RE: Couple of clingers in my de-converting
May 2, 2015 at 12:24 am
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2015 at 12:29 am by TheRealJoeFish.
Edit Reason: Shored up my formal logic example
)
1. The rules on cursing on this board are somewhere between "don't care at all" to "highly encouraged," it seems. Yay swear words!
2. When you hear about the present being qualitatively different from the past - that is, when questions arise as to whether this is "business as usual" - there are often three sorts of conflicting claims that are mixed together (to the detriment of any sensible discussion to be had; OP, you've done a good job of keeping these separate):
1) Nature is getting more violent (that is, there are more natural earthquakes, hurricanes, and such). This is, of course, nonsense (aside, maybe, from perfectly explainable geological and meteorological trends and variance), and it should be readily apparent that this is just a matter of more news coverage, more people living more densely in hurricane areas, and the like.
2) Morality is decaying and people are changing for the worse. As you acknowledge, this is extremely subjective in a lot of ways. I recall reading that a scroll or carving from 2700 BC says something like "look at the young people today, and their decadence; we are clearly in the end times." I think a whole lot of this is any "change" in popular morality necessarily being described as negative, rather than positive, change; after all, a person's morality is what they use to differentiate between good and bad, so any deviation from the moral code that person holds will generally be thought of as negative. Now, that's not to say all changes in societal makeup are good; for instance, the increasingly sedentary lifestyle leading to decreased personal health in developed countries. But most of this is based in fear of change and panic, I think.
3) Humans are causing more destruction. Now, this is interesting, because I think this probably is the case. Humans are warming the globe and destroying species daily. It's absolutely true that we didn't have thousands of nuclear weapons 100 years ago; we have more capacity to kill more people now than ever before. Now, of course, a lot of this has to do with there being so many more people, but I think this is a valid point, at least inasmuch as the human species has developed the capacity to destroy itself.
To get from any of this to anything religious is, I think, a total non sequitur, especially if you, like I think you've suggested, you don't feel as though biblical prophecy is accurately predicting things today. As far as "humans can't control their own steps," well, that just seems like an interesting if glib description of history: obviously, plans don't always work out on any scale, and when you have numerous factions (individuals, families, clans, nations, kingdoms, religions, corporations, etc) each trying to maximize their gain, then things are going to happen that not everyone agrees is good.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that feelings that "things aren't going like they should" are simultaneously 1) normal, because we often base what "should" happen on what "has" happened, 2) often illusory, the result of confirmation bias and the like, 3) probably true in some senses (like global warming), and 4) not even remotely related to anything religious.
TL;DR: Suppose: IF Biblical Prophecy is true, THEN Bad things that are happening are predictive of the end-times. Observe: Some bad things are happening. From this, we cannot logically infer that "we are in the end-times" is true; we'd still need to affirm the proposition, the truth-value of which is separate from that of the consequent, that "biblical prophecy is true". What's after the arrow isn't evidence of what's before the arrow. That's Logic 101, Day 1 babyyy
2. When you hear about the present being qualitatively different from the past - that is, when questions arise as to whether this is "business as usual" - there are often three sorts of conflicting claims that are mixed together (to the detriment of any sensible discussion to be had; OP, you've done a good job of keeping these separate):
1) Nature is getting more violent (that is, there are more natural earthquakes, hurricanes, and such). This is, of course, nonsense (aside, maybe, from perfectly explainable geological and meteorological trends and variance), and it should be readily apparent that this is just a matter of more news coverage, more people living more densely in hurricane areas, and the like.
2) Morality is decaying and people are changing for the worse. As you acknowledge, this is extremely subjective in a lot of ways. I recall reading that a scroll or carving from 2700 BC says something like "look at the young people today, and their decadence; we are clearly in the end times." I think a whole lot of this is any "change" in popular morality necessarily being described as negative, rather than positive, change; after all, a person's morality is what they use to differentiate between good and bad, so any deviation from the moral code that person holds will generally be thought of as negative. Now, that's not to say all changes in societal makeup are good; for instance, the increasingly sedentary lifestyle leading to decreased personal health in developed countries. But most of this is based in fear of change and panic, I think.
3) Humans are causing more destruction. Now, this is interesting, because I think this probably is the case. Humans are warming the globe and destroying species daily. It's absolutely true that we didn't have thousands of nuclear weapons 100 years ago; we have more capacity to kill more people now than ever before. Now, of course, a lot of this has to do with there being so many more people, but I think this is a valid point, at least inasmuch as the human species has developed the capacity to destroy itself.
To get from any of this to anything religious is, I think, a total non sequitur, especially if you, like I think you've suggested, you don't feel as though biblical prophecy is accurately predicting things today. As far as "humans can't control their own steps," well, that just seems like an interesting if glib description of history: obviously, plans don't always work out on any scale, and when you have numerous factions (individuals, families, clans, nations, kingdoms, religions, corporations, etc) each trying to maximize their gain, then things are going to happen that not everyone agrees is good.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that feelings that "things aren't going like they should" are simultaneously 1) normal, because we often base what "should" happen on what "has" happened, 2) often illusory, the result of confirmation bias and the like, 3) probably true in some senses (like global warming), and 4) not even remotely related to anything religious.
TL;DR: Suppose: IF Biblical Prophecy is true, THEN Bad things that are happening are predictive of the end-times. Observe: Some bad things are happening. From this, we cannot logically infer that "we are in the end-times" is true; we'd still need to affirm the proposition, the truth-value of which is separate from that of the consequent, that "biblical prophecy is true". What's after the arrow isn't evidence of what's before the arrow. That's Logic 101, Day 1 babyyy
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
