How is that relevant to our discussion? Do you see how your depiction of Christianity was a straw man? That's all I was attempting to argue here. — Bob Ross

Thanks for taking the time. :up:

Part of the reason is that they have been taught that belief is of greater import that consistency. — Banno

Maybe they're right? Social stability is a life-and-death issue. Having a logical story isn't (unless it is.)
..

Extended empirical observation of Jenny's behaviour within the community in which she participates. Watching her pet the cat, buy cat food, chastise someone for not chasing the cat off the mat. A Bayesian analysis of behavioural patterns, perhaps, although we don't usually need to go so far in order to recognise patterns in the behaviour of others.

The interpreter assumes that Jenny and the others in her community have much the same beliefs as the interpreter - that there are cats, bowls, mats, and so on to talk about. — Banno

I went a few steps down the rabbit hole of determining what role Davidson meant attribution of intentions to play in radical interpretation. I think the answer is that he left it unclear what evidence suffices for interpretation. This lack of clarity echoes his overall view of intention. He apparently travelled through a reductionist phase, eventually landing in acceptance of intentions due to the problem of thwarted efforts.

An example would be, say Pedro has decided to climb Mt Everest. Along the way, he got lost, ran out of O2 and died. A reductionist view would say we should conclude that Pedro intended to get lost and die. That's absurd, though. We all know he intended to make it to the top. He held that intention, but just didn't quite make it. Intentions do not reduce to actions.

So what would the older Davidson, the one who decided that we can't be reductionist about intentions, say about how they figure in radical interpretations? I don't know.

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are. — MoK

The Holy Spirit is the same thing as the World Soul. It's from Platonic and Stoic philosophy. Probably closer to being what we would call natural law than spacetime.

Shouldn't Jesus and the Holy Spirit have different definitions? — MoK

They're different persons. They're the same God.

Are you fully and completely equating Jesus and God and saying God sacrificed himself? Maybe I'm not following what you're saying. — Hanover

The Trinity is mysterious. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not like portions of one pie. Each one is the whole pie in terms of Godhood, power, and authority. Each one is fully God. This doctrine is borrowed from Neoplatonism. I think the problem sketched by the OP is coming from the fact that Christianity is the fusion of several distinct cultural outlooks. In this one area, it's more of a collision than a fusion. The idea of the Covenant (debt), divine retribution (the Penal substitution theory), and mystical Neoplatonism give us a myth that is inexplicable.

The Second Council of Constantinople of 553, also known as the 5th Ecumenical Council, captures it well:

“If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have one nature (phusis, natura) or substance (ousia, substantia), that they have one power (dunamis, virtus) and one authority (exousian, potestas), that there is a consubstantial (homoousios, consubstantialis) Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three hypostases (hupostaseis, subsistentiae) or persons (prosopa, personae): let him be anathema. For there is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit, in whom all things are.“13 — here

Interesting, thanks! This is how Calvinists view it:

The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty due, according to God the Father's wrath for humanity's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin. — Wikipedia

The reason they give for the fact that very few humans were actually saved from God's wrath is that you have to identify with Jesus in order to be saved. That identification allows you to partake of Jesus' punishment and thereby, be freed of original sin.

The issue regarding the fact that Jesus didn't stay dead is dealt with by saying his resurrection is about "renewal and restoration of righteousness."

The idea of vicarious atonement flows from Judaism. Isaiah 53:4–6, 10, 11 refers to the "suffering servant":

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities." — Wikipedia

So this is the concept of a scapegoat. Scapegoating doesn't mean much intellectually, but at a deeper level, it fills a need. But Christianity turns this on its head by emphasizing that the scapegoat was innocent, and then going through his execution blow by blow: the crown of thorns, the nails in the hands and feet, the spear through the abdomen, the final scream before asking God, "Why have you forsaken me?"

This isn't how scapegoating is supposed to work. Do we still do scapegoating?

2 Corinthians 5:21—"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (RSV)

All in all, I think I would accept the Penal substitution theory except for the part where God gives himself for the redemption of mankind. That was supposed to be God on the cross. God is the one who was demanding punishment for original sin (which was basically a matter of eating fruit from a particular tree.)

There is no third party. It's just God and humanity. Next: criticisms.

:up:

Yes. For example, in this case, you could take the money from a volunteer who is wealthy enough to pay the debt for this person and thereby absolve them of their debt when they don't deserve i

Do you believe that Jesus is God?

can understand your cinicism coming from a country where religion is such a dividing line. I’m in a country where religion is barely mentioned, plays almost no role in life. Most people are atheist, or just ambivalent and you wouldn’t know the difference between them unless you specifically asked. — Punshhh

I'm not cynical. :grin: I just put in the op in energetic terms.

But with a kernel of truth underlying it. This was about the moral and ethical struggles involved in the birth of civilisation. — Punshhh

I'm interested in the idea of underlying truth, especially when attempts to express that truth result in a convoluted story.

Rome was the cradle of Christianity and it was dying, not emerging. The old Roman religion still existed, but it had become dry and hollow, much as you describe your country's religious climate.

Jenny says "the cat is on the mat"

Jenny often uses "the cat" to talk about Jack — Banno

As you will recall, Davidson focuses on a situation where you don't know the language Jenny is speaking. You don't recognize any of the words. All you get is behavior and the assumption that she believes the same things you do.

So how did you gather that Jenny uses "the cat" to talk about Jack? What behavior did you observe that caused you to conclude this?

We can indeed use a presumption that the speaker's beliefs are much the same as our own in order to interpret their utterances — Banno

How would that work? Could you give an example?

intent is a necessary component in Davidson's triangulation theory.
— Hanover
It explicitly isn't.

We can attribute an intent to someone only after we have understood what they are saying. Understanding their utterances is prior to attributing an intent. Understanding their utterances is not dependent on attributing an intent. — Banno

Charity is basically about attributing intent to the speaker.

If we assume that the speaker’s beliefs, at least in the simplest and most basic cases, are largely in agreement with our own, and so, by our account, are largely true, then we can use our own beliefs about the world as a guide to the speaker’s beliefs. — SEP

We're looking for the speaker's beliefs in order to understand the speaker's intentions.

God sent His Son out of love so that He can be both just and merciful. God is not wrathful: I don’t know why the OT describes Him that way, but the NT makes it clear He is not. — Bob Ross

What would you say the sacrifice of Jesus was meant to accomplish?

Why do you have such hostility for Christianity? — Bob Ross

If Christianity was just the core message of Jesus, I would say I love Christianity. The doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice just doesn't make any sense.

:up: The world is a weird place.

I wouldn't expect the typical believer to be that concerned with thinking things through to this extend. — ChatteringMonkey

A long string of educated men apparently believed it.

It wasn't weird at the time, Christianity took from common tropes. Maybe it is now and that's part of the reason it doesn't work as well. — ChatteringMonkey

I think it's weirder than you're giving it credit for. John 3:16 is alluding to Abraham and Isaac, with God the Father as Abraham and Jesus as Isaac. That was not a common trope in the Roman world where Christianity took shape. There might have been knowledge of child sacrifice that took place in Carthage centuries earlier, but it would have been contemplated with dread, not devotion.

The twist is that in the Christian myth, Abraham and Isaac turn out to be the same entity. They're two aspects of one God. So at best, the story is horrifying, at worst, it just makes zero sense.

What myth is even close to that bizarre?

I asked for a reason why such a thing is right from God. John 3:16 states what I asked: Whether Jesus' Sacrifice was necessary. I also asked what the difference is between the Gods of the Old and New Testaments. — MoK

The OP is asking about the lack of logic in the core Christian doctrine. I don't think it makes sense, but it's survived for about 1800 years. How does a story that makes no sense survive that long?

Is there a reason mentioned in the scripture for this torture? — MoK

John 3:16 states the doctrine of the Propitiatory Sacrifice. The torturing part probably comes from the way the Romans executed people. Kierkegaard talks about what it was like as a child to contemplate an innocent person being executed in that way.

One common theme in religion going back as far as we know, is sacrifice to appease the Gods. It used to be human sacrifice because the blood of humans was thought to be more powerful for that purpose. Gradually that changed to animals and such, but you had to sacrifice more and more to get the same result because the blood of animals is less potent... If you sacrifice the literal son of God, well now we are talking some real sacrificial value. — ChatteringMonkey

I wonder if swallowing the cognitive dissonance could be taken as a personal sacrifice. Christianity is really gruesome and then the Holy Communion is supposed to give you some of Jesus' blood and flesh to eat, just in case the whole thing wasn't weird enough up to that point.

That there are some holes in the story matters less than the motivational boxes it ticks. — ChatteringMonkey

So this is my question: is it more that a bizarre narrative (whether Christian or Q-anon, or whatever) is a expression of something deeper in the community? Or is it something that's warping the consciousness of the community? Or both?

How does a person who expects a respectful exchange of information ask a question like this? — Fire Ologist

I just typed it in and pushed the button.

My high school Jesuit teachers had advised me to pray for the Grace to accept (without comprehending) the sacred Mysteries — 180 Proof

Did you ever try to accept it without understanding it?

Are you saying that God could not forgive our sins until Jesus' sacrifice was made!? — MoK

Apparently so.

Tzeentch finally discovered QAnon

But assumption of intent is demanded, else it would be a simple conventionalism. — Hanover

Right. As with the computer generated poem, realizing there's no intent undermines meaningfulness.

I think it's a hard argument to make that ChatGPT is just an arranging finite elements into finite sentences. It appears to compose, to concatenate. — Hanover

I agree. I think it's crunching data that's made out of intentional human content.

