Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[heracleitos]

Jews have a fully documented foundherentist moral theory in the Torah. Muslims have one in the Quran.

Atheists do not have a moral theory. They merely criticize other people's theory. At best, atheists could have an elusive, undocumented one, but even that is debatable.

An undocumented theory can never be used to successfully attack a documented one. That is the fundamental weakness of the atheist take on morality.

Furthermore, the atheist attack on foundherentism itself is laughable. In that case, they should also reject mathematics.

Atheists inevitably find themselves before an insurmountable obstacle when trying to take on Judaism or Islam. In fact, atheists have always known that they do not stand a chance against Judaism and Islam.

In theory, Christian morality also rests on Jewish Law, just like Judaism.

In practice, however, the Christian take on Jewish Law is a patched and hacked concoction with numerous undocumented alterations. Therefore, in practice, Christian moral theory is as undocumented as the atheist one.

Concerning undocumented patching and hacking of the Law, Jesus warned his followers in his Sermon on the Mount not to do exactly that.

You can find Jesus' explicit no-patches-and-no-hacks orders in Matthew 5:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

There are good reasons why the atheist adversary can trivially breach the Christian lines and easily overrun their positions. In fact, and as expected, the atheist adversary is effectively wiping the floor with them.

What else do you think that the result would be, of the Christian willful insubordination to the explicit orders of their own supreme commander?

Jews and Muslims are actually much better at carefully implementing the detailed instructions and operational guidelines issued by the headquarters of the Christian supreme command.

That is why Judaism and Islam are doing absolutely fine, while the vessels of the Christian navy, sailing on the high seas, end up, one by one, hit by a torpedo and irrevocably lost in action.

[Sy Borg]

Casting shade and blame elsewhere, but not looking within. Your weak ad homs against "atheists" are naive and unconvincing.

Christianity has a different history to Islam and Judaism, the latter two being more grounded in the lands of their origin. By contrast, Christianity was foisted upon the west after Constantine, quite possibly delirious from lead poisoning, converted to Christianity after having a hallucination. So Christianity's roots are not as deep as those of Islam and Judism.

BTW, Islam might be growing, but often at the expense of its adherents. Islam has been beleaguered by virulent extremism for some time, and that has caused great misery. Try asking Ask Afghani women whether Islam is working for them. Oh, you can't because they dare not answer. Fundamentalist Islam is about as admirable as Kim's North Korea, and each is based on falsehoods dictated by those at the top who stand to benefit from subjugation.

Hardly a good role model. As for Judaism, it remains small as compared with the other great religions, and that may well be its strength. A small group is generally easier to administer.

[heracleitos]

Casting shade and blame elsewhere, but not looking within. Your weak ad hominem against "atheists" are naive and unconvincing.

That would rather be an ad homines instead of ad hominem. But then again, that term does not even exist because how can a supposedly personal attack simultaneously be non-personal?

]slam has been beleaguered by virulent extremism for some time, and that has caused great misery.

In his famous publication, "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority.", Nassim Taleb attributes "winning" directly to "intolerance", which is something that other people may sometimes designate as "extremism".

So all Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which itself won thanks to its own stubbornness.

Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance.

Science acts similarly. We will return later with a discussion of how the minority rule is behind Karl Popper’s approach to science.

The entire growth of society, whether economic or moral, comes from a small number of people.

Outcomes are paradoxically more stable under the minority rule.

The phenomenon of group renormalization explains why the opinion of the simple-minded masses does not particularly matter. They don't choose. They get renormalized instead.

Since these people only manage to survive because a small minority of other people do the heavy lifting, where do they find the temerity to make unreasonable demands?

[paradox]

In practice, however, the Christian take on Jewish Law is a patched and hacked concoction with numerous undocumented alterations. Therefore, in practice, Christian moral theory is as undocumented as the atheist one.

Overall it's very difficult to understand your point.
What do you mean by "undocumented" moral theory in Christianity?

Concerning undocumented patching and hacking of the Law, Jesus warned his followers in his Sermon on the Mount not to do exactly that.

You can find Jesus' explicit no-patches-and-no-hacks orders in Matthew 5:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

There are good reasons why the atheist adversary can trivially breach the Christian lines and easily overrun their positions. In fact, and as expected, the atheist adversary is effectively wiping the floor with them.

Please explain how exactly could atheists undermine this quote? what do you mean by "overrunning their positions"?

[heracleitos]

What do you mean by "undocumented" moral theory in Christianity?

What is documented in the Christian Bible is Jewish law.

In fact, that is still the moral theory in Judaism. The version used in Christianity is different.

Christian moral theory is a modification based on Jewish Law. For example, particular fragments of Jewish Law such as the 10 commandments are almost surely still considered valid in Christianity. Other fragments of Jewish Law are on the other hand not accepted. It is not clear what the complete Christian moral theory looks like. Therefore, it cannot be considered truly documented.

what do you mean by "overrunning their positions"?

Over the centuries, atheists have had quite a bit of success discrediting Christian theology to the point that quite a few Christians have in all practical terms apostatized from the religion.

I personally think that the defining moment was the trial of Martin Luther, in which the Church rejected Luther's defense "through scripture and reason". In modern terms, the Church rejected in Luther's trial his appeal to foundherentist epistemology. This has allowed the atheists to successfully propose "reason" (and "enlightenment") as an alternative for the obscurantism of the Church.

The atheist offensive has never worked as well against Judaism or Islam. Unlike in Christianity, it did not lead to mass defection. In my opinion, the reason for that is the fact that Judaism and Islam do have a foundherentist epistemology in which reason is a core consideration. Hence, it is not possible to successfully disparage their moral theory as lacking in terms of rationality.

[paradox]

What do you mean by "undocumented" moral theory in Christianity?

What is documented in the Christian Bible is Jewish law.

In fact, that is still the moral theory in Judaism. The version used in Christianity is different.

This sounds as if you know too little about teachings of Jesus.
Yes moral theology is different, but again as if you never heard of Jesus, I don't know what to say...

But I see what you mean by "moral theology", if you're interested into moral theology in Christianity I suggest you pick up a catechism which summarizes all together good enough. but I bet you don't care.

There is no point to debate Martin Luther because first of all he wasn't even a bishop for his claims to be credible enough, just a monk protesting because his interpretation of the scriptures was rejected.

[paradox]

What do you mean by "undocumented" moral theory in Christianity?

What is documented in the Christian Bible is Jewish law.

In fact, that is still the moral theory in Judaism. The version used in Christianity is different.

This sounds as if you know too little about teachings of Jesus.
Yes moral theology is different, but again as if you never heard of Jesus, I don't know what to say...

But I see what you mean by "moral theology", if you're interested into moral theology in Christianity I suggest you pick up a catechism in you local library, which summarizes all together good enough. but I bet you don't care.

There is no point to debate Martin Luther because first of all he wasn't even a bishop for his claims to be credible enough, just a monk protesting because his interpretation of the scriptures was rejected.

[heracleitos]

This sounds as if you know too little about teachings of Jesus.

I think that Jesus really meant what he said in his Sermon on the Mount.

But I see what you mean by "moral theology", if you're interested into moral theology in Christianity I suggest you pick up a catechism which summarizes all together good enough. but I bet you don't care.

You portray the catechism as a complete alternative to the Bible. There is no document in Judaism or Islam that can entirely replace their scripture.

I also see quite a few mentions of the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium). It is not clear to me what the connection is with the catechism, which is a document that does not seem to have legal weight at all.

There is no point to debate Martin Luther because first of all he wasn't even a bishop for his claims to be credible enough, just a monk protesting because his interpretation of the scriptures was rejected.

Martin Luther was a religious scholar, i.e. a doctor in theology, appointed by the Church to teach at the University of Wittenberg.

His rank in the Church was Augustinian friar, and vicar of Saxony and Thuringia, overseeing eleven monasteries in his province. His rank within the monastic hierarchy was therefore quite elevated.

As a monastic functionary, he obviously had no rank within the diocese, such as bishop. He worked for a completely different branch of the Holy Apostolic Church.

The problem identified by the prosecutor with his writings at the Diet in Worms was not his rank.

[paradox]

I appologize for double post, my mistake...

I think that Jesus really meant what he said in his Sermon on the Mount.
You portray the catechism as a complete alternative to the Bible. There is no document in Judaism or Islam that can entirely replace their scripture.

I also see quite a few mentions of the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium). It is not clear to me what the connection is with the catechism, which is a document that does not seem to have legal weight at all.

catechism is surely not an alternative of the bible, but rather shortened interpretation of the scriptures focusing on what is relevant for today's times.
but why comparing Christianity with Judaism or Islam in every aspect?

Their scriptures do not allow them to do that because it would be considered a heresy of some sort.
In Christianity things are different, Jesus him self said holly spirit will guide the church (see: John 14:26, Acts 1:8, John 16:13).
Think of catechism as the work of the holly spirit.

Therefore catechism has very much legal weight, nothing written in catechism goes against, it only interprets the bible as they should be interpreted, answering questions which arose in many debates.

[Sculptor1]

Jews have a fully documented foundherentist moral theory in the Torah. Muslims have one in the Quran.

Atheists do not have a moral theory. They merely criticize other people's theory. At best, atheists could have an elusive, undocumented one, but even that is debatable.

Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a moral code. It is simply a label for people who have no god.

An undocumented theory can never be used to successfully attack a documented one. That is the fundamental weakness of the atheist take on morality.

Atheism makes no claims about morality.
False. All theories have to submit to reason. Your moralities are self defeating in this way since they disagree.

Furthermore, the atheist attack on foundherentism itself is laughable. In that case, they should also reject mathematics.

Atheism does not attack. Atheism is just a marker, It has no volition.

Atheists inevitably find themselves before an insurmountable obstacle when trying to take on Judaism or Islam. In fact, atheists have always known that they do not stand a chance against Judaism and Islam.

This is simply false. You have nothing here. No evidence.

In theory, Christian morality also rests on Jewish Law, just like Judaism.

In practice, however, the Christian take on Jewish Law is a patched and hacked concoction with numerous undocumented alterations. Therefore, in practice, Christian moral theory is as undocumented as the atheist one.

Concerning undocumented patching and hacking of the Law, Jesus warned his followers in his Sermon on the Mount not to do exactly that.

You can find Jesus' explicit no-patches-and-no-hacks orders in Matthew 5:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

There are good reasons why the atheist adversary can trivially breach the Christian lines and easily overrun their positions. In fact, and as expected, the atheist adversary is effectively wiping the floor with them.

What else do you think that the result would be, of the Christian willful insubordination to the explicit orders of their own supreme commander?

Jews and Muslims are actually much better at carefully implementing the detailed instructions and operational guidelines issued by the headquarters of the Christian supreme command.

That is why Judaism and Islam are doing absolutely fine, while the vessels of the Christian navy, sailing on the high seas, end up, one by one, hit by a torpedo and irrevocably lost in action.

So what has any of this to do with your headline.
"Why IT works...."
What is the "it" in that sentence?

[EricPH]

It is not clear what the complete Christian moral theory looks like. Therefore, it cannot be considered truly documented.

Christian morality is simplistic and yet profound. All the law and the prophets of God hang and depend on the two greatest commandments; to love God and neighbour.

Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

[heracleitos]

Christian morality is simplistic and yet profound. All the law and the prophets of God hang and depend on the two greatest commandments; to love God and neighbour.

Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

One easy misinterpretation could be that Galatians 5:14 abolishes the ten commandments. If not, then some misinterpretation may be used to abolish other fragments in the Bible.

In my impression, the "greatest commandment" question can easily be abused to discredit and dismiss the remainder of the scriptures. The question is almost as bad as asking if we should pay taxes to Caesar:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.(B) “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a](C) to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?"

These questions exist exactly because they can so easily be abused. They were even specifically crafted for that purpose.

[paradox]

One easy misinterpretation could be that Galatians 5:14 abolishes the ten commandments. If not, then some misinterpretation may be used to abolish other fragments in the Bible.

I see your major concern is, why are old testament commandments and rituals abolished?

The whole old testaments consists of 3 parts:
1. legislation
2. rituals
3. morality

- legislation and rituals were specific for Jews and were there to guide their live, these are abolished because not everybody is a Jew, not even today's Jews ie. are sacrificing goats to God, should we say they also abolished their own law?

- morality on the other hand did not change, Gal 5:14 is the summary of the whole morality written in scriptures.
recall Mark 12:28-34

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.

Obviously even a Jewish teacher agreed on that one.

In my impression, the "greatest commandment" question can easily be abused to discredit and dismiss the remainder of the scriptures. The question is almost as bad as asking if we should pay taxes to Caesar:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.(B) “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a](C) to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?"

These questions exist exactly because they can so easily be abused. They were even specifically crafted for that purpose.

AFAIK, this quote talks about the fact that God did not create money.
The one who created money (Caesar) is in control of it, Caesar let money flow into the public and he is getting it back trough taxes, Caesar has monopoly over money, not God.

But the true reason why Pharisees asked Jesus that question is because they wanted to trap him into saying that money should be given to God rather than Caesar, which would mean open rebellion against the Caesar, so that they could then surrender Jesus to Caesar for judgement.
But Jesus saw what is their plan, hence why is said "But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?""

[Pattern-chaser]

Casting shade and blame elsewhere, but not looking within. Your weak ad hominem against "atheists" are naive and unconvincing.

That would rather be an ad homines instead of ad hominem. But then again, that term does not even exist because how can a supposedly personal attack simultaneously be non-personal?

OK, your attacks weren't ad homs, they were illogical, unpleasant, and unconvincing.

[Sy Borg]

Casting shade and blame elsewhere, but not looking within. Your weak ad hominem against "atheists" are naive and unconvincing.

That would rather be an ad homines instead of ad hominem. But then again, that term does not even exist because how can a supposedly personal attack simultaneously be non-personal?

We are all adults here. We are aware of implied insults.

For instance, if one finds out that you are a Christian and then claims that Christians are superstitious and naive, that would be an indirect ad hominem attack. Likewise, it's an implied ad hominem attack if one claims that atheists have no morality because they do not believe in a 2,000 year-old anthology, rewritten numerous times before being rendered "the word of God" with the advent of the Guttenberg Press.

]slam has been beleaguered by virulent extremism for some time, and that has caused great misery.

In his famous publication, "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority.", Nassim Taleb attributes "winning" directly to "intolerance", which is something that other people may sometimes designate as "extremism".

So all Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which itself won thanks to its own stubbornness.

Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance.

Science acts similarly. We will return later with a discussion of how the minority rule is behind Karl Popper’s approach to science.

The entire growth of society, whether economic or moral, comes from a small number of people.

Outcomes are paradoxically more stable under the minority rule.

The phenomenon of group renormalization explains why the opinion of the simple-minded masses does not particularly matter. They don't choose. They get renormalized instead.

Since these people only manage to survive because a small minority of other people do the heavy lifting, where do they find the temerity to make unreasonable demands?
[/quote]

Nassim Taleb needs to rethink. It flies in the face of reality to claim that the minority rule of the Middle East and Africa is more stable than the democracies of the west. Orwellian doublespeak. Minority rule is simply corruption, the transfer of national assets into the leader's. How did Vlad Putin come to have hundred of millions of dollars as a politician? High wages or standing over the oligarchs whose wealth he helped to facilitate?

These are just standard simian power games, no more admirable than a chimp and his posse challenging the leader and his posse for leadership of the group. You see it in prison too - where inmates don't dare attack the "mad dog". Aggression is an emotion that tends to increase local entropy, a change agent. Ideally, the Homo branch of the great apes will utilise their big brains to drive change in a more subtle way.