From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 14:34:48 EST
Probably the reason why Jim has had trouble following the reasoning
of some recent posts in this thread, including mine, is that a basic
aspect has remained implicit, namely what is the point of the post.
The questions about how one justifies a preference for truth, etc.
are not intended as defenses of Christianity but rather as an attack
on the inadequacies of agnosticism.
Thus, I am not saying that anyone should profess Christianity while
believing it to be false. Rather, I am saying that agnosticism gives
no basis for truth.
>>You may set truthfulness as your own personal standard, but on
>>what basis do you expect other to follow suit?
>There are natural consequences to lying - people don't trust you, for one.<
Flattery is often more effective than truth for winning people's confidence.
>We each decide what kind of person we are going to be.<
Do you really have no objection if your neighbor decides he wants to
be a psychopath?
>>I did not say you did not have the right. I said you did not have
>>the logical justification. What is truth? Why does it matter
>>whether you stick to it?<<
>You're not getting it, David. I have every right to expect a
>religion to be true before following it. This is just common sense.
><
What gives you this right? Is common sense really sensible? I do
not argue that it is not reasonable to expect truth, but rather my
point is that you claim to have a right without any substantiation of
this claim.
This also suggests that you would object to someone who decided that
the kind of person he wanted to be was someone who tried to force
people to profess a particular religion, in contradiction to your
statement above.
>>However, in criticizing Christianity as untruthful you are trying
>>to retain the moral standards of Christianity without the
>>justification of those standards.<<
>Huh? Criticism is how we distinguish between truth and error, and
>decide which path to choose. I will ALWAYS follow the path that I
>believe to be true. I don't see why this not getting through.<
Because you show no sign of having examined the truth of your current
position. If you believe Christianity to be untrue, you should not
follow it, but you need to find a better alternative. You claim that
agnosticism avoids the errors of Christianity, but so do innumerable
other views. What positive implications does agnosticism have? The
argument that agnosticism is better because it is not Christianity
holds no more water than the YEC claim that, because he thinks he has
found an error in conventional scientific views, therefore YEC must
be true.
Furthermore, how do you know that your beliefs about what is true
have any merit? Why do you trust in them?
>>Without a guarantor of objective reality and our ability to
>>perceive it (at least partially), there really is no firm basis for
>>making statements about truth.<<
>Huh? We just use our brains. <
On what basis do you think using your brain will lead to the truth?
On what basis do you think brains exist? Is there an objective
reality? How do you know? How do you know if you can meaningfully
interpret said reality?
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:08:28 -0000
>David writes (slightly re-ordered, with Blake's comments at the end
>of David's)
>
>>You may set truthfulness as your own personal standard, but on
>>what basis do you expect other to follow suit?
>
>There are natural consequences to lying - people don't trust you,
>for one. We each decide what kind of person we are going to be.
>
>>I did not say you did not have the right. I said you did not have
>>the logical justification. What is truth? Why does it matter
>>whether you stick to it?
>
>You're not getting it, David. I have every right to expect
>a religion to be true before following it. This is just common
>sense.
>
>>Christianity claims to be true, and so
>>serious errors (as opposed to copying errors, figurative or everyday
>>language, etc.) in the Bible would indeed be an internal problem for
>>it.
>
>Christianity is an outdated (obviously, IMO) way of describing the
>world, with miracles made up to create a compelling story. It has
>grave errors, which is why it is losing it's influence.
>
>>However, in criticizing Christianity as untruthful you are
>>trying to retain the moral standards of Christianity without the
>>justification of those standards.
>
>Huh? Criticism is how we distinguish between truth and error, and
>decide which path to choose. I will ALWAYS follow the path that I
>believe to be true. I don't see why this not getting through.
>
>Blake writes
>
>>Without a guarantor of objective reality and
>>our ability to perceive it (at least partially), there
>>really is no firm basis for making statements about
>>truth.
>
>Huh? We just use our brains. Typically, people who are involved
>in a list like this will learn and grow. People who isolate
>themselves wither away, mentally and physically (essentially, they
>give up on life or a part of life - not saying that's a bad thing,
>per se, some people can only handle so much).
>
>Jim Eisele
>Genesis in Question
>http://genesisinquestion.org
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 21:05:40 EST