tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post5304351486523283733..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Theism: Does its Irrationality Matter?Benjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-11095339240122134312013-04-24T20:18:53.659-04:002013-04-24T20:18:53.659-04:00Yes, but the paragraph before that one focuses on ...Yes, but the paragraph before that one focuses on Constantine and the paragraph in question goes from talking about the Romans to the transformation of the cult into the religion of Christianity. That is, the paragraph becomes more general and thus is consistent with your point that some of these doctrines were added centuries later. Again, I'm not claiming to have known all of the details when I wrote the article. I'm just observing that as I read it, there's no factual error there. Then again, I'm hardly a neutral reader. <br /><br />Anyway, as I recall, what I had in mind is Matt 16:18-19, which says Jesus built his church on the rock of Peter and handed him the keys of heaven.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-22025359703091926572013-04-24T19:31:13.014-04:002013-04-24T19:31:13.014-04:00It was in the paragraph about the Roman selection ...It was in the paragraph about the Roman selection of a new paradigm for their religious unification, so I suspected you might have fallen in the same trap. As I said, it's a minor detail; it just bugged me :PEvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-5038448299780175302013-04-24T19:15:47.061-04:002013-04-24T19:15:47.061-04:00Thanks for translating, Evan. This is one of the f...Thanks for translating, Evan. This is one of the first articles I wrote on this blog. It hints at the existential perspective I'd develop in later articles. <br /><br />I'm not a historian, and while I was aware that the process of making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire took centuries, I wasn't aware of your point about Charlemagne. Still, the article doesn't say that Constantine introduced the doctrine of papal supremacy. It says just that the religion of Christianity added that doctrine as part of the literalistic confusion.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-47361504210756175072013-04-24T18:37:11.723-04:002013-04-24T18:37:11.723-04:00Hey Ben,
interesting article. It's the first t...Hey Ben,<br />interesting article. It's the first time I've seen the issue framed in this iconoclastic way (I can definitely hear some heads exploding) and it's a wonder no one has left any angry messages. Justifications for theistic belief is not what the current atheist movement wants on the side of the plate of its political agenda. BTW, nice going at the end; you could have easily slipped into a massive "tu quoque".<br /><br />I'm currently translating the article and I mean to post it on Easter Sunday (it will appear at this <a href="http://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/bc-theism-does-its-irrationality-matter" rel="nofollow">link</a>).<br /><br />On a sidenote. You write: <i>"Christianity doubles down on the literalistic confusion, adding that God ... passes its power through ... Jesus to Peter, the first Pope, thus adding the Catholic institution to the list of Christian idols."</i><br /><br />While this doesn't really undermine that segment, it should be pointed out that the papal supremacy <b>was not</b> a part of the fledgling christian doctrine as settled in Nicaea. In fact it failed to gain any serious traction until the 8th c., when Constantinople was getting weakened by muslim raids and Charlemagne grabbed the opportunity and backed up the Pope with his secular authority. The papal supremacy certainly benefited the Holy Roman Empire and weakened the Byzantine Empire, but it was <b>definitely not</b> what Constantine had in mind four centuries earlier.<br /><br />It should be stressed that the "<b>Roman</b> Catholic Church" and the "Catholic Church" institutionalized by Constantine are not the same entity. I see this honest error often from North America based writers. Out of curiosity, isn't the Great Schism of 1054 and its serious repercussions taught in Medieval History over there?EvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2912398384257005502012-01-16T21:10:01.564-05:002012-01-16T21:10:01.564-05:00Thanks for reading the article/rant. I don’t see w...Thanks for reading the article/rant. I don’t see why the theist needs to say that God is bound by logic. What’s bound by logic is our reasoning about God, but by definition God would transcend nature and our power of reasoning. Likewise, if our universe came from a soup of quantum fluctuations in a multiverse, the soup needn’t be subject to the natural laws that operate in our universe. Just as the fluctuations in the vacuum produces different universes, each with their own randomly generated set of natural laws, so too if we replace that quantum set-up with God, God