6 of 7
6
Philosophy of Religion and Intuitions
Posted: 23 June 2013 01:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

100% rational people, we will have no arguments to consider.
Of course I’m not saying that having false beliefs makes one irrational. I’m simply saying that a person who continues to believe in, say, young earth creationism or the inerrancy of scripture is irrational.


I do not think we are any smarter in brain power than the ancient people. We got better tools and more data to work with. Mankind has always asked questions and tried to come up with answers.

When was it that the US Supreme court ruled that creationism can not be taught in public schools, 1984 or close to that time?

So guys, we have won the argument thirty years ago. 

Shouldn’t this be about why the education system is failing to teach evolution in a manner that should bury creationism? I mean the CFI helping in the lawsuits against schools trying to teach creationism in the public system only shows that after thirty years that evolution teaching has not done it job. You only go back to your old (job, girlfriend, music, pick one) if the new one is not better or fore filling the need. I feel that evolution more than fills the need. So it must be that the school system is not properly teaching evolution.

Point is; what is irrational today was at one time the rational thinking that replaced other irrational thinking.

Therefore Plantinga’s Christian thinking is in a transitional phase and to many he may be rational and to the new thinking irrational.

I see this type of thinking going on in Egypt today. One group of old bald headed men and no women, against younger computer generation men and women.
Same laws and religion just different view points of the understanding of the meanings.

[ Edited: 23 June 2013 01:10 PM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01
MikeYohe - 23 June 2013 01:07 PM

100% rational people, we will have no arguments to consider.
Of course I’m not saying that having false beliefs makes one irrational. I’m simply saying that a person who continues to believe in, say, young earth creationism or the inerrancy of scripture is irrational.


I do not think we are any smarter in brain power than the ancient people. We got better tools and more data to work with. Mankind has always asked questions and tried to come up with answers.

When was it that the US Supreme court ruled that creationism can not be taught in public schools, 1984 or close to that time?

So guys, we have won the argument thirty years ago. 

Shouldn’t this be about why the education system is failing to teach evolution in a manner that should bury creationism? I mean the CFI helping in the lawsuits against schools trying to teach creationism in the public system only shows that after thirty years that evolution teaching has not done it job. You only go back to your old (job, girlfriend, music, pick one) if the new one is not better or fore filling the need. I feel that evolution more than fills the need. So it must be that the school system is not properly teaching evolution.

Point is; what is irrational today was at one time the rational thinking that replaced other irrational thinking.

Therefore Plantinga’s Christian thinking is in a transitional phase and to many he may be rational and to the new thinking irrational.

I see this type of thinking going on in Egypt today. One group of old bald headed men and no women, against younger computer generation men and women.
Same laws and religion just different view points of the understanding of the meanings.

But hang on a minute. Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne are not young earth creationists. They all accept evolution.

The reason I brought up young earth creationism is that I think it’s just as irrational for these guys to believe in the inerrancy of scripture as it is for someone to believe in young earth creationism. On top of that, they all believe in the trinity, the virgin birth, heaven and hell, and all sorts of other things that they’ve got from the Bible and from the Christian tradition, and I think these beliefs are all irrational too.

But as Doug suggested, the main focus of philosophy of religion is about whether God exists, and not about whether Christianity is true or whether scripture is divinely inspired. So as long as they keep their personal Christian beliefs out of it, I guess their views about the existence of God can now be respected, whereas at an earlier time even their belief in God would have been considered irrational.

[ Edited: 23 June 2013 05:20 PM by Dom1978 ]
 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 05:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
Dom1978 - 23 June 2013 05:16 PM

But hang on a minute. Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne are not young earth creationists. They all accept evolution.

The reason I brought up young earth creationism is that I think it’s just as irrational for these guys to believe in the inerrancy of scripture as it is for someone to believe in young earth creationism. On top of that, they all believe in the trinity, the virgin birth, heaven and hell, and all sorts of other things that they’ve got from the Bible and from the Christian tradition, and I think these beliefs are all irrational too.

But as Doug suggested, the main focus of philosophy of religion is about whether God exists, and not about whether Christianity is true or whether scripture is divinely inspired. So as long as they keep their personal Christian beliefs out of it, I guess their views about the existence of God can now be respected, whereas at an earlier time even their belief in God would have been considered irrational.

I don’t mean to interrupt your conversation, but I think the trinity is in a class all its own.  Heaven and hell, young earth, etc. stretch the imagination, but the trinity is simply impossible IMO.  It’s like saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.  I’m curious how Plantinga reconciles that belief with logic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

I disagree with the method.

And if Doug suggests the main focus of philosophy of religion is about whether God exists. He’s going for a lifetime job.

Most Christians will tell you that you they can not prove god exists and I have never met one that can or says he can. And Christians say they can not prove to me god exists, other than by their belief system or miracles they see, hear, or experience. They then attribute these chosen miracles to god.

As belief can be anything, nobody has ever won an argument against a belief system.  And you will lose because god does exist in the Christian’s mind.

