Back to Windows...

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Thursday 07 December 2006 01:50, Nikolai wrote:
> Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> Well, if you are not making any truth claims, why should anybody pay any
> attention to what appears to be as a truth claim (e.g. your belief in
> God)? To say that there's a God out there and then qualify it by saying,
> "I'm not actually saying it's true" reduces your claim to triviality. No
> one should take it seriously, including yourself.
>
You would have never read nything from which said "there is a God." That is a 
statement of fact I sikmply cannot make. I believe in him, a very different 
concept. That means that I do think there is one, but I cannot possibly 
substantiate it
> > Religion
> > teaches us to be humble, and that si part of it in m opinion.
>
> Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ehad (Hear, O Israel: The LORD our
> God is one LORD, Deuteronomy 6:4). This is a truth claim for which
> millions of people, Jews and Gentiles, have lost their lives. Being
> humble does not imply embracing competing truth claims, although I would
> also add it doesn't imply exterminating those who make such competing
> claims either.
>
Liek I said, I believe it, but I cannot demonstrate it, and other people could 
jsut as easily be right adn I be wrong. I dont believe they are, but I coudl 
conceivably be mistaken. The thing is though that I will never know, adn 
neither will they.
> >>> For me the concept of me believing in a "God" concept is inconceivable.
> >>
> >> Yet, you have no trouble believing in "Saddam Husein" or any other such
> >> concept.
> >
> > It is impossible to convince soembody that there is a God. You either
> > believe, or you don't.
>
> True. But so is everything else - you either believe a proposition or
> you don't. Any proposition. Insert there anything you fancy.
>
Not quite. Very few people,and none who are considered sane would disbelieve 
something which they see with their own eyes, for example "the sky is blue". 
Slightly more, but tsitll very few woudl disbelieve that Saddam Hussein was a 
brutal tyrant, irrelevant of whether they supported the war or not. That is 
because these are demonstrably true facts, unless you choose to doubt 
everything, in itself an illogical position becuase you are disregarding 
evidence. They can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. The existence 
of God cannot.
> > There is nothign rational in belief. It is an inherently
> > illogical process.
>
> What exactly is illogical in a belief in God? Maybe we have vastly
> different definitions of what is logical? For me, everything that
> conforms to the law of contradiction is logical, i.e. as long as A is
> not non-A, it is logical (I don't want to throw in the pot the law of
> identity and the law of excluded middle, the law of contradiction should
> suffice for this discussion).
>
No. Logic is the process where certain axioms which are clearly true, adn 
certain postulates which are demonstrabely true lead to the formation fo  
conclusion. Religion exists with the axiom that there is a God, which is, as 
I have said, not clearly true. neithere woudl be the atheist assumption that 
there isn't one. The onyl possible axiom which can lead to logical 
conclusions is lack of knowledge. That is Ok though. I do not require myself 
to be a wholly logical person. I prefer to be illogical but comfortable in 
the knowledge that I act on what I believe to be true.
> For example, it would be illogical from my point of view to accept that
> the street is wet because it was raining if the argument is:
>
> if the street is wet, it must have been raining
> the street is wet
> therefore, it must have been raining
>
That of course is illogical, becuase it assumes that the only reason the 
street was wet is that it was raining, where there are others, eg. a hose 
could be used. However, "it was raining, therefore the street was wet" is a 
logical statement. Your statement was illogical because it relied on a 
demonstrably false axiom.
> This is utterly illogical (yet this is precisely how modern science
> operates). Perhaps you have a different idea of what is logical or
> illogical? Maybe you can share it?
>
Not at all. Modern Science seeks obviously true axioms such as 1+1=2, and 
demonstrably true postulates, such as the universe is expanding. From those 
scientists draw conclusions. While it is true that sometimes they do not have 
proper logical basis for thier statements, usually due to insufficient data, 
that does not make the process itself inherently illogical.
> >>> I've tried, but I'm quite a logical person and the logic of belief for
> >>> the sake of belief seems like Lunacy to me.
> >>
> >> It is lunacy, yes, you're correct. If, however, you're a logical person
> >> (whatever that means), maybe you could briefly outline what sort of
> >> logical problems you're having with what you have called a concept of
> >> God?
> >
> > I coudl outline some of that oens I have, as a believer. I am Jewish. I
> > find it inconceivable that God allowed the Holocaust to occur, and yet he
> > did. We are his chosen people (according to oru Torah) and yet he allowed
> > one of the greatest crimes of history to be perpetrated on us.
>
> Perhaps you should re-read the book of Isiah, in particular something
> like 46:10 where the Lord declares "...My counsel shall stand, and I
> will do all my pleasure..." and further. If God is sovereign, as He
> claims to be ("my counsel shall stand" clause), the concept of
> "allowing" is totally foreign to Judaism as well as Christianity. It is
> according to His will the events of history unfold and pondering over
> why He "allowed" this or that to happen is utterly fruitless and
> inevitably leads to despair. The question you and I should be asking
> instead is, what has gone wrong with us for these terrible things to
> unfold? Perhaps the answer could be found somewhere here (a rather long
> quote, sorry):
>
> But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be
> drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
> I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye
> shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over
> Jordan to go to possess it.
> I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set
> before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,
> that both thou and thy seed may live:
> That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his
> voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the
> length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD
> sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give
> them. (Deuteronomy 30:17-20)
>
That is a reading of the text which ignores a fundamental aspect of Judaism 
(and, I assume, though I may be wrong, Christianity). God doesn't do anything 
to us directly, becuase we have the freedom of will to act as we please. 
While our acts will lead to consequences, both in this life and the next, 
this does nto explain how the innocent were punished witht eh guilty. What 
crime had babes under the age of one committed? While there is a jewish 
answer to the question I asked (two actually), they are both very difficult 
to accept, adn beg more questions. Nevertheless, the statement that "God is 
King of the Universe" does not mean he cannot "allow" anything anythign to 
happen, that he can onyl directly cause it, becuase he has given human beings 
free will.
> > I do not believe that
> > belief in a God is such a simple thing as to be easily demnonstrable (or
> > at all).
>
> Again, as I already mentioned, it all depends on what sort of
> demonstration is demanded. If someone wishes the sun to stand still as
> it did at the battle of Gibeon, then I'm afraid I cannot produce this
> kind of demonstration. But there's nothing illogical to accept as an
> axiom of one's world view a proposition "The Bible alone is the word of
> God." Neither it is illogical to accept any other proposition for that
> matter. Question is, can you defend a world view erected on a
> proposition "There is no truth" or "All knowledge must be verifiable by
> sensory experience?"
>
No. All those axioms are blatantly illogical. The one about the bible is not 
clearly true. It may be true to you, as it is to me, but unless it is true 
beyond any reasonable doubt, which it is not, it is an incorrect axiom, adn 
all assumptions made upon its foundation are illogical. "There is no truth" 
is clearly untrue. Some things are clearly, demonstrably true, eg. the sky is 
blue. Other things are not, such as the existence of God. The difference 
between knowledge and belief in my view is the ability to prove conclusions. 
I do not know God exists, I believe it. As for "all knowledge is verifiable 
by sensory experience," the argumnt can be made. Certainly, sensory 
experience, often witht eh aid of machine adn devices, is the onyl method we 
have to produce proof. As knowledge assumes the existence of proof, I woudl 
say that the statement is correct.
> >> As far as proof is concerned, it all depends on what kind of proof
> >> you're after. Usually, if not always, people demand one kind of proof
> >> from those who defend Christianity all the while accepting different
> >> kinds of proofs from everybody else. For example, the accounts of
> >> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rejected as fantasy all the while
> >> similar accounts, and much less attested for, can be easily accepted in
> >> a court of law as long as there are no miracles in them. But question
> >> is, on what basis the miracles are rejected as impossible while the
> >> possibility of miracles is precisely what is at stake? Can you see a
> >> problem here?
> >
> > There is a problem with the evidence proided in the gospels. Whiel it is
> > evidence:
> > a) it is secondary (they were all written well after jesus' death)
> > b) There is absolutely no corroborating evidence.
>
> Your a) doesn't diminish the account of those who claimed to witness, or
> in the case of Luke and Mark, to record a witness' account. The death of
> the account's subject (Christ in this case) doesn't render the gospels
> untruthful just like the death of Tolstoy doesn't discount an
> autobiography of his written after he died. Question is, is the account
> truthful (both of Christ's life and Tolstoy's)? In the case of the
> gospels, since they were written shortly after the events took place,
> plenty of opportunities were available to refute those accounts. Where
> are these refutations? (please note though, the lack of such refutations
> doesn't prove the accounts are truthful)
>
Interestingly, refutations were made. if you would like to read them, adn 
theya re really quite interesting, you shoudl look at teh apocryphal bible. 
The four gospels were only sanctified three hundred years later by Emperor 
Constantine the First. Until then, plenty of different versions of the bible, 
and plenty of heresies existed relatively peacefully. Emperor Constantine, as 
far as we can see rejected almost all of the written gospels and chose only 
four, on no evidentiary basis. You can believe he received divine 
inspiration, or that it was a politically calculated move to properly deify 
Christ so as to properly bolster his own divine authority after his recent 
flying of the cross into battle, as some gospels contended that he was not 
the son of God, but in any case, from a historical perspective, it is 
impossible to say which of these accounts, if any, is accurate. Consider 
also, that the Gospels themselves are often mutually contradictory, and 
subtly change th story each time. While the Church I am sure has an 
explanation for this, it is worth considering that there ar emany different 
accounts of Christ's life, all of which disagree at least subtly, adn none of 
which are demonstrably true.
> As to your b), you're asking for impossible. Are you expecting the
> authorities of the day to chronicle the events that took place in Judea
> during Christ's ministry? Besides, there are 4 different, detailed
> accounts of what had happened, followed by further testimonies of
> certain influential Jewish theologian who started off as a menace to
> Christians and ended up, after an encounter on the road to Damascus, to
> be the greatest Christian expositor of Jewish scriptures. I'm talking
> about Paul of course. On what basis all of this should be tossed out as
> worthless lies? If there's such a basis, the accounts of Moses should be
> tossed out just as well (which will destroy Christianity just as well as
> Judaism).
>
The accounts of Moses are no more demonstrably true than the New testament. 
That does nto make them wrong, but it does mena that we will never no if they 
are true in a literal sense. I believe that is nto relevant, but that is 
separate. In fact, some parts of the Old testament are demonstrably false if 
interepreted literally, such as the ntire story fo creation. I do not believe 
it was intended to be interpretted literally and so I do nto hsave a problem 
with this. Nor did I say that the Gospels shoudl be tossed out. I merely 
pointed out that they have no evidentiary basis. As for the issue of records, 
many civilisations, including the Romans, kept astonishingly detailed records 
of heir activities. If Christ provoked such wide civil unrest as is claimes, 
then why is there no record? Again, I do not say this to dispute the truth of 
the new testament. I ahve no interest in doign so. I do not believe it is 
true, you do, end of story. I merely say this to demonstrate to you how from 
a historical perspective, its veracity could be doubted. I also realist that 
the smae arguments coudl be turned against the old testament.
> > Please note, I am not saying that they are wrong, merely that their
> > veracity, like that of almost any religious text, cannot be verified.
>
> I think I already said enough about verifying. It's a matter of what is
> and what is not accepted. Ultimately though, all truth claims are
> accepted on faith, i.e. you either believe a proposition or you don't.
> Of course so called evidence can and often does play a role but at the
> end of the day people either believe a proposition or they don't.
>
No. They know it is true or they don't, most of the time, and that is based on 
evidence. Unfortunately, in modern English, belief is a much misused word.
> >> I'm not sure what you're referring to by "atrocities".
> >
> > crusades, forced conversions, spanish inquisition, 9/11, the middle east
> > conflict, pogroms, religiosu wars between Catholics and Protestants, the
> > list is almost endless.
>
> Well OK, murder is forbidden, as far as I know, everywhere on Earth,
> yet, people still murder one another. Does it mean that the laws
> forbidding murder are hypocritical? Or is it rather has to do with
> people who disregard the law?
It means that those who perpetrate murder to defend the state which forbade it 
are hypocrits. A very different concept. The law itself is not at all 
hypocritical, any more than religion is. I have actually already pointed this 
out though.

> Nikolai
Sasha