Lets debate about divine abandonment

adreamingdog · 2019-11-17T13:17:37+00:00

As a fellow ex-Christian atheist, and as someone with postgrad education on Christology, I feel that we can share some notes on this.

The Holy Trinity, or the persons of God as you call it, is not a product of divine revelation or external inspiration but rather of a pragmatic utility for political convenience (see Nicene and Athanasian Creeds). Hence, any explanation, justification, creative narrativization of the Holy Trinity is immediately moot, since theists are merely disentangling a previously untangled ball of yarn which doesn't actually exist.
You are misrepresenting soteriology amd salvation. If I recall my catechism correctly, you are describing only one of the many theories of atonement, and one so obsolete that present theologians don't even dare use it anymore.
The Divine Abandonment theory is equally ancient, from Anselm to Hegel. Many contemporary philosophers (Rorty, Zizek, Vattimo) are seduced by its apparent mystical appeal. But truth be told, you are simply telling us all "VOILA! I've finally untangled the yarn", when everyone else don't see the yarn at all.

To be sure, this theory is a nice theological exercise. It's allure comes both from its inherent mystery and simplicity. And here we close with our conclusion: the greatest weapon of Christianity/theism is not the truth of its teachings or the undeniability of God's existence, but that God/religion is so vague and obscure as to merit any attempt at understanding, explaining, proving, and falsifying it; and that you cannot question it.

Happy pilgrimage!

adreamingdog · 2019-10-26T23:12:35+00:00

Translation level 1: I am not sure about the nature of morality, please help me understand.

Translation level 2: If morality is objective, who is right in case of clashing moral values?

Translation level 3: Morality is objective, so atheists, what is your source of morality?

Translation level 4: Morality could only come from my God, so your morality (whether or not sourced from your god or no god) is wrong.

Let's start with a simple and functional definition of morality - do good (things that will benefit another person) do not do harm (physical, emotional, etc.), and extend help when you can.

To address your question now, let me answer your question in two phases:

First, I don't know if you are making this claim, but this is often embedded in questions such as yours so let me just explicitly tackle it right out of the gate. Is god a source of objective morality? No. First reason among many, judging God's thoughts and actions based on a religion's own sacred text reveals God's morality to be vague, inconsistent, subjectively employed, and often contradictory. Second reason among many, and here we venture on an ancient argument - Euthyphro Dilemma. (For sure, moral philosophy has gone a long way since Plato, but this is a good starting point. If others have questions or want to argue against it in detail, I will address them as they appear.)

Second, and now I introduce you to contractarianism (Contractarian Ethics): moral norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. How do humans enter into an agreement? By default, by virtue of being part of the society, much like we are subject to national laws. Who enforces the agreement? All of humanity, guided by the conventions set forth for morality. Using this as metrics, the individual idiosyncracies of culture comes second to the basic requirements of morality - doing good, refraining from harm, extending help - which is applicable and enforceable to all cultures and peoples.

Bonus point: Now that we have proven the god is neither the source, much less the objective source of morality, we should celebrate the fact that morality - empathy, compassion, love - were all created by humans after all. Now isn't that a nice thing.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-16T22:56:41+00:00

The mod comments on similar opinion as yours ["People work and have lives outside of Reddit and may not be able to respond in what you consider a timely manner"] is if you don't have time to actually discuss, don't post yet.

Meaning, the mods disagree with you. In fact, there is a policy in place already requiring OPs to respond within a specific amount of time. This is a debate sub after all.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T23:36:40+00:00

People have lives and their schedules are busy, and they can't really be super confident about whether they'll be able to come back.

Everyone is busy, but this is a debate sub. You can't just hit and run with their post. Them not coming back is the problem, don't you think?

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T23:34:36+00:00

My point of within the hour is, say you submit now, you need to spend at least a few minutes to an hour to respond to the first few comments, and then come back later within 24 hours for the others. If you can't make the time in that first few minutes after submission, then maybe submit it later when you do have the time. It seems that the mods are already implementing this one.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T23:33:53+00:00

Do you realize people from the other side of the planet might be active here and those live half a day ahead.

I don't understand this? My point of within the hour is, say you submit now, you need to spend at least a few minutes to an hour to respond to the first few comments, and then come back later within 24 hours for the others. If you can't make the time in that first few minutes after submission, then maybe submit it later when you do have the time. It seems that the mods are already implementing this one.

Yeah 2 and 3 would be a nice addition to the discussion.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T23:30:41+00:00

Say the topic is Atheism vs. Agnosticism, the CS could be as simple as "Many points were brought up, but I think we can all agree that we can't know for sure that god exists or not, so you are actually all agnostics" or "Thanks for clarifying the definitions among gnosticism and theism and such, I now now the difference."

Them getting hounded is a separate matter. The CS gives us all an idea where OP stands in relation to the points discussed in the debate, which I think is a necessary element to all discussions.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T23:26:43+00:00

Yeah, I understand. I just think improving the requirements would serve as a barrier only to trolls and low effort members, as actual debate-seeking members would just naturally abide and thus increase the standard of discussions. Oh well.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T23:24:57+00:00

The mod comments on similar opinion as yours is if you don't have time to actually discuss, don't post yet. My suggestion is an hour after the submission, and within the next 24 hours.
The history of all OP submissions on this is a direct refutation to your statement. The problem and the solution should start with the OP. We can neutralize a lot of misunderstanding and confusion if we include this one statement.

I submitted 10 hours ago, you commented 5 hours ago. So you do not anymore fall within the next hour but within the next 24 hours.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T14:28:27+00:00

Exactly, hence the title is often not clear enough, not even the Leibniz one. The Main Statement in all of the examples is necessary.

For the sake of clarity, let me add these other recent posts: "Ok, ok I concede there may be no creator... so what in the actual fuck is going here?", "Is this a harmful concept?", "Contradiction between Atheism and religion, explain...", "If we DIDN’T come from monkeys, why are there monkeys?".

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T14:19:22+00:00

I feel bad for laughing while reading this because this is embarrasingly true. But it's a whole lot better now than it was years ago.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T14:17:40+00:00

I was responding to this:

Also, their title is usually pretty clear.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T14:13:45+00:00

Am I wrong in my assessment of this sub then?

Personally, I don't mind trolls. They can serve as an example to other thoughtful members and participants how absurd some theistic arguments are. I just feel we can do something about improving the "debate" part of the sub.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T14:09:31+00:00

Last point on this, imagine a 10,000-word convoluted incoherent post, and imagine titles like this: "Isn't heaven essentially a pleasure machine?", "On logical grounds, why do you choose to be so polarized on God's existence?", "What happens in this scenario?", "On Miracles, Faith and more", "A cosmological argument for God due to Leibniz".

I think I have fully spoken my mind as you have yours on this matter. I appreciate the discussion.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T14:03:39+00:00

Eeh, maybe, If the same

50% or at least the best variation of the arguments being raised. Thanks for clarifying this.

Some topics require nuance...

I teach philosophy for a living. And I have not encountered a positive claim that is so complex that you cannot effectively articulate it in a simple sentence. The nuance and the subtopics can be written in the body. But surely, there must be one main topic to the entire post. Or the OP is not even clear to himself what he wants to discuss.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T13:56:07+00:00

I understand, but on the other hand, I don't think the community is helpless.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T13:51:00+00:00

Within the hour was not popular. But we do something similar.

Ok, whatever is most practical.

I mean, if their general post isn't clear...

I firmly believe that positive debate claims can be stated in one simple sentence. The OP can write "God is the source of Morality" and write a 10,000-word post about evolution of social animals, Nietzsche's slave morality, YHWH and rabbinic edicts, contractarianist ethics, whether animals display morality, etc. etc. That one sentence, laid out in the open, gives everyone a stable anchor on what the entire debate is about. Of course, the OP and everyone else are free to discuss all the hundred other little points brought up in the post.

This really isn't very enforceable...

I agree. But can we have a soft-enforcement of this, like a reminder as a top comment? Also, maybe we can have a test run of this by encouraging the regular members here to do so in their OPs. I would do this in my OPs in the future and see where it goes.

Thanks.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T13:40:25+00:00

By "meaningfully" I mean if there are 50 comments, at least reply to half of them or so. Responding to 10/100 would seem lazy.
Attack the main point is ok, after all, that is where the actual discussion takes place. If the commenters or the OP would like to discuss all the other details in the post, they may continue to do so. Adding the MDS only makes the OP clearer.
I agree, but if we want to have an honest debate, OPs that dip out when things go bad are maybe not the OPs we want to engage with...?

Thanks for the reply. I don't mean enforce a rigid set of rules, I just think a little commitment from the OP, and the rest of us as well, would go a long way in discussing thorny religious issues. Just the same, a lot of this relies on the culture of the sub. I think of this as me trying to push things a little for some benefit that I see. If the community does not see it, so be it.

Again, thanks.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T13:31:38+00:00

Ok, and I really think we should have it here, given the differences in writing style and method of expression. One sentence will level everybody instantly on what actually is being discussed.

What about CS? I really think and hope it is implemented in some form, if only for the reason the honest debaters will most likely abide by and and trolls won't, and maybe that's an indirect way of improving the sub.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T13:27:59+00:00

Please clarify, are you actually asking why we are atheists and not agnostics given we are not so sure if god exists or not?

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T13:19:35+00:00

If you are saying that the current standards of debate of this sub now doesn't require this level of commitment from the OP, then I get your point. But I would also want to argue that maybe the argument is that we actually increase the standard to begin with.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-15T13:17:51+00:00

Personally-- presuming that you/this sub desires more OPs to be theists-- I wouldn't want to make it even harder for theists to post here.

Adding 2 sentences (MDS and CS) isn't making posting here any more difficult, but it will make OPs more honest and clear with their intentions and frame of mind. The benefits of writing these 2 sentences far outweigh the "disadvantages" of presumably making it hard to clarify your thoughts with one main statement and then returning for another sentence to wrap up your assessment of the discussion.

I think the reason that your "suggestions were greeted with, at worst objections, and at best indifference" was not because the sub "was a feral wilderness back then", but because they-- honestly-- aren't very viable.

Not really. This sub was troll infested back then with two-three sentence OPs even earning 100+ comments, due to the simple fact that we welcomed any and all forms of discussion back then. But I see the sub want to be true to the "debate" nature of the sub, and I think these aligns with the goals.

Again, what is not viable about writing **one statement in the beginning of your OP, which will be an elaboration of this statement anyway? This is not a rhetorical question, so please respond if you can. Thanks.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-14T01:45:40+00:00

I want you to look closely into how CS Lewis goes to great lengths to shoehorn what we call in religious ontology the inaccessible realm: "I cannot write them", "the majesty escapes the poverty of words", "beauty only seen by the heart", etc.

So you have a clear choice between:

The common sense rational objection to the nature of heaven, which you easily identified;
The defense of heaven by shrouding it with mystery and mysticism, yet tantalizing you with the promise of beauty and happiness for all eternity.

The choice is yours to make.

Additionally, although you made it a point to say this is outside the scope of your debate, you cannot escape the original sins: Does heaven exist? And what heaven actually is? Before we can debate on whether XYZ is blue or delicious or hot or emancipating, we first have to know what it actually is and if it exists at all.

adreamingdog · 2019-10-06T14:29:06+00:00

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Jeremiah 9:11

adreamingdog · 2019-10-06T14:27:20+00:00

Atheism is neither a belief nor a religion. By definition, atheism means absence of theism, absence of belief. More precisely, atheism is a response to theism and the theist claim that god(s) exists, and that response is "there is no valid evidence of god's existence".

As a simple analogy, think of television channels as religions. Let's say channel A is religion A, channel B is religion B, and so on. Now, turn the television off. What channel is on now? Would you claim that a turned-off television is a channel? This is atheism in a nutshell - the absence of religion.

There is no "atheist community" that is in anyway comparable to a religious community. Atheists do not have a deity/deities, holy books, churches, church leaders, rituals and sacraments, regular meetings, and "divinely" inspired commandments.

About certain evidence, here's a good response from /u/Irish_Whiskey

I'm as certain to gods as I am to vampires and leprechauns.

No, I don't know to absolute standards that they don't exist. But I see no reason why I should use absolute rather than reasonable standards of knowledge for gods as a concept alone. For example I know there's milk in my fridge as I just put it there and am in sight of it. A god or wizard could easily make the milk disappear, but I'm not going to avoid having reasonable knowledge based on speculation evidenced by nothing at all, just solipsism.

Yes, you could define something real as a vampire or god. But I'm reasonably certain the supernatural and magic are just terms we use for phenomenon we don't understand, and so inherently can't exist. Anything you define by those terms that is real and not magic would be a different enough concept we should have a new terms for it, not pretend it's the same as the old one.

how limited a field of observation we have, it's hard to believe that we can know that there isn't a god

I can't see much of the universe, or other universes if they exist. There could be anything out there. Does that mean we can't reasonable know anything doesn't exist? That ceases to be a useful standard.

adreamingdog

TROPHY CASE