperly.

Again, as I said before, apologies to everyone for pulling this thread off topic.

[dark_globe]

Here are some questions that I think you need to answer (without the theological jargon please...):

I think we're done.  And I think this is just confirmation of the fact that we were done a long time ago.  Not because this is a cop-out and I can't defend myself properly, but because you're making an unacceptable request- you are insisting that I defend myself improperly.

Again, as I said before, apologies to everyone for pulling this thread off topic.

It was amusing watching to see how long it would take you to figure out talking to him was a waste of time ;-)

[husqvarna]

It was amusing watching to see how long it would take you to figure out talking to him was a waste of time ;-)

The depressing thing (amusing too, I suppose!) is that I knew it but still thought it was worth discussing.  And in some ways I still think it was.  In any case, I hope I have the restraint to not reply to any future posts!

[invinoveritas]

dark globe,

You're right.....I'm not worth talking to because I'm a rational person who doesn't buy into your delusions.

hvernon,

Thank you for finally proving that you cannot defend your position.  Your claim that I am "insisting that you defend yourself improperly" is ridiculous.  Perhaps I am insisting the impossible because I don't think being clear and rational is improper....it seems you are incapable of either.  I asked you very clear and relevant questions in response to your assertions that you refused to answer (once again).  Refusing to address pressing and relevant questions about one's position is simply obstinate and symptomatic of most apologetics.  Our exchange has not be fruitful because you have refused to engage the real questions that your position faces or yield to any sound argument against your claims.

You probably think that my adherence to rationality is 'restrictive'....but it is not I who decrees this restriction....it is reality.  Your sophistry might fool some people...and that is a shame.  Perhaps the greater tragedy is that it seems to fool you as well. 

Wake up man!  God is imaginary.....

[angel]

Wake up man!  God is imaginary.....

I'm sure this is a winning strategy.

[invinoveritas]

Anyone who has read the thread rather than just a single comment would know not to confuse the conclusion with the strategy....

If you want to comment, why not address the arguments instead of making a snide remark that adds nothing to the debate?