If all you guys are looking for is a circle jerk I'll gladly dip out. — Janus

So I guess all your talk about intersubjective agreement is just lip service after all. You said a really dumb thing and a bunch of people pointed out that it was dumb. That's a cue.

Totally irrelevant and a classic example of resorting to denigration when no argument can be found. — Janus

No, your statement was just categorically wrong, so I provided a similar statement to mirror yours, hoping to point that out, but you just got mad.

There are thousands of years of theological debate, consisting of hundreds of millions of pages. And then you say "there's just no way to rationally debate it."

I'm just saying maybe rethink your post, which is really not a major event. I'm truly not trying just to piss you off.

One cannot logically follow Book XII of the Metaphysics because it talks about God? Aquinas doesn't use arguments from common experience?

On this account, the picture below should be some sort of absurd joke Photoshop, not a scholarly publication...

Yep. Happy for folk to do theology if that's their thing, but theology is not philosophy. The other thread made the additional point that this is a philosophy forum, arguing that therefore theology was inappropriate. The powers that be, probably quite sensibly, apparently decided not to follow through - too hard, no doubt.

The result is that god is now everywhere.... :wink:

I blame ... And of course you are welcome to your views.

No, your statement was just categorically wrong, so I provided a similar statement to mirror yours, hoping to point that out, but you just got mad.

There are thousands of years of theological debate, consisting of hundreds of millions of pages. And then you say "there's just no way to rationally debate it."

I'm just saying maybe rethink your post, which is really not a major event. I'm truly not trying just to piss you off. — Hanover

I'm not at all pissed, just nonplussed by your apparently poor comprehension. You are either cherry-picking or not understanding what I have been writing.

I wouldn't suggest it is bullshit unless they argued that I should accept it. There seems to be no rational way to argue that when it comes to scripture. When it comes to Wittgenstein, we can assess whether what he describes about linguistic practices makes sense according to, is plausible in the light of, our own everyday experience, so that is quite a different matter. — Janus

I have been saying that there seems to be no rational way to argue that revelation should be accepted by any unbiased person as truth, I haven't anywhere said, or implied, that those who do accept it as truth cannot have rational arguments about what it means. And note the "seems"―I haven't encountered such an argument, so the invitation is for you to provide one if you can.

Yes, theology is not philosophy, and I think the best theologians admit that―acknowledge that theology is based on faith―it's just a matter of intellectual honesty in my view.

If someone has found meaning in John Smith's interpretation of gold plates stumbled upon supposedly in the Adirondack for example, and he has full buy in to all that due to his upbringing, why would I suggest it's bullshit? That i don't get. — Hanover

This is where I fall into an in-between -- I reject it because I was brought up to believe in it, and yet I don't reject my folks belief. I don't care if they find comfort in it, but I do care that they feel discomfort in my lack of belief. (And "lack of belief" in mormanism indicates various rituals and such -- it's not just what you say at times, but a communal religion, for better or worse)

What that has to do with the OP? I'm not sure cuz it was only your mention of my origins that spurred me on to post.

I was going to say, "If you can't argue about religion, then Moliere must still be a Mormon." :razz:

This is where I fall into an in-between -- I reject it because I was brought up to believe in it, and yet I don't reject my folks belief. I don't care if they find comfort in it, but I do care that they feel discomfort in my lack of belief. — Moliere

So do you pretend to believe when you are with your family? I'm trying to understand what you mean by falling into an in-between.

Mormonism is a good example. I don't think the Mormon god exists (and I don't think Mormons worship the God of Nicene Christianity). But that doesn't mean Mormon theology falls short of philosophy, nor does it mean that Mormons are irrational. I don't think the Mormon claims are credible, but I don't make my assessment the standard for what counts as rational. Granted, I do think Mormonism is irrational, but I don't think all religions that I disagree with are irrational.

It actually seems to me that a lot of people nowadays are determined to have an opinion on things they do not at all understand. This happens with the anti-religious, but another example comes from the interreligious scholar Francis Clooney who has pointed out that all of the young people are convinced that every religion is equal despite knowing nothing at all about any of the religions.

So do you pretend to believe when you are with your family? I'm trying to understand what you mean by falling into an in-between. — Leontiskos

O no. My fam knows.

"In-between" in the sense that my folks believe, and I see how my beliefs are tied to that tradition -- it's not like I was born out of nothing -- but I can criticize these beliefs even though they give meaning to people I care about.

"In-between" may not be the best expression. I mostly was inspired to respond because it's easy for me to speak to a person who believes in the supposed golden plates :D

I have been saying that there seems to be no rational way to argue that revelation should be accepted as truth — Janus

Then how is it that so many people convert and de-convert, in large part on the basis of argument?

You have a tendency to ignore basic questions like this:

Assuming the events of Exodus happened as recorded, would the Hebrews, who saw the sea split for them, the sky raining blood, a pillar of fire following them every night, water come from a stone, etc. still lack any epistemic warrant for believing God exists? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or if someone saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead after four days in the tomb, would they have epistemic warrant for a religious conclusion?

The weird thing in these cases is that the atheist has made their atheism unfalsifiable. They don't seem to even recognize the possibility of counterfactual falsifications. If one's atheism is not to be unfalsifiable then they must be able to say, "Well, I guess if thus-and-such happened then I would be rationally compelled to question my atheism."

O no. My fam knows. — Moliere

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I totally thought of this bit from John Mulaney. :grin:

but I can criticize these beliefs even though they give meaning to people I care about. — Moliere

So do you criticize your parents' beliefs? Mormonism is very interesting given its wholecloth nature, as you point out.

Then how is it that so many people convert and de-convert, in large part on the basis of argument?

You have a tendency to ignore basic questions like this:

Assuming the events of Exodus happened as recorded, would the Hebrews, who saw the sea split for them, the sky raining blood, a pillar of fire following them every night, water come from a stone, etc. still lack any epistemic warrant for believing God exists?
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Or if someone saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead after four days in the tomb, would they have epistemic warrant for a religious conclusion? — Leontiskos

I didn't answer that because it is irrelevant to us. Given it is plausible that some of the ordinary historical events detailed in the bible did happen, what evidence is there that the extraordinary events purported to have happened did happen?

In other words what evidence do we have today to justify belief that those events really occurred? I think the more plausible explanation for those accounts is the well-known tendency of people to exaggerate and myth-make about their heroes. Also when you consider the bible was not written by eye-witnesses anyway...

Have you ever seen an event so extraordinary as someone rising from the dead, walking on water, healing the blind with a touch or turning water into wine? So why bring such unbelievable events up in the context of today?

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I totally thought of this bit from John Mulaney. :grin: — Leontiskos

LMAO at the bit. First time hearing it, and I got a good gut laugh out of it.

So do you criticize your parents' beliefs? Mormonism is very interesting given its wholecloth nature, as you point out. — Leontiskos

Naw.

No point in doing so when they live out their beliefs, I think. They are genuine believers and good people -- I know it's false, but what does that matter?

I blame ↪Hanover... And of course you are welcome to your views. — Banno

Very well, but for someone so averse to conversations of God, you're omnipresent in these threads.

I, for one, have never begun such a thread, but I'd like to think I keep them balanced, since theism does not entail reliance upon any particular written document, any particular hermeneutic, or actually any scripture at all.

The question is whether they would have warrant, not us. Would they?

...for someone so averse to conversations of God — Hanover

Yes, here I am! I'm not at all averse to such conversations!

It shouldn't be this hard. That objection is not to talk about god, but to talk that takes some particular holy book as authoritative. to blatant appeals to authority. As explained, I'm not so keen on such theological meanderings, to what may have began here:

The question is whether they would have warrant, not us. Would they? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It would depend on whether there was another, better explanation for what they witnessed. Even scientific theories are not proven, and it seems that we have warrant only to believe they are the best we have at the moment, given that they have been superseded in the past.

In any case, I don't think that is the relevant question, because we are here discussing what we have warrant to believe, not what people 2,000 years ago may or may not have had warrant to believe. The question for us is also whether or not we have warrant to believe that they witnessed what it is written that they did.

but to talk that takes some particular holy book as authoritative. — Banno

Would you consider other ancient literature as non-authoritative? What makes literature authoritative for you?

LMAO at the bit. First time hearing it, and I got a good gut laugh out of it. — Moliere

Nice. That performance is one of my favorites of his. :lol:

No point in doing so when they live out their beliefs, I think. They are genuine believers and good people -- I know it's false, but what does that matter? — Moliere

I've noticed that most former Mormons approach it this way, and I think it's because in Mormonism you get a stark divergence of goodness and truth. I.e. Good religion, false beliefs.

The reason many people try to oppose falsehoods in those they love is because they believe that truth and goodness (or fulfillment) go together.

(Incidentally, such a motive (love) tends to rectify the question-begging nature of some approaches to argument. If you really want someone to think otherwise then you try to give them a good reason to do so. But I digress...)

Were I writing in opposition to myself here, I might be pointing out that faith is one amongst at least a trinity, and that when set in the context of hope and love it shines, and my arguments fall away.

But it would remain that faith by itself can be a source of evil. — Banno

Martin Luther considered removing the book of James from the New Testament, based in large part on passages such as this which went against the grain of his "sola fide":

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. — James 2:14-19 (RSV)

Again, yes. We ought not proceed from "The bible says it's so" to "It is so".

Hence, see ; I like my post better because it is not dependent on an the authority of James 2:14.

according to Boethius, proofs derived from authority are the weakest — Aquinas, ST I.1.8.obi1 - Does sacred doctrine make use of arguments?

Who says Aquinas never jests? :wink:

Religious argument and religious interaction is the most interesting kind. This is because religion is primordially identical to culture. Before the pluralism of secular states there was no difference at all. Religio-cultural encounter is the most interesting kind because it involves the interaction of totalizing forms. Chinese Confucianism meets European Christianity meets Indian Hinduism. That sort of thing is the epitome of human encounter, precisely because you have such maximally full and developed expressions of human life coming into contact with one another.

And I'm sorry, but if you think religion or culture or sacred texts are not amenable to argument and rational interpenetration, then your ignorance of history is massive. On a quantitative scale that sort of argument dwarfs all other kinds. — Leontiskos

Interesting because believers typically lament the enlightenment and the so called death of God.

And sacred text are eminently amenable to reinterpretation, unfortunately.

And sacred text are eminently amenable to reinterpretation, unfortunately. — praxis

Unlike Plato, or Sextus Empiricus, or Aquinas, or Descartes, or Kant, or Wittgenstein, or Heidegger, or Adorno? Plurivocity is the sign of a rich text.

Plurivocity is the sign of a rich text. — Leontiskos

That can be used for a variety of purposes. Shouldn’t there be just one purpose though?

That can be used for a variety of purposes. Shouldn’t there be just one purpose though? — praxis

Unity in plurality, like Tallis' polyphony, is the Christian watermark.

Lol, the hallmark of all religions is the expulsion of dissonant voices.

Lol, the hallmark of all religions is the expulsion of dissonant voices. — praxis

A good thread for you: The Myopia of Liberalism

Martin Luther considered removing the book of James from the New Testament, based in large part on passages such as this which went against the grain of his "sola fide": — Leontiskos

I have a certain degree of sympathy for Luther's ideas. If one's Christianity consists primarily in going around and doing good deeds to elevate one's spiritual status, why not just be a Jew (or a Muslim?) Why the need for Jesus? You have your deeds.

Not a good man, but a man who delineated firmly between religious traditions to attempt to reform and preserve his own. A sharp mind.

I read Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen not too long ago. What’s your point?

Lol, the hallmark of all religions is the expulsion of dissonant voices. — praxis

Well, perhaps, but there's two sides to every story. What you consider as a "hallmark" is merely a natural consequential side effect of ensuring truth is all that the vulnerable can be exposed to. This is a staple of what human societies consider a non-negotiable right as far as raising children or taking care of those who are (perhaps yet) unable to care for themselves. So, one might argue, it depends on what you wish to focus on and what you want to believe is the cause vs. the effect. Specifically, one would argue, what one wishes to hang themselves up on and ignore the full chain of purpose, intent, and final outcome.

I would agree, that is certainly a hallmark. But a larger more prominent and universal theme, that would perhaps be considered by those religious or not to be "the" hallmark, is the idea that there is more to one's existence than what is confined between one's first and last breath in one's physical form. That, my strategic and skillful friend, is the "point", per se.

You still owe me a rematch one of these days, by the way. :grin: