6 ms·

These types of arguments on whether something is or isn't Christian or so prevalent on my FB feed, especially in regards to current politics, even being posted

These types of arguments on whether something is or isn't Christian or so prevalent on my FB feed, especially in regards to current politics, even being posted by non-Christians trying to convince their Christian relatives and friends to renounce a policy or politician. My take would be - this is arguing within a nonsensical framework, and we are prolonging the hopefully last stages of the superstitious demon-haunted world era of humanity.

bobbington 9y ago
Some of the greatest minds of all time have believed Christianity to be the only framework that works in the world. The materialistic worldview, on the other hand is pitifully inadequate and utterly unable to explain the most basic element of our reality - the existence of our consciousness. While we can point to neurons firing in the brain, there is no materialistic explanation for how that translates into my experience of reality. You could make the greatest AI in the whole universe. So realistic that it screams in terror and begs you for mercy if you threaten to pull the power cord or wipe its hard drive. However it would only ever be artificial intelligence. No one would ever be considered a murderer for destroying their ai machine. The reason is because while it seems perfectly realistic, there is no conscious agent in it. It is all artificial, that is, fake. There are gaping holes in materialistic theory, this being one of the most obvious. Of course Christianity accounts for the existence of a supernatural world, which your spirit is part of. Don't call Christianity nonsensical, because it makes a lot of sense where other theories fail. Sure there are many difficult questions. However materialism cannot offer an explanation for how my experience of reality, which is not material, exists. So at minimum, in comparison to alternatives, it is actually pretty good.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Vouched so I can point out that yours is an obsolete line of argument; consciousness can be suspended, yet the organism retain intelligent function, by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Certain lesions and traumas can produce the same or a similar effect, but permanently - Cotard's delusion, for example, in which that part of the mind which calls itself "I" becomes unshakably convinced that it is dead, and assumes the body must be also because it cannot conceive of any distinction between the two. The materialist explanation of conscious experience, then, is quite straightforwardly that it is an epiphenomenon of some kinds of brains but not others, and thus in no way suggests or implies there's any sort of mystical business going on. I can't recommend attempting to argue against materialism per se; systems of faith are so strongly and intimately cherished that this is as much an attack as is the attempt to argue you (or me) out of Christianity. The idea is rather to believe what we believe, have the other guy believe what he believes, and manage to get along nonetheless. Our errant brothers and sisters in the "progressive" heresy have largely lost sight of this. We need not live down to their example, and we must not lose sight of the fact that they are our brothers and sisters, who have merely lost their way. Anger and opposition are easy - are we here to do easy things?
  - ericd 9y ago
    All else being equal, it'd be nice if we were all on the same page so that we could get past extremely fundamental arguments such as "should we teach our children science in school, or theology". Because one of those is useful in making our citizens and country competitive on the world scene, and the other is useful in decreasing our reputation on the world scene. Otherwise, yeah, I don't give a hoot what you want to believe, that's your right. Just don't impose on the rest of us.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      The Scopes monkey trial was quite a long time ago indeed. If a peaceful modus vivendi were the goal, one might reasonably imagine that enforcement efforts, whether legal, judicial, or cultural, would end when teaching the theory and evidence of human evolution ceased to be illegal. The attempt to dictate that that, and nothing else, be permissible - utterly without regard, in this nation of better than a quarter billion people, for anything so completely irrelevant to the question as whatever local opinion on the matter may happen to be - seems, if nothing else, curiously at odds with the ubiquitous contention that those who persist in the attempt wish merely that "live and let live" be the whole of the law. That said, before I conclude here, I feel it incumbent upon me to note my appreciation for your having chosen to engage with my prior comment, rather than merely downvote it and move on. I can hardly but acknowledge that the substance of that comment is not merely heterodox in the extreme, but very likely to get right up a lot of people's noses. Such commentary invites downvotes, and those who engage in it have no excuse to find this upsetting - but I do always find it preferable when someone instead takes the time to engage, and I thank you very kindly for so doing.
      - ericd 9y ago
        Sure thing, thanks for responding civilly. The thing with what you seem to be saying (that the science camp is trying to drive religion out of schools despite their supposed adherence to "live and let live") is that public schools are a state institution, and separation of church and state is also incredibly important. You're perfectly free to set up religious schools (which exist), and also to home school your children (also common for the religious). What's explicitly not OK is trying to foist your specific religion in an institution paid for by public money. That's the entire distinction. Past that, "live and let live" is indeed the order of the day. But then, I suppose you may view science as another religion, and I guess that's probably going to be a sticking point. I view it as mostly orthogonal except for the creationist stuff that has mountains of evidence against it, and requires rather convoluted reasoning about God putting the evidence there as a test of faith (my understanding of the reasoning, anyway)
- Retra 9y ago
  You are mistaken. Materialism does offer a clean and consistent explanation of your experience of reality.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    What point in a response which merely says "you're wrong"? I believe I covered the substance of the matter adequately in my own prior comment, sibling to yours; I must confess I fail to see what worthwhile contribution to the discussion you intend to make here. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate?
- rimliu 9y ago
  Even when ignoring the weird claim about materialism unable to explain consciousness, what makes you think that Christianity is the answer and not some other non-materialist view?
throwanem 9y ago
You seem very secure in the belief that, once the "demons" of which you speak are gone, naught but pure cool reason will replace them. One can only assume such optimism stems from a complete ignorance of history.
- Retra 9y ago
  One can be secure in the belief that a battle is worth fighting, even if nobody has ever one one before. Our future is not determined only by our history.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Whence came you by this remarkable idea that the battle against religion has never been won before? - not permanently, to be sure, but nothing else ever ends, and why should this? I find little in the results of past such victories to recommend the conflict be reopened. Should you care to take the time, I'd be interested to hear what leads you to view the matter so differently.
    - Retra 9y ago
      I didn't say it hasn't been won before, only that it doesn't matter whether or not it has. Anyway, what leads me to view the matter differently is that I do not simply look to the past to inform me of what will be effective tomorrow. I also look to the potential that flourishes in microcosms of today. And to the increasing efficacy of our culture's ability to promote and propagate the valuable ideas of individuals and small groups. How we communicate today distinctly different than in the past, and it opens some doors in a big way. And it is far too soon to say whether this is a good or bad thing, so we may as well do what we can to ensure it is a good thing. You might believe war doesn't ever change, but it can change quite quickly when a new weapon is developed. More importantly, even if the victory is temporary, the results of a temporary enlightenment can guide the development of society for ages after the war has been lost. Greek democracy failed, but still lessons where learned. Enlightenments wane, but the world is a brighter place even so.

bobbington 9y ago

Some of the greatest minds of all time have believed Christianity to be the only framework that works in the world. The materialistic worldview, on the other hand is pitifully inadequate and utterly unable to explain the most basic element of our reality - the existence of our consciousness. While we can point to neurons firing in the brain, there is no materialistic explanation for how that translates into my experience of reality. You could make the greatest AI in the whole universe. So realistic that it screams in terror and begs you for mercy if you threaten to pull the power cord or wipe its hard drive. However it would only ever be artificial intelligence. No one would ever be considered a murderer for destroying their ai machine. The reason is because while it seems perfectly realistic, there is no conscious agent in it. It is all artificial, that is, fake. There are gaping holes in materialistic theory, this being one of the most obvious. Of course Christianity accounts for the existence of a supernatural world, which your spirit is part of. Don't call Christianity nonsensical, because it makes a lot of sense where other theories fail. Sure there are many difficult questions. However materialism cannot offer an explanation for how my experience of reality, which is not material, exists. So at minimum, in comparison to alternatives, it is actually pretty good.

throwanem 9y ago
Vouched so I can point out that yours is an obsolete line of argument; consciousness can be suspended, yet the organism retain intelligent function, by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Certain lesions and traumas can produce the same or a similar effect, but permanently - Cotard's delusion, for example, in which that part of the mind which calls itself "I" becomes unshakably convinced that it is dead, and assumes the body must be also because it cannot conceive of any distinction between the two. The materialist explanation of conscious experience, then, is quite straightforwardly that it is an epiphenomenon of some kinds of brains but not others, and thus in no way suggests or implies there's any sort of mystical business going on. I can't recommend attempting to argue against materialism per se; systems of faith are so strongly and intimately cherished that this is as much an attack as is the attempt to argue you (or me) out of Christianity. The idea is rather to believe what we believe, have the other guy believe what he believes, and manage to get along nonetheless. Our errant brothers and sisters in the "progressive" heresy have largely lost sight of this. We need not live down to their example, and we must not lose sight of the fact that they are our brothers and sisters, who have merely lost their way. Anger and opposition are easy - are we here to do easy things?
- ericd 9y ago
  All else being equal, it'd be nice if we were all on the same page so that we could get past extremely fundamental arguments such as "should we teach our children science in school, or theology". Because one of those is useful in making our citizens and country competitive on the world scene, and the other is useful in decreasing our reputation on the world scene. Otherwise, yeah, I don't give a hoot what you want to believe, that's your right. Just don't impose on the rest of us.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    The Scopes monkey trial was quite a long time ago indeed. If a peaceful modus vivendi were the goal, one might reasonably imagine that enforcement efforts, whether legal, judicial, or cultural, would end when teaching the theory and evidence of human evolution ceased to be illegal. The attempt to dictate that that, and nothing else, be permissible - utterly without regard, in this nation of better than a quarter billion people, for anything so completely irrelevant to the question as whatever local opinion on the matter may happen to be - seems, if nothing else, curiously at odds with the ubiquitous contention that those who persist in the attempt wish merely that "live and let live" be the whole of the law. That said, before I conclude here, I feel it incumbent upon me to note my appreciation for your having chosen to engage with my prior comment, rather than merely downvote it and move on. I can hardly but acknowledge that the substance of that comment is not merely heterodox in the extreme, but very likely to get right up a lot of people's noses. Such commentary invites downvotes, and those who engage in it have no excuse to find this upsetting - but I do always find it preferable when someone instead takes the time to engage, and I thank you very kindly for so doing.
    - ericd 9y ago
      Sure thing, thanks for responding civilly. The thing with what you seem to be saying (that the science camp is trying to drive religion out of schools despite their supposed adherence to "live and let live") is that public schools are a state institution, and separation of church and state is also incredibly important. You're perfectly free to set up religious schools (which exist), and also to home school your children (also common for the religious). What's explicitly not OK is trying to foist your specific religion in an institution paid for by public money. That's the entire distinction. Past that, "live and let live" is indeed the order of the day. But then, I suppose you may view science as another religion, and I guess that's probably going to be a sticking point. I view it as mostly orthogonal except for the creationist stuff that has mountains of evidence against it, and requires rather convoluted reasoning about God putting the evidence there as a test of faith (my understanding of the reasoning, anyway)
Retra 9y ago
You are mistaken. Materialism does offer a clean and consistent explanation of your experience of reality.
- throwanem 9y ago
  What point in a response which merely says "you're wrong"? I believe I covered the substance of the matter adequately in my own prior comment, sibling to yours; I must confess I fail to see what worthwhile contribution to the discussion you intend to make here. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate?
rimliu 9y ago
Even when ignoring the weird claim about materialism unable to explain consciousness, what makes you think that Christianity is the answer and not some other non-materialist view?

throwanem 9y ago

You seem very secure in the belief that, once the "demons" of which you speak are gone, naught but pure cool reason will replace them. One can only assume such optimism stems from a complete ignorance of history.

Retra 9y ago
One can be secure in the belief that a battle is worth fighting, even if nobody has ever one one before. Our future is not determined only by our history.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Whence came you by this remarkable idea that the battle against religion has never been won before? - not permanently, to be sure, but nothing else ever ends, and why should this? I find little in the results of past such victories to recommend the conflict be reopened. Should you care to take the time, I'd be interested to hear what leads you to view the matter so differently.
  - Retra 9y ago
    I didn't say it hasn't been won before, only that it doesn't matter whether or not it has. Anyway, what leads me to view the matter differently is that I do not simply look to the past to inform me of what will be effective tomorrow. I also look to the potential that flourishes in microcosms of today. And to the increasing efficacy of our culture's ability to promote and propagate the valuable ideas of individuals and small groups. How we communicate today distinctly different than in the past, and it opens some doors in a big way. And it is far too soon to say whether this is a good or bad thing, so we may as well do what we can to ensure it is a good thing. You might believe war doesn't ever change, but it can change quite quickly when a new weapon is developed. More importantly, even if the victory is temporary, the results of a temporary enlightenment can guide the development of society for ages after the war has been lost. Greek democracy failed, but still lessons where learned. Enlightenments wane, but the world is a brighter place even so.