tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post3288859981739599266..comments2024-03-28T11:33:16.271-05:00Comments on Adventus: These things that pass for knowledge....Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-63447357541794254142012-03-27T19:02:50.035-05:002012-03-27T19:02:50.035-05:00Just so you know, Nathaniel, I'm letting you h...Just so you know, Nathaniel, I'm letting you have the last word.<br /><br />Since you seem to so desperately want it.<br /><br />Rusty: I'd start with "Moral Man and Immoral Society." "The Irony of American History" is good, too.<br /><br />Niebuhr is so clear and concise I'd just go to the source for him.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-57075019850390997362012-03-27T18:42:15.266-05:002012-03-27T18:42:15.266-05:00"Yes, I do. Isn't that what I said?"..."Yes, I do. Isn't that what I said?"<br /><br />Generally, when someone asks a question, and the first word in the response is "No," that generally means no. Here, let me quote you: <br /><br />"No. I just like it." In response to: <br /><br />"Are you seriously endorsing that as an argument?"<br /><br />So to the common man, it would seem as though you are saying, no, you don't endorse the argument that if a person doesn't belong to a church they aren't allowed to criticize one. <br /><br />"Can't say as I really care."<br /><br />If you don't care, why pose the question in the first place?Nathanielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-24649220425100265032012-03-27T16:57:35.876-05:002012-03-27T16:57:35.876-05:00Rmj, can you suggest the best place to start in re...Rmj, can you suggest the best place to start in reading Niebuhr? Either his own writings or a good source that is an introduction to his writings. Thank you also for this thoughtful post.rustypickuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17861692872132066016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-21972155664245688372012-03-27T16:57:06.263-05:002012-03-27T16:57:06.263-05:00Rmj, can you suggest the best place to start in re...Rmj, can you suggest the best place to start in reading Niebuhr? Either his own writings or a good source that is an introduction to his writings. Thank you also for this thoughtful post.rustypickuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17861692872132066016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-31479552303722122712012-03-27T15:04:59.993-05:002012-03-27T15:04:59.993-05:00You tell me. Which is more important. What I did, ...<i>You tell me. Which is more important. What I did, or why I did it?</i><br /><br />The moral difference is not in your present behavior, but in your probable future behavior.<br /><br />Of course, you might easily be sexually attracted to a woman then gradually fall in love with her.Jaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-71543603213457272502012-03-27T14:03:25.077-05:002012-03-27T14:03:25.077-05:00You tell me. Which is more important. What I did, ...<i>You tell me. Which is more important. What I did, or why I did it?</i><br /><br />Can't say as I really care. I suppose if you subscribe to an ethical system that says one is bad, the other good, then you have your answer.<br /><br />How that system is based on materialism or empiricism is beyond me.<br /><br /><i>Oh wait, so you do think it holds merit in context of the quote.</i><br /><br />Yes, I do. Isn't that what I said?Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-32371067182483504532012-03-27T13:56:14.454-05:002012-03-27T13:56:14.454-05:00FYI, most "atheists" and "agnostics...FYI, most "atheists" and "agnostics" that I know are more properly "igtheists": we consider the word "god" so underdefined as to render atheism vs. agnosticism an impossible choice. <br /><br />More practically, either word will do, and we use either depending on how conciliatory we're feeling.Jaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-48863907182638391982012-03-27T12:35:01.234-05:002012-03-27T12:35:01.234-05:00"No. I just like it."
Jesus wept.
&qu..."No. I just like it."<br /><br />Jesus wept. <br /><br />"And it ties in with this quote:"<br /><br />Oh wait, so you do think it holds merit in context of the quote. <br /><br />"After all, which is more important? Why you do something? Or that you do something?"<br /><br />It depends. If I on a date with my girlfriend because I like spending time with her, that's one thing. If I do it because I desire sex with her and pretending to like her is the best way to get what I want, then that's another. <br /><br />You tell me. Which is more important. What I did, or why I did it?Nathanielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-23023589674048635582012-03-27T12:00:06.518-05:002012-03-27T12:00:06.518-05:00Are you seriously endorsing that as an argument?
...<i>Are you seriously endorsing that as an argument?</i><br /><br />No. I just like it. And it ties in with this quote:<br /><br /><i>The core of most religions is not doctrinal. In non-western traditions and even some strands of western monotheism, the spiritual life is not a matter of subscribing to a set of propositions. Its heart is in practice, in ritual, observance and (sometimes) mystical experience</i><br /><br />Actions speak louder than words. Which was ultimately the point (and critique) of the post.<br /><br />After all, which is more important? Why you do something? Or <i>that</i> you do something? The distinction matters in criminal law, I'll grant you; in charity, it is perhaps less significant.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-37782542901732091552012-03-27T11:38:35.522-05:002012-03-27T11:38:35.522-05:00"My church comforts the sick and the dying. M..."My church comforts the sick and the dying. My church feeds the hungry. What does your church do? Oh, that's right, you don't have a church!"<br /><br />Are you seriously endorsing that as an argument? My organization runs soup kitchens, therefore its statements and beliefs are immune to question? You don't belong to my soup kitchen running organization, therefore I don't have to listen to a word you say?<br /><br />It manages the feat of two logical fallacies in just four sentences. Ad Hominem and Non Sequitur. Wonderful.Nathanielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-37523990498522506382012-03-26T20:14:16.384-05:002012-03-26T20:14:16.384-05:00A conscious commitment to science and reason can h...<i>A conscious commitment to science and reason can help mitigate the problems a little bit or get you killed by an angry mob, depending on circumstances.</i><br /><br />There are several definitions of "sin," from various Jewish understandings, through various Christian understandings, down through various secular understandings.<br /><br />I think Hedges' primary concern is with limitations. One can approach limitations through logic (Godel's theorem of incompleteness) as well as through experience; through theology as well as through a mystical experience (Julian of Norwich's shewings discount the importance of sin to the point they are almost post-modern in their underpinnings). Hubris takes many forms, from that which the Greeks wrote plays and epics (and histories) about, through that which made Russell think he could define all knowledge on a mathematical basis (until Godel made that blow up in his face). So it really is "being fundamentally screwed by our own hopeless inadequacy." Or, at least, recognizing our inadequacies. Hedges would take that off to the dark corner of despair; the Greeks though it explained the inevitability of tragedy; I prefer to let it lead me to the soft light of humility.<br /><br />Any conscious commitment to any system, if it's a good system, can certainly mitigate some (but not all; Godel, again) problems. But it can get the mob to turn on you, depending on the mob's predilections and acceptance of your system. Ask any leader of any group.<br /><br />:-)Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-72039233936633177522012-03-26T18:22:24.497-05:002012-03-26T18:22:24.497-05:00As an atheist, I dislike the word "sin",...As an atheist, I dislike the word "sin", as it implies a judgemental God. On the other hand, I recognize that we are but a species of ape, just intelligent enough to be truly dangerous. Our reason and compassion rarely overcome our essential, tribal, primitive ape-ness. So what some call "original sin" I call "being fundamentally screwed by our own hopeless inadequacy". A conscious commitment to science and reason can help mitigate the problems a little bit or get you killed by an angry mob, depending on circumstances.Jaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-6236113771326499062012-03-26T14:29:55.140-05:002012-03-26T14:29:55.140-05:00From the link above, Richard Dawkins speaks:
Evid...From the link above, Richard Dawkins speaks:<br /><br /><i>Evidence is the only way we know to discover what’s true about the real world. Logic is how we deduce the consequences that follow from evidence. Who could be against either?</i><br /><br />Somebody want to give Dawkins a history of philosophy, with the chapters on Empiricism, Idealism, and Logical Positivism dogeared so he must might learn something? Oh, and then teach him the concept of "logic"?<br /><br />His definition strikes me as a bit sophomoric, to put it bluntly.<br /><br />I'm sure Dawkins is a fine biologist; but he's hopelessly out of his depth here.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-12626359687259840792012-03-26T12:58:33.695-05:002012-03-26T12:58:33.695-05:00What a gloriously long and challenging post with s...What a gloriously long and challenging post with so many points to consider. I will read it several more times. <br /><br />Pinker's recent shtick has got to be some of the most clueless narcissism in the alleged intellectual class, such as that is these days. It's amazing how much the fraudulent materialists among them get away with. Apropos of which, here's a blog duel I'm involved with over the dishonest PR operation that is organized atheism and "skepticism". <br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/03/richard-dawkins-defends-reason-rally.html<br /><br />I've entirely lost my faith that materialism, either when it is the ideology of a society or an individual person can originate, never mind maintain even civic decency. Unaided by metaphysics, it certainly is not a sufficient level of moral behavior. Even some prominent atheists say that, though not many who speak English, these days. <br /><br />"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk. " Jurgen HabermasThe Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.com