Liberal Theists

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

Liberal Theists

Postby Cephus » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:20 pm

I'm having a heck of a time with a Finnish liberal theist over on my site who apparently doesn't care if God exists or not, at least he refuses to even discuss it. So long as he can have coffee with his church-mates and be entertained by the service, that's good enough reason to continue professing to be a Christian according to him.

He's utterly refused to even discuss the validity of his beliefs, in fact the whole question of whether any of it is true or not is specifically meaningless according to him.

So where do I go from here, other than giving up? You can view the exchange so far at: http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2 ... istianity/
Want to know more? http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com
Religion is a mental disease.
Cephus
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:55 am
Location: Redlands, CA

Postby Mythman » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:45 pm

Which brings me to the core difference in our thinking: you hold that "it seems a bit silly to me to embrace a belief system for reasons other than that it is factually true". I understand this clearly. But I don't share it. As I wrote, over the years I have ceased to use the word "truth", as "I began to perceive, as another Finnish theologian Ari Hukari has recently done, that TRUTH is merely a matter of a chosen language-game, and therefore limited in its usefulness".

I think you represent mostly the school of scientific realism, while my affiliation reaches the other end of the spectrum (the "neopragmatist" school). This seems to me to be evident enough in your wish to talk about truth values, and my wish to talk about issues without this concept of (absolute) "truth" that has been rendered meaningless in my journey through the field of contemporary philosophy.

Over the years, confronted with many anomalies in the study of history (in the methods historians use), I became persuaded, especially by various neopragmatists, that the clear-cut realist view of the science and argumentation - although a good heuristic tool for actually existing as part of modern society (and enjoying the benefits of computational innovations, thanks) - couldn't be philosophically backed up: in the contest of arguments the postmodern section won.

You will not be surprised when I say that my idea of rationality differs from yours :-)


Bah, postmodernist malarkey. It's basically a wordy cop-out. And by saying that his idea of rationality is different, he's basically trying to give himself a loophole to get out of having to make an argument.

All I can think is to ask him point-blank what his beliefs are. He will probably tell you he can't actually back them up with reason, because his idea of reason is different or some such. If he doesn't have a reason to think it's true, even in a wishy-washy postmodernist sense, then he loses, plain and simple. It will probably come down to "just 'cause," and at that point there really isn't anything you can say except "goodbye."

I didn't realize just how crazy people could get...maybe it's best to just let the sheep be sheep, fleece them and let them graze in peace. I sympathize with your frustration.
Mythman
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby Cephus » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 am

That's exactly it, you have a group of theists who redefine words to suit their purposes at will and couldn't care less if anyone agrees with them or if their arguments make any sense at all. It's ludicrous and they act like they're perfectly reasonable making these ridiculous arguments.
Want to know more? http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com
Religion is a mental disease.
Cephus
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:55 am
Location: Redlands, CA


Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests