here is the scenario
Offline An athiest and a christian are sitting in the same science class, learning the same exact thing. They take a huge exam and both ace it. The christian states though that this information is either lies, irrelevant, not enough information to gather for such a conclusion, etc. The athiest says the the Christian that they don't know what they are talking about they don't understand.
This is a common thing i see among the athiestic community. Its pre-assumed that the christian they are talking to/debating doesnt know a thing about the subject at hand. I am a devout Christian and i believe in studying every side of an argument. There is no room for assumption anywhere.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- Login to post comments
To get more in depth in that. Jesus Christ is the Son of God because He is flesh and blood. BUT if you read really carefully THROUGHOUT THE OT AND NT you find out that God Almighty Himself is roped in that flesh, which in turn makes Christ 100% man 100% God. I could greatly eleborate on this if anybody wants to know, i will start a separate topic. Jesus is not offspring in terms of how Hercules was offspring. If God sent any1 but Himself to die for sin, IT WOULDN'T WORK!
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Not that the other discussions haven't been fun but I just saw this.
Meanwhile, the Christian has no problem compromising his belief system and lying through his teeth to get a good grade.
JLY, you throw this statement in to cover your tail, "The christian states though that this information is either lies, irrelevant, not enough information to gather for such a conclusion, etc.".
This statement is essentially a bunch of assertions that aren't backed up with evidence. If you didn't back up these assertions on a test I was grading, there's no way you'd ace the test.
It also doesn't change the fact that the Christian in your example gave the teacher what they wanted instead of standing up for their God.
Amazing how belief in the deities falls flat when the rubber meets the road.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
What is your understanding of God?
Gentlemen, if you've read your Kuhn, you'll know that a student hasn't the competence to effectively critique anything he is taught in class. He believes what he is taught on the authority of the teacher and textbook.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
From that whole post of mine that's all you respond to? Ok, I guess...
There re a number of ways I could answer that. I'll start here.
I have no understanding of "God." I don't know what the word is supposed to refer to. I cannot merely assume that the word necessarily refers to anything Biblical, because then I'd be guilty of assuming a particular god-view, now wouldn't I?
There are some generic God attributes; omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc. But I have trouble reconciling the implications of all of these infinite attributes with what I observe.
One of the reasons I have trouble with believing in a God is that I am not sure what 'God' is supposed to be. So many claims as to what God is, I don't know which is supposed to be the correct god-concept.
But that does not really address the question in context, now does it. You want to know what my understanding of God is in the Christian sense that would make the death of Jesus, for me, nonsensical, right?
If I am to assume that there is a God (of the Christian variety), Jesus was his son/incarnation, one in substance with God (homoousia rather than homoiousia--look up the Arian controversy if you don't know what that is all about), etc then God simply sacrificed himself to solve a proble he was responsible for and that he could have solved in another way.
The death/sacrifice of Jesus does not make sense to me because it's not really a sacrifice at all, at least if Jesus is God (and if he knows he's God). If I knew I were God, then allowing myself to be taken into custody, beaten, crucified--while it isn't pleasant--is not really a sacrifice because God is really immortal, right? After all, Jesus is now in Heaven as God, right? How was that a sacrifice? As a metaphor? Very well, then as a metaphor it might have some meaning, but as literal truth it diminishes in significance because of the insignificance of the harm to God that this "death" was.
If Jesus really existed and was merely human, then it would be a sacrifice. Someone who believes something so much that they are willing to die for it (not to kill others for it, I should add as a qualifier), is someone I am more likely to have respect for--whether I agree with them is another matter. If Jesus was a normal human with a message, died for it, and we revere him because we agree with the message, that's a true sacrifice and it might be worthy of honor. But that's not what most Christians claim.
God coming to earth and allowing people to mistreat him for a few years then living for eternity in paradise sounds like a good deal, overall. I'll take the beating Jesus did if I KNEW (not believe, but know) that I'll live in a paradise forever. I don't have any reason to believe that, let alone know it.
Jesus' death is meaningless to me if Jesus is God. Jesus' blood does not--no, cannot--cleanse sin because there is not connection between a sacrifice of a person/God and my doing something wrong. The "sacrificial lamb"--the idea on which Jesus' sacrifice is based--is meaningless. killing an inocent animal/person/God does not make sense; it is doing something else wrong to make up for wrongs. That's what's called two wrongs making an an ass out of Christian theology.
Further, God could have just cleansed the sin without all the parlor tricks and showing off. God didn't have to incarnate and be killed to do that; he could have just snapped his figurative fingers and done it without all the hoopla.
I don't think the story isn't true because I'm an atheist (nor am I an atheist because I don't believe the story). The story doesn't make sense internally.
The human brain is notoriously good at finding patterns and meaning in things. This is a good attribute of our intelligence because it gives us art, imagination, and problem solving skills. But it's not particularly good when used to rationalize stories such as that of Jesus. It's no different than the poetic pseudo-intellectual crap that new-age religion spews (if you know who Simone Weil is, you'll understand my point). Just because you can articulate an understanding of meaning in Jesus' story does not make the story true not does it make the articulation any more than poetic ideology.
God loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, huh? Well, God's the one that chose to only beget one son. And again, if his son was really himself, then it really wasn't really giving anything. If I sacrificed the scraping of skin from my arm for you, would that be important? Well, if Jesus was God, Jesus' sacrifice was less significant than that.
So, give me your theological explanation of how Jesus' death is so important and meaningful. I've heard it all before, but I'd rather respond to what you claim than assume too much.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Nice, ShaunPhilly. I enjoyed reading that quite a bit.
Where does Thomas Kuhn state that students don't have any competence to critique what they are taught? Can you quote that so I can show you how you misread it?
