christianity anti-intellectual?

[David Jamieson]

The grass withers, the flower fades, the word of our god stands forever.

This concept interests me. Always has. For the simple fact that although religious text may be divinely inspired in some way, that inspiration is the authors, and teh authors are human, not god.

So any words, religious, textual, canonic or otherwise are merely the words of men.

God hasn't penned anything to the best of my knowledge.

Is there a pen? and if so why?

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Since there seems to be some confusion on this point, I'll rephrase a central argument of mine in a relatively clear fashion. I would like those who disagree with it to specify their point of disagreement.

Consider the formation 'an agent can V (some verb) X (some object).'

(1) The possible Xs are implicitly constrained by the meaning of V. In other words, there are only certain Xs to which V may possibly apply, according to what V is.

Agreed

Originally posted by Christopher M
(2) It necessarily follows from (1) that when a given X is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to V, that we can conclude nothing about the potency of the agent to accomplish V.

Agreed

Originally posted by Christopher M
(3) It necessarily follows from (2) that any critique of any agent to accomplish any V is defeated by demonstrating that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to V.

Agreed

Originally posted by Christopher M
(4) In the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question, I have demonstrated that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to the V in question.

No you haven't. You have confused a category mistake with a logical impossibility.

To illustrate:

'God cannot jump over beauty' involves a category mistake

'God cannot make a four sided triangle' does not.

You may say for the purposes of your argument it does not matter. However God being unable to create logically impossible objects means that he is subject to the laws of logic, specifically to the law of contradiction. Thus it follows that God is not omnipotent to the extent that he is subject to the laws of logic and thus it follows that anyone claiming that God is omnipotent needs to suffix it with *the laws of logic notwithstanding*.

Originally posted by Christopher M
(5) It necessarily follows from (3) and (4) that the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question has been defeated.

There's still life in the old girl yet. See J L Mackies 'the miracle of theism'.

Anyway thats all folks. Anymore and the semantic circles will make me dizzy.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Consider it within the context of the rest of my post.

Ok. I still don't see any misrepresentation. If you're simply referring to our debate concerning what constitutes omnipotence, that seems like the point of contention rather than a misrepresentation.

Thanks.

Is this indignancy? If so, it seems odd to ask me what I'm proposing, then act offended when I reply. But FWIW, I'm sorry I made you feel indignant.

True.....but he didnt....... hence my response.

I had assumed you were using that as an analogy for our discussion. If you're just making a point about your discussion with Vash, that's between you and him.

Its certainly true that you *think* you have demonstrated how they are equivalent.

Well, yes. But since I *think* that because I've demonstrated it with reason, there doesn't seem to be much to begrudge me on.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
No you haven't. You have confused a category mistake with a logical impossibility.

Well, no. I never called 'four sided triangles' a category error. However, I did offer an example of a category error as a thing prohibited by the internal constraints I am talking about. If you examine that post, I gave three examples of such constraints, each of which was a different kind of error.

You may say for the purposes of your argument it does not matter.

That's exactly what I'll say. Both category errors and the kind of logical errors as 'four sided triangles' are among the internal constraints I am speaking of. This is an elaboration of my position, not a critique of it!

However God being unable to create logically impossible objects means that he is subject to the laws of logic, specifically to the law of contradiction. Thus it follows that God is not omnipotent to the extent that he is subject to the laws of logic and thus it follows that anyone claiming that God is omnipotent needs to suffix it with *the laws of logic notwithstanding*.

Your conclusion here hangs upon a contradiction between "omnipotent" and "omnipotent with the laws of logic notwithstanding" -- which is precisely the thing I have refuted. Thus, far from refuting my position, this argument is refuted by it.

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
This concept interests me. Always has. For the simple fact that although religious text may be divinely inspired in some way, that inspiration is the authors, and teh authors are human, not god.

So any words, religious, textual, canonic or otherwise are merely the words of men.

God hasn't penned anything to the best of my knowledge.

Is there a pen? and if so why?

With the exception of the Baghavad Gita, as it is the word of God, direct and unaltered through one of God's avatars.

[FuXnDajenariht]

well...i can make a 4 sided triangle....no one will believe me, but its true.

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
well...i can make a 4 sided triangle....no one will believe me, but its true.

d00d, let's keep it x + yi where y=0...

Translation for those not so math inclined- Keep it real, yo

[FuXnDajenariht]

are u denying my 4 sided 3 sided shape? yo that sounds like a challenge... i hafta defend my honor now. defend yourself foo'

[FuXnDajenariht]

dont try throwin math equations at me. that can't save you....

[ChuanFa631987]

As a Christian and as a person, something burns inside of me when I feel misunderstood.
Such is the case now. I find it unappealing when people try to seperate faith and knowledge.
However, I would ask this, "Does not believing in evolution make a person anti-itellectual?"
I would say no as even if evolution is correct and one didn't believe in it, one would be in denial but could still be very intellectual in other aspects of life. In other words, just because someone has a different view of things, doesn't make them unintellectual or irrational. I mean, can anyone prove anything completely?
Being raised in a Christian culture, it's not like I've been taught, "You don't need education because you have God and don't ever question what you've been taught." I learn about life (Science, math, literature,etc.) and see how people view life, Christian and non-Christian, while still believing in God.
Sorry, if that seemed unorganized...
I want to end this post by saying why I believe in God. To me, Jesus Christ is the reason for who I am and what I do. For me, relationships, martial arts, animation, etc. all come out of human beings being made in the image of God and faith in Jesus Christ strengthens that. For me, Jesus Christ gives life to all things (that are good).

[FuXnDajenariht]

if your wondering, i said that because if you think about it, all a triangle is, is a word meaning a 3 sided shape. i suppose if i could get enough people to believe triangle means a 4 sided shape it would change the definition. remember the "flat earth society"? lol it doesn't have to be supernatural.

if i were god i guess i could mindfu(k the rest of the world into believing a triangle is 4 sided. but it probably wouldn't really matter to me if i could create 'human' life, advanced biotechnology being a bit more interestin...

lol and on a really boring millenia when i get of tired of creating stuff i guess i could blink a knot into existence that even i had difficulty untying but finally when i get ****ed off and frustrated i could give myself the powers to unty it. sorta like a momentary power reduction... illogical omnipotence doesn't have to be logical.

[Archangel]

Chris M,

I would debate this point as well, but I'd agree that it's a different discussion.

LOL looking back I made an error, it's the Platonic world view that was being destroyed. If you have a chance check out "Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought" Lakoff and Johnson.

Regarding your math, in what way is C a mapping from pSA (powerset of SA) to SA? It seems to me like pSA is larger than SA regardless of C, which seems to me like an additional function applied to S that changes neither SA nor pSA. Can you clarify?

For every possible subset S of SA there is a unique possible action C(S)

The power set (set of all subsets) therefore has one C(S) per subset S; a 1-to-1 mapping. All C(S) must be in SA by definition; so given that there are actions other than C in the set SA, this leads to the conclusion that SA is larger than its own power set. Which is a contradictory conclusion.

Regarding Christianity, insofar as it seems to be the main object in our discussion, monotheism is at least as indebted to Hellenic philosophy as to Judaism.

Can you site me examples in Hellenistic Philosophy that affirms your statement that an omnipotent being is bound by logic. The trinity is most certainly a Hellenistic construct where God or should I I say "Gods" are breaking the law of identity.

In this case, the ideological motivation behind omnipotence is not at all as you describe, but rather because omnipotence arises as a natural property of the agent being conceived. For instance, there is no action, nor even one possible, to whose causation cannot be traced ultimately to the Unmoved Mover, by very definition.

Aristotle, Kalam, Aquinas... no one really has been able to make this argument work without contradictory propositions.

To this I would add only, that you may be enticed to argue that I am able to defend the logical consistency of the monotheistic God on my own terms, but that this is a hollow, or perhaps only narcissistic, victory insofar as it has no implications beyond my personal terms and into the tradition of monotheism as such. To this I would object most strongly, noting that the terms I describe are not at all personal to me, but rather derived from the tradition of philosophical thought which I described at the beginning of this post, and which is most central to monotheistic concepts in the Western tradition.

Okay, now you're anticipating my response and answering before I get a chance to respond. In the interest of a charitable discussion I suggest that we each refrain from this type of debate.

[Archangel]

Chuan,

"Does not believing in evolution make a person anti-itellectual?"

There is a strange irony to this statement, but I digress. Chuan believe what you like, who are any of us to tell you what to believe. My only advice is to be consistant. If you don't believe in evolution don't go and fill your car up with gasoline; they use the same old earth geology that Evolution is based on. Do not believe in nuclear Physics because radiometric dating techniques are used to verify the ages of the fossils. Do not believe in Biology because most of Biology is based on the evolutionary process. You also have to come to the grips with the fact that the 95% of scientists that do believe in the evolutionary theory are incompetent or dishonest.

[FuXnDajenariht]

daaayuum....approachin 200 posts on religion thread and no signs of flaming. you people are slippin....

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Archangel
LOL looking back I made an error, it's the Platonic world view that was being destroyed.

My guess was that you were making a reference to realism, so the meaning got through OK, I think.

Can you site me examples in Hellenistic Philosophy that affirms your statement that an omnipotent being is bound by logic.

I ought to have simply referenced a philosophical introduction to this issue from the beginning. Here is one. It offers the examples of Aquinas and Maimonides as maintaining the view I describe, as well as characterizing it as that of "traditional Western theism."

The trinity is most certainly a Hellenistic construct where God or should I I say "Gods" are breaking the law of identity.

No: the persons of the Trinity are a unity insofar as they are cosubstantial, it is not alleged that they are identical.

Aristotle, Kalam, Aquinas... no one really has been able to make this argument work without contradictory propositions.

Well, the only contradictory proposition introduced so far is the point in dispute.

Okay, now you're anticipating my response and answering before I get a chance to respond.

No: the assertion that I am introducing definitions which are limited to my personal constructions rather than being applicable to the tradition of monotheism has already been well established in the discussion.

For every possible subset S of SA there is a unique possible action C(S)

If you have defined C as 'the A by G', isn't C(S) a category error, as opposed to C(A)?

Do you have any response to the argument I laid out in 5 points near the bottom of page 12?