Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

[David Mo]

I'm talking about anything supernatural. That there is an all powerful all knowing being that created the universe and everything in it. That this being took the form of his own son so he/it could be tortured. Etc etc etc.

Not whether you find certain aspects in the bible uplifting or inspirational. I also find some (definitly not all) of the philosophy reportedly taught by Jesus as such.

Well, there are Christians who would agree with you or almost agree with you. They shouldn't be as dishonest as you say.

 

[HansMustermann]

The allegorical interpretation of a text does not defend that what is described in the text is factually true. You have wasted time with the introduction of your comment. That does not mean that you are stupid, but that you have made a mistake.

Well, you didn't mention the "allegorical" part there, but sure, that one suffers from its own problems. Bigger ones, actually.

Irrationalism can be defended intelligently or stupidly. What you consider logical may not be logical.

Anyone can be wrong about something, once. If they persist in being wrong, no matter how much data is presented to the contrary, then... well, maybe "stupid" isn't necessarily the right word. The actually name for it is "delusional".

You may be wrong, but that doesn't make you stupid. Maybe the irrationalist is wrong, but this doesn't make him a stupid.

Again, intelligence is the ability to reason. There is no real way to say that being unable to reason correctly on a domain is anything even remotely intelligent. It may be wilful or it may be just taking the piss or whatever, but it's not something intelligent.

It looks like you don't know any intelligent Christian.

Again, that is your own strawman. The conflict that was stated wasn't between between being intelligent and being a Christian, but between intelligence and Christianity.

And no, I don't know of any intelligent Christian apologetics. If you know any, please do present one.

It is strange. I am atheist myself and I have not many books by Christians. But I know some that made me thinking on why they were wrong. An this is what I call intelligence: some thing that makes you think. I put some examples: Descartes, Rousseau, Kant (these are classics), Dunn, Meier, Crossan, Bultmann, Schweitzer (about the historical Jesus).

In this forum I had an interesting debate with a certain Tim O'Neill who pretended that there is no conflict between science and religion. (He said he was not a Christian but he was defending the Christian hard line on this subject). About Hypatia and Galileo. He was a tough guy. He was wrong in the main idea but knew how to argue.

That's hardly a counter-example. In his particular case what he was doing intelligently was sophistry, rather than applying any real intelligence to Christianity.

If you want to see an intelligent Christian in action, I recommend the polemic between Copleston and Russell. Here: http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm . Although I think it's useless. You'll say Copleston was wrong and that's why he was stupid and dishonest. You've decided beforehand.

Actually, you've just poisoned the well beforehand.

Hey, is there anyone smart in this world who thinks differently than you? Who?

Lots of people, but either it's because of working from different hypotheses, or they're using that intelligence on a different domain than the one on which they're irrational.

A trivial example that is at least connected to religion is Ehrman. I think some of his premises are wrong, one of them being what would actually count as a Historical Jesus, plus he applies a methodology that is obsolete for real historians while conspicuously calling himself one. But otherwise, he does a fine work from there.

 

[David Mo]

Well, you didn't mention the "allegorical" part there, but sure, that one suffers from its own problems. Bigger ones, actually.

I know the theory of cognitive dissonance. I have mentioned it several times in this forum and I have some writings about it on the Internet. Sorry, in Spanish. But cognitive dissonance is only applicable to the case where a Christian believes in some facts that are refuted by later facts. For example: the imminent coming of the Kingdom. If my belief is metaphysical or based on subjective experience, cognitive dissonance never occurs. For example: the allegorical interpretation of the passage where Joshua stops the sun cannot be refuted by historical evidence.

Each one suffers from its own problems. Bigger ones, actually. I agree.

 

[David Mo]

It looks like you don't know any intelligent Christian. It is strange. I am atheist myself and I have not many books by Christians. But I know some that made me thinking on why they were wrong. An this is what I call intelligence: some thing that makes you think. I put some examples: Descartes, Rousseau, Kant (these are classics), Dunn, Meier, Crossan, Bultmann, Schweitzer (about the historical Jesus).

(..)If you want to see an intelligent Christian in action, I recommend the polemic between Copleston and Russell. Here: http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm . Although I think it's useless. You'll say Copleston was wrong and that's why he was stupid and dishonest. You've decided beforehand.

And no, I don't know of any intelligent Christian apologetics. If you know any, please do present one.

Ein? One? I have presented you nine!

 

[HansMustermann]

1. They were intelligent people, but, at least the ones I know about, I don't consider their take on religion to be either really apologetics OR particularly rational, which is to say, intelligent. Or in some cases, both.

Kant for example is the easiest example: IIRC his WHOLE defense of religion is really an appeal to consequences, or more specifically what we nowadays call faith in faith.

Descartes? You mean the guy who argued that God must be real, because "of all the ideas that are in me, the idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct"? Seriously, does that sound to YOU like an intelligent defense of God?

Etc.

If anything it just shows what I've said all along: that even otherwise intelligent people can suspend that intelligence when they want to justify religion.

2. Technically just spewing some names is still just a form of the "sophisticated theology" defense. If you want to claim that an intelligent defense of God exists in any of the work of those guys, it's your burden of proof to show it. You don't meet it by just spewing a list of names and passing on to someone else the burden of actually finding the supposed needle in the haystack of everything those ever wrote.

What you're doing is like if, say, I were to claim there is a flying pig, and just told you it's somewhere in Australia, the Amazon forest or Antarctica. No, that's not meeting the burden of proof, it's just a denial of service kind of BS. It's just passing the burden of combing every cave and field and valley in those vast places, to prove the negative.

Or in other words it's just a thinly disguised argument from ignorance fallacy.

So please properly meet your burden of proof before posturing that you already gave nine. No you didn't. Unless you're still fighting that strawman of yours instead of what was being discussed, I guess.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, there are Christians who would agree with you or almost agree with you. They shouldn't be as dishonest as you say.

Here's where we have a bit of a problem. Who am to say who is and who isn't a Christian?

That said IMV, the bare minimum would be the acceptance of the most basic Christian doctrine and that would be the son of god took human form and died and was resurrected. Otherwise you're not really a Christian, but just a fan.

And even fanboys are a bit dangerous as they give cover to the fundies.

 

[David Mo]

1. They were intelligent people, but, at least the ones I know about, I don't consider their take on religion to be either really apologetics OR particularly rational, which is to say, intelligent. Or in some cases, both.

Kant for example is the easiest example: IIRC his WHOLE defense of religion is really an appeal to consequences, or more specifically what we nowadays call faith in faith.

Descartes? You mean the guy who argued that God must be real, because "of all the ideas that are in me, the idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct"? Seriously, does that sound to YOU like an intelligent defense of God?

Etc.

If anything it just shows what I've said all along: that even otherwise intelligent people can suspend that intelligence when they want to justify religion.

2. Technically just spewing some names is still just a form of the "sophisticated theology" defense. If you want to claim that an intelligent defense of God exists in any of the work of those guys, it's your burden of proof to show it. You don't meet it by just spewing a list of names and passing on to someone else the burden of actually finding the supposed needle in the haystack of everything those ever wrote.

What you're doing is like if, say, I were to claim there is a flying pig, and just told you it's somewhere in Australia, the Amazon forest or Antarctica. No, that's not meeting the burden of proof, it's just a denial of service kind of BS. It's just passing the burden of combing every cave and field and valley in those vast places, to prove the negative.

Or in other words it's just a thinly disguised argument from ignorance fallacy.

So please properly meet your burden of proof before posturing that you already gave nine. No you didn't. Unless you're still fighting that strawman of yours instead of what was being discussed, I guess.

You cannot judge a whole theory by one sentence. Even more if it is not accurate ("more specifically what we nowadays call faith in faith") or more complex than it seems ("the idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct"). The intelligence of an argument can be only seen in the complete development of an idea and in its relationship to others. We see the intelligence of someone by his way of arguing and not only by the final conclusions.

You are asking to me for a full summary of Kant’s argument on religion and an a explanation of Descartes' proof of God’s existence on the bases of his concept of clarity and distinction. I am sorry. I have neither time nor ability to do so. There are some good encyclopedias of philosophy that can do this better than me. I recommend you the Stanford encyclopedia on line. In addition I have send you to an interesting debate between Copleston and Russell that is less extent and more popular. It is possible to listen it on Youtube if you don't like to read it. We can discuss what you find non-intelligent if you read it. If you refuse to do it the discussion become impossible. But don't say that I am not presenting evidence. It is just you don't want to see it.

If anything it just shows what I've said all along: that even otherwise intelligent people can suspend that intelligence when they want to justify religion.

Anyway, if this is your point, I agree. Intelligent people make intelligent arguments that are flawed because they are based on passion and not reason. I said this in a commentary some time ago. But that is no reason to call them dishonest or stupid. Many people do the same with this or other issues. Yourself.

 

[David Mo]

Here's where we have a bit of a problem. Who am to say who is and who isn't a Christian?

That said IMV, the bare minimum would be the acceptance of the most basic Christian doctrine and that would be the son of god took human form and died and was resurrected. Otherwise you're not really a Christian, but just a fan.

And even fanboys are a bit dangerous as they give cover to the fundies.

I don't think that you and me are qualified to distribute Christianity certificates. I don't see any difference between to be a fan of Christ and a Christian in order to be qualified so. To believe in a Christian message is equally relevant, whether Christ is a real man or an allegorical figure for a divine being. Just we need distinguish one thing to the other.

I don't think a fan is dangerous if it's clearly separated from the "foundies". Many times "foundies" hate both the "temperate" and the atheists. See religious wars or radical Islamists killing other Muslims.

 

[HansMustermann]

Anyway, if this is your point, I agree. Intelligent people make intelligent arguments that are flawed because they are based on passion and not reason. I said this in a commentary some time ago

Well, it's been my point for a while, you just didn't believe apparently that someone can suspend their intelligence. Which seems to me like it is just another name for what you call arguments "based on passion and not reason." Seems to me like you too are saying that they CAN suspend reason after all.

Sure, those people still have the same capacity for being intelligent, i.e., capacity to reason, but then the Audi R8 parked in front of the office also still has the capacity to go very fast. It's certainly not using it at the moment.

But that is no reason to call them dishonest or stupid.

Why not? A broken argument can certainly be stupid, or at the very least not particularly intelligent.

Many people do the same with this or other issues. Yourself.

Sure. And some of my reasoning can be stonking stupid too. Just look in the science forum for any of my black hole threads.

 

[David Mo]

Your assumption would only be valid if men were guided only by their intelligence. Everybody, even geniuses, has passions that are stronger than their intelligence many times over. A Christian can be very intelligent, believe in what he wants to believe and use his intelligence to justify what he wants. There is no contradiction. It is a very common psychological fact.

Well, it's been my point for a while, you just didn't believe apparently that someone can suspend their intelligence. Which seems to me like it is just another name for what you call arguments "based on passion and not reason." Seems to me like you too are saying that they CAN suspend reason after all.

Apparently we agreed on the essentials. Either we did not say it clearly or there is another additional disagreement.

I think that additional disagreement is not trivial. It is based on the words "stupid" and "dishonest. I think both are strongly derogatory and, therefore, loaded with passion.
I refuse to use them. "Dishonest" because it is false. No one can be called dishonest if there is no evidence that his words are intended to deceive. Obviously you have no such evidence regarding the authors I proposed to you and many others.

As for "stupid," it doesn't mean anything other than "I think that's very wrong". With stupidity you do nothing but add "and that bothers me a lot", but without making it explicit. That seems to me to use a language trap and therefore very wrong. Stupid just is an insult. Avoiding insults is one of the first rules of a rational debate.

 

[HansMustermann]

1. There is such a thing as being dishonest with oneself, you know? Which really is what most apologetics are.

2. Actually I don't mean "and that bothers me a lot" by "stupid". I literally just mean it's not an intelligent argument. I'm not bothered by people doing stupid stuff, as long as it doesn't affect me. FSM bless stupid people, without them we wouldn't have such quality entertainment as the Darwin Awards

Or, to return to the thread, in the case of the Christian God, I mean that he's falling about two or three standard deviations short of the IQ average.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

By that reasoning, what isn't a waste of time?

Well, for starters, arguing about things that matter?

But please, do carry on. God arguments are the fuel of internet forums. Especially this one.

 

[HansMustermann]

Didn't we just have stuff like a country making homosexuality a death-penalty offence because buttsecks makes baby Jesus cry?

Or we're literally just years after the previous Pope told people not to wear condoms in the middle of an AIDS epidemic in Africa? And he gets to say such stuff authoritatively, because the Holy Spirit tells him to. Oh wait, we're not entirely over that either, because the current one still doesn't want condoms distributed to prevent AIDS.

Actually, it's even better, because the current one still thinks preventing pregnancy is evil. It's not as absolute an evil as an abortion, and in some cases it may be a lesser evil, but it's still evil. And note that this time it's not even just about condoms. Any kind of preventing pregnancy is evil. So even taking the pill is technically evil.

Or take abortion for rape victims. Guess who still claims that it's an "absolute evil"? Yep, the cool new Pope.

I'm curious, when actual lives are at stake, and not exactly few either, and many more are ruined by religion... exactly what DOES qualify as things that matter by YOUR standards?

 

[abaddon]

Didn't we just have stuff like a country making homosexuality a death-penalty offence because buttsecks makes baby Jesus cry?

Or we're literally just years after the previous Pope told people not to wear condoms in the middle of an AIDS epidemic in Africa? And he gets to say such stuff authoritatively, because the Holy Spirit tells him to. Oh wait, we're not entirely over that either, because the current one still doesn't want condoms distributed to prevent AIDS.

Actually, it's even better, because the current one still thinks preventing pregnancy is evil. It's not as absolute an evil as an abortion, and in some cases it may be a lesser evil, but it's still evil. And note that this time it's not even just about condoms. Any kind of preventing pregnancy is evil. So even taking the pill is technically evil.

Or take abortion for rape victims. Guess who still claims that it's an "absolute evil"? Yep, the cool new Pope.

I'm curious, when actual lives are at stake, and not exactly few either, and many more are ruined by religion... exactly what DOES qualify as things that matter by YOUR standards?

By that logic, abstaining from sex is evil as it prevents pregnancy, therefore all priests are evil.

 

[HansMustermann]

By that logic, abstaining from sex is evil as it prevents pregnancy, therefore all priests are evil.

I suppose he meant having sex without pregnancy, but yeah, now that you mention it, he was a bit vague.

Mind you, I could have used a vague pope like that in high school. Then I could tell the religious girls on the highest authority that not having sex is evil

 

[David Mo]

1. There is such a thing as being dishonest with oneself, you know? Which really is what most apologetics are.

2. Actually I don't mean "and that bothers me a lot" by "stupid". I literally just mean it's not an intelligent argument. I'm not bothered by people doing stupid stuff, as long as it doesn't affect me. FSM bless stupid people, without them we wouldn't have such quality entertainment as the Darwin Awards

Or, to return to the thread, in the case of the Christian God, I mean that he's falling about two or three standard deviations short of the IQ average.

"Deceiving oneself", "not being honest with oneself": There are multiple definitions that do not agree. This is a sign that something is wrong. To deceive is to be aware of something that one is hidding. It supposes two people: the one who knows the truth and the one who does not know and is made to believe something else. But what is the point of deceiving oneself? It is not possible for a part of oneself that knows and deceives the part that does not know, because we are talking about a single person and a conscious activity, which is to deceive.

Here is a game of language that need to be disentangled.

Perhaps it means that there is a truth within oneself (in the unconscious) that the subject could know. But that this truth is uncomfortable and the subject does not allow it to emerge. It implies a duplicity: the unconscious and the conscious. But the conscious is attributed something like a consciousness of what is in the unconscious. An absurdity.

Besides, this produces some paradoxes: one is supposed to have a deep nature but is hidden under appearances. An honest neo-Nazi would be one who recognizes himself as such and dedicates himself to killing Jews and Muslims. A dishonest neo-Nazi would be one who recognizes himself as such, but prefers to act as if he were not, in order to avoid being looked at badly in his family or at work.

The only thing we can say in these cases is that passion is stronger than consciousness and prevents one from facing the truth. That is possible, but it prevents us from talking about any deception. There is simply a stronger part. There is no dishonesty. There is error. False beliefs and wrong acts.

Of course, there are cases in which the refusal to face reality implies a reprehensible attitude. They are usually cases where the person knows or has strong indications of the truth and refuses to talk about it or do anything about it. But you can't attribute it to everyone who believes in something. It is difficult to know when this happen and that occurs under any belief and not in all those who hold it.


On the other hand, how is an error caused by stupidity distinguished from a simple error committed by a non-stupid person? Is there a test for the stupidity of an argument? What is its measure? I know intelligence tests to classify abilities. I don't know tests of intelligence for arguments. Much less for the stupidity of simple propositions. For example: "all human beings believe in something without proof. Then I can believe in something (God) without proof". Is it more stupid than claiming that we need to have evidence of everything?

I insist: we usually call anything or anyone who contradicts our basic beliefs "stupid". This is an inaccurate way of speaking. A common place.

 

[David Mo]

Well, for starters, arguing about things that matter?

But please, do carry on. God arguments are the fuel of internet forums. Especially this one.

And what are the things that matter?

One day Dr. Watson dedicated himself to making a list of Sherlock Holmes' knowledge. He was surprised that his friend, the most intelligent man in England, knew a lot of things like the different kinds of ashes, the customs of the Chinese or how to play the violin and had no idea of astronomy.

"If the Earth revolves around the Sun?" said Holmes. "I don't know and I don't care. What use is it for me to know this?"

And this one: "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" (Mark 8:36)

Both positions are worth to discuss about. I think.

 

[HansMustermann]

While I would agree that words can be used to have more than one meaning, you seem to repeatedly assume that everyone would use them only in the one sense that you would choose. E.g., that "stupid" has to always be meant as a matter of being bothered or of faith, or in the other thread that "sociopathy" has to be meant as a slur instead of a medical term.

Which I mention only because you wanted an example of how a simple proposition can be stupid. Frankly, that would be it. Being wrong about it once, ok, it happens over the internet. But repeatedly insisting that no, you know better than the one using the term that they didn't REALLY mean what they thought they meant, is downright stupid and delusional.

 

[acbytesla]

And what are the things that matter?

One day Dr. Watson dedicated himself to making a list of Sherlock Holmes' knowledge. He was surprised that his friend, the most intelligent man in England, knew a lot of things like the different kinds of ashes, the customs of the Chinese or how to play the violin and had no idea of astronomy.

"If the Earth revolves around the Sun?" said Holmes. "I don't know and I don't care. What use is it for me to know this?"

And this one: "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" (Mark 8:36)

Both positions are worth to discuss about. I think.

Not Really. Especially since both are fiction.

You get that don't you? Sherlock Holmes is a story made up by Arthur Conan Doyle and nobody has a clue who wrote Mark or Matthew or Luke or John. Those are just stories and 3 of them are simply rewritten stories either of Mark or from another source often referred to as Q.

My question to you is why would you believe them to be non-fiction?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not Really. Especially since both are fiction.

You get that don't you? Sherlock Holmes is a story made up by Arthur Conan Doyle and nobody has a clue who wrote Mark or Matthew or Luke or John. Those are just stories and 3 of them are simply rewritten stories either of Mark or from another source often referred to as Q.

My question to you is why would you believe them to be non-fiction?

Cue appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, or appeal to popularity as the most possible coherent answer you're gonna get.