Moderator: Moderators
So was Christianity designed for people who think like people? Please support your argument.David the apologist wrote:
Christianity wasn't designed for people who think like robots, after all. It was designed for people who think like people.
Not to me...I get that it refers to systems of religion purporting to be Christian that deny our sin by our free will, and place its creation upon GOD so we are sinful robots.OnceConvinced wrote:
...
If Christianity is not designed for people who "think like robots" does that then imply that Christianity was not designed for everyone?
The overwhelming majority of Christians weren't converted to Christianity at all. They were born into it; indoctrinated by their parents from their earliest memory to accept the "truth" of Christianity as undeniable and beyond reproach. The parents underwent the same indoctrination when they were small of course. It's the same process used by the various religions right around the world.David the apologist wrote: I would say that effectively nobody was ever converted to Christianity by philosophical and historical argument alone. At the very least, certain aesthetic and emotional judgments about the "fitness" of God becoming man played a role.
Metaphysics is losing it's popularity, at least in the more well educated technological countries, because as our understanding of the workings of the natural world have grown, it has become overwhelmingly obvious that virtually all of what was once considered to be undeniable examples of supernatural occurances are in fact perfectly natural in origin with no supernatural connection at all. Emperical observation and experimentation has led us to understand how the natural world actually works and why. We can now make predictions which enable us to utilize our understanding of the natural world in such a way as to turn natural processes to our own advantage. All of our modern technology is based on the recognition that the natural world works in natural and predictable ways. The supernatural realm is and always was, make believe. As our understanding of the workings of the natural world has grown, what we refer to as knowledge, it has become more then obvious that it is time to put the childlike beliefs of our ancient superstitious ancestors behind us, if we are to follow the path of truth for truth's sake without being blinded and confused by backward looking nonsense.David the apologist wrote: Many modern epistemological positions, particularly those with empiricist leanings, incline one against any sort of belief formed by metaphysical thought, and lead one into downright hostility towards aesthetic thought. Instead, every train of thought is construed algorithmically, as being a series of inductive and deductive steps that can be made explicit in every case. Where a train of thought does not instantiate such an algorithm, it is regarded as irrational.
It must be acknowledged that there was a time when the best minds in the world subscribed to superstition and metaphysical beliefs. In those earlier times superstition and metaphysical belief was pretty much the only game in town. Time marches on however. In modern times we actually understand the natural processes at work which explain what was once considered the undeniable province of supernatural forces at work.David the apologist wrote: But not only is this sort of strategy incapable of bringing one to belief in Christianity, it is incapable of bringing one to trust induction or acknowledge the existence of other minds. And yet, we reliably identify other minds all the time, and induction works. Clearly, then, such robotic epistemologies, formed on the basis of some particular "rationality program," are to be rejected.
To argue that "Christianity is more rational than its competitors" is to argue that the story of a corpse that comes back to life and ultimately flies away is somehow perfectly rational, and that believing such a story is perfectly rational and well reasoned as well. I submit to you that believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away is comparable to believing in Voodoo. The most controversial feature of Voodoo is also the reanimation of corpses; zombies. But at least the zombies are not reputed to be able to fly. Who would believe THAT? Voodoo is fully accepted as true and real by it's adherents of course. Much the same way that Christians accepted the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus without question. To say that these stories, and these beliefs, are rational, is to completely misunderstand the whole concept of reason.David the apologist wrote: I would argue that Christianity is more rational than its competitors, but I cannot argue that its rationality is why most people believe it, or even why I myself believe it. The evidence for it is good, but not many people come to it on the basis of the evidence.
Yes indeed. "To judge something like an incarnation or a resurrection as "probable" or "improbable," one needs to see how it fits in with the grand scheme of things, whether it makes sense as a deviation from the ordinary metre in the epic poem of our cosmos." In opposition to the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is the observation and experience of the entire history of humankind that dead bodies, once fully and truly dead, DO NOT become reanimated and fly away. Such an occurrence would represent a drastic "deviation from the ordinary metre in the epic poem of our cosmos." What evidence can you supply which will serve to convincingly overcome thousands of years of experience with the inability of the dead to do anything much more then decompose? Is your evidence credible and undeniable? Or can it easily be explained as nothing more than the rather predictable actions taken by some few individuals with their own personal agenda in mind, coupled with a childlike belief in the supernatural held by masses of uneducated ancient peoples?David the apologist wrote: More to the point, the evidence for it would not be convincing to an artificial intelligence that had neither emotions nor a sense of aesthetics. To judge something like an incarnation or a resurrection as "probable" or "improbable," one needs to see how it fits in with the grand scheme of things, whether it makes sense as a deviation from the ordinary metre in the epic poem of our cosmos. For this, induction and deduction are inadequate. We need something else. Without this something else, we've missed what it means to be essentially human. In order to get to the truth of the Christian religion, we need to recover our own humanity. Otherwise, our search is over before it even begins.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind. "Become as little children" implies more than just humbling yourself or being innocent. There are many other traits too and thinking as a child would also be one of them.Adstar wrote: [Replying to post 2 by OnceConvinced]
Not exactly.. Jesus said:1) Jesus claimed that we had to think like children. So in other words, accept without question. So it would be more accurate to say "Christianity is designed for people who think like children"
Matthew 18
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
So Jesus mentioned humbleness. Also little Children are innocent. So one has to be humble and innocent to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
From what I can see it's usually emotional appeals that evangelists make when they have their altar calls. From what I can see of Christians converting, it usually comes down to emotional reasons and maybe philosophical reasons.David the apologist wrote: I would say that it was. I would say that effectively nobody was ever converted to Christianity by philosophical and historical argument alone. At the very least, certain aesthetic and emotional judgments about the "fitness" of God becoming man played a role.
