Islam, Christianity, and religion prevent reconciliation

[Twilight]

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.

If a person presents an athiestic argument, then it should be identified as such. :-)

If they claim agnosticism and then present athiestic arguments, their claim has to be ignored in favour of the argument they are presenting.

A bit like a cat claiming to be a dog, then climbing up a tree, what should one pay attention to, the claim or the climbing?

Now it may be that the cat genuinely believes it is a dog, but if it is up the tree, then it has to be pointed out that it is actually behaving like a cat. :-)

[Twilight]

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.

This would only be true if Christianity was simply an opinion of man.

But that is not the claim, the claim is that Christianity is a communication of God.

An absolute communication, in the areas that have been communicated.

So I would say that bundling Christianity up with other belief systems that rely on "mans revelation" is a serious philosophical mistake...

[Twilight]

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.

Except Christians are re-iterating Gods claims not their own (in the purest philosophical sense).

The logical conclusion of bible study is that God is real, reveals the future to prove it and cares deeply about us, so deeply He is willing to take the consequences of our mistakes onto Himself, for our benefit...

Anyone having studied the bible and really spent the time to declare it is not absolute truth is indulging in arrogance possibly? (A reverse of your argument by the way as an example - which is not really an argument but a statement of an absolute once again...)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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.

Two choices:

1. Nothing exploded (translated into modern day terminology - Quantum).

2. An eternal source.

[Twilight]

By the way, last time I had a discussion with a self confessed "post-modernist", he tried to convince me using the following argument:

"There are no absolutes."

Now if that is a central tenet of post modernism, how could a post-modernist be a Christian, which is founded on the very point of THE ABSOLUTE.

Maybe he misunderstood post-modernism, maybe you could give me some thoughts on this Bravus?

[SivartM]

I think a better thing to say would be, "There is no absolute certainty."

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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...

This is simply not true....Reason does exist without absolutes....Look at Geometry...It starts out with an assumption that is true, "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line." And while for most things this is true...But what if you are on a very large ball...Then the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line, but rather a curved line....and there is reasoning based upon this assumption...Global travel for one....

And any rate, the rules are made from logic with the basic assumption and following coralarrys [sp]...Some rules are from calculations, ie 1+1=2...that mathmatical equation will always be true, but it is not an absolute...If, pointing to the above mathmatical equation, you assume that the equation is in base 10, yes, it is true...but if you assume that it is in base 2, which is the language of computers, then it is not true...the answer is 10.

Hence, laws are not absolutes....never have been, never will be...

[Neil D]

By the way, last time I had a discussion with a self confessed "post-modernist", he tried to convince me using the following argument:

"There are no absolutes."

Now if that is a central tenet of post modernism, how could a post-modernist be a Christian, which is founded on the very point of THE ABSOLUTE.

Maybe he misunderstood post-modernism, maybe you could give me some thoughts on this Bravus?

I beg your pardon, but your post modernist is MOSTLY correct...The only absolute is death...Now, speaking as a Christian, I have to ask you what you think "THE ABSOLUTE" is...

If you believe that 'Jesus died and rose again to redeem us' then speaking as a Christian, I think your "absolute" is on pretty shaky ground. Because Christianity is based upon faith, not on absolutes...The only absolute in Christianity is that Jesus died, assuming that Jesus existed.

Now, I can point to a lot of what I FEEL is good evidence that Jesus existed, and I can assume that what He said in the Bible is true, but as for there being absolutes....sorry, you don't have my vote on that one, Twilight...

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

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...

IOWs, you can not trust your own reasoning....and you must rely on something or someone else....

If ever there was an arguement from a Christian to support the cause of delusions of christianity, this is it.....

If you can not trust your own reasoning, and your evalutation of the empirical evidence, who are you going to trust????

God? Excuse me, how do you know that He is a just Person, let alone that He exists??? Oh, the bible is our guide, right??? You are still relying upon yourself, gentlemen....What you have done is surrendered your reasoning ability to any 'absolute'/ law/ rule that the bible may state...

This arguement that you surrender your reasoning is stupidity at it's best. Anyone, with evil intent, quoting the bible would be forcing you to surrender your values because your values are biblically centered...

That is why Christianity is NOT a standards and rules religion...It IS a RELATIONSHIP religion...it's not what you know, gentlemen, it is Who you know that saves you....and that is why it is based upon faith...not absolutes..

[Twilight]

I think a better thing to say would be, "There is no absolute certainty."

But isn't that an "absolute certainty"?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

By the way, last time I had a discussion with a self confessed "post-modernist", he tried to convince me using the following argument:

"There are no absolutes."

Now if that is a central tenet of post modernism, how could a post-modernist be a Christian, which is founded on the very point of THE ABSOLUTE.

Maybe he misunderstood post-modernism, maybe you could give me some thoughts on this Bravus?

I beg your pardon, but your post modernist is MOSTLY correct...The only absolute is death...Now, speaking as a Christian, I have to ask you what you think "THE ABSOLUTE" is...

If you believe that 'Jesus died and rose again to redeem us' then speaking as a Christian, I think your "absolute" is on pretty shaky ground. Because Christianity is based upon faith, not on absolutes...The only absolute in Christianity is that Jesus died, assuming that Jesus existed.

Now, I can point to a lot of what I FEEL is good evidence that Jesus existed, and I can assume that what He said in the Bible is true, but as for there being absolutes....sorry, you don't have my vote on that one, Twilight...

God is THE ABSOLUTE...

[Twilight]

That is why Christianity is NOT a standards and rules religion...It IS a RELATIONSHIP religion..

The above sounds like an absolute to me, and if you cannot reason or know anything for sure, how did you just arrive at the above conclusion?

Are you using the argument of an "absolute" position here to argue that there are "no absolutes" Neil?

:-)

[Overaged]

IOWs, you can not trust your own reasoning....and you must rely on something or someone else....

If ever there was an arguement from a Christian to support the cause of delusions of christianity, this is it.....

If you can not trust your own reasoning, and your evalutation of the empirical evidence, who are you going to trust????

God? Excuse me, how do you know that He is a just Person, let alone that He exists??? Oh, the bible is our guide, right??? You are still relying upon yourself, gentlemen....What you have done is surrendered your reasoning ability to any 'absolute'/ law/ rule that the bible may state...

This arguement that you surrender your reasoning is stupidity at it's best. Anyone, with evil intent, quoting the bible would be forcing you to surrender your values because your values are biblically centered...

That is why Christianity is NOT a standards and rules religion...It IS a RELATIONSHIP religion...it's not what you know, gentlemen, it is Who you know that saves you....and that is why it is based upon faith...not absolutes...

Iam sorry you think it is "stupidity at it's best..." Lets take my statement about "reasoning" just one more small step forward. Perhaps you will recognize what I am saying in a real-life situation.

I would think that it is common knowledge how that our "reasoning" can indeed be affected by many and varied external factors. Initially, this should not even be a trust issue, as in "trusting vs not trusting our reasoning, but rather just recognizing how we are made.

For eg.; years ago; I would think nothing of drinking 24 beers, and then smoke a little "Lebanese Gold" during the day, then go to the wildest bar I could find; drinking whiskey all night, and starting a whole new "speed party" just as the sun was coming up. After about 5 days of mainlining Black Rock; I would be so far up, that I had to use a small handful of 100 mg Secobarbitols to 'come down' and finally pass out. It goes without saying that my "reasoning" was then affected by "external, enviromental factors." It is not "stupidity at it's best" to distrust such reasoning as what I had at that time. But, there are many other factors which would affect our reasoning, sometimes, even just something you ate for lunch! LOL. I would think it is "stupidity at it's best" to trust to human reasoning at all times, and in all places...specially if you eat Carp for lunch! Be very afraid of the Carp Eaters and the Jesuits Neil! They will control your reasoning if you let them...

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I think a better thing to say would be, "There is no absolute certainty."

But isn't that an "absolute certainty"?

No, it's a principle that helps us to understand our limitations. What you had "absolute certainty" in ten years ago is not certain at all anymore, while you are more certain of things that would have seemed incorrect. If that's not the case, and you have never changed anything you believe, then that's just conceited.

[Bravus]

I modified my post from here and posted it on my blog: the responses of my friends, and my responses to them, might be interesting to some here: http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1994

[Overaged]

Well; I for one am having a lot of trouble understanding your main points over there at your "Blog" as well as here. I guess you can carry on and call me whatever you need to for "not listening" or not carrying on "good communication" but you really talk a lot of circles. As I looked at your Blog, I couldn't find any of the "evidence" that you talk of in your signature here. I am not saying this for any personal reason; it's not my wish to try to insult you; I hope you don't take it as insults but I find what you write really confusing to follow. I don't have any interest in "pigeon-holing" you either, but i wonder if you know what you are really saying about your "beliefs?" To me; a belief "SYSTEM" (not necessarily individual beleifs) should present with some kind of hope. I just don't see anything hopeful to share with people in such non-descript, polemical belief systems such as yourself and cardw display. I really would like to understand you more, but it's hard because you argue about everything a Christian believes.

[Bravus]

It's unsurprising that it's not easy to understand. I try to write as clearly as I can, but (a) I'm still struggling to make sense of it all myself and ( it draws on quite a large body of theory and reading that I've been immersed in for the past 20 years that others might not be familiar with. I don't in any way say that to big-note myself or belittle others, it's just a fact of my job and my life.

(Please note that I have never challenged you or said anything to you about not listening. At all.)

We're all doing our best together to understand. And, in many ways, this thread is not about me and my beliefs. I only posted about that because it's a question that Twilight has consistently asked of me in every thread where we've interacted. So, for better or worse, he now has a sense of who I am and what I believe. He's indicated that he intends to continue to characterise me (or my ideas) as atheist, but at least I've laid out my own views so other readers of the threads can judge that characterisation on its merits.

There is much about Christianity that I affirm and value. What I challenge is the claim that (a) those things are exclusively the property of Christianity and ( no other perspective has value.

[Overaged]

Thanks for taking my last post in such a good spirit. Would I be correct in assuming that you are still, in some sense, searching for exactly what you believe? It sounds like that's atleast a part of what you are saying?

[Bravus]

Yes, definitely.

[Overaged]

Oh; OK. Well, everything makes more sense now. At first; I thought I was reading French or something.

It actually can be very beneficial to bounce one's ideas off of others; IF you can find a crowd that will put up with you/it!!

[Bravus]

One of the posters on the blog pointed me to the issue of the 'euthyphro dilemma'. Here's a Wikipedia discussion of it: it occurs to me we could have a more clear and useful discussion of moral absolutes if everyone read this discussion first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

[Stan]

it would be nice, if someone other than me, would arrange for a Muslim Cleric, to do questions and answers...

[Overaged]

I think that some; atleast I am talking about much more than "moral absolutes," however, when you examine this "dilemna" you referred us to at Wikipedia; this is the main point that Plato espouses in the original discussion the article refers to:

Quote:

The dilemma has had a major impact upon the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" This question has presented a problem for theists ever since Plato's original discussion, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

Just speaking personally here, the question at question here is not in fact a "problem" to either myself or what I believe.

I see such questions as quite senseless, and manufacturing their own arguments and answers. These "questions" are in fact statements, which are doubtful at best.

The Bible is in direct opposition to what Plato asked here when it declares: In the beginning was God..." It's just a declaration, and the Bible really doesn't try too hard to prove God's existence. Christians don't really need to either.

[Overaged]

Wachoo talkin bout Stan?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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.

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