Debating a theist: What am I doing wrong?

[elliotfc]

Assume you are a monk. Do you have more time to pray if you have to forage all day for food in the forest or do you have more time to pray if all your food is already stored from the harvest of the crops you raised using thought?

Pray without ceasing. You can pray whilst foraging.

Do you see why thinking is better now? Because survival trumps all other goals by definition -- a human must be alive in order to pursue any other endeavours -- and thinking makes survival easier, thus leaving more time and energy for the rest.

But everybody thinks. Even the people who you reckon don't think think, and a lot of them will live just as long as you, don't you think?

What is the average lifespan for a Christian believer, and what of an atheist? Is the atheist's lifetime longer? Shorter? I don't know, and if there was a difference in lifespan, I'm sure we'd all know.

Do you actually think that some people don't think? How can you think that? It's inconceivable to me.

Ok. Assume the goal is to get into heaven. Helping people gets you there. Murdering people prevents you from getting there. So you are saying that the statement "helping people is better than murdering them if your goal is getting into heaven" is merely an opinion?

No, I'd prefer to call that objective truth, but some people don't believe in heaven.

I was trying to be open-minded about this.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

To take a trivial example, if I notice that I've been overchanged in a shop, I return the excess money.

Well your definition of "self-interest" here is extremely short sighted. I would claim that in fact you enjoy making your living honestly and so wouldn't accept money that was given to you as a mistake, thus you in fact are acting out of self-interest.

 

[rocketdodger]

Pray without ceasing. You can pray whilst foraging.

I am not even going to remark further about this response because you are just being absurd now.

But everybody thinks. Even the people who you reckon don't think think, and a lot of them will live just as long as you, don't you think?

What is the average lifespan for a Christian believer, and what of an atheist? Is the atheist's lifetime longer? Shorter? I don't know, and if there was a difference in lifespan, I'm sure we'd all know.

Why are you bringing atheist into this discussion? I didn't say anything about them. And why are you talking about life span? Who said anything about life span.

My argument is that even if one is a good christian, they can be a better christian by using their mind to spend less time toiling to survive and more time doing christian stuff (whatever it is you guys do). Are you seriously disputing this? Are you claiming that a christian father who has to work 60 hours a week in a hot dirty factory is better off than one who has to work 10 hours a week and can spend the made up 50 with his family?

No, I'd prefer to call that objective truth, but some people don't believe in heaven.

Then why did you say it was just an opinion? The belief in heaven is an opinion, I agree. But saying "helping is better than murder if you want to get into heaven" is a fact, just like "2 + 2 = 4 if we agree that 1 = 1."

 

[ceo_esq]

I am not even going to remark further about this response because you are just being absurd now.

Actually, what Elliot said about praying unceasingly (an allusion to 1 Thessalonians 5:17) makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. They really do aspire (at least in theory) to pray all the time, whatever that means. Ever read Salinger's Franny and Zooey (or the work that partially inspired it, The Way of a Pilgrim)?

 

[Dr Adequate]

So long as you are free to redefine the term as you please, then there is no point in trying to advance a counter-example.

Ok lets let any of the standard definitions (those generally agreed upon) for "self-interest" apply.

Well your definition of "self-interest" here is extremely short sighted. I would claim that in fact you enjoy making your living honestly and so wouldn't accept money that was given to you as a mistake, thus you in fact are acting out of self-interest.

So long as you are free to redefine the term as you please, then there is no point in trying to advance a counter-example.

Told you so.

 

[rocketdodger]

Told you so.

What!! That isn't a redefinition!

Isn't acting to live in accordance with one's morals in one's self-interest? I said let any of the standard definitions apply, and I happen to think this is one of those standard definitions.

 

[elliotfc]

I am not even going to remark further about this response because you are just being absurd now.

You can pray while doing things, people do it all the time. It's not like, in order to pray, you have to stop what you're doing and get on your knees and be really really really still or something.

Why are you bringing atheist into this discussion? I didn't say anything about them.

Good point. I guess I brought them into it because the title of the thread is debating a theist, and I thought we're thinking about this from the atheist point of view.

And why are you talking about life span? Who said anything about life span.

You mentioned words like survival and alive, I thought lifespan kind of goes with that.

My argument is that even if one is a good christian, they can be a better christian by using their mind to spend less time toiling to survive and more time doing christian stuff (whatever it is you guys do).

How can you have the argument if you don't even know what it is you're talking about?

Can using one's mind make a person a better...well...anything? Sure. Maybe. Or not. You can think your way backwards, or you can think and think and think and come up with dumb ideas.

Being a Christian isn't about living in spiritual la-la land. In the earliest Christian communites a premium was placed on hard work. I don't see how efficiency makes someone a better Christian. In fact, when people's lives *were* hard, and they worked from sun-up to sun-down, such people were, in a sense, better Christians than we are. A thousand years ago people prayed a lot more, worked a lot harder, and clung to the dogmas unquestioningly. They spent more time in church, did not separate religion from daily life, and held the sacraments in high regard. There you go. Better Christians. You reckon they probably didn't think as well as we do. But they were better Christians.

Are you seriously disputing this? Are you claiming that a christian father who has to work 60 hours a week in a hot dirty factory is better off than one who has to work 10 hours a week and can spend the made up 50 with his family?

I dunno. Hard work also builds character. You may work just 10 hours a week...but does the extra time really go to family? How about golf or more trips to Vegas or volunteering for some organization? I can see a 60 hour a week worker spend all of his other time with his family, and a 10 hour a week worker spend all of his time with his friends. Your theory may make sense, but I don't know how it would work in practice.