Now, the point being, that when a Christian tells me about their god that’s in their mind, I do not argue with them because I do not have anything better to offer that’s better than eternal life. For some people the only thing that is keeping them from blowing their brains out is the belief that they are going to heaven.

If you got the answer then you can stop all the suicide bombers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

I don’t mean to interrupt your conversation, but I think the trinity is in a class all its own.  Heaven and hell, young earth, etc. stretch the imagination, but the trinity is simply impossible IMO.  It’s like saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.  I’m curious how Plantinga reconciles that belief with logic.

I am not answering the post. Just adding thought about your comment on trinity.  Trinity comes from the Gnostic religion. It stands for:
The one.
The intellect.
The soul.

Together they form a (cloud, mist, a light) of knowledge. Don’t ask.

When the church took the Gnostic teachings of Jesus they did not like the Gnostic thought and tried to change the meanings. That’s where we are today.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Dom1978 Post #77

Have you ever tried to get that one cow or horse that got away from the heard when you were trying to get them in the pen? The harder and faster you chased it the more it ran away from you. But if you left it alone, it would come back and try and get into the pen to be with the heard.

That’s the feeling I get about these guys. They want to be out there and have you chase them. When evolution beat creation, they came back around with a new form of creation so you would continual chasing them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 07:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

But as Doug suggested, the main focus of philosophy of religion is about whether God exists, and not about whether Christianity is true or whether scripture is divinely inspired. So as long as they keep their personal Christian beliefs out of it, I guess their views about the existence of God can now be respected, whereas at an earlier time even their belief in God would have been considered irrational.

I agree. Even today you can’t believe half of what you read in the newspaper. So it would be a big mistake to try and judge the people of the past. I try and keep in mind that they were smart and if they did something it was for a reason. And like today, most of the time it had to do with money.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 07:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01

Just to make it clear, when I say that Plantinga is irrational to believe in the trinity and hell, I mean that his reasons for believing these things are bad reasons. He believes in these things because they come from scripture and the Christian tradition, but there is absolutely no good reason to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired or that the early church fathers were divinely inspired when they came up with these doctrines.

And the same goes for things like the idea that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine at the same time. It’s not really necessary to go into the logic of it all and try to figure out whether this doctrine can somehow be made logically coherent. All I would say is that it’s irrational to believe something like this that you find in scripture or tradition in the first place. If we had good reasons for thinking that everything the Bible and the early church councils said was true, then OK maybe it would be rational to believe these doctrines, but we don’t have any good reasons. Plantinga believes these doctrines for exactly the same reasons that a fundamentalist Muslim believes their doctrines, and in both cases it’s irrational and should have no place in philosophy in my view.

 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01

So here’s a little thought experiment: Imagine that we really did have good reasons for thinking both the Bible and the early church councils to be divinely inspired. Imagine that the Bible made lots of incredibly precise and accurate predictions about the future, and that the councils knew about all sorts of science that they couldn’t possible have known about at that time. So, given that the Bible and the church councils seem to have some kind of divine or higher power behind them, it may be rational to believe what they have to say about hell, the trinity and Jesus.

But of course this is not the situation we find ourselves in, and so both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are irrational to believe their doctrines based on what’s been passed down through scripture and tradition.

 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 08:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Your view is the same as Wikipedia’s. And your OK.


Note, when I read anything from the bible, I use the internet and get at least four interpretations from the different bibles. It is almost a waist of time to try and use “reasoned argument” with the bible. When did the church say the NT was finished, 1960 something. 

Your idea that POR should work together with other disciplines like history. I think is the answer.

Now that I have said that. I got to say.
I believe the bible is correct in a lot of its statements.
I just don’t think the statements are being read correctly.
When you read a statement in the Gnostic form you can get an entirely different meaning.
And a lot of the bible was written in Gnostic. I see that as a major problem.

For example. Son of God.
How do most people interpret that statement?
In Gnostic we are all the son of god.
And Jesus got into a lot of trouble in Israel when he tried to teach that thinking and he had to defend himself in court.
The Gnostic Jesus said he was just a man. And the son of god in his religion, as many was.
But there are different sects of Gnostic and some went different directions and it is not easy to understand which ones to use.

Point being is that the ideas of the bible were not a bunch of far fetched ideas that people believed. They were turned into far fetched ideas by the church in a systematic method of control sometime after the teachings of Jesus.

Have you ever heard of the footnote bibles. They were used by the church when they went out to see how the people were responding to the gospels. They would write notes in the sides or the footnotes to make changes to help in the message.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2013 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
Dom1978 - 23 June 2013 07:49 PM

So here’s a little thought experiment: Imagine that we really did have good reasons for thinking both the Bible and the early church councils to be divinely inspired. Imagine that the Bible made lots of incredibly precise and accurate predictions about the future, and that the councils knew about all sorts of science that they couldn’t possible have known about at that time. So, given that the Bible and the church councils seem to have some kind of divine or higher power behind them, it may be rational to believe what they have to say about hell, the trinity and Jesus.

