Porn for Bibles

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

Replace the word "god" in that sentence with "Zeus" or "tree" (Druidic) and see if it still makes sense to you.

it does to me, but i've got no problem if people still want to worship Thor, Osiris or Baal as long as they're good people about it.

...two, despite the focus most of the zealots and fundies place on the inerrancy of the Bible and focusing so intently on slight references in Leviticus and Romans as pertains to the sexual proclivities of others and twisting whatever verse they can to enforce their own sexual puritanism and patriarchal gender roles onto everyone else, they seem to have overlooked the core tenet of Christ's philosophy and teachings: love, grace, tolerance, forgiveness, etc....

While the bible certainly records Christ promoting such tenets, please reconcile with Matt5:18.

with Luke 12:57.

Logic should be used to argue for/against a belief system in as much as a belief system should be used to argue a scientific theory. They are separate languages. Belief be definition the lack of logic. That is not an insult, nor should be read as one. Belief is beautiful because it doesn't need logic to exist. Scientific facts are beautiful because it exists whether you believe it or not. I don't understand the desire to use one to prove or disprove the other. It's convoluted and unnecessary.

A belief system should be a deeply personal experience that enriches your life. Anyone who ascribes to a belief system as a way of making themselves feel superior to someone else is missing the point.

this, indeed. talking about faith and reason as if they're the same thing is dangerous from either side. they can co-exist. they can work together. but they're not the same thing. they're different ways of "knowing," different approaches in relating to the world around us.

[mpbrockman]

While the bible certainly records Christ promoting such tenets, please reconcile with Matt5:18.

with Luke 12:57.

I said reconcile, not find a(nother) biblical contradiction.

Belief be definition the lack of logic.

So you would agree belief is completely irrational, then?

they're different ways of "knowing," different approaches in relating to the world around us.

Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria? Pretty much discredited at this point along with the "god of the gaps" approach as the gaps shrink and overlap increases.

Ah, but "blessed are the peacemakers".

[Spots]

So you would agree belief is completely irrational, then?

@Brockman. You gave your atheist forum a lot of sway for what "won out logically" & it genuinely seems as though you draw strength from that community (it doesn't sound dissimilar to a church, albeit a negative social environment in your depiction).

Let's look at your assumptions of survival of the most logical:

Atheists spend as much time calling each other idiots as they do calling people of faith idiots ....

Some would point out that it would be logical to live your life in optimism, spending your days entrusting your companions and enjoying life rather than ceaselessly trying to gain control of other people's opinions.

What was usually respected most was the ability to take a position and defend it well with facts, reason and well-crafted rhetoric.

Respected by whom? The consensus of the forum? That's a niche. We can completely disqualify this community as a cross cut representation of atheists or any group in general. Also, you failed to explain the role that respect plays in logic.

In the next paragraph you make the point clear that education was never your intention on those forums:

Yes, there were xtians on our boards - but the minute they pulled out a line of "reasoning" like "Because the Bible sez..." they would be disemboweled online. The ones who survived were the ones who could defend themselves.

Look at the evidence in your provided context: "Survived? Defend? Disemboweled?" This online forum never set out to convince anyone or educate them. You guys were showboating. You were tooting your own horn. It's a human compulsion. A completely illogical compulsion, and one that is counterintuitive to what you "feel" you were doing. But when people leave the debate because they are insulted or turned off -- that's not a *win* for education. That's more closely related to personal pride and other social rewards.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

In order to lead someone logically down a path, you first have to get a feel for that person's preexisting path. This requires empathy. There is no inherently shared logic between the two of you. Too many assumptions can be made before you even begin to reason with them. And all too often atheists discredit themselves before they even make a point.

It's inspiring that other atheists debate the nature of the universe and come to find their own voice. I had a similar forum where I carved out my own opinions by fleshing them out. Of course one day I decided to stop preaching. So I'm familiar with the tendencies of those conversations. Nobody really gets educated. Because the pace of the preaching is too fast & flurried for the pace of the learner's gut feeling. The conversation tends to isolate the majority when people focus on character assessment and assassination. In general what happens, (and this true in any community), is that a sense of consensus persuades some people to change their minds over time to become a part of the in-crowd.

This desire to fit in is an emotional / ritualistic impulse. Not in the least logical. These "rational" people have acted no more rational than the members of a church. Sure, it may seem that logic "wins out" your community in the long run. It sure seems that way sometimes, golly gee. But we can only talk about logic on a personal level because it simply *never* exists at a community level. Think of every bureaucracy that ever existed. Think of corporations. Think of the fallacy of government. Think of families. Emotional appeal, status appeal, sexual appeal, deflecting from one's weaknesses, friendship, rivalry, perceived rejection, respect: all of these factor in to a community and all of them can & do defy logic. Social interactions are anything but logical. So if you thought you were part of community that understood logic as a whole, what you experienced was an illusion.

What is great about these types of communities is that you find a shared narrative, and a sense of community. This sense of belonging is remarkable for something like atheism, which is a somewhat feared and misunderstood group. But don't fool yourself that the status quo somehow transmogrifies into logic. You yourself made it sound for a moment that respect is synonymous with logic. Respect being a ritualistic & social trait -- this cannot be true.

No, logic exists on a personal level, dictated by environment... by context. It turns out that logic is a bit of a subjective story. It's no surprise that logic gets confused as a universal mechanism all the time. Even atheists need abstractions to make their point. Perhaps it's come time for a new moniker...

*cough* narrative *cough*


Exit point: Logic is not definitive. It is not objective. While I could express my own logic, I prefer the term "narrative" because it implies subjectivity (without the confusion). I recommend the term as a rational way to express oneself as both a believer or nonbeliever. It helps to encourage a person to empathize with others' beliefs / logic because we have been educated to understand that there are an infinite number of stories in the world.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

While the bible certainly records Christ promoting such tenets, please reconcile with Matt5:18.

with Luke 12:57.

I said reconcile, not find a(nother) biblical contradiction.

it reconciles it well enough for me. Jesus, to my mind, was very much a spirit of the law over letter of the law kind of guy, his biggest problems with the Saduccees of his time being their ahderence to the tiniest minutiae of Mosaic law over genuinely fulfilling God's will in caring for people. yes, in Hebrew tradition (which the Gospel of Matthew was written to appeal to most), Mosaic law is handed down from God and the Law and the Prophets must/will be fulfilled...but Christ puts it to us, why blindly follow or seek out the rulings of political or religious authorities when he have within our God given capacity for free will and reason the ability to sort the matters out for ourselves? so while the letter of the law might call for an adulteress to be stoned to death, Christ undercuts it with the spirit of the law to say that none is sinless enough to judge and kill her lest they in turn be judged by the same strictness of the law and face punishment in kind. yes, there are contradictions in stricture. it is written by men and men are flawed. which makes Christ's message of relying upon our own judgment and looking to God directly instead of depending so heavily on the written law and judicial/religious authorities to do our thinking for us all the more imporant.

Belief be definition the lack of logic.

So you would agree belief is completely irrational, then?

and thank God for that. rationality alone, in my experience, is highly overrated.

[mpbrockman]

Well, Jesse - we're now to the point where you've felt the need to put my name in red.

I agree with some of what you say, disagree with a most of it; especially your snap assessments of my old forum - there are many who enjoy a good verbal brawl - it sharpens the rhetorical skills and often forces one to reassess one's position in light of new (or better) information. However, the AIC forum is not the forum I want to have this debate in. This forum (for me) is much more about fun & community. Feel free to approach me in person or PM me if you wish to talk some more, but I sense things are about to get a little more out of hand than I would have them be.

Same goes for you, JTM. Although we've had this talk before on a small scale and last I knew, understood each other reasonably well and agreed to disagree on certain matters.

Although I will end my bit here by saying that rationality, in my experience, is highly underrated. Especially when coupled with a sense of wonder. Perhaps that's just where I am in my "*cough* narrative *cough*".

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

Same goes for you, JTM. Although we've had this talk before on a small scale and last I knew, understood each other reasonably well and agreed to disagree on certain matters.

oh, for sure. don't take my disagreeing comments as being angry or anything. like you say, i enjoy a good verbal sparring match, especially on something that means as much to me as this. i don't feel like it's my job to "enlighten the heathens," as it were (hell, i've learned more about my own spirituality from atheist friends and writers than from so called experts in my faith). someone asks me a question, i feel compelled to answer as honestly as i can. and love getting a sense of their point of view as well. so hope none of my comments came across as "well, guess i gotta school that infidel Brockman on the ways of the Lord again!"

because you know i'd much rather do that in person over beer.

and a quick note to clarify...i said rationality ALONE is highly overrated. i think it's much better served going hand in hand with faith (not merely or exclusively religious faith, just the very notion OF belief, even if it's only in each other)...or, as you say, wonder.

[Spots]

there are many who enjoy a good verbal brawl - it sharpens the rhetorical skills and often forces one to reassess one's position in light of new (or better) information.

Didn't question if these fellows enjoyed debating, I merely questioned your position that the folks who "survive" the debate determine the surviving logic. Because there is no such thing.

However, the AIC forum is not the forum I want to have this debate in. This forum (for me) is much more about fun & community. Feel free to approach me in person or PM me if you wish to talk some more, but I sense things are about to get a little more out of hand than I would have them be.

Not at all. I highlighted your name because you passed over my previous post. Thought a color would be eye catching. If anything, I played a little devil's advocate with you. By no means do I feel personally attached to these points where I would die for them. Or even go wrestling too far in the brambles. No, this was a friendly porch conversation.

I mean, yes, I do believe that there is a logic to educating and that many reasonable people ignore this particular line of reasoning. But how unreasonable would I be if I kept kicking that dead horse? It would only serve as a further example.

For me, this has been good clean fun & a tad exciting because this is a debate I've never seen on the internet. The logic of convincing may not sound like a fun idea to discuss to you but to me it is pivotal to the debate. It IS the underlying issue. Millions of people expound facts and figures onto others without first checking to see if the other person's mind is actively engaged. And in so doing, someone who MIGHT have been open to the concept of atheism has been turned off. Perhaps for good.

May I point out that I would be a hypocrite if I had gotten dirty and resorted to character assassination? I'm not positive where the "out of hand" comes into play but I respect your choice not to participate.

Perhaps I proved my own point by failing to get you engaged.

[B. Tribe]

Millions of people expound facts and figures onto others without first checking to see if the other person's mind is actively engaged. And in so doing, someone who MIGHT have been open to the concept of atheism has been turned off. Perhaps for good.

I'll throw in here. Atheism is based on Reason over Faith. Atheists tend to fight ignorance with facts. Someone who is swathed in Faith often cannot understand Reason, and at that point the argument breaks down as the two debaters are essentially living in different worlds with different rules, laws, and languages.

What I think you are asking for is reasonableness before reason. That's a laudable goal. Empathy will almost always get you further than cold judgment. However, if someone whose mind is closed engages in an argument, it's as good as conceding defeat if you don't respond. You can't really 'win' the fight; even if you beat your opponent unconcious they can wake up and delusionally believe they won. If someone with doubt is listening or reading that debate they might become enlightened. Sometimes just hearing about another way of thinking about the world is enough to start the movement towards Reason.

Your narrative approach to life is similar to Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey". You are the hero of your own life. "The big question is whether you are going to be able to say a hearty yes to your adventure."

He also seemed to be rather atheistic or agnostic. That probably comes from studying so much mythology. Current religion is essentially future mythology. (Wow, I just sounded really smart! I need to write that one down!)

Here's a couple more quotes:

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience."

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

this is where i have to part ways with a lot of atheists (y'know...other than that whole "belief in God" thing. ). reason over faith holds as little interest for me as faith over reason. it's a false dichotomy, another reductive binary system. faith is no more ignorance than reason is a lack of emotion or imagination. i have known plenty of atheists and agnostics who behaved, thought and argued in highly irrational ways, and dismissed anyone with an inkling of faith as childish and idiotic. i've known people of many faiths who could construct a cogent argument to prove their point without once citing their scripture, and who were open minded and inclusive of all belief systems, including atheism.

faith does not equal religion or spirituality. it does not equal belief in God. it does not equal ignorance and superstition. i've met atheists who had more abundant faith than people who go to church and sing hymns every Sunday...faith in themselves, faith in the world, faith in the potential of mankind sans any belief in the existence of God. (and i have no doubt in my mind when the time comes and they step beyond the veil of this world, they'll have a hearty "well done, my good and faithful servant" waiting for them. )

this world so often defies reason. this world so often challenges faith. it helps to have them there to support (and, if they must clash, in a constructive and refining manner) one another rather than endlessly fighting a battle that has no winner.

[B. Tribe]

Hey Jordan! I like what you've said. It's very positive, nuanced, and heartfelt. I respect your convictions. Now I'll be a dick and pick things apart.

You're conflating different definitions of faith.

The first definition of faith is: confidence or trust in a person or thing, ex. faith in another's ability.

That's the type of faith you're talking about when you say

...faith in themselves, faith in the world, faith in the potential of mankind sans any belief in the existence of God.

I'd go a step further and say this type of faith requires no belief in anything supernatural or even spiritual. That doesn't mean this faith is always logical or reasonable.

The second definition of faith is: belief that is not based on proof.

The third definition of faith is: belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.

Those aren't thee same as the first definition and can't be interchanged.

Reason also doesn't mean a person will necessarily act reasonable or logical. People are still people, human, fallible, and driven by primal needs that defy logic. I still want sex and do stupid things to get it despite the knowledge that the drive comes from my animal brain. I got a degree in theatre despite the knowledge that it wasn't conducive to my survival. I still want to be in love despite the knowledge that it's a chemical reaction. Atheists can be dicks. They're driven by biological needs. They aren't emotionless green-blooded Vulcans... although the logical Spock still did a lot of dumb, emotional crap.

I also respectfully disagree with the statement...

... endlessly fighting a battle that has no winner.

...from a philosophical standpoint. Faith has already lost. It wasn't ever in the fight. There are laws and facts to the universe that we don't understand. Many times those things we don't yet understand are attributed to God (the God of the Gaps argument). Scientists put forth hypothesis as possible explanations of these phenomenon. All evidence points to the fact that physics breaks down at the edge of a black hole. We may never know what lies at the core. There are hypothesis, but the likelyhood that any of them will ever be tested. That doesn't mean whatever is happening in there isn't a fact, an unarguable fact. Reason deals in the world of facts, not truths. It's a hard world to live in as a human being, I'd say impossible, since facts can be ignored, manipulated, misunderstood, or rejected. Faith refuses facts that run counter to belief. Theologians will use different tactics to attack facts (often by using other facts), but that doesn't change the facts existence. We don't understand all the Laws that run the universe, but they are there. I don't have faith they are there. They exist regardless of what I think or believe. That's why faith isn't really an option, why it's not equal to reason, why it's not a binary system. They aren't yin and yang, they aren't two sides of the same coin, they aren't even opponents. One simply is while the other is not.

The universe isn't Fox News: "We Report, You Decide". It's "Things Exist, It Doesn't Matter What You Decide".

I'm on a big truth vs. fact thing right now in case you couldn't tell.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

and thanks for being a dick. it gives me something to respond to.

You're conflating different definitions of faith.

i don't see them as wholly exclusive. they're all springing from the same essential font: belief in things unseen, unknown and ultimately unknowable. how do you empirically prove human potential? write a geometric proof for love? chart your self confidence? so you can still have faith without necessarily applying it to God or an afterlife, per se. it's the fundamental impulse to belief without proof. i say this to clarify that when i declare that faith and reason should go hand in hand, it is not my call that all atheists, agnostics and undecideds need to convert and believe in God.

Reason also doesn't mean a person will necessarily act reasonable or logical. People are still people, human, fallible, and driven by primal needs that defy logic. I still want sex and do stupid things to get it despite the knowledge that the drive comes from my animal brain. I got a degree in theatre despite the knowledge that it wasn't conducive to my survival. I still want to be in love despite the knowledge that it's a chemical reaction. Atheists can be dicks. They're driven by biological needs. They aren't emotionless green-blooded Vulcans... although the logical Spock still did a lot of dumb, emotional crap.

which was essentially my point.

I also respectfully disagree with the statement...

... endlessly fighting a battle that has no winner.

...from a philosophical standpoint. Faith has already lost. It wasn't ever in the fight. There are laws and facts to the universe that we don't understand. Many times those things we don't yet understand are attributed to God (the God of the Gaps argument). Scientists put forth hypothesis as possible explanations of these phenomenon. All evidence points to the fact that physics breaks down at the edge of a black hole. We may never know what lies at the core. There are hypothesis, but the likelyhood that any of them will ever be tested. That doesn't mean whatever is happening in there isn't a fact, an unarguable fact. Reason deals in the world of facts, not truths. It's a hard world to live in as a human being, I'd say impossible, since facts can be ignored, manipulated, misunderstood, or rejected. Faith refuses facts that run counter to belief. Theologians will use different tactics to attack facts (often by using other facts), but that doesn't change the facts existence. We don't understand all the Laws that run the universe, but they are there. I don't have faith they are there. They exist regardless of what I think or believe. That's why faith isn't really an option, why it's not equal to reason, why it's not a binary system. They aren't yin and yang, they aren't two sides of the same coin, they aren't even opponents. One simply is while the other is not.

and i will respectfully disagree in kind. faith hasn't lost because there was never a fight. i think you're lumping together very poor theologians with theologians, religious scholars and people of religious faith. true faith doesn't refuse facts. it incorporates them. faith is belief without PROOF, not belief without DOUBT. it is the questioning spirit that lets faith flourish (though this is something i think many religious fundamentalists tend to ignore because it's easier to believe without questioning, to treat faith as a destination they've arrived at rather than a journey they're on). when science says the world is round, the Earth moves around the sun, mankind evolved from apes, the universe is older than 6,000 years and it took the Earth longer than six days to form, it is not faith that denies them but arrogance and foolish pride (i believe someone mentioned human fallibility recently? ), that can withstand no challenge and so must ignore, deny and deface even the slightest questioning. true faith that is well rooted and cultivated can not only stand to look, question, doubt and reconcile new facts into itself...it SEEKS to.

no, faith and reason are not the same thing or flip sides of each other. you don't BELIEVE in gravity. you don't PROVE God (fuck you, Descartes!). but they can and, i think, should operate in tandem. reason refines faith. faith inspires reason. one can give us an Enlightenment. one can give us a Renaissance.

I'm on a big truth vs. fact thing right now in case you couldn't tell.

no worries, i'm usually on that thing. but i don't think either is of much use without the other. facts give us the "how." truth gives us the "why."

[Spots]

and thanks for being a dick. it gives me something to respond to.

You're conflating different definitions of faith.

i don't see them as wholly exclusive. they're all springing from the same essential font: belief in things unseen, unknown and ultimately unknowable. how do you empirically prove human potential? write a geometric proof for love? chart your self confidence? so you can still have faith without necessarily applying it to God or an afterlife, per se.

I'll support Brett's distinction here. You cannot prove human potential per se, hence the concept "faith in humanity." But you can rely on tangible experiences in the past. We'll call these tendencies. People tend to be good. Friends tend to stick around and be helpful. Humans can base their actions and opinions on tendencies. There's no debate as to whether or not these tendencies exist.

On the reverse, a single person's faith in a deity has no past experiences to draw on. You cannot safely cite an example and prove that it was anything more than a coincidence or a lapse in judgment. To boot: tendencies happen in the tens, hundreds, and thousands.

Therefore: A man of reason doesn't go against character when he has faith based on tendencies. Look no further than a professional card player. He draws judgement based on frequencies and human tendencies in the past. Compare him to man who has never played poker and goes all in because he believes in divine intervention.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

and thanks for being a dick. it gives me something to respond to.

You're conflating different definitions of faith.

i don't see them as wholly exclusive. they're all springing from the same essential font: belief in things unseen, unknown and ultimately unknowable. how do you empirically prove human potential? write a geometric proof for love? chart your self confidence? so you can still have faith without necessarily applying it to God or an afterlife, per se.

I'll support Brett's distinction here. You cannot prove human potential, hence why it is called "faith in humanity." But you can rely on tangible experiences in the past. We'll call these tendencies. People tend to be good. Friends tend to stick around and be helpful. Humans can base their actions and opinions on tendencies. There's no debate as to whether or not these tendencies exist.

On the reverse, a single person's faith in a deity has no past experiences to draw on. You cannot safely cite an example and prove that it was anything more than a coincidence or a lapse in judgment. To boot: tendencies happen in the tens, hundreds, and thousands.

i don't agree. in either case, you're extrapolating from observed phenomena and then making that "leap of faith." both faith in humanity and faith in God face challenges and contradictions. people don't always tend to be good. friends can lie, betray, neglect. the universe can tend to be cold and unjust. and yet we BELIEVE in something higher, something transcendent, be that God or our potential as a species or the simple love of friends and family. we cannot prove its existence, but we can feel its presence. dismissing my faith in God because i cannot see His face as easily as i see the faces of the humanity i have faith in, even though that EXPERIENCE of faith is the same seems fruitless to me (note: TO ME).

[Spots]

people don't always tend to be good. friends can lie, betray, neglect.

Are we not talking in the abstract? I don't know too many people who have faith in humanity for this precise reason. Kurt Vonnegut was in a constant state of depression: "True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country."

When you say "friends can lie, betray, neglect" you are bringing your own subjective experiences into an objective concept. People do or do not have faith in humanity based on past experience.

Children for instance tend to have more confidence and be trusting toward all adults because they have few negative experiences to draw on. You and I might refer to this as naivety.

Do we not call this a "faith in humanity"? Do we not distinguish between this naive faith in strangers with the belief in a higher power?

[similar to the] simple love of friends and family. we cannot prove its existence, but we can feel its presence

This is very poetic and I love the passion behind it. I love the argument as well. But in my own narrative, I cannot deny that there are definite signs that indicate family & friends have feelings for me. Humans show emotion, they bleed subtext, they yearn and act on their feelings. Even when my sister lashes out at me and hurts my feelings, through the existence of tendencies I know she does it because she cares for me.

This extrapolation [to me] is very very very different when I've never met said being face to face.

[Spots]

If someone with doubt is listening or reading that debate they might become enlightened. Sometimes just hearing about another way of thinking about the world is enough to start the movement towards Reason.

This is actually a point I was hoping Brockman would make. Internet discussions [like this one!] serve the primary purpose of addressing the people in the conversation but perhaps serve a bigger secondary purpose of telling a story to onlookers, people who might come across the dialog years later. I did not make this point because it did not strengthen my argument about the logic of convincing.

HOWEVER, this was the counterpoint I was prepared to make:

First of all "Ah ha! You were showboating after all!"

But more importantly: If you use unfavorable discourse towards someone -- you will not only alienate that person, you will alienate people who found themselves empathizing with him. Yes, some people may be educated and pushed further along their path toward discovery. But not as many people, perhaps, if you had used common courtesy in your approach. Unfortunately many rational people choose to become antagonists in the short term to make a point or to establish dominance.

Negativity is useful in the short term, but fairly useless in the long term. You can see this theory put into action during primary elections: "The 3AM phone call" during the 2008 primaries was a very successful short term campaign. But ultimately who won the nomination? Always try to take the high road whenever possible.