Historical materialism is your calling card. There are many like you and you should easily find like-minded followers. I of course would interpret it metaphysically. There aren't many like me. Probably none on this forum. Oh well.Belindi wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 4:25 am GaryLouisSmith wrote:
Jahweh was jealous of his status as the monogod where there were other tribal gods and gods of place.This attitude gave his devotees a feeling of entitledness which helped them to conquer other tribes. The Bible can reveal a rational historical narrative. I.e. 'rational' as referring to terrestrial (not other worldly) concerns.If that were the case, then we would be stuck on the treadmill of rationalism forever. You assumed that the Christian God is such and such. I think you assumed wrong. In the Old Testament, the second commandment says, "The Lord, thy God, is a jealous God." Nowhere does it talk about omni-anything. Have you ever tried to calmly talk reason to someone consumed by jealousy? It ain't pretty and from a distance it is laughable. You are not speaking about the Biblical God, but about the God of rationalists.
If there is a God, why is there evil?
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Whatever.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 5:20 amHA! The New Testament God is the same "paragon of virtue" as the Old Testament God. I think that "loving god" that you mentioned is a New Age fiction. The New Testament is far from being moralistic and rationalistic. Where did you learn theology? Read it again. Jesus in the New Testament is an argumentative guy, a trouble maker, not a New Age hippy. There is no way you can make rational sense out of either testament. Nor would I want to. Moralists like you are destroying both philosophy and theology.Felix wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 2:38 am
Yes, as Greta suggested, the Old Testament Hebrew God is a paragon of virtue who, for example, advised the Israelites to massacre their enemies: "smite them, utterly destroy them; make no covenant with them, nor show any mercy to them."
Is He to be preferred over the loving god of the New Testament to whom Jesus prayed? Was Jesus one of the rationalists to whom you referred?
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
LOLGreta wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 5:56 amWhatever.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 5:20 am
HA! The New Testament God is the same "paragon of virtue" as the Old Testament God. I think that "loving god" that you mentioned is a New Age fiction. The New Testament is far from being moralistic and rationalistic. Where did you learn theology? Read it again. Jesus in the New Testament is an argumentative guy, a trouble maker, not a New Age hippy. There is no way you can make rational sense out of either testament. Nor would I want to. Moralists like you are destroying both philosophy and theology.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
The Jesus of history is not the same as the Christ of faith.
Historiography is best when the interpreter/ writer is as unbiased as possible. Reasoning is the only way we can try not be biased.
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Yes, I agree. Jesus was a trouble maker, argumentative and a complainer. I also think he was a magician, of which there were plenty in those days. You probably would guess, that I also think he was gay, for which I think there is a lot of evidence in the Bible.Belindi wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 6:57 am There are several interpretations of the historical character Jesus of Nazareth. My favourite interpretation is a trouble maker among other stroppy Jews under the Roman occupation of Palestine.
The Jesus of history is not the same as the Christ of faith.
Historiography is best when the interpreter/ writer is as unbiased as possible. Reasoning is the only way we can try not be biased.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
It wasn't meant to be.Sorry. I find you a charming personality.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
You can argue with his texts, which are still with us!GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2019, 3:20 amI'm not surprised Armstrong would say that. But he's dead and I can't argue with him.
Bergmann is dead too, and you don't ignore him, do you?GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2019, 3:20 amBut if I could, I would ... probably just ignore him.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
I guess St. Augustine was an ignoramus then. Don't you remember the '60's? - a lot of new age hippies were troublemakers.GaryLouisSmith: Jesus in the New Testament is an argumentative guy, a trouble maker, not a New Age hippy. There is no way you can make rational sense out of either testament.
How do you decide which accounts of Christ and his words and deeds are true or not? You said before you do not believe in enlightenment, that must mean you don't think he was enlightened? So he was, what, just another wild and crazy guy, but more clever than most?
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
What is an "ontological thing"? If it's simply an entity, then all ontological things are part of the world, including particulars and universals (if there are such entities), and no matter whether they are concrete or abstract entities.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Conceptual analysis (clarification) is part of the practice of metaphysics/ontology, but this doesn't mean that metaphysics/ontology is nothing but "conceptual art". From my perspective, it is the speculative part of theoretical science; and the primary aim of science is truth, not beauty.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2019, 8:54 amSo, in my conceptual philosophy, I set out a program for building an ontological system, but that system actually cannot be done in the everyday, practical world.
For example, in that above I talked about building a philosophy out of impossible things. I was going to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable. I talked about things that were beyond existence. And I talked about an unknowing knowing. It is all an unrealizable set of instructions. Such is purely conceptual art. It is more charming, than useful.
Beauty isn't an objective criterion of theory choice; and there is no logical connection between beautifulness and truth-conduciveness, in the sense that the most beautiful theory among a group of theories on the same subject matter is most likely to be the true one.
Accordingly, I'm interested in finding true metaphysical/ontological theories, ones which truly represent reality. Whether I'll ever succeed in finding them is another question, but the epistemological problems of metaphysics/ontology don't entail that there are no metaphysical/ontological truths or facts to be found.
"As I conceive of metaphysics it is largely an activity of conceptual clarification in the service of attaining the most plausible view of the universe in the light of a synthesis of the various sciences. Plausibility in the light of total science is the ontologist's touchstone. On this view there is of course no sharp line between science and metaphysics. Metaphysics is the most conjectural and conceptually interesting end of total science. Many scientific theories give rise to highly conceptual discussions of the sort that we can recognize as typical of what is generally regarded as philosophy. Consider for example the well-known discussion between Bohr and Einstein (Bohr, 1959). The more the scientist challenges commonly held assumptions, assumptions that are so deep rooted they are rarely thought about but are taken for granted, the greater the similarity between the scientist and the traditional metaphysician."
(p. 50)
"Metaphysics is the conjectural end of science. Its ontological claims must be tested by general scientific plausibility. Plausibility is largely a matter of maximal coherence of our beliefs in the light of often recalcitrant experience: in other words not only must theoretical beliefs cohere with one another but they must cohere with beliefs derived from observation and experiment."
(p. 51)
(Smart, J. J. C. "Methodology and Ontology." In Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change, edited by Kostas Gavroglu, Yorgos Goudaroulis, and Pantelis Nicolacopoulos, 47-57. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1989.)
"I regard metaphysics as continuous with science. Science gets metaphysical when it gets very general and controversial and relates itself also to humanistic and other non-typically scientific concerns. A criterion for metaphysical truth is plausibility in the light of total science."
(Smart, J. J. C. "Physicalism and Emergence." 1982. In Essays Metaphysical and Moral: Selected Philosophical Papers, 246-255. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. p. 248)
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7092
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Wholly OFF TOPIC.Consul wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 4:00 pmConceptual analysis (clarification) is part of the practice of metaphysics/ontology, but this doesn't mean that metaphysics/ontology is nothing but "conceptual art". From my perspective, it is the speculative part of theoretical science; and the primary aim of science is truth, not beauty.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2019, 8:54 amSo, in my conceptual philosophy, I set out a program for building an ontological system, but that system actually cannot be done in the everyday, practical world.
For example, in that above I talked about building a philosophy out of impossible things. I was going to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable. I talked about things that were beyond existence. And I talked about an unknowing knowing. It is all an unrealizable set of instructions. Such is purely conceptual art. It is more charming, than useful.
Beauty isn't an objective criterion of theory choice; and there is no logical connection between beautifulness and truth-conduciveness, in the sense that the most beautiful theory among a group of theories on the same subject matter is most likely to be the true one.
Accordingly, I'm interested in finding true metaphysical/ontological theories, ones which truly represent reality. Whether I'll ever succeed in finding them is another question, but the epistemological problems of metaphysics/ontology don't entail that there are no metaphysical/ontological truths or facts to be found.
"As I conceive of metaphysics it is largely an activity of conceptual clarification in the service of attaining the most plausible view of the universe in the light of a synthesis of the various sciences. Plausibility in the light of total science is the ontologist's touchstone. On this view there is of course no sharp line between science and metaphysics. Metaphysics is the most conjectural and conceptually interesting end of total science. Many scientific theories give rise to highly conceptual discussions of the sort that we can recognize as typical of what is generally regarded as philosophy. Consider for example the well-known discussion between Bohr and Einstein (Bohr, 1959). The more the scientist challenges commonly held assumptions, assumptions that are so deep rooted they are rarely thought about but are taken for granted, the greater the similarity between the scientist and the traditional metaphysician."
(p. 50)
"Metaphysics is the conjectural end of science. Its ontological claims must be tested by general scientific plausibility. Plausibility is largely a matter of maximal coherence of our beliefs in the light of often recalcitrant experience: in other words not only must theoretical beliefs cohere with one another but they must cohere with beliefs derived from observation and experiment."
(p. 51)
(Smart, J. J. C. "Methodology and Ontology." In Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change, edited by Kostas Gavroglu, Yorgos Goudaroulis, and Pantelis Nicolacopoulos, 47-57. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1989.)
"I regard metaphysics as continuous with science. Science gets metaphysical when it gets very general and controversial and relates itself also to humanistic and other non-typically scientific concerns. A criterion for metaphysical truth is plausibility in the light of total science."
(Smart, J. J. C. "Physicalism and Emergence." 1982. In Essays Metaphysical and Moral: Selected Philosophical Papers, 246-255. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. p. 248)
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
You're right, and I apologize for the off-topic stuff I'm responsible for.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023