God will continue to chastise Christians who venerate icons...Douglas Wilson WOW!

[albeto.]

Why would we want to strive for well-being?  I'm not trying to sound obtuse, it's a serious question.  There are other measures of "success" for human beings.  What about evolutionary success?  Some of the most successful societies in the evolutionary sense (ability to increase their particular genetic matter in the world gene pool, aka reproduce) are the most oppressive.  

 

I realise my questions probably sound stupid, because DUH, it's obvious we all want happy, healthy, enlightened, peaceful societies.  Or at least, we *think* we all want that.  I can think of several societies that do NOT want all of those things.  

 

Again, my question, to phrase it differently, is WHY can we state that peace, well-being, happiness, enlightenment/knowledge/education are virtues?  And can we state that those who disagree are "wrong" in some absolute sense, rather than just "they are wrong because they disagree with my held beliefs on what virtues a society should hold"?  

 

Why not? By nature we avoid pain and seek pleasure. By nature we are empathetic creatures who perceive the pain of others. By nature we are social creatures and have evolved precisely because cooperation is one of the characteristics of our species that allows for success. I don't mean that flippantly, I know your question is serious, but it's also rather complex. I offer a simple reply in lieu of getting into evolutionary biology, evolutionary behavior, Richard Dawkins' theory of the "selfish gene," and the kinds of things that explain these social phenomena. The videos I linked earlier provides introductions into how we've come to these conclusions. 

 

What societies do not want happiness? Perhaps you're assuming their culture would mean a lack of happiness for you (and me, and most of us here due to our cultural habits), but how can you say they don't want what's good for them? Upon what do you base this?

 

That last question you ask is featured in the conclusion of the video I shared just now. We can make such claims with confidence because we have evidence that supports these claims. We can observe the difference between pain and pleasure in the brain, and through reports. We can observe the differences to one's perception of pleasure or pain by introducing various experiences. We can conclude some experiences increase pleasure, some increase pain. We can conclude that some experiences, while they decrease pleasure for a time, provide a net increase over a longer period of time. If we care about the well being of others (and we do, we're hard wired to, those who are incapable of such connections are called psychopaths, and most learn the value of adhering to social skills developed in response to this empathy - the value being their increased pleasure and decreased pain, same as all of us). 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I have read Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins extensively.  There was a period in my life, as an atheist, that I used to practically hand out copies of The God Delusion to educate my poor, unenlightened friends and family.  As you can see from my sig, I stopped being an atheist about five or so years ago.  And now when I re-read those authors, I ask myself, "Why would I assume a scientist is an expert in philosophy any more than I'd assume a philosopher is an expert in science?"  

 

We are all very much tied to our "clan" and its well-being, but this doesn't make us moral - this evolutionary feature can make us dangerous to those outside our clan, this is obvious.  But even within a clan, we can be quite cruel to members if we feel it will increase net happiness or well-being.  We can take examples of groups that kill their old, infirm, or disabled members.  This has, throughout history, been just as successful a strategy as nurturing and protecting those groups.  We can think of several "warring societies" throughout history, where a big part of status was linked to how well a man could unleash violence on his neighbours.  Without war, these people would not be happy, because war was a significant part of their identity.  

 

I still don't feel like I have an answer to my question.  I understand evolutionary ethics, and while they can kind of be made to fit most situations, there are many situations where they do not.  Take the thoughts of Peter Singer, who is a professor int he bioethics department at Princeton.  He feels that parents should be able to "abort" their child, even up to three months after birth, if that child is born "sufficiently" disabled.  He bases this on the idea that the family unit would be more happy by erasing that child, and replacing with a healthy child, so a net gain in happiness.  Yet, I personally, and I hope a vast majority of readers, would find this to be horribly unethical.  

 

My question is, how do you know you are right?  That happiness and well-being are the highest virtues?  The fact that some ethics are a by-product of evolution does not make them "right", it just means they have protected our species from extinction in one way or another.  

 

Can right and wrong be objectively defined, and if so, how, or would you consider yourself a moral relativist?

 

[albeto.]

I have read Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins extensively.  There was a period in my life, as an atheist, that I used to practically hand out copies of The God Delusion to educate my poor, unenlightened friends and family.  As you can see from my sig, I stopped being an atheist about five or so years ago.  And now when I re-read those authors, I ask myself, "Why would I assume a scientist is an expert in philosophy any more than I'd assume a philosopher is an expert in science?"  

 

An argument logically rests on the merits of its points, so the philosopher's religious belief, or lack thereof, should have no effect on the merits of the argument. 

 

We are all very much tied to our "clan" and its well-being, but this doesn't make us moral - this evolutionary feature can make us dangerous to those outside our clan, this is obvious.  But even within a clan, we can be quite cruel to members if we feel it will increase net happiness or well-being.  We can take examples of groups that kill their old, infirm, or disabled members.  This has, throughout history, been just as successful a strategy as nurturing and protecting those groups.  We can think of several "warring societies" throughout history, where a big part of status was linked to how well a man could unleash violence on his neighbours.  Without war, these people would not be happy, because war was a significant part of their identity.  

 

I agree with the first part of your comment here, but the second part doesn't mean one is happy because of war. Perhaps one is happy because they feel gratified being an instrument of justice, whatever they've been taught and conditioned to understand what it means. It doesn't make sense to say an entire culture would feel happiness from that which goes against its nature. I suspect this is a rather ethnocentric interpretation of another culture, but if you have some actual evidence to share, I'll be interested in reading it. 

 

I still don't feel like I have an answer to my question.  I understand evolutionary ethics, and while they can kind of be made to fit most situations, there are many situations where they do not.  Take the thoughts of Peter Singer, who is a professor int he bioethics department at Princeton.  He feels that parents should be able to "abort" their child, even up to three months after birth, if that child is born "sufficiently" disabled.  He bases this on the idea that the family unit would be more happy by erasing that child, and replacing with a healthy child, so a net gain in happiness.  Yet, I personally, and I hope a vast majority of readers, would find this to be horribly unethical.  

 

In your opinion, how does this argument discredit the explanation of ethics as an effect of biology? 

 

My question is, how do you know you are right?  

 

 I submit you and I do the same thing here, we decide what is right and wrong by following the same general cognitive process, with the exception of accepting certain claims as true, accepted only in faith. 

 

That happiness and well-being are the highest virtues? 

 

Depends on the situation. My happiness and well being isn't the highest virtue right now. Right now I should be grabbing dh so we can get some important stuff done. This contributes to an overall increase of happiness and well being, but right now that's a matter of delayed gratification. 

 

The fact that some ethics are a by-product of evolution does not make them "right", it just means they have protected our species from extinction in one way or another.  

 

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting we can often times determine when Action A is "more right" than Action B based on rational and logical arguments.

 

Can right and wrong be objectively defined, and if so, how, or would you consider yourself a moral relativist?

 

I don't know. I'm not a philosopher. I understand there's evidence to show we're hard wired to gravitate towards supporting certain ideologies, such as justice and compassion, but we can see that cultures (and even micro cultures within a greater culture) identify different behaviors as being just and compassionate. Is justice objectively defined? Can it be? I can't understand how, but maybe there is something in the mechanics of the brain that will one day lend some insight we don't have today.

 

And I don't know. I'd have to know more about it, but I have to go grab dh now... 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

An argument logically rests on the merits of its points, so the philosopher's religious belief, or lack thereof, should have no effect on the merits of the argument. 

 

Yes, but any argument must start by assuming certain precepts.  An atheist scientist assumes a materialist world.  That which cannot be perceived by the 5 senses (or scientific instruments) cannot exist.  And that right there stops almost all dialog, because religious people are not materialists.  Atheists say it cannot be measured, therefore it doesn't exist, and theists say, "Irrelevant".  I don't rely on the biologists for my philosophy because I mistrust the logic and deep thought of anyone who dismisses thousands of years of mysticism with a wave of the hand, because THEY now hold the truth of infallible science.  Ignoring that these particular new wave of atheists are sarcastic and demeaning, which they usually are, they ignore that their science has changed more in 10 years than any of the long-lasting religions have changed in a thousand years.  And it will continue to change, so the scientific truths of today will be the silly myths of tomorrow.  

 

My degree is in physics by the way.  I love science.  I just have seen enough conflicting findings to question "empirical evidence" as the end-all-be-all of thought.  

 

I agree with the first part of your comment here, but the second part doesn't mean one is happy because of war. Perhaps one is happy because they feel gratified being an instrument of justice, whatever they've been taught and conditioned to understand what it means. It doesn't make sense to say an entire culture would feel happiness from that which goes against its nature. I suspect this is a rather ethnocentric interpretation of another culture, but if you have some actual evidence to share, I'll be interested in reading it. 

 

I'm not a history expert, so I won't pretend to be.  The particular groups I was thinking of were the Spartans, the Huns, and groups such as ISIS.

 

 

In your opinion, how does this argument discredit the explanation of ethics as an effect of biology? 

 

If ethics were purely a by-product of evolution, they would essentially be utilitarian ethics.  The greatest good for the greatest number.  And yet, there are many, many situations that have been discussed over many, many years that illustrate that utilitarianism is NOT ethical.  Often times, what the consensus believes to be Right is NOT in our biological best interests.  Why not?  I understand the idea that altruism developed to increase group coherence, and now we "misuse" that altruism to protect our weaker members.  But we're still looking at utilitarianism as the measure for judging an action as moral, and I don't buy that.  

 

 

 I submit you and I do the same thing here, we decide what is right and wrong by following the same general cognitive process, with the exception of accepting certain claims as true, accepted only in faith. 

 

Can you prove to me, based on science and reason, that rape is wrong, if I tell you that I do not believe that happiness and general well-being are things I value?

 

Depends on the situation. My happiness and well being isn't the highest virtue right now. Right now I should be grabbing dh so we can get some important stuff done. This contributes to an overall increase of happiness and well being, but right now that's a matter of delayed gratification. 

 

I think the problem with modern society (lol, what a grandparent-y thing to say...) is the idea that happiness and well-being are things to strive for.  Happiness and well-being should be the by-products of living an ethical life, and I think you would agree with that.  When we place happiness as a goal, we miss it.  When we believe that peace and well-being cause happiness, we are simply wrong.  For proof, look at affluence and correlation to suicide rates.  It's a fluffy book, but there is some great information in The Happiness Project about how sometimes in order to be happy, we have to suffer and make ourselves miserable to do it.  :-)  And because I think you are probably a fundamentally good person, dutiful towards your family and community and happy to be of service to those you love, I'm guessing you would agree with this one small section of my post.    

 

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting we can often times determine when Action A is "more right" than Action B based on rational and logical arguments.

 

 

I don't know. I'm not a philosopher. I understand there's evidence to show we're hard wired to gravitate towards supporting certain ideologies, such as justice and compassion, but we can see that cultures (and even micro cultures within a greater culture) identify different behaviors as being just and compassionate. Is justice objectively defined? Can it be? I can't understand how, but maybe there is something in the mechanics of the brain that will one day lend some insight we don't have today.

 

And I don't know. I'd have to know more about it, but I have to go grab dh now... 

 

I really appreciate your exchange on this subject, and while I'm not trying to "wrap things up", it is getting towards bedtime here in Switzerland.  My line of questioning was to see what, if anything, you used as a moral measuring tape.  You are asking questions of Christians in this thread about why they *know* that their conclusion is the right conclusion, and that of group x, group y, or DW is clearly wrong, when they cannot back up their claims with anything other than a book and "soul searching and prayer".  My thoughts are that you base most of your ethical decisions on similarly shaky ground.  Your book is science, the ever-evolving beast, and your own soul searching (you can call it thinking things through, but it boils down to the same thing), minus the prayer part.  You are asking non-materlists to show proof, and the non-materialists are saying "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

We cannot argue, because we don't accept the precept of a materialist universe.  You say it must be materialist, because there is no proof otherwise.  I say it is not materialist, and by definition, I cannot prove that to you with measurable data.  The only thing left is socratic discussion of whether or not belief can be LOGICAL in the absence of material proof, and that is a topic for another day!  

 

Thanks for the talk, and I'll read any response you might want to give tomorrow.  I appreciate that you want to engage in these ideas and ferret out the nearest thing to truth we can find as humans.  I've done the same, and it led me on an interesting path out and back into religion (not the same one I started with, lol).  

 

​As a total, unrelated aside, I'm sure you'd really like the book Sapiens.  The author, like many of the neo-atheists seems to think sarcasm is the best way to handle religion, but I managed to ignore that and very much enjoy the anthropological information within.  

 

 

[Chess Dad]

Someone mentioned Russia and Syria.

 

Here is an excellent Video explaining the situation in Syria, the rise of ISIS, and the middle east.  Very cool and easy to understand.

 

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/446925385495069/

 

:patriot:

[Guest]

 

 

eta: sometimes, as I Christian, I don't answer questions because the answer is far too personal and sacred to me to share on a forum setting.

 

THIS.

[JenniferB]

And come to think of it, how does everyone know Wilson is wrong, as he clearly solely and mindfully worships god alone and therefore doesn't insert any idols in his little idol factory. He can be assured because A) he reads the bible, and B) he is personally assured by the holy ghost that he understands the mind and will of the god of the bible accurately (at least, accurately enough, until he sees him face to face, etc etc). And if Wilson is wrong but doesn't know it, how can other xians be assured they too are not wrong but are similarly innocently ignorant? After all, if a believer cannot discern correctly whether or not the holy ghost has assured them about the right thing, then how does any xian know they have the right assurance and they're not actually, secretly leaning on their own understanding instead?

 

Just more questions that come into my head.

You said I did not answer your question, but I think I did. I will clarify...

 

Here is how we, Orthodox Christians, know that DW's statement/s are wrong (about Christianity, icons, etc) and at the same time how we know we are not leaning on our own understanding.

 

Our faith is holistic and has continuity.

 

ho·lis·tic

hÅˈlistik/

adjective PHILOSOPHY

characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole. (Copy / pasted from the internet dictionary)

 

How does it apply to discerning the truth in this case of DW and his statements about God chastising Eastern Christians via terror because they venerate icons? In Orthodoxy we can say that Douglas Wilson does not speak the truth about icons because his statement/s do not align with the whole of Christian teaching according to: historical practice, Scripture as interpreted by the canonical Fathers, the councils and cannons, the writings, the hymns, the calendar celebrations, etc etc, i.e. the whole thing. The 7th Eccumenical council solidified the already historic established and Biblical practice of veneration of icons, so according to historical Eccumenical Christianity, he.is.wrong.

 

According to himself and those who believe like him, he's not wrong. He, just as you, have other means of discerning truth. DW's method does not follow historic Christian truth, it is an innovation and historically wrong.

 

In my first reply to your question, albeto., I was not attempting to address how you or anyone else would or could determine the truth, but how *I* and other Orthodox Christians go about determining the truth, or how we decide that DW is wrong.

 

Obviously our method is not yours and neither is it DW's method nor other Protestant's methods.

 

Also obvious is that I like this method, and you do not. I think it's safe to say DW does not like this method.

 

I do so enjoy free will.

 

When you said, "how does everyone know he's wrong," I didn't think to answer literally to explain how *everyone* could know he's wrong. I don't have the capacity to come up with an answer or method that would suit everyone. But even though you said "everyone" I felt you were clarifying that with how can "Christians" know because you furthered your question with other ponderings about other Christian methods like listening to the Holy Spirit and readings, etc.

 

So, I think I did answer adequately. I told you how *I* and we Orthodox Christians go about knowing. We look at historical Christianity in its entirety.

[JenniferB]

I'm using Jennifer as an example (mostly because I like her and I think she understands I'm not trying to put her in the hot spot), but this isn't unique to her, or the Orthodox believers, or even xians specifically

I like you too, and your questions.

 

Would it be fair to request of you that after taking some thoughtful time into a response and answering a question or questions to the best of my ability that I could ask you to refrain from saying that I didn't answer your question? Or if I didn't answer but you can see I put a fair effort into it, that maybe you rephrase the question or be more specific as to how I didn't answer it? That would make the convo more interesting and engaging for me anyway. I do put thought and effort into my answers, I think. I'm sure I could do more, but you know, I only have so much free time to engage like this, which I enjoy doing.

 

I agree that these convos are good for the nous, as long as the nous remains calm and free from offense, in which I have.

 

The reason I posted in the first place, in case it's of interest, is that I was curious to know if you all think DW has moved to a more extreme position and if so, is he retaining readers and followers. Is his opinion about Eastern Christians popular among his of similar theology? Is he more extreme or average of that sect? Would others of his persuasion read that and think, "yeah he's probably right, God is chastising the Eastern Christians. We better stay away from them, lest we be chastised."

[Murphy101]

Ah, nothing like the passion of an ex-atheist :)

 

Science, as you should well know, is not an atheist's 'book'. Science is merely that which we can explore and discuss, because it is observable. It is the ground on which assertions can be made and tested.

 

It is not an object of worship. It is a tool.

 

Really dislike the 'atheists must worship something, and it isn't God so it must be science' line of argument.

I agree science is not a book like the bible.

 

I agree that an atheist does not have to be worshiping something else aside from a god.

 

I do think though that many atheist do indeed come across as religious zealots (for lack of a better term for religious) about science or reason.

 

I do think science is a tool too. I think some atheists do come across as worshiping that tool.

 

Whether they actually do or not is beyond my scope of understanding of their personal human condition.

[Rosie_0801]

 I think some atheists do come across as worshiping that tool.

 

How can you worship something that doesn't even have a personality?

 

 

 

I find worship a rather tricky concept to wrap my head around.

[Murphy101]

How can you worship something that doesn't even have a personality?

 

 

 

I find worship a rather tricky concept to wrap my head around.

Absolutely.

 

People worship all kinds of things.

 

Money

Sex

Drugs

Social status

Power in various forms

 

Anything can be idolized above or equal to deity level.

[Rosie_0801]

Absolutely.

 

People worship all kinds of things.

 

Money

Sex

Drugs

Social status

Power in various forms

 

Anything can be idolized above or equal to deity level.

 

So worship means thinking too much about something other people think you shouldn't think so much about? 

 

 

I'd have thought there would have to be some component where the object of one's attention has some capacity to do you a favour if it felt like it?

[Guest]

So worship means thinking too much about something other people think you shouldn't think so much about? 

 

 

I'd have thought there would have to be some component where the object of one's attention has some capacity to do you a favour if it felt like it?

 

Without meaning to be argumentative, I respectfully disagree.  That would be a tit-for-tat relationship.  "Worship" indicates that one is a position, well, I can't think of a better way of saying it (more a tribute to my lack of vocabulary than anything else, no doubt!!!!), of acknowledging superiority of the other and worthy servitude toward it. 

 

I should think on this longer before I post, but ... I'm not going to.  :0)  Much too lazy tonight.  Maybe superiority and servitude are the wrong words, but they do indicate proper position, I think.  

 

More than anything else, I think I need to go to bed.  I'm whipped. 

[JenniferB]

So worship means thinking too much about something other people think you shouldn't think so much about?

I don't think it has to do with thinking. Worship should include devotion to glorify the other with services, songs, sacrifices (incense, gifts), prayers and petitions, worshipping postures, and actions like these not just thinking. It seems to me like thinking is the least one can do to worship and doesn't qualify in and of itself as worship.

[6packofun]

I prefer something along the lines of what Tim Keller has said about idolatry.  There is a reason that idolatry is the first of the 10 Commandments, I believe.

 

What is an idol? It is anything more important to you than God, anything that absorbs your heart and imagination more than God, anything you seek to give you what only God can give…

An idol is whatever you look at and say, in your heart of hearts, “If I have that, then I’ll feel my life has meaning, then I ‘ll know I have value, then I’ll feel significant and secure.†There are many ways to describe that kind of relationship to something, but perhaps the best one is worship.

[Rosie_0801]

Without meaning to be argumentative, I respectfully disagree.  That would be a tit-for-tat relationship.  "Worship" indicates that one is a position, well, I can't think of a better way of saying it (more a tribute to my lack of vocabulary than anything else, no doubt!!!!), of acknowledging superiority of the other and worthy servitude toward it. 

 

I should think on this longer before I post, but ... I'm not going to.  :0)  Much too lazy tonight.  Maybe superiority and servitude are the wrong words, but they do indicate proper position, I think.  

 

More than anything else, I think I need to go to bed.  I'm whipped. 

 

I'm obviously not here to be argumentative either, but what you're saying doesn't marry well with what Martha was saying. Not in my brain, anyway. Could be I don't have the sort of brain to understand this though.

[Rosie_0801]

Why would that be a necessary component of worship?

 

That's a serious question, btw. I'd like to know why you'd think that.

 

I've said I don't understand worship, but it seems to me humans like return on investment. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I would not assert that all atheists worship science, but my direct experience has been that they venerate science as the ultimate and unquestionable authority.  I find this frustrating because I have been around long enough to see science change a great deal--for instance, on nature vs. nurture, or on global warming vs. nuclear winter.  Furthermore, I can't really fathom the intricacies of our universe not reflecting some outside Creator. 

 

But most of the time, IME, people who venerate science are either too young to have observed reversals like that, or are in the 'there is none so blind as those who will not see' camp.  Venerating science just doesn't hold up scientifically, ironically enough.

[Guest]

I've said I don't understand worship, but it seems to me humans like return on investment.

Maybe this is somewhat down the path: if you and the object of your worship have the ability to make a contract (equal value of goods received), then that is not true worship. I'm not sure how clear that is, but what I am trying to say is that worship is not based on transaction bug position. And that might not be clear to anyone but me. Le sigh.

[Rosie_0801]

Maybe this is somewhat down the path: if you and the object of your worship have the ability to make a contract (equal value of goods received), then that is not true worship. I'm not sure how clear that is, but what I am trying to say is that worship is not based on transaction bug position. And that might not be clear to anyone but me. Le sigh.

 

I didn't say anything about equal contract. People will work for very little, but I don't know anything about people working for nothing at all. Therefore I assumed people worshipping are expecting to have at least the potential for getting something out of it.

[Rosie_0801]

I would not assert that all atheists worship science, but my direct experience has been that they venerate science as the ultimate and unquestionable authority.  I find this frustrating because I have been around long enough to see science change a great deal--for instance, on nature vs. nurture, or on global warming vs. nuclear winter.  Furthermore, I can't really fathom the intricacies of our universe not reflecting some outside Creator. 

 

But most of the time, IME, people who venerate science are either too young to have observed reversals like that, or are in the 'there is none so blind as those who will not see' camp.  Venerating science just doesn't hold up scientifically, ironically enough.

 

You are saying all atheists venerate science as the ultimate and unquestionable authority?

 

That seems a bit odd considering conversations around here, but perhaps we don't read the same conversations. There are more than a few… ;)

[Guest]

I didn't say anything about equal contract. People will work for very little, but I don't know anything about people working for nothing at all. Therefore I assumed people worshipping are expecting to have at least the potential for getting something out of it.

Maybe so. I'll reflect on this. :0)

[Rosie_0801]

Maybe so. I'll reflect on this. :0)

 

Tomorrow. Aren't you meant to be sleeping?  :smash:

[Carol in Cal.]

You are saying all atheists venerate science as the ultimate and unquestionable authority?

 

That seems a bit odd considering conversations around here, but perhaps we don't read the same conversations. There are more than a few… ;)

All the ones that I know personally cite science as the definitive norm.  Citations are flat and final.  When questioned, their reaction is very strong.  So, yes,  I observe veneration.

[Carol in Cal.]

 You can't, I can.

 

I don't know any atheists who venerate science. So there you are; one anecdote cancels out another.

 

A lot of people don't seem to understand that 'without-God' doesn't mean you go around replacing God with other things. 

 

It's not like I have a God shaped hole that has to be filled up with science.

Well, what would you call it when science is cited as if it is the ultimate trump card, and immutable at that?

That's viewing it as the ultimate authority, and it is veneration that science just isn't due.

[Rosie_0801]

Well, what would you call it when science is cited as if it is the ultimate trump card, and immutable at that?

That's viewing it as the ultimate authority, and it is veneration that science just isn't due.

 

Perhaps you are seeing ultimate authority where others see the best we've got. Science isn't equipped to deal with anything that falls outside the material world, so it doesn't claim to. 

 

All the ones that I know personally cite science as the definitive norm.  Citations are flat and final.  When questioned, their reaction is very strong.  So, yes,  I observe veneration.

 

You talk this way a lot and it is a little frustrating when evidence to the contrary pops up on this forum frequently.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

 

You talk this way a lot and it is a little frustrating when evidence to the contrary pops up on this forum frequently.

I'm not sure what makes you say this, Rosie.  I don't remember collating observations about atheists I know personally in the past. 

 

I think that it's unreasonable to say that atheists consider science to be a God, but the way that science is cited by the atheists I know seems a lot stronger than is really warranted.

 

It's a lot different with people who have room for the great unknown in their worldviews, or who are pagan or of some faith or another, at least around here.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm not sure what makes you say this, Rosie.  I don't remember collating observations about atheists I know personally in the past. 

 

Either you have and you've forgotten or I'm mixing you up with someone else. Both are plausible, lol.

 

However you still seem to be claiming that you have no experience with atheists who don't venerate science, even though you're talking to one.

(If you think I don't count because I am a pixel person and might not really exist, there are at least five people on this forum who can vouch for me.  :laugh: )

 

I reckon science is more like an old clunker that's been polished up into bee-yoo-tiful condition over the last couple of millennia, but still makes weird noises and no one knows what they are. Therefore you have just as many people in the garage fiddling under the bonnet, calling for spare parts, as you do people out test driving, claiming she works perfectly well for them so they don't know what *your* problem is.

 

 

(Yay me. Car analogy instead of a food analogy. Don't be saying I'm one dimensional!)

[Carol in Cal.]

Either you have and you've forgotten or I'm mixing you up with someone else. Both are plausible, lol.

 

However you still seem to be claiming that you have no experience with atheists who don't venerate science, even though you're talking to one.

(If you think I don't count because I am a pixel person and might not really exist, there are at least four people on this forum who can vouch for me.  :laugh: )

 

I reckon science is more like an old clunker that's been polished up into bee-yoo-tiful condition, but still makes weird noises and no one knows what they are. Therefore you have just as many people in the garage fiddling under the bonnet, calling for spare parts, as you do people out test driving, claiming she works perfectly well for them so they don't know what *your* problem is.

 

 

(Yay me. Car analogy instead of a food analogy. Don't be saying I'm one dimensional!)

I was probably unclear, sorry.  I meant people who I know in real life.

 

Honestly I don't keep close track of who on the boards has what faith, but if someone had asked me whether I knew what Rosie believes, I would have said that I wasn't sure at all, but thought that she might be pagan, and that I know she teaches her kids about all world faiths very intentionally.  FWIW.  But I was originally referring to those I know IRL because I see them in more contexts and more often, and have more opportunity to derive generalizations if that's appropriate.  It's like the difference between a live game and a game on the radio.

 

Car analogy, AND food analogy?  Can a sports analogy be far behind?  :)

[Rosie_0801]

Car analogy, AND food analogy?  Can a sports analogy be far behind?  :)

 

Very.

 

It could happen, but I'd be shocked.  :huh:

[Carol in Cal.]

Very.

 

It could happen, but I'd be shocked.  :huh:

And yet, there it was, right in my last post!

[Rosie_0801]

And yet, there it was, right in my last post!

 

You have talents I can't aspire to. :D

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Ah, nothing like the passion of an ex-atheist :)

 

Science, as you should well know, is not an atheist's 'book'. Science is merely that which we can explore and discuss, because it is observable. It is the ground on which assertions can be made and tested.

 

It is not an object of worship. It is a tool. 

 

Really dislike the 'atheists must worship something, and it isn't God so it must be science' line of argument. 

 

I appreciate the smiley to soften the ad-hominum attack!  I hesitated to post my personal background because I expected just that sort of response.  The reason I did post it was because I was trying to show, apparently unsuccessfully, that I don't have some kind of blind hatred for atheists or science... fail on my part apparently.  I find is funny that the comment is directed at me, who almost never participates in any kind of online debate of this kind because I assume the debaters are too heavily entrenched to actually budge based on a forum thread, and not at abeto, ex Catholic, who jumps into "Xian" thread after thread with borderline inflammatory comments.  :-)

 

I never said atheists worship science, although I do think many come close.  

 

My statement was meant to be metaphorical- Religious rely on ancient texts which may or may not represent a sort of summary of human non scientific "wisdom" and atheists similarly rely on modern texts, which may or may not accurately reflect the natural world.  

 

The statement highlighted in green is true, but it is not the whole truth.  We can explore and discuss things with are NOT measurable or observable.  There are times when the scientific method is the most appropriate way to discuss a topic, and times when the socratic method is more appropriate.  An atheist believes that nothing cannot fall under the realm of science, because the world is materialist.  A theist does not start with the premise of materialism.  And that's why this discussion can go nowhere further.  Without starting with agreed-upon premises, the Socratic method is not possible.  Before we can debate ethics, we must debate materialism.  

 

Greater minds than mine have rebutted and defended materialism, and my suggestion is that anyone interested read their thoughts.  I have to go fry some bacon.  :-)  

 

Again, I entered this thread because I thought Abeto's questions were particularly relevant and good.  

 

I will exit now with the words of John Paul II:

 

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth- in a word, to know himself- so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.â€

 

I don't expect you to agree with them, I'm sharing them because they sum up, almost entirely, my spiritual conversion.  

 

Au revoir!

[Murphy101]

Without meaning to be argumentative, I respectfully disagree. That would be a tit-for-tat relationship. "Worship" indicates that one is a position, well, I can't think of a better way of saying it (more a tribute to my lack of vocabulary than anything else, no doubt!!!!), of acknowledging superiority of the other and worthy servitude toward it.

 

I should think on this longer before I post, but ... I'm not going to. :0) Much too lazy tonight. Maybe superiority and servitude are the wrong words, but they do indicate proper position, I think.

 

More than anything else, I think I need to go to bed. I'm whipped.

 

No. One can make themselves an idol, in their effort to feel or act like a god. No servant position required there, all superiority.

[Murphy101]

I've said I don't understand worship, but it seems to me humans like return on investment.

"What's in it for me" is not worship. Nor is it love.

 

Sadly, I do agree with you that there are more people than not who boil their life down to getting something for themselves, religious or not.

 

I suppose the so-called returns could be:

 

Money = luxury, comfort, status,mower

 

Themselves = feeling powerful from the manipulation of others, status

 

Also, the return doesn't have to be positive either. People seek and keep negative return dynamics all the time.

[Pam in CT]

Interesting discussion.

 

(Not Christian, not atheist, not "materialist," FWIW; firmly attached to another faith tradition; no particular horse in this race...)

 

 

Re: equivalencies between faith-based and science-based forms of understanding:

Well, what would you call it when science is cited as if it is the ultimate trump card, and immutable at that?

That's viewing it as the ultimate authority, and it is veneration that science just isn't due.

Science is a method of inquiry, not a static body of knowledge.  Built into the method are mechanisms for gathering new evidence, contesting existing theories, designing new instruments with which entirely new types of evidence can be gathered and measured, developing new theories and testing them, and updating/revising the current working view based on best/most well-tested available evidence.  As new evidence comes to light, that current working view will be revised: that's the method.  By its nature, science will never be immutable.  That's not a criticism: that's the method.

 

Faith traditions do evolve/grow/deepen as well, but the process is much more gradual and rooted in ancient texts/traditions/understandings.

 

 

 

...

I reckon science is more like an old clunker that's been polished up into bee-yoo-tiful condition over the last couple of millennia, but still makes weird noises and no one knows what they are. Therefore you have just as many people in the garage fiddling under the bonnet, calling for spare parts, as you do people out test driving, claiming she works perfectly well for them so they don't know what *your* problem is.

 

 

(Yay me. Car analogy instead of a food analogy. Don't be saying I'm one dimensional!)

:laugh: Or, a sausage factory.  

 

 

_______

 

on "idolatry":

 

Very often I wonder if the biggest difficulty we face in these kinds of discussions is in language... we're using the same words, but we're different, and bring different orientations and background to the conversation, and it's not clear to me that the words mean the same thing... (I felt this really acutely in that long "how do you 'decide'* what you 'know'* thread a few months back)...

 

When I first read AM's upthread remark with "the heart as little idol factory" image, I read it metaphorically, something along the lines of "we tend to elevate to a level of importance things that distract us / haul us away from our Better Selves."  My own preoccupation with electronic gizmos, for example, leapt to mind... Martha's suggestions that preoccupation with money / sex / power etc also ring true... keeping up with the neighbors, maintaining appearances, etc... that sort of thing.  And yes: such preoccupations do have power to pull me away from my putatively held values.

 

And for me, putting that observation into idolatry terms ("don't make an idol out of gold") is a powerful and succinct (albeit in my own case metaphoric) reminder that calls me back to my Better Self. Judaism (like Islam) takes the prohibition against images pretty seriously -- we do not have any equivalent to the Sistine Chapel; there is no tradition of pictorial art as instruction even in earlier eras; even our modern-day Passover books scrupulously avoid depicting even Moses, a mere mortal, lest we inadvertently 'venerate'* him.  

 

But: it's easy for modern-day Jews to take the word idol 'literally'* -- well, look around: we don't have any images, ergo, we need not worry about idolatry.  Even though there are, clearly, other distractions that exert a similar pull that take us similarly away from compassion/intention/reflection/service to others/transcendence.  For me, then, to frame that reminder in terms of idolatry is (metaphorically) helpful, because that specific word resonates with a particular meaning vested in my texts and traditions.

 

 

 

 

(BTW, to Arctic Mama: I don't mean to put words in your mouth by suggesting that you meant your comment metaphorically -- I don't know one way or another -- only that I read it that way, bringing my own background/orientation to it.)

 

* I put these words in quotes because these are the sorts of words that I wonder if we mean the same thing, as we use them.

[Rosie_0801]

Sadly, I do agree with you that there are more people than not who boil their life down to getting something for themselves, religious or not.

 

Everyone who is still alive wants something out of life. There is also a limit to how much anyone can give if they are not also receiving.

 

 

 

 

"What's in it for me" is not worship. Nor is it love.

 

There's always something in it for an individual when it comes to love. Can't comment on worship, obviously. 

 

 

Also, the return doesn't have to be positive either. People seek and keep negative return dynamics all the time.

 

That is certainly true.

[Murphy101]

Everyone who is still alive wants something out of life. There is also a limit to how much anyone can give if they are not also receiving.

Out of life is different from out of another person or relationship.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by limits. Those are often self-imposed limits, are they not?

 

Granted I cannot give more money until someone gives me some more money.

 

But not all of life is about what we get or making sure we get more than or equal to what we give. Most of it isn't IMO. Or maybe I just have a crappy life. I don't think so, but obviously that's up for interpretation.

 

There's always something in it for an individual when it comes to love. Can't comment on worship, obviously.

That's just about the saddest thing I've ever read.

 

No. There isn't always something in it. Sometimes people just love bc it's what we should do. Even if we aren't loved back equally or at all. I'll grant it doesn't happen often enough. I guess they might get back a good feeling about it, but even that is often lacking. No good deed going unpunished, so to speak.

 

It seems to me that keeping score and tallies is counter productive to loving and for sure counter productive to feeling loved.

[Rosie_0801]

That's just about the saddest thing I've ever read.

 

No. There isn't always something in it. Sometimes people just love bc it's what we should do. Even if we aren't loved back equally or at all. I'll grant it doesn't happen often enough. I guess they might get back a good feeling about it, but even that is often lacking. No good deed going unpunished, so to speak.

It's the saddest thing you've ever read, then you follow up with a sentence telling me a fulfilled sense of duty is one thing that you get out of love. 

 

That's not sad at all. That's human. What's ignoble about fulfilling one's sense of duty? Nothing at all. You're to be commended for having one.

 

 

 

It seems to me that keeping score and tallies is counter productive to loving and for sure counter productive to feeling loved.

 

Is completely altruistic love the only love that counts? I can't see it as sad that there isn't more of it. It's downright dangerous applied in the wrong place. Your use of language seems to be glorifying co-dependence, and yet I pretty sure that's not what you mean since you are a person with standards.

[Murphy101]

It's the saddest thing you've ever read, then you follow up with a sentence telling me a fulfilled sense of duty is one thing that you get out of love.

No. I said a guess it *can* be, but often there's not even that. Thus the reference to no good deed going unpunished.

 

Is completely altruistic love the only love that counts? I can't see it as sad that there isn't more of it. It's downright dangerous applied in the wrong place. Your use of language seems to be glorifying co-dependence, and yet I pretty sure that's not what you mean since you are a person with standards.

Oddly enough, I was thinking the same thing about your view. It's codependent. Manipulative even.

 

I cannot love this bc I get nothing out of it is very dependent on others.

 

To choose to do so regardless of whether I get love in equal measure is freedom from dependence. I owe my love to nothing more than my sense that this is who I choose to be.

 

Also, love does not mean accepting abuse either. They are not an either or situation usually.

 

I'm not denying most love is often based on return. I don't know how much value it has. I guess it has the value of currency, which seems rather fickle to my mind, but certainly still is of value and use.

[Carol in Cal.]

You have talents I can't aspire to. :D

Likewise!

[Bluegoat]

Ah, nothing like the passion of an ex-atheist :)

 

Science, as you should well know, is not an atheist's 'book'. Science is merely that which we can explore and discuss, because it is observable. It is the ground on which assertions can be made and tested.

 

It is not an object of worship. It is a tool. 

 

Really dislike the 'atheists must worship something, and it isn't God so it must be science' line of argument. 

 

If someone says their morality is grounded in science, and their understanding of reality is grounded in science, then they are treating it as their "book" just as another person might use some other measure, be it mathematics or Socratic discussion or poetry or interpretation of some sort of religious teachings.

 

All of those things are also tools to convey ideas and practices.  All people who bother to think at all have a set of basic premises or fundamental truths that they see as most primary, and the source of all other truth.  You can say that they acknowledge those things as primary, or they worship them, but it is pretty much the same thing - to worship something is simply to consciously acknowledge the primary thing(s) and recognize one's own relation to them.

 

The idea that the universe is entirely unknowable, that it has not fundamental form, is one that a few people have suggested and believed, but certainly not ones that believe that science is a useful tool, so I think it's pretty reasonable to assume anyone advocating evolutionary theory as a way to understand morality does not in fact believe that.

[albeto.]

Yes, but any argument must start by assuming certain precepts.  An atheist scientist assumes a materialist world.  That which cannot be perceived by the 5 senses (or scientific instruments) cannot exist.  And that right there stops almost all dialog, because religious people are not

 

I'm not a history expert, so I won't pretend to be.  The particular groups I was thinking of were the Spartans, the Huns, and groups such as ISIS.

 

 

 

If ethics were purely a by-product of evolution, they would essentially be utilitarian ethics.  The greatest good for the greatest number.  And yet, there are many, many situations that have been discussed over many, many years that illustrate that utilitarianism is NOT ethical.  Often times, what the consensus believes to be Right is NOT in our biological best interests.  Why not?  I understand the idea that altruism developed to increase group coherence, and now we "misuse" that altruism to protect our weaker members.  But we're still looking at utilitarianism as the measure for judging an action as moral, and I don't buy that.  

 

 

Can you prove to me, based on science and reason, that rape is wrong, if I tell you that I do not believe that happiness and general well-being are things I value?

 

Scientists can only use those variables that can be identified and actually used. Faith-based claims cannot be, by their very nature. They are simply not included. Individual scientists may or may not believe in a supernatural reality.

 

Do you think the Spartans, Huns, and ISIS were/are only motivated by war and not the protection of their families, their communities, their ways of life? Do you think they were/are not inspired by a sense of justice or compassion for their loved ones?

 

Why do you suppose ethics would develop without the influence of emotions, biases, prejudice, or new information? 

 

There is evidence that shows the effect of rape physically, emotionally, and mentally. We can see by this evidence that it decreases the chemicals that produce peace and well-being, whether for a time or for the rest of one's life. The typical neurological make up of the human is for empathy, at least for one's loved ones and one's ingroup. Deviations, such as psychopathy or sadism, wouldn't be persuaded by the same arguments, but I suspect we're talking about the typical social human. 

 

I think the problem with modern society (lol, what a grandparent-y thing to say...) is the idea that happiness and well-being are things to strive for.  Happiness and well-being should be the by-products of living an ethical life, and I think you would agree with that.  When we place happiness as a goal, we miss it.  When we believe that peace and well-being cause happiness, we are simply wrong.  For proof, look at affluence and correlation to suicide rates.  It's a fluffy book, but there is some great information in The Happiness Project about how sometimes in order to be happy, we have to suffer and make ourselves miserable to do it.  :-)  And because I think you are probably a fundamentally good person, dutiful towards your family and community and happy to be of service to those you love, I'm guessing you would agree with this one small section of my post.   

 

I don't know about grandparent-y, but I happen to think it illustrates a concerted reflection of the human experience. Maybe that's why it's grandparent-y - only after we have experienced youth, and then watched our own children grow, and begin ourselves to face old age and impending mortality do we really consider what the greatest values of our experiences have been. As luck would have it, I read some Sam Harris yesterday (Spirituality), and he refers to this process. He explains, "Despite the beauty of our world and the scope of human accomplishment, it is hard not to worry that the forces of chaos will triumph - not merely in the end but in every moment. Our pleasures, however refined or easily acquired, are by their very nature fleeting. They begin to subside the instant they arise, only to be replaced by fresh desires or feelings of discomfort." Religion is one means by which to attempt to address this phenomenon. He postulates an atheistic method for the same (that is, striving to reach the same goal but without assuming faith-based claims are accurate). Your comment reminds me of this quote because it's part of our cognitive process to "take stock" of our experiences, which is just a particular way in which we identify a pattern from which we can make a prediction with confidence. We're pattern seekers by nature after all. 

 

I interpret what you say here as noting the younger generation does not yet see value in those experience that are valuable for their own sake, as they are distracted by the constant potential desire, or potential discomfort, and securing the next experience of pleasure. Leaving aside the problems faced when making such sweeping generalizations, what makes you think our generation is the first to discover that life is a series of experiences, more meaningful when we choose (or are conditioned) to assign higher value to more cerebral or philosophical aspects? What makes you think in our youth we weren't similarly spontaneous and hedonistic, frustrating the older generation who had already come to this conclusion? What makes you think when our own grandparents were young, their own grandparents didn't note the same, sad, "rush" and fleeting appreciation for what really matters in life? Why do you assume this is a matter of your discovery, and not one of human reckoning for many across the globe and over time, people who survive youth, survive parenthood, and have an expectation of growing older? In other words, the struggle to identify and find happiness is ongoing, each generation, each society, each individual gets to write their own interpretation of life, and the meaning thereof. Why should any one of us, when we consider our vast experiences have led us to meaningful conclusions, ignore the fact that others develop meaningful conclusions themselves, quite apart from our input or opinion? What reason should we have to assume that of all the millions and billions of people considering such deep things, our meaning is reflects some objective accuracy and not a subjective conclusion based on a seemingly infinite number of variables. most of which are completely out of our control?

 

I really appreciate your exchange on this subject, and while I'm not trying to "wrap things up", it is getting towards bedtime here in Switzerland.  My line of questioning was to see what, if anything, you used as a moral measuring tape.  You are asking questions of Christians in this thread about why they *know* that their conclusion is the right conclusion, and that of group x, group y, or DW is clearly wrong, when they cannot back up their claims with anything other than a book and "soul searching and prayer".  My thoughts are that you base most of your ethical decisions on similarly shaky ground.  Your book is science, the ever-evolving beast, and your own soul searching (you can call it thinking things through, but it boils down to the same thing), minus the prayer part.  You are asking non-materlists to show proof, and the non-materialists are saying "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

We cannot argue, because we don't accept the precept of a materialist universe.  You say it must be materialist, because there is no proof otherwise.  I say it is not materialist, and by definition, I cannot prove that to you with measurable data.  The only thing left is socratic discussion of whether or not belief can be LOGICAL in the absence of material proof, and that is a topic for another day!  

 

I disagree with your premise in a few places here. I do not suppose xians cannot back up their claims with anything other than a book and "soul searching prayer." I suppose xians and non-xians alike proceed with interpreting and making predictions about the human experience (and nature in general) in the same way - we consider the evidence, we consider our experiences, and we consider what we've learned. The *only* difference is the xian will consider certain faith-based claims to be considered evidence, whereas the atheist will not. 

 

Science is not a "book," or authority, or objective Truth^tm accepted by atheists. It, like prayer, is a method of understanding the natural world (including the human experience). It is a method that seeks to discern objective fact from subjective opinion for reasons you point out - humans approach knowledge and understanding on shaky ground precisely because the unavoidable influences such as bias, ignorance, conditioning, etc, affect our perceptions and therefore our conclusions. Science is a method whereby these biases and influences are weeded out as much as possible. Prayer is a method of understanding, but is increasingly disregarded by society in general as it is demonstrably unreliable. Wilson's prayers result in a far different assumption than yours, or any other xian here, and yet you both refer to the same source - the god of the bible. Interpretation of this source cannot be divorced from the biases, conditioning, or general influence of culture on the cognitive and social development of any individual. It's why there are so many different explanations of the same documents, and why even the same faith tradition evolves its beliefs over time. 

 

You suggest atheists refer to science as a kind of authority (my book is science). You recognize there is no evidence to support your faith-based claims, and it appears that you would encourage me to let go of my authority, my devotion to an idea, and accept the possibility that a supernatural explanation is valid, despite the lack of evidence and logical problems. I find it interesting that you then fail to do the same with other faith-based claims. You don't consider karma, for example, of the effect of past lives on the human experience. You don't consider the influence of the spirits of one's ancestors or of nature itself on an individual's experience. I'm guessing you don't consider them because they naturally don't come up in your circles, or when they do they fail any expectations of logic and reason and are therefore dismissed as being implausible and irrelevant. I imagine you wouldn't argue if I dismiss them because that which may be explained as karma can be explained more reasonably in other ways (ie, natural cause and effect). I imagine you agree that there's no evidence to suppose I've lived different lives in the past and so making such an assumption is unnecessary, and besides, my behaviors can be explained in other ways (ie, the way in which I was raised, the culture and even specific events and people that influenced me). These alternatives require no faith, they can be assessed logically, dismissed without any emotional distress. And yet the xian faith-based claims should be the exception to this general application of skepticism. 

 

Thanks for the talk, and I'll read any response you might want to give tomorrow.  I appreciate that you want to engage in these ideas and ferret out the nearest thing to truth we can find as humans.  I've done the same, and it led me on an interesting path out and back into religion (not the same one I started with, lol).  

 

I see no evidence to suggest there is a "truth" in the sense to which you refer. I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been if, following whatever experience led you back to faith, you had been inspired by a different religion. If instead of the faith-claims of the xian religion, you interpreted your experiences against the faith-claim of something totally different, what would "the nearest thing to truth" look like? 

 

​As a total, unrelated aside, I'm sure you'd really like the book Sapiens.  The author, like many of the neo-atheists seems to think sarcasm is the best way to handle religion, but I managed to ignore that and very much enjoy the anthropological information within.  

 

What's a "neo-atheist"? One who lacks faith in a neo-god? 

 

:p

 

I think there are many approaches to encouraging people to consider rational arguments over superstition, and sarcasm is one highly effective tool, but I seriously doubt the best way. Sarcasm has certainly been used to expose intolerable components of ideologies and infrastructures before, from poking fun at the enemy in war to deflate his intimidation factor, to exposing absurdities in the rationalizations of oppressors. Political cartoons have been joined by social media memes, but the concept itself is as old as criticism. There's no reason I can find to support the idea that religion ought to be exempt from critical thinking, even when that critical thinking is delivered in short-attention span wit. 

[albeto.]

Here is how we, Orthodox Christians, know that DW's statement/s are wrong (about Christianity, icons, etc) and at the same time how we know we are not leaning on our own understanding...

 

I don't doubt he's wrong about what orthodox xians believe, or that the god of the bible will continue to chastise people like you for practicing your faith. I doubt you can appeal to anything other than faith to support your theology is more accurate than his. I doubt this because there exists no objective measure yet discovered to accurately know the mind and will of the god of the bible. 

 

In my first reply to your question, albeto., I was not attempting to address how you or anyone else would or could determine the truth, but how *I* and other Orthodox Christians go about determining the truth, or how we decide that DW is wrong.

 

I understand how you conclude what must be true. Explaining your method doesn't answer my questions, however, it explains how you developed your conclusion. The questions are still unanswered, and I imagine if we continue down this logical path, we'll eventually get to the point where you explain you take certain things on faith. 

 

But so too does Wilson. 

 

And every xian. 

 

And suggesting only the orthodox have it right is silly, and I imagine frustrating, if not offensive to some other xians. 

 

 

The reason I posted in the first place, in case it's of interest, is that I was curious to know if you all think DW has moved to a more extreme position and if so, is he retaining readers and followers. Is his opinion about Eastern Christians popular among his of similar theology? Is he more extreme or average of that sect? Would others of his persuasion read that and think, "yeah he's probably right, God is chastising the Eastern Christians. We better stay away from them, lest we be chastised."

 

I think extreme positions have always been around, but we are more quickly aware of them because of technology. I suspect Wilson's popularity will increase as his exposure increases, and his extreme views will continue to gain attention. Most people, like you and most people here, will probably feel frustrated and horrified that *this* could be considered the face of xianity. Some people will find his message perfectly in line with their understanding of the scriptures, and their personal experiences, and so his following will grow. Those who share criticism, especially humorous, satirical, or sarcastic criticism, will find this opportunity too delicious to pass by. Those who aren't affiliated with him and his theology will become increasingly embarrassed to be associated with him. The younger generation will continue to consider him and others all to be the "face" of xianity, and will not want to be affiliated with it at all. That's the trend I see (and I think there's ample support for this), and I think it will continue.

[December]

Albeto, these were your questions:

 

how does everyone know Wilson is wrong.... 

 

And if Wilson is wrong but doesn't know it, how can other xians be assured they too are not wrong but are similarly innocently ignorant? After all, if a believer cannot discern correctly whether or not the holy ghost has assured them about the right thing, then how does any xian know they have the right assurance and they're not actually, secretly leaning on their own understanding instead?

 

 

 

JenniferB answered both of those two questions.  She may not have answered them in the way you were hoping for, but she answered them.

[JenniferB]

albeto., again you said that explaining my methods doesn't answer your question. I read your question and you asked how we Christians can know he's wrong. We are talking about Christian theology here about icons and it can be measured. It's historical. We know his theology is wrong because we can measure theology by history. What did historical Christianity say about icons? It says we can and should venerate them. This is history and its measurable.

 

Just say you don't like or agree with this method rather than saying I didn't answer the question.

[JenniferB]

And another thing...you don't win an argument or make conversational progress by saying, "you didn't answer my question." Or something like, "if we keep arguing I will win and you will loose because you will claim faith in the end, and clearly that equals loosing." That is not a valid argument.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

albeto., again you said that explaining my methods doesn't answer your question. I read your question and you asked how we Christians can know he's wrong. We are talking about Christian theology here about icons and it can be measured. It's historical. We know his theology is wrong because we can measure theology by history. What did historical Christianity say about icons? It says we can and should venerate them. This is history and its measurable.

 

Just say you don't like or agree with this method rather than saying I didn't answer the question.

 

Isn't Wilson a Christian?

[Rosie_0801]

I cannot love this bc I get nothing out of it is very dependent on others.

 

You provided examples yourself of a return that isn't dependent on others. 

 

 

 

To choose to do so regardless of whether I get love in equal measure is freedom from dependence.

 

I have said nothing about equal measures. 

 

I am bored now because I think you're talking more to yourself than to me.

[Murphy101]

You provided examples yourself of a return that isn't dependent on others.

 

 

I have said nothing about equal measures.

 

I am bored now because I think you're talking more to yourself than to me.

I was talking to you but apparently there's a brick wall in the way. And I'm equally bored with it. So alrighty then.