I promise this isn't an ambush

I'd appreciate some input from athiests & agnostics on something fairly basic: three self-evident (IMO) facts about human existence and experience.

1) We are all finite.
2) We are all fallible.
3) We are all fallen.

Granted, you may prefer a less theological term for the third, and I won't split hairs over that at this point -- call a ever-present tendency to moral compromise, moral failure, whatever.

My question is, does anyone have any fundamental dispute with or objection to the accuracy of these statements?

Thx, SK
 
I'd appreciate some input from athiests & agnostics on something fairly basic: three self-evident (IMO) facts about human existence andexperience.

1) We are all finite.
2) We are all fallible.
3) We are all fallen.

Granted, you may prefer a less theological term for the third, and I won't split hairs over that at this point -- call a ever-present tendency to moral compromise, moral failure, whatever.

My question is, does anyone have any fundamental dispute with or objection to the accuracy of these statements?

Thx, SK
I don't dispute any of them, though maybe if you wanted to remain theologically neutral in expression it would be
2) we are intellectually fallible
3) we are morally fallible.

Somebody who was a moral conventionalist (if that's the term for somebody who says moral claims are not right or wrong, merely opinion) might dispute 3) on the grounds that "morally fallible" implies the existence of objectively right and wrong moral standards, and these do not exist.
 
I don't dispute any of them, though maybe if you wanted to remain theologically neutral in expression it would be
2) we are intellectually fallible
3) we are morally fallible.

Somebody who was a moral conventionalist (if that's the term for somebody who says moral claims are not right or wrong, merely opinion) might dispute 3) on the grounds that "morally fallible" implies the existence of objectively right and wrong moral standards, and these do not exist.
Thanks -- I do think, whatever moral theory one might espouse, that we all share an awareness that we do not perfectly manifest whatever moral standards we profess. Of course, there are likely to be some exceptions to any 'rule', even if they are rare.

*Edit: If I can develop what I am hoping to, I don't want to duplicate terms, for the sake of clarity
 
Last edited:
I'd appreciate some input from athiests & agnostics on something fairly basic: three self-evident (IMO) facts about human existence and experience.

1) We are all finite.
2) We are all fallible.
3) We are all fallen.

Granted, you may prefer a less theological term for the third, and I won't split hairs over that at this point -- call a ever-present tendency to moral compromise, moral failure, whatever.
Unless "fallen" means "once perfect, then not", it reduces to #2.

In any case, I agree with the first two.
 
Unless "fallen" means "once perfect, then not", it reduces to #2.

In any case, I agree with the first two.
Fair observation. But, fallibility doesn't necessarily involve moral culpability-- errors may or may not be of a moral nature. Fallenness is a moral category, though I suppose it would also encompass other aspects of our experience (suffering, death, etc.)

In my thinking on this question, I use the term 'fallen' because there is a common view that, whatever the hypothetical reason, the world isn't as it should be -- but, yes, I do see your point regarding a perfect, or at least substantially better, former state. I'll give that some thought.
Thx.
 
In my thinking on this question, I use the term 'fallen' because there is a common view that, whatever the hypothetical reason, the world isn't as it should be
"Should be" in whose opinion?

Everybody has an idea of the way it should be but I think that most people, if asked, would say that it's not as they think it should be.
 
"Should be" in whose opinion?

Everybody has an idea of the way it should be but I think that most people, if asked, would say that it's not as they think it should be.
I'm trying to remove as much apecific perspective as possible from the beginning -- it seems to be a nearly universal experience, regardless of whom you ask. So -- 'should be' in any given individual's opinion. Another way of putting it would be to say most of us sense their is something basically wrong (incorrect? broken?) with the world as it is.
 
I'm trying to remove as much apecific perspective as possible from the beginning -- it seems to be a nearly universal experience, regardless of whom you ask. So -- 'should be' in any given individual's opinion. Another way of putting it would be to say most of us sense their is something basically wrong (incorrect? broken?) with the world as it is.
I certainly don't think this. The world is what it is, entirely neutral. It doesn't care about us, one way or another. What do you mean by "incorrect or broken"? A bit less disease? Fewer earthquakes? More drinking water? Food we didn't have to work for? Why should the world be "better" for us? It seems a tad arrogant to even pose the question.

I am quite content with your original three postulates, including the idea that we are "fallen" with the caveats already discussed. The notion that the world itself is "fallen" is something else entirely, and I reject that idea.
 
I certainly don't think this. The world is what it is, entirely neutral. It doesn't care about us, one way or another. What do you mean by "incorrect or broken"? A bit less disease? Fewer earthquakes? More drinking water? Food we didn't have to work for? Why should the world be "better" for us? It seems a tad arrogant to even pose the question.

I am quite content with your original three postulates, including the idea that we are "fallen" with the caveats already discussed. The notion that the world itself is "fallen" is something else entirely, and I reject that idea.
Thanks -- basically, I'm trying to figure out the best way to approach the third point. And by 'best', I just mean the most effective in terms of general agreement. As I suggested in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down from the outset with too much baggage from any particular worldview. Some may prefer one term over another, or one point of focus over another, it does seem likely that there is ground for a broad, general agreement -- I just need to nail down the right phrasing.
 
Just to POSE the question as to whether the world might SEEM broken is arrogant? It must be broken to create such snowflake sensitivity.
I assume he means arrogant as in, assuming the universe owes us something more than what we already have. In an impersonal, material universe (if that's all it is), anthropocentrism is arrogant.
 
Last edited:
Thanks -- basically, I'm trying to figure out the best way to approach the third point. And by 'best', I just mean the most effective in terms of general agreement. As I suggested in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down from the outset with too much baggage from any particular worldview. Some may prefer one term over another, or one point of focus over another, it does seem likely that there is ground for a broad, general agreement -- I just need to nail down the right phrasing.
I would be quite content with the notion that the world is not always as we would like it, and more importantly perhaps, that we ourselves are not always as we would like to be. In fact railing against fate or luck or the world in general is perhaps just displacement activity, avoiding the acknowledgment that we are failing to deal with circumstances as they actually are, including our own frailties.

Any way, I am keen to see how you develop your train of thought.
 
In an impersonal, material universe (if that's all it is), anthropocentrism is arrogant.

I'm just not seeing how merely posing the question to an atheist as to whether they can conceive of comparatively better universe and the consequent possibility of how corruption my have therefore set in, is arrogant. Actually I'm defending you from the charge of arrogance. You asked three very good Socratic questions. But you're dealing with some extremely hardened and narrow minded atheists here, so don't expect your noble attempts at rhetorical midwifery to give birth to anything.
 
Fair observation. But, fallibility doesn't necessarily involve moral culpability-- errors may or may not be of a moral nature. Fallenness is a moral category, though I suppose it would also encompass other aspects of our experience (suffering, death, etc.)

In my thinking on this question, I use the term 'fallen' because there is a common view that, whatever the hypothetical reason, the world isn't as it should be -- but, yes, I do see your point regarding a perfect, or at least substantially better, former state. I'll give that some thought.
Thx.
So you want to separate moral culpability from a more generalised fallibility?
The world is what it is.
What you label as 'fallen" I think is more a case of the world not being as we would like it to be.
 
I'd appreciate some input from athiests & agnostics on something fairly basic: three self-evident (IMO) facts about human existence and experience.

1) We are all finite.
2) We are all fallible.
3) We are all fallen.

Granted, you may prefer a less theological term for the third, and I won't split hairs over that at this point -- call a ever-present tendency to moral compromise, moral failure, whatever.

My question is, does anyone have any fundamental dispute with or objection to the accuracy of these statements?

Thx, SK
Agree with the first two.
Third - fallen from what? If anything there has been a struggle for the improving of justice as civilisation advances. I would not like to have liven in the past in any country.
 
Agree with the first two.
Third - fallen from what? If anything there has been a struggle for the improving of justice as civilisation advances.

Maybe you need to read up on the current civilizations in North Korea, Venezuela, China, Cameroon, Mozambique, Iran and other Islamic nations where homosexuals are tossed off roofs of buildings.
 
Maybe you need to read up on the current civilizations in North Korea, Venezuela, China, Cameroon, Mozambique, Iran and other Islamic nations where homosexuals are tossed off roofs of buildings.
The places that still behave like medieval Christian Europe you mean? The places that have not benefited from the Enlightenment.
 
Back
Top