This ties into Davidson"s resistance to convention being the primary driver of meaning. Intent of the speaker is demanded, — Hanover

He's saying that the expectation of intent goes into calculating meaning. He's not saying the listener actually knows the speakers intent. @Pierre-Normand do you agree with that?

The way a lack of intent affects meaning can be seen by imagining that you see a handwritten note with poem written on it, stuck on a wall in a bar. You ponder the meaning of the poem, but then someone tells you it was computer generated. That's when you realize you have a reflexive tendency to assume intent when you see or hear language. You may experience cognitive dissonance because the poem had a profound meaning to it, all of which was coming from you.

The problem with using ChatGPT is that it's processing statements that were intentional. It's not just randomly putting words together.

Lewis' ideas are Quine-approved, especially the arbitrariness of conventions. I don't know how he dealt with malapropisms.

Lewis' definition of a convention is like this:

Lewis analyzes convention as an arbitrary, self-perpetuating solution to a recurring coordination problem. It is self-perpetuating because no one has reason to deviate from it, given that others conform. For example, if everyone else drives on the right, I have reason to as well, since otherwise I will cause a collision. Lewis’s analysis runs as follows (1969, p. 76):

A regularity R in the behavior of members of a population P then they are agents in a recurrent situation S is a convention if and only if it is true that, and it is common knowledge in that, in any instance of S among members of P,

(1) everyone conforms to R;

(2) everyone expects everyone else to conform to R;

(3) everyone has approximately the same preferences regarding all possible combinations of actions;

(4) everyone prefers that everyone conform to R, on condition that at least all but one conform to R;

(5) everyone would prefer that everyone conform to R′, on condition that at least all but one conform to R′,where R′ is some possible regularity in the behavior of members of P in S, such that no one in any instance of S among members of P could conform both to R′ and to R. — SEP

Is that what you had in mind? Or were you thinking of convention as being the same as a dictionary?

How could we tell the difference between being causal, and simply identifying with something causal?
— frank
Sorry. I'm not sure I understand your question, so my response might be a non sequitur. is this something along the lines of, as I said above, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make? — Patterner

Maybe? Is there some right answer to what you should identify with? I'm sure most people have the experience of witnessing a thunderstorm and feeling a kind of empathy with the forces swirling around above. Or watching the sunset. Maybe that isn't a kind of neurosis, but rather awareness of a deeper kinship to the universe around us. We can feel it, so why not identify with it?

I believe otherwise. I think consciousness is casual. — Patterner

How could we tell the difference between being causal, and simply identifying with something causal?

What type of action did you have in mind? I was thinking predication. The pointing of a predicate at a thing. By means of a conventional agreement that the predicate term gets pointed by the sentence at the object identified by the subject term — bongo fury

Just by way of guessing at what you're saying (I guess I'm intrigued :razz: ), language use is something humans do in space and time. Like music or the weather, there are detectable patterns.

Say we're analyzing the weather, and we notice low pressure zones. We pick that idea out, pull it out of ever evolving movements of air and water, and the next thing you know, we have fluid dynamics where we're talking about low pressure zones as if they're things separate from what's going on in space in time. Suppose we get so used to speaking about fluid dynamics, that we forget that it's all motion, and we start to wonder how a low pressure zone, the abstract object, fits into the weather (the physical thing.)

The problem here is just forgetting that we started by analyzing the weather, which means pulling it apart into objects that we lay out on a table. I don't think the answer is to insist that a low pressure zone is not an abstract object, because it is. The solution is to remember that it's the product of analysis.

In the game of language, yes. — bongo fury

You're being a little too mysterious for me to follow. I have no idea what you're saying.

Are you saying that a sentence is actually a type of action?

I don't follow. What is it that's being reified?

Oh, I guess I was asking bongo. :grin:

Should that question be directed at — Banno

Well, I was asking what you think.

That the score and a performance can't be identical is shown by the fact that we can have many performances of the same score. What's being reified?

The important point to me is that we don't treat "proposition" and "assertion" as if they have prior meanings that we discover, or that an ideal logical language would reveal as necessary. — J

I agree.

Even something like "P = P is true" starts to look bizarre once you let go of the standard accounts of P. If P is true, and is the same thing as P, doesn't that mean that P is a bit of language? — J

We could agree that "P" is an assertion from someone. The quotes indicate that? Does that work?

I assure you, my mind is completely unfurnished.
— Ludwig V
As is mine. — Banno

I have a replica of Versailles in mine. You're missing out.

Why do you refuse to defend your own position? I outlined mine clearly: can you do the same? — Bob Ross

Bob, "Neoplatonism" is a word invented by academics to categorize a specific set of ideas, typified by Plotinus. People don't debate the meaning of the term.

I directed you to the Wikipedia article on it. Read it.

Aristotle wasn't a Neoplatonist because he wasn't alive when Neoplatonism came into existence. There's nothing contentious about that. Anyone who knows the definition of Neoplatonist knows it. — frank

Why Russia will continue to stagnate economically, continue to be militarized with low tech equipment, and become more isolated from the world: