?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

11/22/2010 05:46:37 PM · #726

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ok, I finished it and say that I could write an essay to counter every point that would make it reasonable to hold my position as much as his. Still, I commend him for writing out what he believes.

If you feel that confident, I think you should (write an apologia for B.R.). As far as I can tell, you be the first to pull it off.

11/22/2010 06:02:14 PM · #727

I'll tell you what, since Matthew brought it up and since I respect him, how about he picks one of the topics and I'll write a rebuttal and then he can reply while others observe? It would be quite an undertaking to write a comprehensive essay.

11/22/2010 06:29:05 PM · #728

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I will point out that his First Cause argument is a bit dated (having been given in 1927) as it was only a forming idea then that the universe had a "beginning". We've been over this many times, but I do have to point it out.

I think that there is an abstract truth in what BR says that does not rely upon any state of knowledge about any inception of the universe:

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

Tortoises all the way down.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Interesting idea. I can't pretend that I would do Bertrand Russell's arguments justice, but I would certainly be interested to see your response. It is also a little false to extract sections for analysis from a very general paper (the sum of which might be considered greater than its parts), but it is probably still an interesting exercise.

I would give you a choice.

The "natural law" argument resounds naturally with me personally.

The "moral problem" is perhaps less commonly argued here and might be a diversion from some of the more tried and tested discussions.

11/22/2010 08:02:40 PM · #729

Alrighty. Give me a few days though. Tomorrow is my first day back from vacation and the schedule is crazy and I shouldn't be dabbling about DPC Rant (scold me if I am). I'll also try to keep it concise as Bertrand was not providing a comprehensive argument on each point.

I'll preface things by also setting a standard. Bertrand was arguing why he was not a Christian and was doing this from a point of non-inferiority (to borrow from the parlance of medical research). In other words, he felt it was not necessary to be a Christian because it was no worse to hold a contrary position given the particular issue being discussed. I will hold myself to the same standard. It is not necessary that I provide an argument that compels one to hold the Christian position, but rather I will try to show that it is at least as reasonable to hold the Christian position as opposed to Bertrand's ("more reasonable" would just be icing on the cake).

11/23/2010 12:27:42 AM · #730

I'm going over the Natural-law argument right now and I wondered if I could get some help with literal intepretations of what BR meant in one part.

Maybe 3/4ths of the way down he says "Why did God issue just those natural laws an no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted."

Am I assuming correctly that the "something" is either God or his whim? And what is a "train of natural law"? Usually when one talks about trains in a context like this it's cause-and-effect, but that doesn't quite make sense here. Is there another understanding?

Don't feel the need to further BR's argument, but rather just help me make sure I know what he's saying.

Message edited by author 2010-11-23 00:28:02.

11/23/2010 05:49:45 AM · #731

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Having read the article I am left with the impression that "Somethng" could be anything that falls outside of the prescribed norm relative to "Natural Law" and that "Trains" falls under the application that one would use in the context of "Train of thought"...

Don't know if that helps any, but that is my take on it.

Ray

11/23/2010 08:13:13 AM · #732

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going over the Natural-law argument right now and I wondered if I could get some help with literal intepretations of what BR meant in one part.

Maybe 3/4ths of the way down he says "Why did God issue just those natural laws an no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted."

Am I assuming correctly that the "something" is either God or his whim? And what is a "train of natural law"? Usually when one talks about trains in a context like this it's cause-and-effect, but that doesn't quite make sense here. Is there another understanding?

Don't feel the need to further BR's argument, but rather just help me make sure I know what he's saying.

Having read the article I am left with the impression that "Somethng" could be anything that falls outside of the prescribed norm relative to "Natural Law" and that "Trains" falls under the application that one would use in the context of "Train of thought"...

Don't know if that helps any, but that is my take on it.

Ray

If God did it for no good reason, then it's not subject to natural law. So yes, according to BR if God did it on a whim, then that act is "something" outside of natural law. I take the "train of natural law" to be like a "chain of custody", that sort of construction. Either God (and His creations) are bound by natural law, or they aren't. You can't have God step into the middle of things and monkey around with unnatural creation, yet claim everything pre-and post-creation is bound to follow natural law. This is sort of what I'm taking from this fragment of BR's essay.

R.

11/23/2010 11:00:56 AM · #733

OK, thanks. That was sorta my impression too, but I wanted to make sure.

11/23/2010 05:42:27 PM · #734

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going over the Natural-law argument right now and I wondered if I could get some help with literal intepretations of what BR meant in one part.

Maybe 3/4ths of the way down he says "Why did God issue just those natural laws an no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted."

Am I assuming correctly that the "something" is either God or his whim? And what is a "train of natural law"? Usually when one talks about trains in a context like this it's cause-and-effect, but that doesn't quite make sense here. Is there another understanding?

Don't feel the need to further BR's argument, but rather just help me make sure I know what he's saying.

Having read the article I am left with the impression that "Somethng" could be anything that falls outside of the prescribed norm relative to "Natural Law" and that "Trains" falls under the application that one would use in the context of "Train of thought"...

Don't know if that helps any, but that is my take on it.

Ray

If God did it for no good reason, then it's not subject to natural law. So yes, according to BR if God did it on a whim, then that act is "something" outside of natural law. I take the "train of natural law" to be like a "chain of custody", that sort of construction. Either God (and His creations) are bound by natural law, or they aren't. You can't have God step into the middle of things and monkey around with unnatural creation, yet claim everything pre-and post-creation is bound to follow natural law. This is sort of what I'm taking from this fragment of BR's essay.

R.

My quick thoughts. I broadly agree with Bear_Music but I don't think that you (DrAchoo) can break down the argument by phrase like that.

Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.

There are a lot of facets to this argument in context. Extracting one line of reasoning from this text that you don't seem to be drawing from your analysis:

Natural law, being a description of how things in fact behave, cannot be given a godly subscript:

o The consequences of natural law are the unadulterated result of natural law, not godly intent;

o If the laws of behaviour themselves are arbitrarily imposed to achieve an incoherent godly intent, then they cannot be natural law (ie a description of how things behave - the "train");

o If the laws are "imposed" for a coherent purpose, then there is no reason to suppose that a god was responsible for that imposition over any other cause (it confers no advantage).

This, of course, forms part of the larger argument rather than being a standalone proposition. BR also expresses it better and more completely than me!

Message edited by author 2010-11-23 17:55:01.

11/23/2010 05:52:47 PM · #735

Originally posted by Matthew:

My quick thoughts. I broadly agree with Bear_Music but I don't think that you (DrAchoo) can break down the argument by phrase like that.

I totally agree with that, and I doubt Doc's planning any such approach. I think he just wanted to clarify that section of the argument in his mind, to be sure he understood what BR was getting at there. It's perhaps the least well-expressed of BR's points in this particular section.

Hopefully, the Doc is taking a more holistic view as far as t he argument-as-a-whole goes...

R.

11/23/2010 06:28:51 PM · #736

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Matthew:
My quick thoughts. I broadly agree with Bear_Music but I don't think that you (DrAchoo) can break down the argument by phrase like that.

I totally agree with that, and I doubt Doc's planning any such approach. I think he just wanted to clarify that section of the argument in his mind, to be sure he understood what BR was getting at there. It's perhaps the least well-expressed of BR's points in this particular section.

Hopefully, the Doc is taking a more holistic view as far as t he argument-as-a-whole goes...

R.

Sure. However, I'd emphasise that I think that you and Ray treated the reference to "train" as being a vaguary, whereas I think that it is a specific reference to the earlier description of natural laws "being a mere description of what they in fact do, [so] you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that". You have to read across a larger section of text to draw together the reasoning and argument.

As an aside, one of the problems of reading a 1927 document is that it demands a higher degree of concentration and focus than modern documents. Attention spans are unquestionably shorter than they used to be because of the way we now live life (I think largely due to tv) and many people (no fingers pointed here) have never developed the skill of reading long and moderately complex texts. What might now be seen as less accessible drafting is probably not a fault of the author.

11/23/2010 06:35:22 PM · #737

Originally posted by Matthew:

As an aside, one of the problems of reading a 1927 document is that it demands a higher degree of concentration and focus than modern documents. Attention spans are unquestionably shorter than they used to be because of the way we now live life (I think largely due to tv) and many people (no fingers pointed here) have never developed the skill of reading long and moderately complex texts. What might now be seen as less accessible drafting is probably not a fault of the author.

Well, Matthew, I'm old-school. I read this stuff in Philosophy class at Brown University in 1964, and it wasn't a problem for me then, nor is it one for me now, attention-span wise. However, I thought then, and I think now, that the particular section Doc was asking for feedback on is not up to BR's usual standards of clarity. It's a little fuzzy around the edges, IMO. So let's leave it at that, OK?

R.

11/23/2010 06:41:57 PM · #738

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Matthew:
As an aside, one of the problems of reading a 1927 document is that it demands a higher degree of concentration and focus than modern documents. Attention spans are unquestionably shorter than they used to be because of the way we now live life (I think largely due to tv) and many people (no fingers pointed here) have never developed the skill of reading long and moderately complex texts. What might now be seen as less accessible drafting is probably not a fault of the author.

Well, Matthew, I'm old-school. I read this stuff in Philosophy class at Brown University in 1964, and it wasn't a problem for me then, nor is it one for me now, attention-span wise. However, I thought then, and I think now, that the particular section Doc was asking for feedback on is not up to BR's usual standards of clarity. It's a little fuzzy around the edges, IMO. So let's leave it at that, OK?

R.

It was an aside and genuinely not pointed at you. I see it all the time in people I work with.

11/23/2010 07:08:54 PM · #739

Originally posted by Matthew:

It was an aside and genuinely not pointed at you. I see it all the time in people I work with.

Alrighty. I'll drop my hackles LOL.

R.

11/23/2010 07:51:56 PM · #740

No worries Matthew. If you want to understand the whole argument you have to also understand the parts. It's no good for me to write something up and then the rebuttal is, "didn't you understand the "train of natural law" portion?

I haven't even decided which argument to tackle yet, but rather am just reading them very closely to see what they really say. I agree that reading essays from other periods takes concentration. CS Lewis is very similar in that regard.

11/25/2010 06:46:30 PM · #741

OK, happy thanksgiving everybody! I finally got this written up with some spare time late last night. Hopefully it's polished enough. Perhaps it would be good, before reading, to go back and reread Bertrand's essay and specifically the portion titled "The Moral Problem"

In Bertrand Russellâ��s essay Why Iâ��m not a Christian, Mr. Russell lays out a number of arguments and positions that explain why he rejects the Christian faith. Among them is a sectioned titled â��The Moral Problemâ��. In it, Mr. Russell uses six quotes from Jesus to outline two problems with the Christian moral system. First, his main objection is that Jesus taught the concept of hell as a place of eternal punishment. He does not consider such a view to be â��humaneâ��. Second, and probably less importantly, he objects to the manner Christ deals with those who disagree with him. He describes Jesus as being â��vindictiveâ�� and not showing the â��proper degree of kindlinessâ��. It is important to note that Mr. Russell is objecting on grounds of opinion. He isnâ��t disputing facts or arguing conclusions, but rather feels the Christian cosmology of heaven and hell is one he feels is unworthy of respect. He goes on opine Buddha and Socrates are more virtuous and wise than Christ.

As one cannot deny an opinion (after all, Mr. Russell is entitled to think what he wants), I will probably do best to show his opinion to be uninformed. I could take the angle of pointing out that Christianity is about much more than divine retribution. I can only assume that Mr. Russell doesnâ��t have a problem with the Christian idea of Grace or Mercy or a moral system based on The Golden Rule. But I am not going to do this. Christianity has ideas that make people uncomfortable and it doesnâ��t do anybody any favors to just sweep them under the rug. However, if Mr. Russell is going to judge and reject Christianity by its â��worstâ�� features, then I feel at liberty to judge the merits of his alternatives on the same grounds.

Although I do not think Bertrand to be a Buddhist, he specifically mentions the teachings of Buddha as being above that of Christ. Here I would argue Mr. Russell is uninformed about Buddhaâ��s teaching concerning karmic punishment. If, as he says, I am to take Buddha â��as his chroniclers represent himâ�� I find him teaching that there is a level of karmic punishment know as Avici or the â��unremitting hellâ��, and though this punishment is not eternal, it is so long it may as well be (some sources I found listed the length as 10^10 years, others said even longer). To quote an extensive passage from a Buddhist sutra, we get a feel for Avici. Note that Mr. Russell previously took umbrage with the fact Jesus repeatedly used the phrase â��weeping and gnashing of teethâ��. He considers it a sign that Jesus took a certain perverse pleasure in this. I will let the reader judge whether Buddha would be guilty of the same transgression in the following passage:

The Buddha told Ananda, â��If a person is unfilial, when his body decays and his life ends, he will fall into Avici, the unremitting hell. This great hell is eighty thousands yojanas wide, with iron walls on four sides and covered by nets. The ground is also made of iron, and filled with flames that burn fiercely while thunder crashes and lightning flashes. Molten copper and iron are spattered and poured over the offenders while copper dogs and iron snakes constantly spew out smoke and fire which sear and roast their fleshy fat to a char. Such suffering and pain! It is so hard to endure and so difficult to bear all of the hooks, poles, spears, lances, iron bayonets, iron chains, iron mallets, iron halberds, and sword-leafed trees as well as wheels with knives which fall like rain from clouds in the air â�� all of them cutting or stabbing the offender in horrid punishment. Throughout kalpas (eons) he endures torture without time for even a temporary respite.â��

â��Furthermore, the offenders are forced to enter into the remaining hells where their heads are topped with fiery bowls while iron carriages crush their bodies, passing quickly over them both vertically and horizontally until their guts are ripped open and their bones and flesh are pulverized. Within a single day they die and are reborn tens-of-thousands of times. To endure of suffering like this is all a consequence of committing the five heinous acts or of being unfilial in a previous life. Therefore one will receive such punishment.â��

We can see that the concept of ultimate punishment, which Mr. Russell finds so distasteful in the teachings of Christ, to be quite at home in the teachings of Buddha. And while Buddhaâ��s hell is not eternal, one could find himself there because of a sin committed in a life he has no recollection of. If Bertrand were educated on this (my guess is he was not as knowledgeable of Buddhist teachings as he was Christâ��s), would he still find Buddha superior to Jesus? The concept of ultimate justice, the good receiving reward and the evil being punished, is nearly universal in religious systems and the only alternative to this is to hold that there is no ultimate justice, a position consistent with an atheist cosmology. However, is this any more satisfying to our soul? To know that the wicked may flourish and goodness may suffer? (Remember, he is not rejecting divine retribution based on information he has to show it doesnâ��t exist, rather he is rejecting it because it does not sit right with him.)

Socrates, as well, believes in the concept of divine judgement. In the Gorgias he recalls a supposed myth about which he states â��I believe is a true taleâ�� about a time when Cronos judged everybody on the day of their death and that â��he who has lived all his life in justice and holiness shall go, when he is dead, to the Islands of the Blessed, and dwell there in perfect happiness out of the reach of evil; but that he who has lived unjustly and impiously shall go to the house of vengeance and punishment, which is called Tartarus.â�� He later goes on to say that punishment serves two purposes. First, to rehabilitate those that can be helped. Second to serve as an example to others. To quote Socrates:

â��But they who have been guilty of the worst crimes, and are incurable by reason of their crimes, are made examples; for, as they are incurable, the time has passed at which they can receive any benefit. They get no good themselves, but others get good when they behold them enduring for ever the most terrible and painful and fearful sufferings as the penalty of their sins.â��

If we continue to look at Socrates and his concept of justice we find an interesting discourse in which he concludes the motive is more important than the action. While stealing is not justice, stealing a friendâ��s sword to keep him from killing himself is. With this in mind, we can address Mr. Russellâ��s second issue with Jesus; the way he presents himself to those who disagree with him. Jesusâ�� abrasive treatment of the Pharisees, his main detractors, can be viewed, through Socrates eyes, as just. If one is on a road and the bridge ahead is out, is it not just to vociferously warn people about the situation? And wouldnâ��t it be even more just to reserve the harshest words for those who are encouraging others to continue down the road, putting them at peril? Therefore, to accept Socrates at his word is to excuse Christâ��s behavior.

To summarize, Bertrand Russell rejects Christianity because of the concept of hell and divine punishment. However, he mistakenly offers up as superior two alternatives which are only superficially different. He considers Jesus to be too harsh on his critics, but does not take into account the appropriateness of his actions if Christ, indeed, knew what he was talking about. Therefore, on the issue of â��the moral problemâ��, I accept Christianity. The idea that no ultimate justice exists is as disagreeable to me as the contrary opinion is to Mr. Russell. I further reject his position because he fails, in my own view, to offer up anything superior.

EDIT: Fix two typos.

Message edited by author 2010-11-25 22:34:45.

11/25/2010 10:23:08 PM · #742

Nice effort, Jason. Some stray thoughts...

â�¢ You say, I... reject his [Bertrand Russell's] position because he fails, in my own view, to offer up anything superior.

I'm quite sure BR values rationality and the pursuit of truth and reason over conjecture.

â�¢ As to Buddha and hell, I think it would be profitable to view Avici (hell) in the context of Karma, the law of cause and effect, if you will. The passage you quote would so stand as a mere illustration of effect. Here is a synopsis of Buddhist beliefs that may be useful to Christians accustomed to submission to a supernatural being.

â�¢ And to accept Socrates at his word is to excuse Christâ��s behavior. Yes, fair enough.

(BTW, here is an interview with the contemporary Richard Dawkins, quite reminiscent of the one with BR).

Message edited by author 2010-11-25 22:25:27.

11/25/2010 10:27:56 PM · #743

Thanks ZZ. I appreciate the honest critique.

The reason I felt I could reject BR's position based on opinion is this particular point of his is an opinion piece. In his opinion the Christian system is unworthy. In my opinion BR failed to give a superior alternative. In other words, nothing he offers feels any more worthy.

11/25/2010 10:34:51 PM · #744

Quick question...If one form of punishment is eternal whilst another isn't...could it not be argued that there is some semblence of hope in one that does not exist in the other, thereby making the former a bit more...forgiving.

Just curious,

Ray

11/25/2010 11:03:00 PM · #745

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I hear that. Quite a conundrum. BR, in contrast, appeared at peace with himself. :-)

11/25/2010 11:45:12 PM · #746

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Yes, a reasonable point. Personally, I thought that this glimmer of hope was outweighed by the fact that you could find yourself in this hell without "you" doing anything. (Ie. A sin from a past life) Seems like a tough trade, but perhaps one BR finds agreeable.

11/26/2010 04:52:48 PM · #747

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Quick question...If one form of punishment is eternal whilst another isn't...could it not be argued that there is some semblence of hope in one that does not exist in the other, thereby making the former a bit more...forgiving.

Just curious,

Ray

Yes, a reasonable point. Personally, I thought that this glimmer of hope was outweighed by the fact that you could find yourself in this hell without "you" doing anything. (Ie. A sin from a past life) Seems like a tough trade, but perhaps one BR finds agreeable.

Gee...almost akin to being sentenced to hell for not belonging to the "right" religion eh?

Ray

11/26/2010 05:14:56 PM · #748

> Ray:

"Heaven" and "Hell", if I understand correctly, are integral to Christian dogma.
Conversely, Buddhism is very soft on dogma (old forms of B.) or, as in Zen, relatively free of it.

Nichiren, Jason's source for the quoted passage would be 800 years old, were he alive today.

11/26/2010 05:22:44 PM · #749

Originally posted by zeuszen:

True enough, but I guess my side snide remark was directed specifically at the "going to hell without you doing anything" which,from my personal viewpoint, differs very little from what some Christians hold to be true regarding people of other faiths.

Sorry for not being clear on that. :O)

Ray