Back 1000 years ago, when nobody travelled, and everybody worked hard, people spent every second with their families. No soccer or dance lessons, kids didn't sleepover at friends house. The more *leisure* we have, the more opportunities there are to spend time away from family. Then a value is placed on non-familial activities. Don't you hear people all the time say how they never see their kids, nobody eats dinner together anymore? And we have more free time now than in any point in human history.

Then why did you say it was just an opinion?

Because not everybody agrees with me that it is objective truth. It's *definitely* my opinion, everybody agrees. That it's objective truth, only some people will agree. I think it's both.

The belief in heaven is an opinion, I agree. But saying "helping is better than murder if you want to get into heaven" is a fact, just like "2 + 2 = 4 if we agree that 1 = 1."

That sounds sensible.

-Elliot

 

[Dr Adequate]

What!! That isn't a redefinition!

Isn't acting to live in accordance with one's morals in one's self-interest?

No.

I said let any of the standard definitions apply, and I happen to think this is one of those standard definitions.

Of course it's a redefinition.

You did indeed say "let any of the standard definitions apply". I chose the definition that English-speaking people actually use, and provided a counter-example.

You then decided you wanted to define "self-interest" as "whatever anyone wants to do", so that my counter-example wouldn't apply.

I knew you would. I said you would. How else would you duck out of it?

 

[rocketdodger]

I knew you would. I said you would. How else would you duck out of it?

Well I didn't mean to, if it matters. I seriously consider living according to one's morals to be in their self-interest, if you disagree then we can't really argue about this model because it is opinions.

Please don't think I was trying to trick you. I always learn something from your posts and I would hate to be on your sh-- list.

 

[rocketdodger]

Being a Christian isn't about living in spiritual la-la land. In the earliest Christian communites a premium was placed on hard work. I don't see how efficiency makes someone a better Christian. In fact, when people's lives *were* hard, and they worked from sun-up to sun-down, such people were, in a sense, better Christians than we are. A thousand years ago people prayed a lot more, worked a lot harder, and clung to the dogmas unquestioningly. They spent more time in church, did not separate religion from daily life, and held the sacraments in high regard. There you go. Better Christians. You reckon they probably didn't think as well as we do. But they were better Christians.

Fine. I am done arguing about this.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well I didn't mean to, if it matters. I seriously consider living according to one's morals to be in their self-interest, if you disagree then we can't really argue about this model because it is opinions.

The essential problem is that you're not speaking English.

If you go around saying that "Rational people are motivated by their self-interest", then to English-speaking people it sounds like you're saying "Intelligent people say: damn you Jack and let the devil take the hindermost --- unlike dumb people".

But then they (or I) enquire into this. We ask "What do you mean be self-interest. And (if I have understood your responses rightly) we find that the man who wants to build a leper hospital in Africa is self-interested, and that the man who wants to rape and kill a dozen women is also self-interested.

And at this point we might ask: what distinction would you make between self-interest and interest?

Well, you don't. You identify "self-interest" with "whatever anyone aims to achieve". Everyone is self-interested.

At this point --- huzzah! --- you are able to go around saying that rational people are those who pursue their self-interest. But only by changing the meaning of the word "self-interest".

If you go around telling people that rationality involves following their own self-interest, and they take you seriously, then one of two things will happen:

(1) Your audience will listen to this in English. They will think: "So if I can rape such-and-such an attractive woman and get away with it, then that is rational. Whoopee!" They are damned.

(2) You will be made to say what you mean by "rational" and "self-interest". At this point it will become clear that what you mean in English is that people are motivated by the things that they want. Which we all knew, and is a tautology. That's what "motivation" means.

If I could talk to you like a Dutch uncle for a moment, I have to wonder why you want to take a truism in English and turn it into a falsehood in English. In English, rational people are not motivated only by their self-interest and you know it. But you present some vacuous philosophical argument to prove that rational people are motivated by self-interest, according to defiintions which you've invented yourself.

And having gone this long way around, you can tell me that all rational people are motivated by self-interest, which if interpreted in English is a carte blanche for evil. And I wonder why you have produced this elaborate and fallacious chain of reasoning in order to utter a phrase which in English is disgusting and wrong.

DON'T.

Please don't think I was trying to trick you.

Well, not at all. In a sense, it's the other way round --- I knew what you would say and and was determined to get you to say it. I led you on until you had to identify our inclinations with our self-interest.

I always learn something from your posts and I would hate to be on your sh-- list.

I'm always grateful to be appreciated; and the only way you can get on my "s*** list" is to repeatedly lie to someone about their own opinions, feelings, or motivations.

 

[rocketdodger]

(2) You will be made to say what you mean by "rational" and "self-interest". At this point it will become clear that what you mean in English is that people are motivated by the things that they want. Which we all knew, and is a tautology. That's what "motivation" means.

You agree that people are motivated by things they want. Would you agree if I proposed that people will only act when motivated to do so?

I am simply trying to say that I think all rational people do what they want, and for good and decent people what they want is usually "good" insofar as it involves the wants of others being satisfied as well. Contrast this with "bad" people, who's wants are usually at odds with the wants of others.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am simply trying to say that I think all rational people do what they want...

But you were not simply saying that. You wished to call "what they want" by the name "self-interest". I have explained why I think this confusing at best --- and mendacious and evil at worst.

 

[rocketdodger]

But you were not simply saying that. You wished to call "what they want" by the name "self-interest". I have explained why I think this confusing at best --- and mendacious and evil at worst.

My bad, I guess.