might choose to create different universes with different natural, metaphysical, and logical laws. <br><br>The deeper question here is whether the laws of logic are descriptive or prescriptive, or whether they apply to things regardless of how they’re thought of or only to how we’re bound to think of things. We can be realists or Kantians about logic, but if we’re realists, logic had better be derivable from physics or from some other science, which seems paradoxical, since scientists presuppose logic. If logic is part of commonsense, how can we be sure that everything is bound by logic, such as the Big Bang singularity? After all, our commonsense evolved on a pragmatic basis, to help us survive in a tiny corner of reality. Indeed, the superposition of subatomic particles violates some basic logical assumptions, although physicists apply laws of probability rather than classical logic to understand that level of reality. This leads to the point that there’s a multiplicity of logical systems, depending on which assumptions are added to certain axioms.<br><br>Regarding the existential argument against nontheism, it’s quite arguable that religion begins with some grade of mystical experience, just as love begins with a rush of hormones to the head. The arguments and reasons come afterward to explain, justify, or rationalize either experience. When you fall in love, as you say, you’re bound to screw things up if you overanalyze what’s happening. I actually make this point in the article. This is why hyper-rationalism, a sort of style that many New Atheists pretend to adopt, is fishy to me. The fact is that most atheists aren’t rational about what they most value, such as their family members. Indeed, the theologian Paul Tillich defines religious faith as our attitude towards what we most value, or to what we’d die for. <br><br>Are truth claims irrelevant to a New Atheist’s attitude towards his child? I think not. The attitude begins with the rush of hormones that floods the atheist’s brain when he first sets eyes on his newborn infant. But there are all kinds of beliefs entailed by the parent’s behaviour. For example, the mother believes she’d die for her baby and that that sacrifice would be justified because her baby is supremely valuable. But is any human so valuable or indeed at all valuable? Does something become valuable just because of some feelings toward the thing? Doesn’t the notion of subjective value commit the naturalistic fallacy? Just what is subjective value? I address these questions in my Dec 2011 blog article, “Should we Procreate to Honour our Ancestors?” and in Aug 2011, “Oligarchy: Nature’s Inhumanity to Humans.”Benjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-40160536353374896352012-01-16T18:06:01.024-05:002012-01-16T18:06:01.024-05:00Very interesting post, thank you.I see your point ...Very interesting post, thank you.<br><br>I see your point and it is something I (a nontheist - your point re. the term atheist is all too true!) have been thinking about for a while. Rationality is very powerful in the natural world, but is as far as I can tell a product of human experience and may not necessarily apply to a deity. I tend to state at the outset of any discussion with theists that we assume the laws of logic apply to the deity, or we're playing tennis with no net, or racquets, or umpire...<br><br>Regarding your analogy to choice of sexual partner, my jet-lagged brain's first response (and this is not fully thought-out, so I apologise if it's half-baked!) is that the two are fundamentally different. If a theist makes an assertion about their deity, there is necessarily a truth claim: this deity does exist, it does have traits X, Y and Z, and so on.<br><br>In choosing a partner, for life or for the night, there is not necessarily a truth claim. Of course, some people claim the existence of soul mates, or an otherwise true or correct partner for them, but this is not inherent in the sexual or romantic relationship. I love my partner dearly, and I hope we spend our lives together, but I make no claim that this is the optimum choice, or the correct choice. There's no truth claim, and hence no need to apply the tools of rationality.<br><br>(On a personal note, I find critical assessment of one's partner tends to lead to objectification and failure of the relationship.)<br><br>My rather rambling point is that in choosing a partner one makes no statements about reality or metaphysics other than, "I want this person," or the like. Choosing a deity inherently makes statements along the lines of, "This deity exists," and "This deity is the correct deity to worship," and so on. This is where your analogy fails for me.<br><br>Your thoughts would be most welcome. Again, I apologise for my poor editing; I am experiencing my first ever bout of jet lag and am rather exhausted.bmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07306623489706462843noreply@blogger.com