4 ms·
Dogma is not an argument.
by robotresearcher 9y ago
Dogma is not an argument.
- yters 9y agoExactly, that's the problem with humanism. It is just a dogma without rational argument.
- robotresearcher 9y agoNow I'm genuinely baffled. Here's the first sentence of the definition of Humanism on Wikipedia: "Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." And two of the sentences from the first paragraph from the entry on Christianity: "Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as the Christ, or "Messiah", who is the focal point of the Christian faiths. [...] They believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity whose coming as the Messiah (the Christ) was prophesied in the Old Testament." Your position is that the former of these is dogmatic and devoid of rational argument, to the contrary of the latter. I simply can not argue with that position. It's too weird.
- yters 9y agoHow can humanism believe humans have free will if everything is physically determined? If we have no free will, we have no agency. It doesn't matter how much humanists assert to the contrary. Christianity, on the other hand, easily explains free will and agency.
- mercer 9y agoNo it doesn't. The theological discussions around the whole concept of 'free will' are quite hairy, and there are multiple christian denominations that don't strictly believe that we have free will.
- yters 9y agoTraditionally, all mainstream Christians believed in libertarian free will. You can find this discussed in Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas, off the top of my head. That changed with Luther and Calvin, but even today you'd be hard pressed to find a large body of Christians that outright deny free will, since it is so blatantly referred to in the Bible.
- n4r9 9y agoIt seems the majority of philosophers (whose job it is to think long and hard about these things) are compatibilists [0]; i.e. believe in both free will and determinism. If you're actually interested in this rather than thinking you already know the answer, there is plenty of reading available online [1,2] [0] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371 [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ [2] https://samharris.org/reflections-on-free-will/ https://samharris.org/reflections-on-free-will/
- yters 9y agoExactly my point. Compatibilism is incoherent. It is just calling determinism free will, like calling the number 1 green. But if free will is determined, then no one has any control over their actions. Everything is determined, and given the right parameters in their decision algorithm, they will do whatever you want. Hence the atheist regimes' focus on brainwashing detailed in 1984.
- n4r9 9y agoYou have already made up your mind and are not willing to engage in serious discussion, nor read and consider other viewpoints.
- yters 9y agoYou assume I didn't used to be a compatibilist, but changed my mind after considering alternate viewpoints. But I did once I understood libertarian free will is a coherent alternative.