Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dark Matter:

The point is, Fooloso4, that unless you can point to a culture that arose without some kind of religion, your whole argument falls apart. Is that why you're hiding behind nuance?

As I said, I am not interested in playing your games. My argument is not based on religion, what I said, and you should know because you quoted me, is:

The fact of the matter is that there have been many cultures with high moral standards that never knew anything of your God.

Surely you know the difference between the God of the Bible and “some kind of religion”.

Or, you can at least admit that not all conceptions of God -- Christian or otherwise -- are subject to your criticisms

.

What criticisms? Let me put it this way: God, however you want to define the concept, is not necessary for morality. Unless, of course, you define God as man.

Getting back to the OP, Adam's sin was partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Most people, theists and atheists, leave out the last part and gorge themselves on the 'forbidden fruit': to even attempt to answer the question 'What has God actually done wrong ?' is sin.

Are you claiming that to even ask the question of what God did wrong is to sin? There are many cases in the Hebrew Bible where God is questioned, and in some cases these questioned successfully changed God’s mind. See, for example, Abraham and Moses. There are also cases where God is questioned, such as Job’s questioning God, but it is not considered a sin. You seem to be unfamiliar with Rabbinic practice. To question is not to sin but to inquire in order to gain understanding. Jacob wrestled with God (Genesis 32:22-31). This is considered emblematic of Judaism.

As to leaving out the part about good and evil see my post #97 on dualities and the unity of opposites (of which the tree of good and evil is an obvious example), and #113 on the two kinds of lives based on knowledge (I did not go into it but sin and evil are often associated with cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, for example), #120 on how the concepts of sin and evil have changed. There is much more that can be said, but according to the Genesis story good and evil are framed in terms of knowledge and they are fruit of the same tree.

Greta wrote:Anthony, it appears that you think what Ted Bundy did looks like a good time. If that's the case then I am glad you have a religion to keep you in check ... I am curious, why would you want to commit murder if not for the scriptures? Who would you murder if not for your religion?

Wow. So now I'm a wannabe serial killer! If your comments don't qualify as ad hominem, what does? How poisonous is this woman? Greta, I'm curious, are you under psychiatric care at the moment? If not, I suggest you consider it.

Looking at the OP question, something came to mind. We could have been off far worse, if the Lord completely withdrew himself after Genesis; instead he stayed in contact with us and helped us get back on our feet again. He says his yoke is easy and his burden is light; the only burden we have these days is to believe, (which does not detract from us, but rather improves our life), and to try live a good life. These are the signs of a patient Creator. Despite all the arguments here, there has not been one, which addresses the OP question directly, what is up with that?

Can we start making a list here of the OP question? Because it seems like we are beating around the bush. Make a list and then we discuss the list, but at the same time, be sure to make a list of what we have done wrong too. WD

Whitedragon wrote: Despite all the arguments here, there has not been one, which addresses the OP question directly, what is up with that?

You're trying to lead a Bible study class using the standard memorized Christian lingo and concepts, and visitors to philosophy forums rarely find that too interesting. Members are not addressing the OP directly because they aren't that interested in the question it poses.

Ormond wrote:

Whitedragon wrote: Despite all the arguments here, there has not been one, which addresses the OP question directly, what is up with that?

You're trying to lead a Bible study class using the standard memorized Christian lingo and concepts, and visitors to philosophy forums rarely find that too interesting. Members are not addressing the OP directly because they aren't that interested in the question it poses.

Well it does not seem any of us, including you are make good progress despite our techniques. This is a religious thread, elements of religion is bound to appear. Perhaps the bloggers are not up to answering the OP question. It is also unclear why a religious thread should change to be something else; it is the same frustrating feeling a professional gets when explaining something in his field and someone says, “Speak English.” Moving too far away from religious language detracts from the subject matter. We still can have a philosophical conversation while at the same time dealing with religious genre. You will find that no one will be willing to completely step away from it. You are asking us to change the ball game, which puts us at a disadvantage, since it is like asking someone to change the rules of a sport or to combine two sets of rules.

Whitedragon wrote: dclements said:

Even if I wanted to, I can not believe in God; baring the possibility of someone brainwashing me to a point where I am no longer the person I am today. I can only imagine the reasons for my disbelief are as alien to you as your reason for believing are alien to me. It might help if I mention that my own beliefs are sort of alone the lines of Buddhism or Jainism (who tend to be either atheistic or not really caring if God exist), however I really don't adhere to any single form of religious doctrine.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think other atheist that come to the forum are far past the point of no return and are about as likely to be converted as a brick wall could be turned into a ham sandwich by talking to it.

How does Christianity brainwash us?

You misread my post and I said that 'I' would need to be brainwashed in order to believe in 'God' and/or Christianity. I wouldn't call it exactly 'brainwashing' (since social/culture indoctrination isn't usually considered at such, even if it is similar)
but I'm unsatisfied with your inability to fully grasp what I'm saying when I mention that I'm partial to nihilism and don't believe in 'good' or 'evil'.

(Perhaps if you listen to the following video by Jane's Addiction
you'll have a better idea of what my position is about.)
Youtube Jane's Addiction - Ain't No Right (Video)
Just being 'good' and believing in 'God' is just another form of complacency, which is very easy for most people to do if they are comfortable with how things are. I what little I know about the occult (and from life), complacency really doesn't get you anywhere and if you REALLY want something important it comes at a price; and that price is more often than not equal to (or more than) what the person wants in the first place. Because of this idea of 'salvation' for doing nothing with one's life sounds like a lot of BS, and I'm surprised how many people actually buy into it. While it is hard to point out exactly while it is so silly to believe in such stuff to those that believe, the only thing close to it is the 'magical' kind of thinking that kids do when they want stuff but don't understand what it takes to get it.

I can sort of believe in some things like ghosts, ouija boards, the placebo effect, and weak telekinesis to some degree (since I have witness such phenomenon once or twice), but things like 'God' and 'magic' run against EVERYTHING that is rational that I know of and I can't think of any person that considers themselves a serious 'philosopher' (or even one that thinks of themselves as being serious in just studying/debating the topic) if they don't understand how irrational/absurd it is to believe in 'God'. I'm 'ok' with people that are practicing theist as long as they understand how irrational/absurd it is to talk about 'God' and that they, or anyone else, can only find 'God' through 'faith'.

Whitedragon wrote: -- Updated December 20th, 2016, 5:03 am to add the following --

Dear bloggers,

Ormond requested that we share more of our personal stories and testimonies on the thread and ease up on the use of Biblical language and arguments. Do you think sharing what is personal helps?

Sincerely,
WD

Are you talking about experiences along the lines of talking to 'God' 'enlightenment', the occult, etc.? I kind of think that such stuff might either too boring/trivial to be of much use or too extreme to be anything other than heresy. The bible and other religious texts may be filled with personal stories, by philosophy is more about figuring things out through logic/reason which shouldn't need stories. Or at least that is what I believe.

-- Updated December 21st, 2016, 4:59 pm to add the following --

Whitedragon wrote:Looking at the OP question, something came to mind. We could have been off far worse, if the Lord completely withdrew himself after Genesis; instead he stayed in contact with us and helped us get back on our feet again. He says his yoke is easy and his burden is light; the only burden we have these days is to believe, (which does not detract from us, but rather improves our life), and to try live a good life. These are the signs of a patient Creator. Despite all the arguments here, there has not been one, which addresses the OP question directly, what is up with that?

Can we start making a list here of the OP question? Because it seems like we are beating around the bush. Make a list and then we discuss the list, but at the same time, be sure to make a list of what we have done wrong too. WD

As I said before, you're arguments assume that it is a given that your position (the Christian position) is correct and all other beliefs are incorrect. Such talk is 'ok' at a church but is not how things are done in philosophical debates. You need to at least make it appear that you are considering other peoples positions.

In the thread "Preaching is not allowed. See forum rules before posting" the site admin posts the following:

Scott wrote: Please note, like all the on-topic forums, the Philosophy of Religion and Theism Forum is for philosophical discussions and philosophical debate. This is not for preaching, non-philosophical sermons or making religious assertions without providing any argument for them. This is a philosophy of religion forum not a religion forum; there's a big difference.

All new threads posted must contain some kind of philosophical argument or philosophical question.

Do not post new threads that only contain a series of bare, religious assertions. Do not post threads with a topic that is religious but non-philosophical.
...
More often than not, using scripture from a certain religion to directly support a claim is a sign that the topic is not philosophical. For example, posting that "god exists because it says so in my bible" or "it is sinful to do X because it says so in my religious text" are religious arguments not philosophical ones.

Please use the report button to report any posts that may not meet the standards explained in this post or in the forum rules. I cannot read every post, so I need your help.

I think your arguments either fall dangerously close to what he says not to do, or it is exactly the kind of arguments he is saying NOT to do and expects us to report it when people just want to preach and not debate.

Fooloso4 wrote: As I said, I am not interested in playing your games.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Are you claiming that to even ask the question of what God did wrong is to sin?

Yes. It is to partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

There are many cases in the Hebrew Bible where God is questioned, and in some cases these questioned successfully changed God’s mind. See, for example, Abraham and Moses. There are also cases where God is questioned, such as Job’s questioning God, but it is not considered a sin. You seem to be unfamiliar with Rabbinic practice. To question is not to sin but to inquire in order to gain understanding. Jacob wrestled with God (Genesis 32:22-31). This is considered emblematic of Judaism.

To question is not to accuse. And what is "wrestling" emblematic of? Accusing God of doing wrong?

As to leaving out the part about good and evil see my post #97 on dualities and the unity of opposites (of which the tree of good and evil is an obvious example), and #113 on the two kinds of lives based on knowledge (I did not go into it but sin and evil are often associated with cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, for example), #120 on how the concepts of sin and evil have changed. There is much more that can be said, but according to the Genesis story good and evil are framed in terms of knowledge and they are fruit of the same tree.

Why was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden? And why do human beings gorge themselves on that fruit? To what avail?

Hi Dclements, listening to your video was interesting. Earlier posts would show you that we agree that the idea of right and wrong needs to be redefined and the way we see it should be in accordance with your view. Right and wrong is about what is beneficial for us and for others and what is not. We both should have a similar take on the notion, but for the sake of traditionalism, some people still use those terms. It also should be logical that if once both parties understand those terms the re-defined “right and wrong” should no longer pose a hindrance in conversation. There are some personal writing, which we gladly would share on the notion of right and wrong, but it is in abstract form, if you are interested.

Having studied the occult too we have experienced some phenomenon in that area, but as well in Christina areas. However, we will certainly not share it on an open forum for obvious reasons. If you wish, we can have a private conversation on the matter.

We do not believe that we are preaching on the forum, there is a big difference between preaching and religious reference. Besides, atheists often “preach” as much as theists do and you never see theists complain. For what it is worth, we are open to the wisdoms of all convictions: atheists, agnostics and other paths and have walked many of them ourselves. We prefer to keep those wisdoms with us, but work from a Christian starting point; and no, we are open to other’s opinions, not closed as you suggest. If we were closed, we would not have bothered to watch your video or google the lyrics.

This is a religious thread, elements of religion is bound to appear.

I love religious threads, as do many other members. That's not the issue. The problem is that you're addressing religious topics with language foreign to this realm.

Moving too far away from religious language detracts from the subject matter.

I type on religion ALL THE TIME without using phrases such as "The Lord", as do many other members.

But, they're your posts, so write them however you wish of course. I'm just trying to help you to connect with this audience. If you prefer that everyone come to you and play the game your way using your language, ok, try it, maybe you can make it work.

Dark Matter:

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Take it any way you need to. If it is a defeat, it is the defeat of reasoned argument by irrational contentiousness. If you think you won something then by that alone you have lost, since you fail to see that by your little game of refusing to answer questions you have defeated your own ability to engage in philosophical discussion.

Yes. It is to partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

A little late for that isn’t it? Man is no longer in the garden. Do you think that we sin when we gain knowledge? Do you think the story is about the preference of ignorance?

To question is not to accuse.

And yet it is what Abraham, Moses, and Job did.

And what is "wrestling" emblematic of?

The struggle of man to understand.

Why was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden?

Because knowledge means the ability to produce, and what we produce has both positive and negative consequences. God thought it better for man to live innocently in the garden, but man became knowledgeable. The consequences mentioned in the story included vulnerability and the need for protection, childbirth, rule, agriculture, and baking bread. Each one changes man’s world, and each change carries both good and bad consequences.

And why do human beings gorge themselves on that fruit? To what avail?

Perhaps the better question is why you are adverse to gaining knowledge? We do not have the option of innocence. For us, the only alternative is ignorance. Why do you prefer strife to understanding?

Fooloso4 said,

Perhaps the better question is why you are adverse to gaining knowledge? We do not have the option of innocence. For us, the only alternative is ignorance. Why do you prefer strife to understanding?

Not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not to be ignorant of knowledge in itself, but to prevent the very convolution and confusion of it, which we even find in forums like these.

Whitedragon:

Not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not to be ignorant of knowledge in itself, but to prevent the very convolution and confusion of it, which we even find in forums like these.

Not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was Man’s innocence. Innocence is not an option for us. Not eating of the tree of knowledge is not an option for us. There is nothing in the story about “knowledge in itself”, only knowledge of good and evil. There is no convolution and confusion of knowledge itself, only the consequences of knowledge which include convolution and confusion. To turn one’s back on knowledge is ignorance. We cannot return to the garden. The only way open to us is to seek wisdom, that is, to know how to manage and control our knowledge so that we can maximize the good and minimize the evil.

Fooloso4 said:

Not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was Man’s innocence. Innocence is not an option for us. Not eating of the tree of knowledge is not an option for us. There is nothing in the story about “knowledge in itself”, only knowledge of good and evil. There is no convolution and confusion of knowledge itself, only the consequences of knowledge which include convolution and confusion. To turn one’s back on knowledge is ignorance. We cannot return to the garden. The only way open to us is to seek wisdom, that is, to know how to manage and control our knowledge so that we can maximize the good and minimize the evil.

We should manage or control our knowledge, yes; in this we agree. Moreover, we agree on that it was knowledge of good and evil. There is one thing that is left open for interpretation, however, when their eyes opened, they realized they were naked, you say it is a sign of vulnerability that they had to cover them, but how could they be vulnerable in paradise, even after eating the fruit? When the Lord passed through the garden, they hid and made an issue of their nakedness. Please explain how it is not from eating the fruit, which convoluted their perception.

We still see today that people get confused between what is right and what is wrong; this is one of the reasons people join forums like these. They might have felt vulnerable, but they also felt afraid. Genesis 3:10 “…and he said, I heard thy voice in the garden and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” (King James)

Clearly, the first thing they recognized is that they were naked. The emphasis falls on this and from it, the Lord “deduced” that they ate from the tree; and though they still were safe in paradise, their behaviour changed. That is the key, their behaviour changed when they ate from the fruit. Apart from being afraid of the consequences, they started fearing things, which held not threat.

-- Updated December 22nd, 2016, 11:06 am to add the following --

Ormond wrote:

This is a religious thread, elements of religion is bound to appear.

I love religious threads, as do many other members. That's not the issue. The problem is that you're addressing religious topics with language foreign to this realm.

Moving too far away from religious language detracts from the subject matter.

I type on religion ALL THE TIME without using phrases such as "The Lord", as do many other members.

But, they're your posts, so write them however you wish of course. I'm just trying to help you to connect with this audience. If you prefer that everyone come to you and play the game your way using your language, ok, try it, maybe you can make it work.

Ormond, certain terminology and models cannot and should not just be untangled from its field. Using the pasivum davinum and other methods of referring to deities is a personal preference. Since the Bible and its history is set in a specific model of narrative metaphors and allegory, we cannot but help to use these references when communicating, because the way in which the authors wrote it gave it its very power. So please take advice yourself, do not stray too far away from the genre and model when you communicate, because that is even more dangerous and ultimately unproductive.

There is life in allegory and poetry and as soon as you normalize it in a more understandable and “acceptable language” you do not only lose your strength of argument, but also open yourself to the force of conventional discourse. A New Testament quote backs up this claim, but posting it here is asking for trouble. However, ask yourself this question, how did the Son deal with arguments?

Whitedragon:

… but how could they be vulnerable in paradise, even after eating the fruit?

Two points: first, you assume that their knowledge would include the knowledge that they were in a place where they would not be vulnerable. Second, they knew that they had disobeyed and were fearful of the consequences of being found out. So, they were vulnerable after all.

Please explain how it is not from eating the fruit, which convoluted their perception.

Their perception was accurate. Man is vulnerable. That perception is distinct from the judgment as to when and where and with regard to who and what we are vulnerable. We should also consider what it meant for Ham to see his father Noah naked (Genesis 9:22). His brothers covered their father and avoided seeing him exposed. To be naked means to not be able to hide what one wishes to keep hidden. Ham's transgression was not simply that he saw what he should not have (and that does not mean his father's naked body), he further exposes his father by telling his brothers what he saw.

They might have felt vulnerable, but they also felt afraid.

One does not feel vulnerable without being afraid.

That is the key, their behaviour changed when they ate from the fruit.

Of course it is. That is entirely consistent with what I have been saying. Only it is not simply a matter of changed behavior but of what Man became capable of doing with knowledge, that is, the ways in which he could and did now behave from generation to generation.

… they started fearing things, which held not threat.

But God had told them that if they ate they would die, and they ate. Their fear was not paranoia. They had something to fear. Proverbs and Psalms tell us that wisdom is fear of the Lord. Since they had transgressed they now had good reason to fear the Lord where they had none before.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom … (Genesis 3:6)

The story is far more complex than it seems at first. There can be no wisdom without knowledge. Their disobedience did not simply give them good reason to fear the Lord, it was the necessary condition for gaining wisdom. That means, in part, for knowing that it is wise to fear the Lord. But there is more to it. To disobey is to assert independence. Even God’s Law is not a sufficient guide for the actions of men. After Moses brings the Law two further necessities are acknowledged and instituted: kings and judges. The titles of two books that tell the story of what come after the Law. In other words, we are to some degree independent and thus must to that extent figure out how to act wisely.

Fooloso4 wrote: Take it any way you need to. If it is a defeat, it is the defeat of reasoned argument by irrational contentiousness. If you think you won something then by that alone you have lost, since you fail to see that by your little game of refusing to answer questions you have defeated your own ability to engage in philosophical discussion.

Neuance is the last refuge of a failed argument, so I figure if you can't use a simple and common definition found in something like Wikipedia, you know you have nothing to say.

Perhaps the better question is why you are adverse to gaining knowledge? We do not have the option of innocence. For us, the only alternative is ignorance. Why do you prefer strife to understanding?

My, my. How quickly you forget the complete description of the 'forbidden fruit' when it doesn't support your thesis.

In the fabled story of the Garden of Eden, the first humans, Adam and Eve, were told, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” The story continues with a serpent telling Eve, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And ever since that first taste, human beings have been gorging themselves on the fruit on the knowledge of good and evil.

To the dull and unimaginative, it's a meaningless story dreamt up by primitive humans with overactive imaginations, but to anyone with the slightest bit of insight, it's a beautiful allegory and its longevity suggests it tells us something about ourselves. There are different ways to interpret it, but I see it as telling us that by we “died” to the universe-reality by our judgments. By so separating ourselves from it, we did indeed become as “gods,” but what the serpent failed to tell Eve is that though we would be like gods, we would not in reality be gods and the wisdom of the would elude us.

“Philosophy” literally means “love of wisdom.” What does this mean? According to Thomas Aquinas:

“In all things that are to be controlled and put in order, the measure of control and order must be taken from the end in view; and and the proper end of everything is something good. … Persons who deal with the ends in view of certain particular things, without attaining to the general end of all things, are called `wise in this or that particular thing,' … while the name of 'wise' without qualification is reserved for him alone who deals with the last end of the universe, which is also the first beginning of the order of the universe. Hence, it is proper to the wise man to consider the highest causes. The first philosophy, then, is the science of truth, not of any and every truth, but of that truth which is the origin of all truth, and appertains to the first principle of the being of all things; hence its truth is the principle of all truth, for things are in truth as they are in being.”

Now, I see no problem with this, but many object to anything that is remotely suggestive of a First Principle. G. K. Chesterton observed:

“We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man’s opinion on tram cars matters; his opinion on Botticelli [an Italian painter of the Early Renaissance] matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.

Hence, we see all kinds of different philosophies. And lest they find themselves having a religion in a philosophy of religion forum, critics of the ideal God represents concretize the idea. In the process, they actually prove what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So, Fooloso4, I hope you understand why I can't take you seriously until such a time you find that "strange object," called the "universe," and begin investigating First Principles.