And how does the acceptance of the authority of a teacher or a textbook imply blind obedience to said authority?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
What trips up most people about the value sacrifice is the importance of sin (and the value of God, who is offended by sin).
God is very big (the Bible says, He holds the universe in His hand).
And He is very upset by sin (see Leviticus 10:1 where people are burned up for worshiping incorrectly). There must be blood paid for sin (to remind us how terrible it is). That is the sacrifice Jesus is making.
As for God snapping his fingers to do away with sin, that does not keep in line with his word. God is only as good as his promises. And there must be punishment for the unrepentant, or there is no justice in the universe.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
"A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like...To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
...
Because the student largely learns from and is mentored by researchers "who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models" there is seldom disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. A shared commitment to a paradigm ensures that its practitioners engage in the paradigmatic observations that its own paradigm can do most to explain. Paradigms help scientific communities to bound their discipline in that they help the scientist to create avenues of inquiry, formulate questions, select methods with which to examine questions, define areas of relevance. and establish or create meaning. A paradigm is essential to scientific inquiry - "no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism"."
Have you ever stood up in a science class and said something to the effect of "I have surveyed the evidence from your class that Charocoetes are the closest living relatives to land plants, and I am unconvinced. I believe that Chlorocoetes are actually the closer relatives." I sure as hell haven't. I go to class and learn from the professor because I assume that he knows what he is talking about. When entering a science classroom, I leave my skepticism at the door. Of course, this makes perfect sense, since the point of science classes is to train students in the currently accepted paradigm, not convince them that the currently accepted paradigm is valid. This is the very same reason that creationists who try to infiltrate textbooks with their foolishness are not proceeding scientifically.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
What relevance would it have for you today, then?
Why write a book directed to a small group of long dead people, to billions of living people today?
The concept is still missaplied in some situations, no matter how much you try to make sense of it after the fact.
And yet still erroneous
but eating locust is?
This tired old response....
i.e. you respond with a special plead fallacy....
..
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Excellent analysis. It helps bring out just how ad hoc and irrational this argument is...
Precisely. It's a tired old argument.
And just a side note: It's completely ad hoc to try and dodge a bible error by trying to retranslate the word, simply because the current translation causes a problem! It begs the question. I see theists try to use this dodge all the time - that, and the "out of context" claim are the two most common apologetic responses... yet both defense are entirely ad hoc
excellent post.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Seldom, which of course implies that questioning paradigms does occur, which of course Kuhn has to acknowledge considering that he himself is questioning paradigmatic thought!
I don't see Kuhn saying that people are incompetent here... more that these issues go unquestioned. So I think I see what you intended now... I just think you overstated it a bit....
Kuhn writes this as if it were a conspiracy.... Ok, sorry, let's continue...
Sorry, but I don't see anything here that supports your assertion that Kuhn holds that students don't have any competence to critique what they are taught. Instead this is a standard "Kuhnian paradigmatic thought" argument, which really speaks to our failure to think outside the box. I would agree that there is a need to teach critical thinking skills that allow us to be able to think outside of the box more often, but many students do pick up enough of it by college to allow them to question paradigmatic thought. In fact, everyone has the ability to be skeptical, to some degree - the problem, in my eyes, is that people tend to use their skepticism in a biased fashion..... we are able to question the other guy's nonsense, but not our own. We have 'hollowed ground' that we don't allow ourselves to question.
But as to the fact that most people have the skill: just go read a Jack Chick tract where Chick talks about Islam. He tears Islam to pieces with many valid points! Chick's problem is that he doesn't dare himself to think "If what I say works against Islam, maybe it works against my religion too"
So I am not seeing something here that speaks to incompetence... it seems to be more of a developmental issue.... but if you would take your statement a half notch down and say "most people fail to consider the nature of their own paradigmatic thought' I'd rush to agree with you...
I'm a psychologist, so I went through the precise opposite experience that you have .... in fact, classes were often bogged down by people trying to question the basics of psychodynamic theory, behavioral theory, or even the basics of classroom behavior... it could become bothersome - except of course for me, who questioned what they were doing and their motivations!
Anyway, everyone there had to read Kuhn, so we were aware of the situation, and in an environment that fostered the questioning of paradigms...
Then you're not in a science class! The very value of science is that it can hold up to scrutiny!
No it doesn't! The single most important aspect of any science class is the importance of blending wonder with skepticism!
Seriously, even my worst teachers did SOMETHING as far as inculcating skepticism. I can recall an 8th grade teacher saying "I marked you wrong based on the answer in the book, but how do you know that that answer is right?"
Anyway...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It seems we are essentially in agreement. I was merely addressing skepticism on a greater scope (in terms of the paradigm itself). Sure, the teachers make mistakes, but generally speaking, the fundamental points taught are not questioned. This may also be slightly different in psychology than in the physical sciences, since we have evolved to be good intuitive psychologists (whereas we have not necesserily evolved to be good physicists or evolutionary biologists).
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Yes, I overreacted to how you phrased it.... as I read your response found I found that I actually greed with you for the most part, after all.
Agreed, it's easier to question humanities courses because the humanities courses themselves are not on very solid ground! So it's natural that a more post modernism questioning of assumptions behind the courses comes under examination.....
Glad to have had this discourse with you, I think I will align myself more with your position.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
What a disgusting and narrow minded view of what science actually is. All I see here is projection.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
"Admittedly, once one decides in one’s own mind to reject the fallacy of God, the world indeed becomes a scary and lonely place, but one of truth not delusion."
Yeah, it says rabbits chew their own cud as well. Probably the craziest bit in the bible is the part where it says there's a god. Wacky stuff! Madcap, I daresay.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine