Christianity is commonsense

[harvey1]

I'm not an expert on other religions, so I won't compare Christianity to other religions, but I will say that Christianity makes a great deal of sense. Here are some sensical notions that I think make it a 'no-brainer' to be a Christian:

1. Logos: God is infinite and undescribable, but the Logos (or Logic) of God is the means by which God creates and transforms the world. Who can argue with Logic as the means by which creation takes place? What? Are we supposed to believe that illogic is the means by which creation takes place? C'mon.

2. Trinity: God is symmetry. That is, symmetry is 'be', 'becoming', 'that which becomes'. This is the name of God in Christianity (i.e., Yahweh), which means the three states of existence - or the basis of all symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.

3. Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.

Thus, Christianity is commonsense.

[ST88]

Over long periods of interaction, parasites and hosts experience co-evolution, and this is one of the major reasons that led to the complexity of life (e.g., cells, etc). As complexity increases, new structures are discovered by life which, like religious evolution, produces structures that are more apt to survive in the universe. Religious views, however, survive by competing with other approaches that explain the world, therefore evolutionary pressures increase the explanatory fitness of human explanations (i.e., a move toward more accurate truths). Religion has been surviving in this kind of environment for the last few hundred thousand years or so, so this is why it has become such a dominant conceptual scheme in the world.

Not necessarily. My contention has always been that the evolutionary pressures that Christianity has experienced have actually helped mold it to become more successful in the minds of the followers. The evolution of Christianity served to make it more fit for being a viable religion and impervious to reason and rationality. My theory is that this happened very early on, and when competing religions and cults were falling away for one reason or another, Christianity survived because it contained the properties within it to maintain its existence against a hostile material world. This doesn't make it true any more than any other religion, just the most successful at fending off philosophical attack.

Hebrew wisdom tradition was a tradition based on an emphasis on logic. Gradually it became personified prior to the Greeks. Once Christianity came on the scene, the early Jewish-Christians brought their understanding of Hebrew wisdom teachings with them to the Hellenistic world, and from there the Greek Logos and the Hebrew sophia were united and understand as an aspect of God. That's a pretty logical development.

That is certainly a logical development. Could it be predicted from the earlier time? It would be just as logical to state that the Khazars disappeared from history because they chose to be a Jewish state rather than a Christian or a Muslim one. Any Christian or Muslim at the time could have told you that. I submit that you see it as logical because you view the events in terms of what you believe in. Myself, I see it as just a happenstance of history.

And I will grant the logic of many ancient Hebrew laws. It is certainly good practice not to eat meat from filty animals or animals that at least appear to be filthy. And washing food is a good thing. And I won't dispute the logic of not bothering a woman who has begun menstruating. The problem I have is equating logic to divine will or explaining the course of history as being logical.

It seems you misunderstand what I said. Being able to acquire the laws of physics through other axioms is a very significant development, and if proven true, it means that there might be a very general mathematical reason for our universe that would dictate what the universe's laws could have been. The way in which mathematical equations are currently being used would not be a relevant argument since it would be shown that those equations are no longer 'just descriptions', rather they appear to be shown to be nomological.

I admit that I am not quite up on information theory, and the explanations I have tried to understand are not quite in my head yet. However, I think you are playing God of the Gaps if you state that an unknown process or a known process that is behaving in unknown ways is somehow explained by extracurricular phenomenae. You seem to be stating, on strictly a superficial level (superficiality on my part, please understand), that there is this effect that has been observed and we can't account for it. The effect is that information theory is somehow connected to quantum theory. This effect does not currently have a physics, i.e., mathematical, explanation -- is that what you're trying to say? If so, I would argue that we simply don't have the models to describe it yet.

From what I've read, there is some odd stuff going on, but I think it all comes down to the understanding of what quantum mechanics means vs. our current models of what it means. For example, the objective rotational aspect of a quanta is not determined until it is subjectively observed (or something like that, please correct me). I gather some researchers hypothesize that because our consciousnesses are "hooked" into the universe, the consciousness that tries to observe it somehow affects it. The EPR paradox is even weirder, where a non-combatant in an observable quanta experiment can also become part of it in the same way.

But I have to say that calling this so far out of the range of physical explanation is no different than playing the God card. Here's a gap, here's a God.

However, I'm not talking about finding the 'God of gaps' in my argument. I'm talking about reconstructing the laws of QM (etc) from axioms that were not obtained by experiment or existing physical theories. These are axioms derived from pure mathematics, or from information theory, boolean logic, etc. In addition, the trouble for atheists in all of this is not that the God of gaps has been found in yet another gap, rather it is that the likelihood that our laws of physics are contigent versus necessary would be in serious question. Of course, if the laws of physics are necessary, then materialism is in quite a quandary and that's one of the key legs that atheism stands on. If this research kicks too hard on that leg, atheism is severely weakened as a result.

Pardon? Atheism does not rest on key principles as table legs, there is only one principle to atheism. Philosophically speaking, the basic state of an ideal universe is atheistic -- by mere observation. It is, rather, the theists who have table legs they must contruct in order to be able to stand. Regardless if the legs were supplied by God, by our own accounting, we must superimpose God onto the observable universe in order to make sense of God, not the other way around. The universe we can observe. And if our observations fail us then we need better instruments and methods.

Announcer: The cosmological argument is brought to you by the letter E.

The contingent vs. necessary debate is probably too heady for this thread. Suffice it to say that as we understand quantum behavior, it's not all willy-nilly wackiness. There are predictive effects that depend on the set up of the experiment or the observation.

The laws of physics would definitely point to a God if we find that the laws of physics are nomological. The reason is that nomological laws are language, and mind is needed as an interpreter of language. Whatever you want to call that is not so much an issue, the main point is that a mind of truth qualifies as a popular conception of God.

The phrase "nomological physics" eludes me. Either that, or I just can't follow you from language to material existence. In order for there to be language, there must be a mind to use it. But more than that, in order for there to be language there must be more than one mind, because a singular mind has no need for language, and therefore no need to develop one. Language presupposes additional minds because its very purpose is communication. But does information transfer imply language? Only if the definition necessarily includes a mind. What is information but the transportation and transfer of stateness? A state transfer which can be picked up and interpreted by anything in a strictly material world, such as the vibration of ozone molecules picking up solar radiation.

[ST88]

In effect what this is saying is that A=B. Then B=C+D. Look how A also equals C+D! Sorry, but I don't buy it. These are all unknown variables. You may state that any variable has a particular relationship to any other variable, but if they are all unknown, then the equation makes no sense.

No, what I'm saying is:

A) Logos=beginning with God
B) God=beginning with Logos
C) Logos='God'
D) Only 'God' in the beginning

The first triad of the symmetry is 'D'

Didn't mean to step on your variable toes there. All my variables were hypotheticals. My point is that you have a supposition to begin with. Then if you state relationships that follow from that supposition, you can't prove that the supposition is true by pointing to the relationships that are based on it.

What about it does not seem correct? The universe has its own laws, which it follows. Where those laws break down, they do so predictably.

The universe has laws? What enforces them, that is, what keeps the laws from being X instead of Y? If Y breaks down to X predictably (let's call that law Z), then what enforces Z?

There's nothing wrong with saying that the laws are that they are. We, as material beings are not only subject to material laws, but we are also able to perceive them as laws. I suppose the necessary being rule states that we must be able to perceive all the laws that allowed us to come into being, but that is neither inattainable nor is it absolutely necessary.

Lack of faith and skepticism of knowledge are two completely different things. It is not common sense to have faith. That's the whole point. It's common sense to not have faith. If your God gave proof of Himself, there would be no need for faith, and serving God would be common sense. But He hasn't. He has asked you, against all rational reason, to believe in Him. Against all common sense. So you either believe and have faith that your belief means something or you don't.

'Lack of faith' is not believing a proposition unless given evidence that justifies a belief. A justified belief must also not have any competing evidence that would leave reasonable doubt that the belief in question is false or misleading. However, the argument from extreme skeptics is just that, we are not justified in our beliefs since this condition cannot be met. Philosophers have tried for centuries to overcome the skeptics' challenge, and have been unsuccessful at justifying belief. Therefore, if faith is against common sense, then a 'lack of faith' means that we must first be justified to hold a belief, a condition that cannot be met as the skeptics' challenge has not been overcome. Hence, beliefs are not acceptable. However, the notion of common sense is a belief.

I'm not sure what you mean by extreme skeptic. If you mean the same thing as strong atheist then I am with you.

Equating common sense as a belief system to other belief systems because they are all belief systems does not seem to give your argument any meat. However, the lack of faith/skepticism of knowledge paradigm does not give your argument the meat either. There are skeptics of knowledge on both sides. It is possible to have faith and be skeptical of knowledge -- it is, in fact, necessary, especially with regards to Christianity.

Having a lack of faith must apply separately to each and every aspect of life that requires faith. That is, to say "I have faith in nothing" and mean our metaphysical understanding of what "nothing" is, is nihilism and unacceptable. However, the faith an atheist denies is the faith in a deity. This is all the term implies, and there are so many types and subgroupings of atheists that it would not be worth it to try and list them.

Applying the lack of knowledge test to common sense would seem to violate this idea of atheism. You could call someone who doesn't believe in common sense an acommonsensualist, I guess. But the taxonomy of atheists allows for belief and disbelief in just about everything, except with regards to the deity question. And common sense isn't exactly a sustainable knowledge base. It shifts depending on the age and the society, and it doesn't always work. By stating that Christianity is common sense, there would have to be a pre-existing idea within common sense that the precepts of Christianity appeal to. Your flat tire example, though a nice example of common sense, does not point to the child as representing Christianity. The Christian perspective would have told the driver that there was a reason his truck could not pass through the tunnel, and that he should be looking to his own motives for why he needed to pass through it in the first place. The Christian solution is to abandon the path through the tunnel and find a more righteous -- easier, yet more arduous at the same time -- path.

Obviously, beliefs are needed, and therefore a belief does not need to be justified by evidence in a way which would satisfy a skeptic. Rather, beliefs must conform to a pragmatic standard which is set by the context in question. So, for example, if it is pragmatically acceptable to believe in a flat earth while in front of your computer, then you are pragmatically justified in such a belief. If, on the other hand, working is an important value and your boss will fire you for such a stupid belief (e.g., you work in the field of geography), then you are not pragmatically justified to hold that belief.

I know many people do not like pragmatism, but, it is where most philosophers are today. After 1,000 years of Western philosophy, it has come to a point to where pragmatism is how beliefs are justified.

OK.

I think you are overlooking the simplicity of the concept of symmetry. We aren't talking about an explanation of a nuclear reaction. And, it is really pretty silly to deny religion the use of symmetry since symmetry was recognized long before modern science. The difference, though, is that Christianity put extreme use on symmetry. Now, we might not agree as to why they did, but the fact is there.

I hope I wasn't denying Christianity the use of symmetry. Notice I don't dispute that part of your hypothesis. Where we differ is what that actually might mean. That what you call "symmetry" exists in Christianity is not surprising. It is a neat, sharp, clean concept that helps people remember things.

Even the book of Revelation ends with references galor to the book of Genesis:
[Bible verses snipped]
Note: It is clear that the last chapter of the Bible ends as it begun. God creating a new world containing a 'tree of life', except in the end the 'tree of life' is the fruit that is eaten and death is no longer. That's all a symmetry - a transformation from beginning to end.

I'm sorry, but you can't use this kind linguistic argument as evidence of an objective phenomenon. There are two reasons for this. A) The writer of Revelation certainly knew of what was happening in Genesis and could have just as easily manufactured the kind of symmetry you're talking about, and -- if you don't like the craven liar hypothesis -- B) the people who put together the Bible saw the closed parenthesis that you picked up on in Revelation and placed the book at the end. In either case, however, there is also a textual reason for placing this book at the end of the NT, and not John 1, 2 and 3. Beginning of the world, end of the world. Naturally, we should expect that a culture steeped in the logic of the beginning of the world story would produce an end of the world story that had that same kind of logic.

Logos: Logic rules the world. The world was created by logic.I think we can agree on this. God and Christianity have nothing to do with it, however. By your definition of God, it doesn't make sense that God would require a separate Logos in order to accomplish his goals.

I'm not sure what you mean. The Logos is an approximation of an indescribable God. Logos is step by step, God is the whole. God transcends logic. That means that all the logic in existence cannot equate to God's existence.

What I mean is, there is no need for a Logos in the God hypothesis, except as we need to define Him. In other words, it makes for better PR if this concept is included.

Trinity: God is symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.The three states: present, future, and future present are not all that difficult to grasp in terms of linguistics or non-religious philosophy. I fail to see why the injection of religion into this concept makes it more sensible. Rather, it is the sensibility of it that makes it ideal for a religious concept.

Fine, so can we agree it is common sense for God to be described as the great Symmetry?

Eh. You can call Him that if you want. Though I probably also would not object to other titles: The Great _________________. This is not because I choose to follow your hypothesis, it is because I grant you that the concept of God encompasses many different capabilities.

The real problem with this is that there are many other different combinations of symmetries that meet this definition also. This one just happens to be the one you are pointing to.

I'm not talking about symmetries in detail, I'm talking about symmetry in general. What I'm saying is that God is symmetry, or if you wish, God is YHWH (the Hebrew name of God).

So why not YHWHY? Where is the contextual symmetry with the Flood? What is symmetrical about the Trinity? OK, maybe that one works. But what I was describing was the existence of other types of symmetries. Past, present, future. Yin, Yang. Being, Nothingness. The Creator, the Destroyer. Symmetry is everywhere and can be found in many stories.

I'm talking about self-similarity that exists in the world, and a religion's ability to see and identify the principle with respect to creation.

To a protractor, the world looks like a sea of angles. If you have the idea in your mind, you will start to see things in terms of your idea. That's natural. Where you get into trouble is to start believing that the idea is exclusionary or that your observations are somehow generalizable in different paradigms, i.e., to everything.

Now, you may very well be right about Christian symmetry. But, as I said before, this is not indicative of the relative TRUTH that comes out of (and from) Christianity. Instead, it is indicative of the labor that went into the development of the religion to make it more acceptable and more likely to survive philosophical scrutiny.

ed to add: I left off the whole Constantine discussion. Though I wouldn't have conceded the point, I honestly can't remember why I even brought that up in the first place. It doesn't fit with any of my other arguments, so I didn't even bother to follow up on it.