Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Practical Philosophy » Conservatives are as irrational as liberals » 1/15/2019 1:25 pm

I’ve gradually been moving towards the right in the last several years, partly as a result of seeing how pigheaded the left can be when it comes to issues they feel stronly about. Unfortunately, I’ve been realizing the right is really not much better. Just a few examples off the top of my head:

1.Whenever the overwhelming physical evidence of 9/11 being a controlled demolition is mentioned, or the fact that there are now more than 3000 credential architects and enginners (and growing) who question the official narrative of what happened, they act exactly like an SJW who was just triggered by something Donald Trump said. There is no rational debate with these state-idolaters. God fobrid that they would have to rethink some things about their foreign policy stance in the last decades. That’s just too hard.

2.Drugs. This one is really, really bizarre. I can read as many books about the topic as I possibly can, list all the relevant scientific and historical information, use sound arguments, but they will never be convinced that drug use is not inherently wrong, and that it does not inevitably lead to death, disease, social disfunction. They will never grasp rationally with the idea of drug harms being more a function of a certain type of user, not so much the drug itself. They won’t even consider the idea that, in some ways, their own demonization might be fuelling the very problems they are concerned about. And as if that weren’t enough, many of them make a completely arbitrary exception for alcohol, which just happens to be the most poweful intoxicant known to man. And I’m not even going to talk about law and policy. The problem is the basics.

These are just two examples I’ve been infuriated about as of late. There are several more.

Insufferable. I feel like there really is no hope for humanity.

Practical Philosophy » 19 ugly truths about addiction that nobody wants to look at » 3/08/2018 5:59 pm

19 ugly truths about addiction and recovery that nobody wants to look at

Some people really fall for the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker, and that leads to a lot of unnecessary pain. But here’s what’s really going on with addiction, treatment, and recovery – they are social constructs that are killing us:

The entire concept of addiction – a state in which people are involuntarily using drugs/alcohol, and incapable of stopping – is a myth, and a harmful one at that.
Anyone can voluntarily stop using substances at any time, but we agree to play along with the myth of addiction because it serves other selfish purposes.
Moral crusaders created the myth of addiction to scare people out of using alcohol and other drugs.
Parents like the myth of the “disease of addiction”, because it absolves them of any potential guilt/shame for being “bad parents.”
Heavy substance users like the myth of addiction because it gives them a socially acceptable excuse to keep using drugs and alcohol.
“Addiction treatment” is a sham treatment for a fake disease, and results in no greater success at getting over a substance use problem than if people received no help whatsoever.
Parents, spouses, other family members, and moral crusaders like addiction treatment because it allows them to tell substance users how to live their lives while not appearing to do so. Ordering people to stop drinking/drugging is reframed as generously offering “the gift of treatment.”
It’s impossible to recover from a fake disease. So “treatment” for “addiction” and “recovery” from it is nothing more than a charade – a ritual and a show that we put on for each other.
“Working on recovery” is a show that heavy substance users put on to save face, and to signal to society and their families that they’re sorry, and trying to conform and live up to cultural standards.

Religion » China on course to become ‘most Christian nation’ by 2030 » 3/08/2018 3:37 pm

seigneur wrote:

What if China also becomes most Muslim nation at the same time?

Hehe yeah, well it’s already the most atheist. So the most atheist, the most Christian and the most Muslim?

Religion » China on course to become ‘most Christian nation’ by 2030 » 3/08/2018 3:09 pm

Miguel wrote:

"Most Christian nation" = nation with highest number of christians, even if the vast majority of Chinese are not Christians?

I suppose the Vatican is the least Christian nation then

That might soon be Somalia.

Religion » China on course to become ‘most Christian nation’ by 2030 » 3/08/2018 9:57 am

“...By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world...”

Chit-Chat » What effect does holding YEC have on the grounds for holding PSR? » 3/07/2018 6:02 pm

As far as I’m aware, most creationists don’t hold to the view that you describe in [4]. They have developed models that purport to explain the issue without it being deceitful. So, it’s a false dichotomy.

For example, there’s Russell Humphreys’ model that has something to do with general relativity and gravitational time dilation, and there’s John Hartnett’s model, etc.

Whatever we think of these models, they don’t fit your description.

Practical Philosophy » Is Christianity compatible with nationalism? » 2/24/2018 4:17 pm

If Anthony D. Smith is correct, the ‘core doctrine’ of nationalism consists of the following:

1. humanity is divided into nations, each with its own character, history and destiny;
2. the nation is the sole source of political power;
3. loyalty to the nation takes precedence over other loyalties;
4. to be free, human beings must belong to a nation;
5. nations require maximum autonomy and self-expression;
6. global peace and justice can only be built on the basis of a plurality
of free nations.

It would seem to me that at least 3 is highly problematic for a Christian. Possibly some of the others as well.

What do you think?

Introductions » Hello » 2/24/2018 12:48 am

Welcome. May you find what you seek here.

Chit-Chat » Lawrence Krauss Faces Allegations Of Sexual Harassment » 2/23/2018 8:18 pm

Not exactly small talk, but this is probably the best poace to put it.

“BuzzFeed News has learned that the incident with Hensley is one of many wide-ranging allegations of Krauss’s inappropriate behavior over the last decade — including groping women, ogling and making sexist jokes to undergrads, and telling an employee at Arizona State University, where he is a tenured professor, that he was going to buy her birth control so she didn’t inconvenience him with maternity leave. In response to complaints, two institutions — Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario — have quietly restricted him from their campuses. Our reporting is based on official university documents, emails, and interviews with more than 50 people.”

Theoretical Philosophy » What is the best atheism has to offer? » 2/23/2018 6:51 am

seigneur wrote:

Ouros wrote:

For what I've saw of him, Jeffery Jay Lowder is good. Still, he's not a professional philosopher if I remember well.

Lowder's best work is collected here It represents what I'd call a formalistic approach, if you are into that kind of stuff.

Secular Outpost is a blog that Lowder and Bradley Bowen started. The main blogger these days is Bradley Bowen who has responded to very many current theistic arguments in a serial manner in excruciating detail. This includes one of Feser's Proofs fairly recently. Right now Bowen is busy with an argument from Kreeft, and in the past with Plantinga, Craig, etc.

Keith Parsons, whom Feser debated in writing, moderated by Lowder (a good debate, worth checking out), is also a co-blogger at Secular Outpost.

Lowder's and Bowen's method is propositional logic. They go about things rationally, defining each concept at every step. Ordinarily their rebuttals involve either declaring a premise in the opponent's argument vague or introducing an irrelevant distinction at some point. They use "science says" arguments rather moderately.

The best about them is their attitude. They are openly anti-New Atheist. When engaging with theism, they firmly believe they are dealing with serious, though flawed, arguments and with serious, at least historically formidable, opposition.

And I personally would recommend some readings in the good old genre of naturalizing the Bible narrative, such as Ernest Renan's Life of Jesus or Thomas Mann's The Tables of the Law. Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, based on Nikos Kazantzakis' novel, and Monty Python's Life of Brian also fall in the same category. The genre emerged

Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum