Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(Yesterday at 2:25 am)Disagreeable Wrote: Philip Goff's Christianity is the least silly version of Christianity that I have ever heard. Although, it's still very, very silly.
He debates William Lane Craig here:
I don't want to watch a video with William Lane Craig in it, but here's a readable article by Goff:
(Yesterday at 2:25 am)Disagreeable Wrote: Philip Goff's Christianity is the least silly version of Christianity that I have ever heard. Although, it's still very, very silly.
He debates William Lane Craig here:
I don't want to watch a video with William Lane Craig in it, but here's a readable article by Goff:
This seems to lay out his position pretty clearly.
This is a somewhat surprising thread, on two counts, in just two posts... that Disagreeable has something positive to say about Christianity, and that you, Bel, don't seem to like William Lane Craig At least we may have that in common (the latter not the former) if not much else As to that article, it's vaguely interesting to me but also very depressing... how low people will sink in order to hang onto Christianity... even if it involves rewriting the whole story of Christianity... but as with all of these things, these, let's say, more 'abstract' theories of Christianity, they all fall apart when they have to relate to what we actually see and/or what the Bible claims... and this felt no different on that score. So just as classical theism may seem appealing to some in some sort of abstract sense, picking up the actual Bible and reading a few lines of that, throws abstract theories like that out the window, just as this 'Goff' abstract theory of an imperfect god, trying to take credit for what we actually see in science, feels like it's heading towards the same sort of clutching at straws, towards the end of that article, as classical theology theists face when trying to relate that abstractness to what we actually see or what is actually claimed. So yeah, pretty depressing to me to see these sorts of theories... that just show how desperate people can be to hang onto the idea of Christianity being true, at all costs, even if it means rewriting their understanding of it from scratch.
(Yesterday at 9:00 am)emjay Wrote: Bel, don't seem to like William Lane Craig At least we may have that in common (the latter not the former) if not much else
I've never figured out exactly where William Lane Craig fits into the scheme of things. As far as I can tell no serious scholar of religion talks about him at all, yet he's clearly popular with a certain type of Christian.
The only time he drifts across my radar is when he's debating with someone else, and this gives me the impression that he functions just like the team that plays basketball against the Harlem Globetrotters. He exists in order to be beaten.
(Just now to check this I visited Edward Feser's blog. I expect you know: Feser is a very serious and very intelligent guy who writes about theology. And his blog has a good search feature so you can find everything he's written on a given topic. By coincidence his two most recent posts are all about Craig, which is by far the most attention he has paid to him so far. And both of these posts are patient and precise explanations of why he thinks Craig is very wrong. It's amusing, because Feser starts off saying nice things about Craig, but these are the kind of nice things an academic says before he completely dismantles a person.)
Quote:As to that article, it's vaguely interesting to me but also very depressing... how low people will sink in order to hang onto Christianity... even if it involves rewriting the whole story of Christianity... but as with all of these things, these, let's say, more 'abstract' theories of Christianity, they all fall apart when they have to relate to what we actually see and/or what the Bible claims... and this felt no different on that score.
It's interesting to me that you use the Bible as the touchstone for determining what falls apart and what doesn't. I'm sure you know that the Bible has been read in infinitely many different ways over the centuries, and every Christian points to it for support.
I've seen people claim that what you call "abstract" theories of Christianity are modern cope to make things compatible with science, but in fact they are often among the very oldest Christian beliefs. People get mad at me when I point out that ancient writers were more comfortable than we are with non-literal interpretations of things, but it really is true. When Christianity was still young there was a long tradition of reading Neoplatonic interpretations into Homer, for example. Porphyry's explication of Homer's "cave of the nymphs" episode is a famous example. The idea that a spiritual text means one and only one thing -- its surface meaning -- would seem strange to scholars from biblical times, until today.
Good or bad, I think Christianity survives and thrives because people can make of it whatever they will. It's not unusual at all for Goff to look at the parts that seem right to him and reject the rest. I'm not defending his conclusions or saying it's a good way to go about things, but it's certainly a tradition with a long history.
William Blake, to give another example, absolutely believed that the Bible was the word of God and the "Great Code of Art," but also believed that its literal truth was of no importance. And while his contemporaries thought he was odd, he was in fact deeply rooted in a long tradition, which went back through the British Antinomians all the way the earliest Christian mystics.
Quote:So just as classical theism may seem appealing to some in some sort of abstract sense, picking up the actual Bible and reading a few lines of that, throws abstract theories like that out the window, just as this 'Goff' abstract theory of an imperfect god, trying to take credit for what we actually see in science, feels like it's heading towards the same sort of clutching at straws, towards the end of that article, as classical theology theists face when trying to relate that abstractness to what we actually see or what is actually claimed. So yeah, pretty depressing to me to see these sorts of theories... that just show how desperate people can be to hang onto the idea of Christianity being true, at all costs, even if it means rewriting their understanding of it from scratch.
I don't know whether it's fair to say that Goff is desperate. That would be a personal private motivation, and I can't know what he's feeling deep down.
Classical theism is definitely not rooted in desperation.
I haven't given Goff's opinions much thought so far. It may well be that he deserves your criticism, and he is trying hard to hold on to something for emotional reasons that he has no other justification for. It's been done before often enough.
Yesterday at 10:00 pm (This post was last modified: Yesterday at 10:11 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(Yesterday at 8:02 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Good or bad, I think Christianity survives and thrives because people can make of it whatever they will. It's not unusual at all for Goff to look at the parts that seem right to him and reject the rest. I'm not defending his conclusions or saying it's a good way to go about things, but it's certainly a tradition with a long history.
This is why any religion sticks around - until it doesn't. It's had a good run for what it is. What new age syncretism tells us, though, is that just as it was in the pre christian and proto christian world, the religions host culture has lost faith and confidence in it's underpinnings. The idea of atonement that came to typify christianty for the last few thousand years was not what "jesus" believed - but an entirely antithetical notion that "paul" believed.
If we're to believe the cultists...it only took about eight years before christians decided that christ was full of shit..and they've not slowed down since. The earliest christians would not call contemporary christians christian, and vv. Soon enough, just as before, they won't call themselves christians anymore. The new elements will have supplanted what little remained of it's original form.
Hell, if we asked sociologists and shitbird preachers...we already live in a post christian world. One of the few things those two groups agree on.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Quote:Disagreeable has something positive to say about Christianity
I'm not really sure D's comments were exactly positive. Calling this the 'least silly version' is sort of like saying that Stage 1 is the 'least serious' form of pancreatic cancer. Either way, it's still cancer (much like Christianity).
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
6 hours ago(This post was last modified: 6 hours ago by Deesse23.)
(Yesterday at 8:02 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I've seen people claim that what you call "abstract" theories of Christianity are modern cope to make things compatible with science, but in fact they are often among the very oldest Christian beliefs. People get mad at me when I point out that ancient writers were more comfortable than we are with non-literal interpretations of things, but it really is true. When Christianity was still young there was a long tradition of reading Neoplatonic interpretations into Homer, for example. Porphyry's explication of Homer's "cave of the nymphs" episode is a famous example. The idea that a spiritual text means one and only one thing -- its surface meaning -- would seem strange to scholars from biblical times, until today.
They fact that they did that doesnt make any of their guesses true. It was the cope of the ancient "historians" and philosophers to seek more than facts in writings. See, i can do that too. If you, or any ancient reader, wants to claim there is potentially a deeper meaning.....demonstrate it. Otherwise it would be legit to interpret anything you want into a text.
Ancient history was not about facts, but about "deeper meanings" or "lessons" to learn. To us, historic facts are of utmost importance, to them it wasnt. Pointing that out does not make me wrong or less "educated" or "spiritual". Likewise for any other textual interpretations of people in the classic period. They were actively looking for deeper meanings, moral lessons and allegories. Myths werent viewed as "false" but as vehicles of timeless realities. That does not mean there was any deeper meaning, beyond of what the ancient text actually said.
I also noted that you avoided to make your own claim. You are hiding again behind other people ("I've seen people claim..."). Its your modus operandi to hide behind others, because you are an intellectual coward, and try to elevate yourself above a discussion as a kind of independent observer to profess intellectual superiority in an attempt to make yourself unassailable.
You want to eat your cake and have it, you want to participate in a discussion without being held responsible for anything you bring to the table, while trying to appear to be intellectually superior. You are scared of being shown to be wrong. You arent here for discussion/discourse, you are here to show off. You dont care if any of what you write is true or not, else you would try to defend it. If you had any guts, you would not be here, but in a forum, amongst professionals who would rip you to pieces in 5 minutes or less.
Quote:As to that article, it's vaguely interesting to me but also very depressing... how low people will sink in order to hang onto Christianity... even if it involves rewriting the whole story of Christianity... but as with all of these things, these, let's say, more 'abstract' theories of Christianity, they all fall apart when they have to relate to what we actually see and/or what the Bible claims... and this felt no different on that score.
It's interesting to me that you use the Bible as the touchstone for determining what falls apart and what doesn't. I'm sure you know that the Bible has been read in infinitely many different ways over the centuries, and every Christian points to it for support.
Ultimately, on reflection, it's a bit of a catch 22 situation for me; on the one hand I think I'd have more respect and/or willingness to read people's theories on god, if they didn't so obviously treat the Bible as a 'touchstone' that they'd tie themselves into knots, however tenuously, to connect their theories with. But on the other hand, if they didn't do it, I would... ie whether internally, in my own mind, or externally, by talking to them, I'd try to tie it to the Bible, and more often than not, fail, because it is that - the Bible - that represents the Christian claims of what 'god' is or did. As I said, however interesting an abstract theory might be... and some of them are... just picking up the Bible afterwards, and reading a few lines from it, breaks that often idealistic illusion in a flash. But to the extent where it's they that do it, the less respect I have for them, the more tenuous their connections with their touchstone are.
Not exactly the same situation but similar, you could think of the New Testament as being very tenuously connected with the Old Testament... the equivalent of a bad sequel, with hardly anything to do with the original (not to mention the essential plagiarism of it... I've often felt sorry for Judaism; how its religion has essentially seemed hijacked/stolen by Christianity, but that's a different issue). Or, roughly like the book 'Alice in Wonderland', where very little ties one scene to another... I didn't read much of it... but I think I remember a tear turns into a sea and and a whole scene changes based on that tiny link. In similar terms, the Old Testament basically seeming like a footnote, at best, in the New Testament. So whether it's talking to people and seeing their random and tenuous connections to the Bible, or the Bible and its own tenuous connections within itself, between the Old and New Testament, there's nothing to fill me with any confidence that's it's anything more than the random musings of random people if you take it non-literally, coming from minds that by their very nature can easily read meaning into anything, OR if you take it as literal claims, as I do for the most part, then that's where they stand or fall, usually fall.
Quote:I've seen people claim that what you call "abstract" theories of Christianity are modern cope to make things compatible with science, but in fact they are often among the very oldest Christian beliefs. People get mad at me when I point out that ancient writers were more comfortable than we are with non-literal interpretations of things, but it really is true. When Christianity was still young there was a long tradition of reading Neoplatonic interpretations into Homer, for example. Porphyry's explication of Homer's "cave of the nymphs" episode is a famous example. The idea that a spiritual text means one and only one thing -- its surface meaning -- would seem strange to scholars from biblical times, until today.
Good or bad, I think Christianity survives and thrives because people can make of it whatever they will. It's not unusual at all for Goff to look at the parts that seem right to him and reject the rest. I'm not defending his conclusions or saying it's a good way to go about things, but it's certainly a tradition with a long history.
William Blake, to give another example, absolutely believed that the Bible was the word of God and the "Great Code of Art," but also believed that its literal truth was of no importance. And while his contemporaries thought he was odd, he was in fact deeply rooted in a long tradition, which went back through the British Antinomians all the way the earliest Christian mystics.
[...]
The problem is, you can do that with anything... you can read anything into anything, that's just human/'neural' nature, but that doesn't make it true. If you're not taking the Bible as a literal claim, what are you -'non-literalists' - taking it as? Just the random musings of random people on the idea of god? And if so, why should the Bible have any more respect/credence as speaking for and/or about the truth of god, than any other arbitrary collection of random musings about god... the people the compilers of the Bible rejected from inclusion in it for instance, because of 'heresy', or just the random people on the Internet or in the whole world for instance? i.e. why should the Bible have more credence to you, as 'words of truth' about god, in one way or another, if you don't take it as literal claims?
If you're basically just saying, 'I don't know if it represents the truth about god(s) or not, but I just want to hear different opinions on those sorts of questions' then that's one thing... and each to their own on that. Personally I have little interest, if none, in hearing people's theories about gods... but each to their own. But if on the other hand you're saying, as most people seem to be, thus using it as their 'touchstone', that the writings, and the authors, arbitrarily compiled into what we call the Bible, somehow have some special respect/credence, more than anyone else, for their views on god, despite not being taken literally, then that needs its own explanation. But if they are taken as literal claims, as they mostly are for me, then that's where they stand or fall, and mainly fall, simple as that.
Quote:Disagreeable has something positive to say about Christianity
I'm not really sure D's comments were exactly positive. Calling this the 'least silly version' is sort of like saying that Stage 1 is the 'least serious' form of pancreatic cancer. Either way, it's still cancer (much like Christianity).
Boru
I know he's not saying anything positive per se.... but it did nonetheless remind me a little of, I think it was 'Alex O'Connor'... a claimed atheist YouTuber, who started making arguments in favour of Christianity, and thus some people, me included, started to doubt that he was an atheist anymore. I don't think this, with Disagreeable, is anything like that, but nonetheless it did remind me of that. In other words I still like Disagreeable, but lost all faith in Alex O'Connor as an atheist channel. Not that I watched him much anyway, but that was nonetheless the last nail in the coffin with that channel for me.
5 hours ago(This post was last modified: 53 minutes ago by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
Why is it that only the Abrahamic religions are routinely scoured for deeper meanings, often boiling down to the-text-doesn't-mean-what-it-says? You don't get that nonsense with other ancient religions. When the Norse stories say that Odin's horse had eight legs, they mean the horse had eight legs. Cu Chulainn's killing of Culann's guard dog means that the dog was killed. When we're told that Heracles stole the golden apples, we're asked to accept that there were apples made of gold and Heracles stole them.
But Matthew 10:34 doesn't really mean that Jesus didn't come to bring peace. The Song of Solomon is actually a chaste and holy allegory and not a poem about the author wanting to give a hottie a jolly good seeing-to. Muhammad actually rode a flying horse.
At least pagans are honest about their silly stories.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
At least we may have that in common (the latter not the former) if not much else 
