Controversial book

[Andrew Roussak]

Thank you for taking the time to read it.



Again, I hope you didn't take offense.

Hi JLS,

it is okay for sure. No problem. I guess we just have no counterpoints then.

If you are generally agree that the modern science came from Catholicism ( I would say, later this process was more successful in protestant countries - these are details ) - then I do not understand, what we are discussing here - or what am I discussing, at least. I just wanted to remind , that if Christiantity had obviously played a positive role in the development of science , the fruits of which we do use every minute of our life without thinking of it - let us be, at least objective and don't blame Christianity in all possible sins. That's all . What you , or me ,or anybody else do personally believe or not believe - is an absolutely personal question. Any proofs will be insufficient.

Concerning the core questions - whether does God exist or not - it was impossible to prove or difute it till today, and it obviously can not happen in the frames of the MMIF. One has to discuss an enormously vast spectrum of the problems related - and will inevitably act as an amateur sometimes ( the situation with an evolution theory in my post ) or just have to be brief for the sake of time and space - situation with Immanuel Kant and the Ontologic Argument.

What do I mean for the latter ( let us take this as an example ) - yep, I know that the Ontological argument of St.Anselm was refuted before ( Voltaire ). It is not essential in this light of a question. The bigger problem of the argument of Kant is taking a human freedom for granted apriori. That is - surely we can do what we want; but - CAN we really want what WE WANT? You may find this postulate already by Luther in his polemic with Catholicism. And later it was developed by Sigmund Freud.

So, if you would want, for example , to refute The Only Possible Argument..., you could just say - man , it is not actual anymore - try Freud. I would say - okay, now you go and read Jung - much the same seen from another point of view. This is a pretty jungle. Do we really have time for this?

I don't . So I quit !!!

Best regards to all and everyone,

Andrew

[JLS]

I definitely agree that we could go on for years in this area(and possibly still not get anywhere!), but I find it fun nonetheless. Of course, this probably isn't the place to do that, and anyway, I already have a site for discussing philosophy. I do it enough there that it doesn't need to come here. I just can't help myself. When I see a good debate popping up, I have to join in!

As an example, I can't help but respond to your comment regarding free will. I think that its truth or falsity might actually be undecidable. After all, it's entirely possible for determinism to be true yet our experience to be consistent with free will. In such a case, all of our thoughts and actions would be determined by causation, but we would experience it as having free will(i.e. even our belief that we have free will would be caused). I think that this is the most likely scenario and that Kant's conclusion is evidence of that.

I don't blame you for quitting, Andrew. All this stuff can be quite a chore!(though an incredibly fun one, imo).

[Andrew Roussak]

I definitely agree that we could go on for years in this area(and possibly still not get anywhere!), but I find it fun nonetheless. Of course, this probably isn't the place to do that, and anyway, I already have a site for discussing philosophy. I do it enough there that it doesn't need to come here. I just can't help myself. When I see a good debate popping up, I have to join in!

As an example, I can't help but respond to your comment regarding free will. I think that its truth or falsity might actually be undecidable. After all, it's entirely possible for determinism to be true yet our experience to be consistent with free will. In such a case, all of our thoughts and actions would be determined by causation, but we would experience it as having free will(i.e. even our belief that we have free will would be caused). I think that this is the most likely scenario and that Kant's conclusion is evidence of that.

I don't blame you for quitting, Andrew. All this stuff can be quite a chore!(though an incredibly fun one, imo).

Hey, JLS , thanks for that! Do lively agree. I do really enjoy to read everything about this subject and to discover therefore something new for me. I find it much more interesting as reading detectives or fiction novels. But to post the conclusions myself - I wish I had time for it!!! Maybe I am wrong, I don't know. It was great to see you here as an opponent , anyway.

And - here regarding free will ( as a respond to your respond ). Yep , the Argument of Kant will work only if the free will, taken as such apriori, does exist really. The idea of determination ( Luther , later Freud - seen from a rather different angle - you know ) actually excludes it. Yeah, but it doesn't mean that I do agree with this logic, because it is the protestant point of view ( in terms of religion ). I was brought up in the Russian orthodox tradition, which unconditionally denies such pre-determination and says - we, people, are really free to make choice, and our ways , our lives, are the concequences of our own choices, our own will. We are free to choose between a sin and "a good thing" in any situation and are therefore responsible for the concequences. Such affirmations are being discussed and argumented, for sure, and these arguments are at least not less convincing, from my point of view, as that of Luther. Sorry I can not put any link here - the corresponding websites are in Russian. But if you have the time or desire to read some works of Dostoevsky, for example, you may find many answers to these questions there. Actually, his whole work is only about it.

Now you see - a passage once again, though I did not actually want to post anything ( that is what they call a free will!!!!!!! )
No - now I quit, quit, quit.........

Take care, my best regards,
Andrew

[pnoom]

There was a letter to the editor in the local newspaper basically saying all Americans should be converted to Christianity...

[methodistgirl]

Sybrite I know of another controversial book called screwtape letters.
Look that one up.
judy tooley

[pnoom]

Isn't that the one by C.S. Lewis?

[methodistgirl]

Pnoom, you are exactly right! Besides, I dissagree with some people
here. You said earlier that a newspaper mentioned that all Americans
should become christians. That is what I call christian communisium.
We all here in america should have the freedom to choose what faith
you want to be in wether it is christiananity, judisum, moslem, or even
an aithiest. This is a free country or it should be. That is what our
constitution says, or should say.
judy tooley

[Sybarite]

Sybrite I know of another controversial book called screwtape letters.
Look that one up.
judy tooley

I read it years ago, Judy.

It's an amusing fantasy. Can't see what's controversial about it, though.

[White Knight]

Hi Sybarite; I am just coming across your post re: the Dawkins book. I read it and I agree with you that the God portrayed in the Bible is vengeful and very anti-female. I don't see where the word/concept of "justice" is applicable to this "being" at all. Perhaps this is why I find myself leaning more often to atheism than to my native Judaism. It is very difficult indeed to reconcile the often brutallly harsh and vindictive actions and words of this being as depicted in the Bible with that of a supposed fair and just entity. Actually, I think it is impossible to square that particular circle.

[methodistgirl]

I haven't talked to Sybarite in a long time. It's been four years.
I've heard of controversial books on the opposite end of the
scale from the bible. One controversial veriable is in porn books.
One especially being titled "Lady Chatterly".
judy tooley

[marval]

Yes we miss Sybarite, she seemed to suddenly disappear.


Margaret