Islam, Christianity, and religion prevent reconciliation

[Bravus]

Fair enough. I don't think anyone at all has actually made the strong argument 'there are no absolutes'. Gravity, for example, which has had some play here recently, is pretty absolute. It exists everywhere in the universe and it's pretty reliable.

Perhaps the distinctions we're making are about human language and theory - about the *statement* of absolutes rather than their existence? So, while gravity can be considered absolute, we can explain it using Aristotle's, Newton's or Einstein's theoretical language and equations. All three will work for the range of our experience, so none of them can argue to be exclusively ('absolutely') correct.

In your example of death, there are at least as many models: (1) eternal extinction, (2) reincarnation, (3) instant heaven or hell, or (4) sleep in the ground until the Second Coming followed by heaven for some and external extinction for others (possibly interrupted once). And so on. Death is absolute, but the available evidence doesn't allow us to absolutely, definitively distinguish between different human understandings and descriptions.

[Overaged]

JWhat cardw is doing is taking the (internally consistent) position that it is impossible to state things with absolute certainty unless we have seen *all* the relevant evidence. And since it is impossible to see all the relevant evidence, it is therefore impossible to state things with absolute certainty.[1]

He is presenting a conditional absolute; saying that IF more or different evidence is presented to him; then the absoluteness will be null and void. There is no rule to say that an absolute requires seeing ALL of the evidence. Only that the available evidence supports the absolute.

The OP of this thread questions whether or not "reconciliation" is possible because of what is going on with Islam and/or Christianity. In other words, religion is not "absolute" truth. The Christian religion is absolute truth, because the available evidence supports this; but the same cannot be said about the Agnostic view of "religion."

And it remains to be seen just what the OP means by "reconciliation." There are different definitions of that word floating around too.

While I appreciate your efforts, Bravus, at promoting good listening and articulation in our discussion; you are very obviously leaning in favor of a particular view point, so I have to wonder just what kind of "facilitating" you are actually accomplishing here. Are you facilitating a "good" discussion, or a biased one?

[Bravus]

Quote:

There is no rule to say that an absolute requires seeing ALL of the evidence. Only that the available evidence supports the absolute.

That's a definitional matter, then. I wouldn't call that an absolute at all: even 'conditional absolute' is too strong. That's just an opinion, or even a prejudice.

[Bravus]

As to my 'bias', I don't think I made the claim to being a neutral facilitator. It's possible for me to try to make the discussion clearer while having a view of my own. My clarifications are not intended to advance my own view, though: they are intended to as clearly and fairly as possible represent the views of others.

I'll post separately about my own view below, but it's important to note that:

a. I don't think that there are two 'sides' in this debate: there are important differences between your position and Twilight's, and dramatic differences between mine and cardw's. Seeing it as a debate between two opposed 'sides', rather than as a conversation between several individuals, is one of the things I'm working to avoid.

b. My own position has been persistently and intentionally mischaracterised as atheist, as has that of cardw. I'm a postmodernist believer (see below) and he's an agnostic. He's repeatedly said so. Calling him atheist is a (dishonest) debate strategy.

[Bravus]

As I said, I haven't really been putting forward a position of my own, but I do have one and I'm happy to disclose what it is, so that readers can make their own judgements about any biases I might display.

I've been variously described as Christian and post-Christian by those who tell the truth, and as atheist by those who lie about me, but none of those labels really fit comfortably.

The best and most informative label about me is 'postmodernist', particularly in terms of Lyotard's description of that disposition as 'suspicion of grand narratives'. Grand narratives are stories that claim to contain the whole truth and to give meaning to everything in life. They can be religions or ideologies - Christianity is often presented as a grand narrative, and certainly something like Stalinism or Maoism is a grand narrative, but so are the stronger forms of laissez-faire capitalism, for example.

Postmodernism is the understanding that no narrative is complete, and that therefore their claims to completeness are false. Multiple narratives provide richer, more powerful, 'truer' descriptions of reality than single perspective, because every light you shine on reality throws shadows. Every direction you look from means there are parts you can't see.

I believe in God, but God is the ultimate Reality, and is greater and deeper and wider than mere physical reality, so it's even more true that any attempt to understand God requires multiple narratives rather than a single narrative. God is infinite, our knowledge is finite, and therefore our knowledge is a negligible fraction of the infinite reality of God. How dare we, then, claim that our knowledge is complete and correct enough to damn others whose knowledge is different?

Postmodernism for me, coupled with a sense of the sheer scope of the universe, which is also finite within the infinity of God, leads to both very humble claims on the part of my own narratives and a profound suspicion of the narratives offered by others. The more certain and absolute they claim their narratives to be, the more sure I am that those claims are false, since I believe all narratives are by necessity partial. (That last, yes, is a statement of faith, though based in logic and experience - don't even try to claim that I'm making a grand narrative of it.)

It's not a satisfying position for others, because it makes me very difficult to pigeonhole. Those who cannot conceive of living without exclusive allegiance to one specific grand narrative often project that onto me, and assume that I *really* subscribe to one, but am hiding that for rhetorical purposes. But I really, really don't: all narratives can be deconstructed in terms of their own internal logic.

[Neil D]

Fair enough. I don't think anyone at all has actually made the strong argument 'there are no absolutes'. Gravity, for example, which has had some play here recently, is pretty absolute. It exists everywhere in the universe and it's pretty reliable.

[Neil D]

The best and most informative label about me is 'postmodernist', particularly in terms of Lyotard's description of that disposition as 'suspicion of grand narratives'. Grand narratives are stories that claim to contain the whole truth and to give meaning to everything in life. They can be religions or ideologies - Christianity is often presented as a grand narrative, and certainly something like Stalinism or Maoism is a grand narrative, but so are the stronger forms of laissez-faire capitalism, for example.

Oh you heretic, you!

[/tic] Alas, I think this is more cheeky than TIC

.... since you have been called "athetist" and Christian, I thought that maybe you would appreciate one more label to round out your experience....

[Overaged]

As to my 'bias', I don't think I made the claim to being a neutral facilitator. It's possible for me to try to make the discussion clearer while having a view of my own. My clarifications are not intended to advance my own view, though:

b. My own position has been persistently and intentionally mischaracterised as atheist, as has that of cardw. I'm a postmodernist believer (see below) and he's an agnostic. He's repeatedly said so. Calling him atheist is a (dishonest) debate strategy.

You keep talking about being a "neutral facilitator" yet, you find it necessary to use language such as "dishonest." There is nothing neutral about that at all. This is what I am talking about that is showing through in your posts. It is the opposite of neutral. You are argufying things that you have no way of knowing. You are altercating every nuance in every thought expressed by anyone who posts in opposition to your views. That would be called arguing, not "facilitating."

Whether or not cardw or yourself holds to a particular belief system is not the real point of the OP anyways; it is more a question about "reconciliation" and how/if Christianity, or Islam (religion) prevents it. You might want to consider that the very title itself is an absolute; albeit, unproven.

Actually, cardw's posts remind me of Stephen Hawking's latest "M Theory" (replacing the 5 versions of "String Theory") mumbo jumbo where he says that because of the law of gravity, the universe can create itself out of nothing. This is an absolute, from someone who denys the existence of God; from someone who says that God is not necessary for creation; and now we have people here basically saying the same thing. Hawking's M Theory does not consider just where gravity came from though.

Jesus created gravity; Jesus came to this world and paid the ultimate price to reconcile the world unto God. Col 1:20. Christianity promotes, rather than prevents reconciliation...That is an absolute.

[Overaged]

That's not fair to just give Bravus a label, and no one else

[Overaged]

For the Christian; death is not an absolute. Jesus promised that some would not "taste" death. Taxes are not even an absolute. There are lots of ways (legal and illegal) to avoid them. But Jesus is absolute. He will never leave us nor forsake us; and that is the ultimate absolute of reconciliation.

[Neil D]

You keep talking about being a "neutral facilitator" yet, you find it necessary to use language such as "dishonest." There is nothing neutral about that at all. This is what I am talking about that is showing through in your posts. It is the opposite of neutral. You are argufying things that you have no way of knowing. You are altercating every nuance in every thought expressed by anyone who posts in opposition to your views. That would be called arguing, not "facilitating."

[Neil D]

For the Christian; death is not an absolute. Jesus promised that some would not "taste" death. Taxes are not even an absolute. There are lots of ways (legal and illegal) to avoid them. But Jesus is absolute. He will never leave us nor forsake us; and that is the ultimate absolute of reconciliation.

Hmmmmm....For the Christian, I would still say that death is an absolute..."It is appointed that all men shall die...."...

To explain death comes the interpretation.....in this case, the Christian shows his faith in believing that death is not the end...but that there is a resurrection....

.....and as for taxes, they still come at you...whether you pay or not depends on the interpretation of the law and what you are able to get away with....

[cardw]

You keep talking about being a "neutral facilitator" yet, you find it necessary to use language such as "dishonest." There is nothing neutral about that at all.

[cardw]

The best and most informative label about me is 'postmodernist', particularly in terms of Lyotard's description of that disposition as 'suspicion of grand narratives'. Grand narratives are stories that claim to contain the whole truth and to give meaning to everything in life. They can be religions or ideologies - Christianity is often presented as a grand narrative, and certainly something like Stalinism or Maoism is a grand narrative, but so are the stronger forms of laissez-faire capitalism, for example.

Postmodernism is the understanding that no narrative is complete, and that therefore their claims to completeness are false. Multiple narratives provide richer, more powerful, 'truer' descriptions of reality than single perspective, because every light you shine on reality throws shadows. Every direction you look from means there are parts you can't see.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

You keep talking about being a "neutral facilitator" yet, you find it necessary to use language such as "dishonest." There is nothing neutral about that at all.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

As to my 'bias', I don't think I made the claim to being a neutral facilitator.

Do actually read the post before responding? Bravus said he wasn't claiming to be a neutral facilitator.

Either you are using a dishonest debate strategy or you can't understand what is being said.

Well; what he says and what he implies by same can give people the idea that he is claiming to "facilitate" in a neutral way "while still having his own opinion." I don't feel guilty about that one at all, and why would you ask me if I read his posts when I quoted the passage where he said: "I don't believe I made that claim?" I must have read it to quote it?? I said what his post meant to me because of the way he worded it. I am doing what he does and practicing his "reflective listening." But then, this may be far too absolute for you; I do believe that in your charcteristic style Neil, you just gave me a label too. Now I don't feel cheated. Thankyou.

[Twilight]

The caveat, though, is that for the Christian the Bible is paramount over reason+evidence.

But that again puts the bible in a different arena to reason and evidence Bravus.

Why would the bible even be seperate from them?

Why not just have the bible full of reason and evidence, than seperate from it?

[Overaged]

It is much like the fact that we use computers, but none of us really knows how to build one from scratch. The technology to find the raw materials, refine the metals, build and design the chips, make the screens, write the software, etc. is distributed among many minds who most often don't understand all the other parts of the process either.

That is why it appears to be arrogant for someone who obviously hasn't really spent the time to examine the claims of the Bible to declare that it is the absolute truth.

I disagree quite a bit with the "deconstruct" theory presented by Bravus, and agreed upon in principle, by you; however, I agree that unless one has taken the time to examine the scriptures; as in the very specific ways that the scriptures themselves counsel us to do; then they really can't tell others what the Bible does, or does not say. Christianity does not deconstruct; rather, in constructs, new lives, changed hearts, and prepares a people to meet their God when Jesus comes again. (2 Cor 5:17). I would like to respectfully ask that you & Bravus think carefully about this text; for it has one word in it that I think is at the root of your problems with Christianity.

In reference to your replies re death being an absolute; it essentially is not for the Christian. Jesus died; but this does not prove death to be an absolute in any sense of the word; for death could not hold our Lord in the grave. "He Is Risen!" One difference between the Christian religion and others is that our God's grave is empty. Can any other "God" make this claim? And, the Bible promises that not everyone will taste of death before Jesus comes. (1 Thes 4:13-18).

Bravus presents an impossible position of trying to believe in an unknown God, (Acts 17:23), while you present us with the prospect of not ever really knowing for sure if there is a God; both world-views forcing the prospect of a hopeless existence into the human experience.

Christians can say with full assurance "we have this hope." (meaning Jesus). I am sure that you can agree that hope is essential for people to have? What is your hope? So far in this thread, I have not seen it. I have seen nothing to hope in or for. Just the option (from you or Bravus) to be more "right" than others.

[Twilight]

Reason is a system made up by humans to describe the world. That's all it is.

There you go defining absolutes again Cardw... :-)

You have just made an absolue statement about reason.

This is my point, we all need absolutes, even yourself, without it we cannot even begin to reason.

The need to deny the reality of absolutes is a mystery, unless one wants to deny an absolute source of course, then the absolute insistance on no "absolutes" makes sense.

Why do you think many athiests and agnostics always seem so insistent that absolutes are just not "kosher"?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I am a Christian because of reason, logic and faith...

I am a Christian; first and foremost, because of Jesus. His self-revelation through several different channels, appeals to my reason, logic, and my faith reaches out and grasps His. But I am always, and only a Christian, because of Jesus. That is an absolute truth. John 14:5, 1 Cor 1:30

I agree totally.

It is the establishment of Christ, as the Son of God and my personal Saviour, through logic, reason, faith and experience that enables me to be a Christian.

Christ is the focus point of all true logical realisation.

As He said:

"I am the way, the truth and the life"...

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

The caveat, though, is that for the Christian the Bible is paramount over reason+evidence.

But that again puts the bible in a different arena to reason and evidence Bravus.

Why would the bible even be seperate from them?

Why not just have the bible full of reason and evidence, than seperate from it?

This is a very precise statement; for God says:

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Some people prefer to reason by themselves, instead of "together." But God welcomes all serious inquiry and investigation:

Isa 41:21 Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

To those who reject Him; God asks the following question:

Jer 2:5 Thus saith the LORD, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?

As Christians; we should welcome cardw & Bravus to "bring forth your strong reasons" without condemning them, as all God asks us to do is to bring forth our own "strong reasons."

[Twilight]

What you quoted here are not my reasons. They are definitions. If we can't agree on the definition of reason and absolute then there is no point in having a conversation.

If you want to address my reasoning you need to go back a few posts. No one has actually addressed my reasoning.

The "technique" that both of you have been using is to float the definition of absolute and reason.

Not at all Cardw.

You seem to want to define reason as seperate from absolutes.

But you keep stating absolutes as part of your reasoning.

That is the point I am making.

Reason cannot exist without absolutes.

Reason needs "laws" to operate with, otherwise "reason" is just personal opinion based on ones flight of feeling...

[Twilight]

You yourself have declared your "theory" of no absolutes" to be based upon the fact that there is no empirical evidence to tell you otherwise, making this assertion solely based upon your personal perceptions, all of which can be distorted by many and varied environmental factors.

Arrow in the bullseye here...

[Overaged]

Reason cannot exist without absolutes.

Reason needs "laws" to operate with, otherwise "reason" is just personal opinion based on ones flight of feeling...

Even the "renowned" Stephen Hawkings would agree with this 100% for he is one of the more "prominent" members of the scientific community who says in his latest "M Theory" how that God is not necessary for creation. But this latest theory he is still developing is dependant upon "the law of gravity." I am still waiting for him to explain where gravity comes from.

[Twilight]

What cardw is doing is taking the (internally consistent) position that it is impossible to state things with absolute certainty unless we have seen *all* the relevant evidence. And since it is impossible to see all the relevant evidence, it is therefore impossible to state things with absolute certainty.[1]

If someone wanted to take this position, then they would have to live by it.

An Athiest for instance could not take the above position, as they would have to admit that the reality of God is a very real possibility.

But the common logical fallacy of the athiestic worldview (which Cardw presents in my view - not agnostic) is that they can measure "all knowledge" by the limited knowledge they have.

In effect becoming the very "absolute" authority they wish to deny.

The only way anyone could state there is no total absolutes, is if that "anyone" was God.

So by definition, to claim there are no absolutes, is to claim total knowledge.

Which of course is also an establishment of an absolute...

[Twilight]

Let me do a bit of reflective listening.......

I hear the arguement that there is no absolutes...or that there is conditional absolutes....with the example of white swans being absolutely white...until they [who ever that was] discoved Austrailia and black swans....

I maintain the credo that there is only ONE absolute...that is death...Now, the Christian says that is not true as there is a resurrection and life will go on as if one had never died...but that is the point...they died...As of this moment in history, everyone has died...and everyone that we personally know has died or will die.....the only certainty is death...and that is the absolute....

only the interpretation of death is in doubt....

So, gentlemen, all your talk about absolutes is nothing more than....'a blowing in the wind' or as Solomon once said, " VAnity ! all is Vanity!"

The unfallen angels have never tasted death.

Neither did Enoch or Elijah. :-)