But of course this is not the situation we find ourselves in, and so both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are irrational to believe their doctrines based on what’s been passed down through scripture and tradition.

IMO most Christians would say the primary purpose of the Bible is not predicting the future or teaching science.  So you ought to use different criteria in your thought experiment such as does Christianity improve society, personal happiness, and so forth.  It is somewhat rational to think the Bible might be telling the truth about heaven if people who believe the Bible about more practical matters such as personal behaviour have found it to be true.

[ Edited: 24 June 2013 03:27 PM by ufo-buff ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2013 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
ufo-buff - 24 June 2013 03:23 PM
Dom1978 - 23 June 2013 07:49 PM

So here’s a little thought experiment: Imagine that we really did have good reasons for thinking both the Bible and the early church councils to be divinely inspired. Imagine that the Bible made lots of incredibly precise and accurate predictions about the future, and that the councils knew about all sorts of science that they couldn’t possible have known about at that time. So, given that the Bible and the church councils seem to have some kind of divine or higher power behind them, it may be rational to believe what they have to say about hell, the trinity and Jesus.

But of course this is not the situation we find ourselves in, and so both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are irrational to believe their doctrines based on what’s been passed down through scripture and tradition.

IMO most Christians would say the primary purpose of the Bible is not predicting the future or teaching science.  So you ought to use different criteria in your thought experiment such as does Christianity improve society, personal happiness, and so forth.  It is somewhat rational to think the Bible might be telling the truth about heaven if people who believe the Bible about more practical matters such as personal behaviour have found it to be true.

I’d rather it told the truth about practical matters such as wheter the sun can be stopped in the sky (speaking of science), among countless other things it’s been shown to be wrong about. I’ll leave out the virgin birth for now.

L.

[ Edited: 25 June 2013 12:52 AM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2013 04:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01
ufo-buff - 24 June 2013 03:23 PM
Dom1978 - 23 June 2013 07:49 PM

So here’s a little thought experiment: Imagine that we really did have good reasons for thinking both the Bible and the early church councils to be divinely inspired. Imagine that the Bible made lots of incredibly precise and accurate predictions about the future, and that the councils knew about all sorts of science that they couldn’t possible have known about at that time. So, given that the Bible and the church councils seem to have some kind of divine or higher power behind them, it may be rational to believe what they have to say about hell, the trinity and Jesus.

But of course this is not the situation we find ourselves in, and so both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are irrational to believe their doctrines based on what’s been passed down through scripture and tradition.

IMO most Christians would say the primary purpose of the Bible is not predicting the future or teaching science.  So you ought to use different criteria in your thought experiment such as does Christianity improve society, personal happiness, and so forth.  It is somewhat rational to think the Bible might be telling the truth about heaven if people who believe the Bible about more practical matters such as personal behaviour have found it to be true.

 

We can’t really say the Christian tradition must be divinely inspired because it produces social stability and personal happiness and turns people’s lives around, getting them off drugs or alcohol or whatever, The reason for this is that other religions like Islam, Mormonism and Scientology also seem to do all of these things. And we also can’t say the Bible must be divinely inspired because it moves people, is so beautifully written, changes lives etc, since many other books do these things too. That’s why I chose the criteria of amazing predictions and astounding knowledge for divine inspiration, and indeed this is why many fundamentalist Muslims and Christians use these criteria. They know they need to try to find something that’s unique to their tradition.

[ Edited: 24 June 2013 04:54 PM by Dom1978 ]
 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
Dom1978 - 24 June 2013 04:49 PM

We can’t really say the Christian tradition must be divinely inspired because it produces social stability and personal happiness and turns people’s lives around, getting them off drugs or alcohol or whatever, The reason for this is that other religions like Islam, Mormonism and Scientology also seem to do all of these things. And we also can’t say the Bible must be divinely inspired because it moves people, is so beautifully written, changes lives etc, since many other books do these things too. That’s why I chose the criteria of amazing predictions and astounding knowledge for divine inspiration, and indeed this is why many fundamentalist Muslims and Christians use these criteria. They know they need to try to find something that’s unique to their tradition.

How do we know all those religions aren’t divinely inspired?  Each religion claims to be the only true religion, but maybe they are wrong about being unique and divinely inspired in other areas that matter more?

Most Christians are aware that the entire package of Christianity contains many mistakes, but they overlook these mistakes because they don’t want to risk losing the truths of Christianity in the process of extracting the mistakes.  It’s like the parable of the wheat and the tares:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13:24-30&version=NKJV

So if Christianity helps Plantinga in real ways then isn’t he being rational to accept some harmless non-falsifiable lies as part of the package?  (I don’t know if this is rational by the philosophical definition, but isn’t it understandable?)

[ Edited: 25 June 2013 07:37 AM by ufo-buff ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 08:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

I am coming to the conclusion that Church leaders are monetary inspired and preachers and ministers are divinely inspired whereas the general population is Belief driven. Sort of the Sheppard and his flock.

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 7
6