Thought Experiment

[5wize]

Not really. Their track record is not too good. In the 1960s, 70s, 80s, those fields claimed that men and women were no different mentally, then studies started showing that men and women are mentally different in the 90s and 00s. Which Gods Word had taught for 3500 years. And now those fields claim that men can become women just by thinking they are one and vice versa. Going against the hard science of biology.

That's not an issue for those sciences because the theories straightened themselves out. That's the nature of science - Hypothesis, theory, proof or disproof over time based on the observations against the theory - back to the drawing board if need be.

Religion does not have that correctability. What it codified for itself, based on bad ancient superstitious thinking, became codified forever. To throw out religion's terrible base assumptions is to throw out religion altogether. It does not self adjust to reality. It just crumbles or becomes artificially supported by more and more human exegesis and hermeneutics piled on top to protect it.

To experience a proper and healthy mental and personal relationship to the claims of Christianity you need to realize that back then, supernatural beliefs were the science and the political science/government of the day. In the OT your particular religion is based on a superfluous declaration of a relationship between Jews and a Hebrew war god invented to codify their economics and geopolitics and infuse that with supernatural justification by claiming themselves the "chosen" of a God that eventually became the "only" god. JHVH did not start out that way. Then the NT extended Hebrew politics to their nation being politically freed from Roman bondage by a messianic deliverer. It was all politics with some common and basic human spirituality sprinkled in.

It's a terrible to waste a life and mind in vehement support of old, old political models as if they are now relevant to one's life. It's not correctible, like real science.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

That's not an issue for those sciences because the theories straightened themselves out. That's the nature of science - Hypothesis, theory, proof or disproof over time based on the observations against the theory - back to the drawing board if need be.

Yeah, like covid science: It's spread by physical contact; Disinfect your hands. And don't touch your face. No, it's airborne. Wear a mask. But statistics show masks have no benefit. Just stay six feet away from anyone else. On second thought, make that four feet. No, just get a vaccination shot. Oops, you're gonna need a booster. No wait, you'll need THREE boosters. But bummer, triple boosted people are still getting covid. Back to about fifty drawing boards. We're bound to get it right sooner or later. It came from a Wuhan lab. No it didn't. It came from bats. Oh hell, we scientists don't know where it came from.We're gonna need more drawing boards.

Meanwhile, Jesus Christ hasn't budged from the right hand of the Father in 2,000 years.

 

[5wize]

Yeah, like covid science: It's spread by physical contact; Disinfect your hands. And don't touch your face. No, it's airborne. Wear a mask. But statistics show masks have no benefit. Just stay six feet away from anyone else. On second thought, make that four feet. No, just get a vaccination shot. Oops, you're gonna need a booster. No wait, you'll need THREE boosters. But bummer, triple boosted people are still getting covid. Back to about fifty drawing boards. We're bound to get it right sooner or later. It came from a Wuhan lab. No it didn't. It came from bats. Oh hell, we scientists don't know where it came from.We're gonna need more drawing boards.

Meanwhile, Jesus Christ hasn't budged from the right hand of the Father in 2,000 years.

That's not true. Last Thursday he went to a harp stringing seminar and he had to stay overnight because it was too far away from God's right hand and the seminar ended late.

Prove me wrong. You can't, can ya!? Thought so.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

That's not true. Last Thursday he went to a harp stringing seminar and he had to stay overnight because it was too far away from God's right hand and the seminar ended late.

Correct. He's omnipresent and the Lord of Time. Very good!! He was also at a zither stringing seminar simultaneously.

 

[El Cid]

Which is strong historical evidence given that it was recorded very close to the event and so could be disputed by people at the time. But there is no evidence that it was.

As I said elsewhere, I'd like to know who could have said what, to whom, when, which would have decisively refuted this claim.

Just about any church member around Jerusalem, James the brother of Jesus (who would not have been a member of the church since he was a skeptic), and Peter could have said it never happened and had Paul excommunicated from the church for lying.

El Cid said:
Exactly, it does not say it was raised a spirit. A transformed body was raised.

Plainly Paul thought the "transformation" was a significant one, in which at least some of the features of the physical ("natural") body were left behind.

Of course it was significant, but it was still plainly a body not an immaterial spirit.

More broadly, "he appeared" does not necessarily mean "he walked up to them, embraced them, and then walked away"; it could mean he appeared at a distance -- or in the air -- then disappeared. The fact that he was buried in a physical body would not disallow this.

But there was testimony that He did in fact do those things. Also, they would have said it was just Jesus' ghost which was a common belief at the time among people so it would have been nothing that special. Many people had seen ghosts, but nobody had seen someone that they knew personally walking around after having been crucified to death.

 

[Komodo]

Just about any church member around Jerusalem, James the brother of Jesus (who would not have been a member of the church since he was a skeptic), and Peter could have said it never happened and had Paul excommunicated from the church for lying.

This is absolute nonsense. You're saying that Paul's claim -- made in a letter from ~55 A.D. -- could have easily been refuted by testimony from James -- who died in 44 A.D.!

Of course it was significant, but it was still plainly a body not an immaterial spirit.

"Plainly" to whom? When? In 33 A.D.? We don't know anything about who believed what about the resurrected Jesus at that time.

But there was testimony that He did in fact do those things.

Testimony written when? Not in the first years after the crucifixion.

Also, they would have said it was just Jesus' ghost which was a common belief at the time among people so it would have been nothing that special. Many people had seen ghosts, but nobody had seen someone that they knew personally walking around after having been crucified to death.

You're talking as if it's an inconceivable impossibility that a story could change in the telling.

 

[El Cid]

This is too poor a reason to think it strong evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong but Paul was writing 20 years after the supposed event and was 200 miles away.

No, Paul was quoting a creed that most scholars believe was written less than five years after the event.

 

[El Cid]

If you know with 100% certainty that the gun you sell will be used in the commission of a murder, you are morally culpable along with the murderer.

True but God doesnt sell guns to murderers, He only allows the gun seller to sell them to some of them. BTW, just as an aside most murderers steal the guns they use.

 

[Eightcrackers]

True but God doesnt sell guns to murderers, He only allows the gun seller to sell them to some of them. BTW, just as an aside most murderers steal the guns they use.

Same difference - allowing somebody to sell somebody else a gun that you know will be used to commit murder, still imputes partial culpability.

 

[El Cid]

I am taking "a subject-object correlation" to mean, essentially, "if I (the subject) 'see' or 'feel' some object, like a chair, the chair is really there; that is, there is a correlation between what the subject experiences and what is true of the object." If you mean something different, please clarify what that is. If not,

Correct.

1) No such correlation was established at the origin of the universe between humans and other things, since humans came along later.

But if there was a personal creator then that correlation was established by definition.

2) In fact, the existence of a personal creator does not in itself guarantee such a correlation between humans and other things; the creator might be deceiving us or permitting us to be deceived.

True but if the Christian God exists as He describes Himself and as His people experience Him then there is a correlation.

3) If there is not an illusory pseudo-reality, how could I -- and everybody else in the room -- be seeing and touching the chair, unless there is a subject-object correlation?

Because He exists.

 

[El Cid]

There is a long list, but the blobfish for one, naked mole rat, proboscis monkey, elephant seal, red lipped batfish.

Of course, He created some ugly animals so we could recognize and enjoy the beautiful animals even more.

 

[El Cid]

Just google deformed babies at birth. I hesitate to post such pictures here. God set the conditions under which this would happen, knowing full well what would happen.

While He knew it would happen, the conditions were set by our rebellion against Him. If we had not rebelled, then there never would have been deformed babies.

 

[Whatsisface]

While He knew it would happen, the conditions were set by our rebellion against Him. If we had not rebelled, then there never would have been deformed babies.

What's the causal mechanism between our rebellion and deformed babies?

I'm afraid God can't escape culpability. God being omniscient and omnipotent He would know that we would rebel and that that would cause said deformity and He allowed it to be.

 

[Komodo]

[. . .] But if there was a personal creator then that correlation was established by definition.

True but if the Christian God exists as He describes Himself and as His people experience Him then there is a correlation.

All you are saying is, "If the universe is governed by a being who would not permit us to be deceived when we think we are sitting in a chair, then when we think we are sitting in a chair, we really are sitting in a chair." I wouldn't at all dispute that. My argument is that we do not need to assume the existence of such a being, in order to be confident that what we perceive is real, and that there is no reliance on "hope" in having that confidence. I may have made this point in too convoluted a fashion before, so let me try again. Here are two syllogisms:

P1) If the universe is governed by a being who would not permit us to be deceived when we think we are sitting in a chair, then when we think we are sitting in a chair, we really are sitting in a chair.
P2) The universe is governed by such a being
C) Therefore, when we think we are sitting in a chair, we really are sitting in a chair.

This is a valid syllogism, and I agree with P1), but of course I dispute P2. The second syllogism goes like this:

P1a) If the universe is not governed by a being who is deliberately deceiving us by creating an illusory pseudo-reality, then when we think we are sitting in a chair, we really are sitting in a chair.
P2a) The universe is not governed by a being who is deliberately deceiving us by creating an illusory pseudo-reality
C) Therefore, when we think we are sitting in a chair, we really are sitting in a chair.

I want to know why you think syllogism 2) is inadequate. Do you deny that the conclusion must follow, if both premises are true? Do you dispute either premise? Because if you don't deny/dispute anything here, then I've presented an argument for why we can be confident our senses are trustworthy, without having to invoke God.

(In defense of P1a) I'd say, "I can't imagine any way in which would all be constantly thinking we were sitting in chairs, when we weren't really sitting in chairs, unless there were some omnipotent being deceiving us. Can you?" And in defense of P2a) I'd simply say "The existence of a Great God Loki is just a gratuitously absurd hypothesis; Occam's Razor kills it. Why would an omnipotent being play such childish tricks?")

Note that "but what is your explanation for how this could this have happened? how did we end up with reliable sense perceptions?" is not a relevant response. My own answer, and that of most nonbelievers, is basically "through natural selection." But even if that is a bad answer -- even if nonbelievers have no good explanation for how we have reliable sense perceptions -- it doesn't follow that we can't reasonably conclude that we do have reliable sense perceptions. There are lots of phenomena which we know do happen, even if we can't explain how they happen. And of course you also don't really know the "how" of our capacity to perceive things reliably; "God gave us that capacity" is not an explanation.

 

[El Cid]

True but he does literally believe that is the foundational driving force of evolution.

"Dawkins believes that the driving force of evolution is gene proliferation; that's why the Nazis wanted to kill Jews" is just nonsense, both logically and historically.

No, see below, the goal of the Nazis was to eliminate their gene pool thru extermination, because they and Dawkins believed that is how evolution works.

El Cid said:
No, my point was that the goal of the Nazis was to reduce their gene pool thru extermination.

The Nazis wanted to eliminate Jews, period. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't have wanted to eliminate Jews, if they had never heard of genes. Genocidal societies have been trying to eliminate their enemies for thousands of years, long before Darwin or Mendel were born.

Yes, Nazis did not exist thousands of years ago, so that is irrelevant. And Nazis scientists believed that jews were evolutionarily inferior, this is a historical fact and it was one of their primary justifications for exterminating jews. I am not denying that they had other justifications as well but it was a primary one.

El Cid said:
So they would be following Dawkins evolutionary principle. Not saying Dawkins would endorse the extermination of jews of course, but they would be following the principle he "discovered".

YOU: The Nazis were following the principle that those who didn't succeed in reproducing were unfit.
ME: They were doing no such thing; the Jews were not at all "unfit" by that definition -- they succeeded perfectly well in reproducing -- and the Nazis never even claimed that they were.
YOU: But the Nazis were following the principle that those who didn't succeed in reproducing were unfit.

If you entirely ignore the criticisms others make about your claims, and simply repeat those claims unaltered, you are not taking part in a discussion.

No, see above, about Nazi scientists they were following evolutionary principles as one of their primary sources of ideas.

El Cid said:
But none of those other theories claim to explain the origin and behavior of humans.

You are simply making up ad hoc "rules" about when a scientific theory has to make a declaration about moral right and wrong; no other theory needs to do this, but evolution does because it "explains the origin and behavior of humans." That's a blatant non sequitur. Theories which explain and describe things are simply not expected to issue moral commandments, whether or not they involve humans. How would that work, anyway? How exactly can a scientific theory contain a moral commandment? What should Darwin, for example, have written in The Descent of Man, and why should we imagine it would have made a difference to Hitler?

Most evolutionary scientists believe that our morality came from and is based on evolution such as E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin himself, Peter Singer, and many others.

El Cid said:
Actually Imperial Japan is probably the only nation where it may have been justified by humans to target civilians and collective punishment was needed.

They specifically trained their civilians to attack Allied soldiers.

So did Great Britain. (See Home Guard.)

True but they were fighting for the good, Japan was for fighting for evil.

El Cid said:
See above and in addition, they attempted to put survival of the fittest into practice against other humans.

IOW, if we completely ignore what evolutionary biologists say about "fitness," and if we completely ignore what Nazis said about Jews, we can say that the Nazis were employing the evolutionary concept of fitness in their war against the Jews. Of course, using this kind of "logic," we can say anything about why anybody did anything.

No, see above and I can provide many quotes from Nazi scientists that believed they were following evolutionary principles in destroying Jews.

 

[Whatsisface]

No, see above and I can provide many quotes from Nazi scientists that believed they were following evolutionary principles in destroying Jews.

What's your point here? Even if that's what they had in mind, so what? It doesn't disprove evolution, it just says something about Nazis. Surely you don't think the Nazis were otherwise good people driven to genocide because of the way they viewed evolution? They did what they did at root because they were evil people combined with good old fashioned racism.

Odd that those who understand evolution the most don't want to invade Poland and and round up the Jews into ghetto's, right?

 

[Komodo]

No, see below, the goal of the Nazis was to eliminate their gene pool thru extermination, because they and Dawkins believed that is how evolution works.

[My emphasis.] You seem to be saying that the Nazis (1933-1945) acted as they did because of how Dawkins characterized evolution in The Selfish Gene (1976). Even if this were not chronologically nonsensical, Dawkins certainly never argued that evolution works by eliminating gene pools through extermination!

