Tossing Around A Tautology

Ethan, to say that we approximately agree on what arrogance and pride are.

More precisely, I would say that arrogance is a variable mixture of self-delusion and lack of self-criticism which gives results as contemptuous feelings towards others.

But hey, nobody's perfect! :-)

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 7:10am)

Post 41

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:01am

Joel,

===============
As you may know, one of the most difficult problems with the concept of a Creator is the Problem of Evil;
===============

Only difficult for small minds. It's merely a diversion. It's just simple-minded to assume that a God and Evil wouldn't coexist. The Problem of Evil is a Red Herring meant to throw straight-thinkers off of the track. The real problem with theology is it's epistemology ...

If a theist listens for that 'still, small voice' within himself (M. Scott Peck's words for God) -- then how does he know it's God speaking to him, rather than the Devil or some other life-form? Answer: He cannot know. He cannot ever differentiate God's words from Satan's -- because he is not equipped with mental powers of knowing that are equal to or greater than Satan's accepted skullduggery.

Theists who argue they can't know things with certainty, can't know the word of God with certainty -- under their epistemology, it is entirely possible that the Good Book itself was written by none other than Lucifer, himself. They couldn't say they knew otherwise.

It's faith vs. reason -- and that is all that it is.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/21, 7:01am)

Post 42

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:05am

Ethan- Thanks. I understand pride vs arrogance. My comment was an (apparently poor!) attempt at levity, complete with smiley just in case it was misinterpreted. I'm not sure if your unaddressed follow-on post 38 was supposed to be to me; I hadn't said anything about Jenna.

Joel- Obviously being tired does not necessarily imply depression, I was just pointing out that its causes could be physiological rather than always some rational high-level thought process, and that Oist style (over)analysis is counterproductive in such cases. Mistake corrected?? Look, 'how do you suffer from arrogance' is a joke playing on interpretations of the word 'suffer', similar to: 'I see you've been missing a lot of classes recently.' 'Well, I wouldn't say I've been missing them!' Yes, it's not funny when you have to explain. *rolls eyes*

Post 43

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:17am

Aaron,

English is not my first language, nor my second. But I think the expression "suffer from arrogance" is a correct expression. Anyway, no big deal.

Post 44

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:21am

Leaving apart straw-man arguments and going to the meat, Ed Thompson said:

"It's faith vs. reason -- and that is all that it is."

We agree on this point: the problems come from dogmatism --and misconception, and prejudice. Overcoming personal flaws requires honesty and courage.
(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 7:36am)

Post 45

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:30am

Aaron said:

"[...] causes could be physiological rather than always some rational high-level thought process"

Generally speaking, we agree; but I don't think you can generally ascribe a physiological process to character traits --as arrogance is.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 7:30am)

Post 46

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:30am

If a theist listens for that 'still, small voice' within himself (M. Scott Peck's words for God) -- then how does he know it's God speaking to him, rather than the Devil or some other life-form? Answer: He cannot know. He cannot ever differentiate God's words from Satan's -- because he is not equipped with mental powers of knowing that are equal to or greater than Satan's accepted skullduggery.

"How do I know I am God? Because every time I pray, I find I am talking to myself." [Peter O'Toole in The Ruling Class]

Post 47

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:49am

That "talking to God" is one of the typical misconceptions. "Talking to God" in the sense of "dialogue" is logically impossible --at least while alive.

I understand "talking to God" as a metaphor of prayer. Today, I understand correct prayer as an equivalent of "studying", or "thinking" things related to Him; with complete sincerity, and typically out loud, as when you are with a good friend.

To be honest, I currently am not confident enough with prayer, as I am still "cleaning" misconceptions.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 8:16am)

Post 48

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:15am

Joel,

You said: "I think the universe was created by a Creator"

If I may ask: Why do you beleive the universe was created by a creator?

Ethan

Post 49

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:18am

Joel:
In post #20 you said:

At the same time, the existence of a Creator cannot be demonstrated through reasoning. Some people wrongly think that the Creator "requires faith" or "belief".

In post #44, in response to Ed' comment that "It's faith vs. reason -- and that is all that it is.", you said:

We agree on this point: the problems come from dogmatism --and misconception, and prejudice.

In post #20, you ruled out both faith and reason, so how can you agree with Ed that it's one or the other?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 50

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:26am

I am loyal to the idea of a universe created by a Creator because:

1) I don't see the intelligibility of the universe as an accident.
2) I think good and evil are concepts with universal, eternal validity.
3) I think the universe has an origin, and this origin is not "spontaneous generation."

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 8:44am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 8:54am)

Post 51

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:51am

Glenn, you said:

Joel:
In post #20 you said:

At the same time, the existence of a Creator cannot be demonstrated through reasoning. Some people wrongly think that the Creator "requires faith" or "belief".
In post #44, in response to Ed' comment that "It's faith vs. reason -- and that is all that it is.", you said:
We agree on this point: the problems come from dogmatism --and misconception, and prejudice.
In post #20, you ruled out both faith and reason, so how can you agree with Ed that it's one or the other?

Yes, because I understand that with "faith" Ed meant "blind faith, credulity", and that's antithetical to free inquiry and reasoning.

I only see valid to "trust" or "to be loyal" to ideas that are non-contradictory with reality.

Post 52

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:58am

Joel said:

Yes, because I understand that with "faith" Ed meant "blind faith, credulity", and that's antithetical to free inquiry and reasoning.

I think it's perfectly clear what Ed meant by faith when he opposed it to reason. And, for the record, I consider the phrase "blind faith" to be redundant.
Glenn

Post 53

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 9:00am

Joel, you said:

I don't see the intelligibility of the universe as an accident.

and

I think the universe has an origin, and this origin is not "spontaneous generation."

I always come down to the question of who created the creator when this idea comes up.

I think good and evil are valid concepts.

I do to, but I don't see how that leads to a creator. Good and Evil are valid concepts in light of man's volition. Since man's means of survival is reason he can choose to act in ways that are supportive or destructive to his life. Without choice there is no good and evil. Ther are no good or evil actions among plants.

Ethan

Post 54

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 9:11am

Glenn, you said:

Joel said:
Yes, because I understand that with "faith" Ed meant "blind faith, credulity", and that's antithetical to free inquiry and reasoning.

I think it's perfectly clear what Ed meant by faith when he opposed it to reason.

Well, I also think that Ed was clear. He was clear because of the context of his message, and because with "faith" he meant something related to dogmatism and anti-rationality.

And, for the record, I consider the phrase "blind faith" to be redundant.

Yes, in some cases it is redundant. But in some certainly not: keep in mind that one of the dictionary entries of "faith" is "loyalty"[*], and I won't renounce to the usage of that word. Sometimes, "faith" in the sense of "loyalty" is reasonable. (In order to avoid confusion, I typically use the word "loyalty", though. "Blind loyalty", of course, would be again wrong, but not redundant. I know that all those terms pave the way for a slippery slope, but speech and life are full of slippery slopes to be cautious of...)

[*]: Synonyms of "loyalty" in dictionary.com include "faith":

Main Entry:	loyalty
Part of Speech:	noun
Definition:	faithfulness
Synonyms:	adherence, allegiance, ardor, attachment, bond, conscientiousness, constancy, devotedness, devotion, duty, earnestness, faith, fealty, fidelity, homage, honesty, honor, incorruptibility, integrity, inviolability, obedience, patriotism, probity, reliability, resolution, scrupulousness, sincerity, single-mindedness, singleness, staunchness, steadfastness, subjection, submission, support, tie, troth, true-heartedness, trueness, trustiness, trustworthiness, truth, truthfulness, uprightness, zeal

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 11:57am)

Post 55

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 9:55am

"Faith" is unquestioned loyalty - bourne out of authoritarianistic tribalism [see The Taking Syndrome]... thus it is demanded as being unconditional - which means uncontextual..

Post 56

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:11am

Ethan, you said:

Joel, you said:

I don't see the intelligibility of the universe as an accident.

and

I think the universe has an origin, and this origin is not "spontaneous generation."
I always come down to the question of who created the creator when this idea comes up.

The Creator must be perfect. He never will need anything, and that includes any "creator" of Him. Besides, that position leads us to a problem of "infinite regression of creators", so to speak.

These are reasons of why Monotheism is the only logically sound Theism. If there is any creator, He must be One.

I think good and evil are valid concepts.

I do to, but I don't see how that leads to a creator.

It's "all the package" that leads me to think there must be a Creator: observational data, reasoning, morality.

Good and Evil are valid concepts in light of man's volition. Since man's means of survival is reason he can choose to act in ways that are supportive or destructive to his life. Without choice there is no good and evil. There are no good or evil actions among plants.

Firstly, an individual's survival is not always his or her highest value. Think about what Objectivism names an emergency.

Secondly, volition is only partially related to morality. Example: I once decided that my favorite color is orange, but that volitional act had nothing to do with morality.

Additionally, morality cannot be atomized to the level of the individual --I mean, any individual standard of morality is false. That's why I spoke about an universal morality. A morality that is always absolutely sound, in all contexts, for all humans. Morality pervades the reality of all mankind. This absolute, universal morality can only be defended from, and applied to, the individual [*]. At the same time, it is the Law above all human-made laws.

Finally, I don't think the existence of human volition can be demonstrated. To unravel this knot, I would say it that the existence of of good and evil is a necessary condition to human choice. Here I state that good and evil are created by the Creator, and then, and only then, human volition and thus human morality is possible.

[*] That's one of the reasons of why Christianity is logically false: "the crucifixion of Christ for our sake" is an immoral concept: justice is made at the individual level.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 10:12am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/21, 11:54am)

Post 57

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:31am

I would say that arrogance is a variable mixture of self-delusion and lack of self-criticism which gives results as contemptuous feelings towards others.

I never said I had contemptuous feelings towards you. I don't know you. I've never met you. I was discussing the sentence where you generally said "We all need to worship God" and I said "I don't recognize that need". I call worshiping God and being Oist somewhat of a cognitive dissonance considering the philosophy. However, I am not Oist and I *am* pretty strongly atheist.

*Needing* to worship God, or Zeus, or Pan, or Osiris is a subjective thing. It's not objective truth. I don't really care who does what in their private life-- it's *their* life, *their* thoughts. However, I do take contention with strangers telling a bunch of folks what they "need" to do spiritually. Again, I don't recognize that "need" to worship any deity, not in myself, and not in a lot of people here. But I only speak for myself.

When I said "compassion", I did not mean "pity". Compassion would be more equitable to "understanding".

Call me whatever you want out of this. But I do think that reality and an *objectively existing* God *are* contradictory. I am a student of science, and I have never, ever seen any research coming out of the Discovery Institute's doors on the existence of any deity. So far anyone who says God exists objectively have a *hypothesis* and thus far, I'm still waiting for the research.

In other words, I'm more apt to even consider the existence of a Creator on a very tiny scale when I have peer-reviewed evidence, i.e. research papers. From different people. Of different countries. From different science journals.
(Edited by Jenna W
on 3/21, 10:47am)

Post 58

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:43am

Jenna W,

I am sorry if I hurt you. I was speaking about I character trait I though you may have. Besides, all faulty character traits are amendable.

And I will state it again: I am not an Objectivist.

Best wishes

Post 59

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:47am