How about taking it slow:
What did the Nazis believe about how evolution works?
How do you know this? Which quotations are apropos here?
Were the Nazis' beliefs about how evolution works anywhere close to resembling what actual biologists say about how evolution works? For example, could you in fact quote Dawkins saying, suggesting or implying that evolution works by one population eliminating another through extermination?

Yes, Nazis did not exist thousands of years ago, so that is irrelevant.

No it isn't. If you claim that somebody's genocidal ideas must have been the product of X, then it is obviously relevant to point out that plenty of people had genocidal ideas without X being in the picture. That being so, the burden is on you to show that in this particular case, that was the proximate cause of those genocidal ideas. You haven't even started making a case for that.

And Nazis scientists believed that jews were evolutionarily inferior, this is a historical fact

The definition of "evolutionarily inferior" that you were repeatedly using was "being less efficient in reproducing." Show me a single Nazi scientist who characterized Jews that way.

and it was one of their primary justifications for exterminating jews. I am not denying that they had other justifications as well but it was a primary one.

Show me a single Nazi, scientist or other, who said that Jews needed to be exterminated because they were less efficient in reproducing. Again, that is the definition you were offering for "evolutionarily inferior." This was simply never a part of the Nazi propaganda about the Jewish menace. If you want to change now to some other definition of "evolutionarily inferior," go ahead. To make your case, you would have to show a Nazi pronouncement in which "Jews" and "evolution" appear in the same sentence, or at least the same paragraph, and in which the Nazi's concept of "evolution" bears any resemblance at all to how biologists understand evolution.

Komodo said:

El Cid said:
So they would be following Dawkins evolutionary principle. Not saying Dawkins would endorse the extermination of jews of course, but they would be following the principle he "discovered".

YOU: The Nazis were following the principle that those who didn't succeed in reproducing were unfit.
ME: They were doing no such thing; the Jews were not at all "unfit" by that definition -- they succeeded perfectly well in reproducing -- and the Nazis never even claimed that they were.
YOU: But the Nazis were following the principle that those who didn't succeed in reproducing were unfit.

If you entirely ignore the criticisms others make about your claims, and simply repeat those claims unaltered, you are not taking part in a discussion.

No, see above, about Nazi scientists they were following evolutionary principles as one of their primary sources of ideas.

And you're still just completely, repeatedly ignoring the objection I raised to your claims! There just isn't anything "above" which at all addresses my point.

Most evolutionary scientists believe that our morality came from and is based on evolution such as E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin himself, Peter Singer, and many others.

To say that morality "came from" evolution could mean that natural selection favored populations whose members are capable of empathy and self-sacrifice for the good of the family or the tribe. I don't know if these scientists mean that or something else. (For that matter, I don't know if any of them ever said, flatly, that "our morality came from and is based on evolution.") In any case what in the world does that have to do with Nazism?

No, see above and I can provide many quotes from Nazi scientists that believed they were following evolutionary principles in destroying Jews.

Please do! Again, I'd like to see if any of those quotes show that the Nazi concept of "evolutionary principles" had anything at all to do with, you know, actual evolutionary principles.

 

[Komodo]

True but they were fighting for the good, Japan was for fighting for evil.

You're arguing that those who are "fighting for the good" are justified in targeting civilians for mass death if they are members of a nation "fighting for evil," even if the "crime" for which those civilians are being punished is being trained to fight; exactly the same thing the "good guys" are doing with their own civilians!

"We are Good and They are Evil, so when they do it, it's a crime worthy of death; when we do it, no problemo!" You're literally granting moral impunity for war crimes committed by those "fighting for the good" (and of course everybody believes they are the ones fighting for the good). Yet somehow you think it's Darwin and Dawkins who put people on the road to justifying genocide??

 

[El Cid]

It was far more than that. . .

The "indictment" you made, which I was responding to, was specifically that their refusal to leave their land was a sufficient crime to justify killing them all.

Yes, but ultimately the reason that they refused to leave their land is because they rejected the true God. They knew who the hebrews were.

El Cid said:
the Canaanites engaged in human sacrifice, involuntary prostitution and slavery, and rejected the true God . . .

And now we see "rejecting the true God" as another count which justifies extermination. I don't think I need to say any more on this subject.

We all deserve to die at birth because we naturally reject the true God, so actually God was merciful to them because most of the Canaanites had years to repent and then they would have been spared but they refused.

 

[Komodo]

Yes, but ultimately the reason that they refused to leave their land is because they rejected the true God. They knew who the hebrews were.

We all deserve to die at birth because we naturally reject the true God, so actually God was merciful to them because most of the Canaanites had years to repent and then they would have been spared but they refused.

As I said, I don't think I need to say any more on this subject.