Every once and a while I spend a little time looking at what's going on with the struggle between worldviews. Recently, I've been struck by how many of the dominant worldviews are either self refuting, suicidal, or require those who hold them to exempt themselves and their worldview from the same scrutiny they give others. I've recently "discovered" one that seem like it corresponds to a fair amount of what we see in the blog world.
What I believe I am seeing is an updated version of Logical Positivism. This is based on David Hume's contention that reliable knowledge comes in two forms; 1) ideas that are derived from sensation, 2) ideas that are logically necessary, like mathematics. This construct essentially preempts anything but science into the category of knowledge. In other words we must exclude things like; metaphysics, ethics, theology, and aesthetics from what can be known and relegate it to a lesser category.
This was moved down the field into logical positivism with the "verification principal", in essence if something can't be verified empirically, it doesn't just become false, it becomes meaningless. This is why when someone asserts that God exists, isn't a genuine proposition, it's merely an expression of personal opinion. When applied to morality, this leads to the position that morality is fluid and subjective. To suggest that a particular action or behavior is right or good is simply expressing an opinion or subjective personal approval of the action. It's not establishing that some things are right and some things are wrong.
If you apply just a tiny bit of logic, you can see the problem inherent in this philosophy. Which, of course, is that it fails it's own most basic test. It can't be proven empirically. The philosophy had to exempt itself from the rule it applied to everyone else.
While perhaps not a perfect match, I believe that much of this spirit is found on various blogs and social media outlets. It's the demand for undisputed, empirical, proof for anything anyone might offer, while not subjecting one's own beliefs to the same scrutiny. It's the arbitrary use of proof texts to selectively support ones position, while denying the validity of texts from the same source offered by others. It's the people who, when asked "Can you show me actual empirical proof, that is subjected to the scientific method of man made climate change?", respond with either; 1) "We just can't take the chance that the projections might be wrong. or 2) 97% of scientists agree....
It's the people who, when confronted with the possibility that the Bible is the unique, revealed, communication from the God who created the universe to us, respond with "Well first you need to scientifically prove that God exists, then you have to scientifically prove that God is actually able to communicate." and so on.
Personally, I would think that living with a worldview that reduced all of knowledge to only what can be empirically proven (leaving aside the fact that many apply an unreasonable standard of what they will accept as proof) would be a worldview devoid of so much. How sad to be unable to know that you wife lives you. How sad to be unable to communicate to others how much you love them But mostly, I don't think I could live with a worldview that was so self defeating, one that literally can't prove it's own truth.
51 comments:
So, can you answer this...
If the Bible is the "unique, revealed, communication from the God who created the universe..." do you recognize that you can't prove this as a fact? That this is, in fact, an opinion, or at the least, not provable as a fact?
Also, if the Bible is the SOLE authority for matters of faith and morality and knowing of God AND the Bible does not say that it is the Sole Authority, on what basis would you reach that conclusion?
If you say that reasonable humans reasoned their way to it based on some of the words of the Bible, then is that not upsetting the Bible's Sole Authority with human reasoning? Why not?
As you know, I once held that position. I had to abandon it eventually simply because it was, as you suggest about other arguments, it was a self-defeating argument. It didn't hold up to its own internal logic.
Also, IF the Bible is THE source for knowing and we can "truly know" at least some things based on the Bible's words... which things are those? Does the bible give us a list of things we can know with complete confidence? If not (and of course, it doesn't), is it not a human list of things which we can "know" with complete confidence? Or even as a "fact..."? If it is a human list, then which humans can we trust to affirm which things we can "know" as a "fact"?
Your arguments seem to lack internal consistency and fall apart under basic reasonable questioning and I never see anything like a reasonably consistent answer.
As to "it fails it's own most basic test. It can't be proven empirically..." we're back to the whole point of we are not necessarily saying it's demonstrable. We're saying we see NO REASON to accept your hypotheses as facts and, until we have some reason (i.e., hard data, observable data, not mere human opinion), why would we accept your hypotheses?
These are all the questions that remain unanswered.
Finally, re: "How sad to be unable to know your wife loves you..." You fail to get the point. I say we can REASONABLY be confident in all manner of ideas, even if they are not provable as facts. I don't KNOW how electricity or gravity works, but I can see that it does. I don't fall apart if I'm unable to completely know how something works.
So there is nothing sad in admitting reality on those ideas which are not provable and saying, "I can not prove this, but I am comfortable with this answer."
Are you only comfortable with that which you can prove authoritatively? You can't prove that God exists, does that make you uncomfortable or whiney or sad? I don't think it does, it certainly doesn't make me sad.
What is wrong with asking for proof when people make fact claims and separating out what is a fact claim and what is an opinion claim (even opinion claims that we feel confident in)?
Dan
Dan,
I'm not going to delete you, but until you can prove the five claims you've made, as well as prove your underlying premise (that what you can't prove can't be known). I see no reason to answer your questions. Except the last.
Nothing is wrong with asking for proof when making fact claims, I've been asking for you to do so for quite some time.
It's interesting that you proceed to engage in exactly the behaviors I mention, you fail to subject your worldview to the same standard you apply to others, and you promptly start a list of things you exempt from being held to the same standard.
I also feel compelled to point out that this post is not a general forum on worldview, but is a discussion of a particular worldview. As such, I'd appreciate it if you could stay on topic. It would be especially helpful if you could refrain from asking off topic questions, that have been addressed elsewhere.
Thank you.
Dan also chooses to cite "reasonable humans" as if we're to accept his standard of what constitutes "reasonable". To date, he's offered no hard data to support what he believes is "reasonable" other than that which aligns with whatever he's drooling at the moment.
Dan,
I waited a couple of days, and for you to comment elsewhere before I said this.
It's becoming clear that you feel entitled to have your demands met when it comes to these conversations. It's also becoming clear that your likelihood of you engaging in significant conversations outside of your blog are diminishing. It seems as though your desire to exert arbitrary control when you perceive your demands aren't met, and your unwillingness to give up that control has become very important to you.
If that's how you want to roll, I can't stop you. But this whole thing where you disappear when your own "rules" are applied to you is just the height of hypocrisy.
At least have the courage to simply say that you don't want to live up to the same standards you have for others and will only play at your home field.
I'm not sure what you want, Craig. I posted ON TOPIC, agreeing with the notion that some arguments are self-refuting, just like you said, but then made the case that it is some fundamentalist/evangelical arguments that are self-refuting. I supported my reasoning with an explanation and some helpful questions which, if answered, would help make it clear why it is self-refuting and clarify if you agree.
I addressed YOUR specific post claim about "how sad it is..." by explaining why I think you were mistaken in your belief, trying to help you understand our position isn't that we can't be confident in our beliefs, just that we ought not conflate opinion with fact.
You told me that these comments - which seem RIGHT on the topic of your post - would not be addressed until I did something else which I believe I already have done and you keep saying I haven't, so I made no further comment since, why would I?
So, all that to say I don't know what you're looking for. Answers to questions I have already answered? Why? Do you think you will understand the answers this time? Will you even understand that I have answered the questions AGAIN if I answer them again?
To give you just one example:
You keep asking me to re-answer the question about the 95% of black folk voting against the GOP. I made it quite clear that the specific number is not always and forever 95%, it depends upon the election. But the POINT was that the vast majority of black folk vote against the GOP. Thus, the "95% fact claim" was not a specific and all time answer claim. How COULD it be, since that number changes.
So, here it is again: The ACTUAL fact claim, to those who did not understand, was that the vast majority of African Americans vote against the GOP.
Some elections, it might be 95%. Some it may only be 80%. Others 92%. Still others 85%. Another time, it might be 86%. Another election, 90.12%. Another election, it might be 821/2%... DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
I'm sorry if throwing in a random number to represent "vast majority" threw you off. I think most rational people could get the point, especially after I clarified it at least once.
So, the point is, that question HAS been answered, at least twice now, and it shouldn't have even been necessary at all, given that a reasonable person should understand a specific number was not the point.
Same for your other unproven/disproven "five claims" claim. Either I've answered it, or your question was based on a false understanding of my words (I think the latter is most likely for most of them.)
Again, fact claims have different proof requirements than mere opinion claims.
But you do not appear to get that, and that's your problem.
Why not just answer the 5 questions again, then, and be done with it once and for all? You expect people to wade through all the crap you post to find these less than direct responses...even a date and time you claim to have responded would be helpful. But no. You just insist you've answered when obviously what passes for answers from you didn't satisfy. Stop with the tap-dancing and act with some degree of the grace you pretend to favor so greatly.
On topic would be commenting about the specific worldview addressed in the post.
It sounds as though you are saying that your 95% comment was inaccurate. Once again, the claim AS YOU MADE it is factually false on two levels. So, you can acknowledge that or move on.
I'm going to say this once more before you're done here.
You made 5 specific claims of fact. Either you acknowledge the 2 factual errors in your 95% claim and specifically prove the other 4 or I'll delete.
If, as you claim, you've already done so then it should be a simple task to direct and accurately solve the problem you have created for yourself.
I'll give you a hint. Your claim that you proved your "enabling racists" claim, was demonstrably untrue at the time you made it.
I'm trying to show more grace and patience than you, but I'm done enabling your hypocrisy.
It's pretty funny that you spend so much time trying to avoid providing proof of your direct specific claims.
Dan,
When I say "demonstrable" I mean it can literally be demonstrated.
So, if you go to Art's post and to my comment at 10:23 September 6 you'll see that I asked that you prove your claim. Then if you scroll down to the end of the comments you'll see that you didn't.
So, not only is that particular claim unproven, but your claim that you addressed that claim in the thread is just one more lie.
Art, you've seen how much effort Dan has gone to in the effort to not just admit that his 95% claim was factually wrong, can you imagine him actually admitting he was wrong 4 more times?
sigh.
What I literally said...
there have been thousands of elections in thousands of locations over the last half century since the GOP chased out black voters. Do you think it is rational to suppose, "Dan said 95% in this thread. The only possible answer is that Dan thinks exactly 95% of black voters voted Dem in each of these elections.."?
Or isn't it more likely that my point was that a vast majority of black people have abandoned the GOP?
Which of those options is reasonable and which is the answer of an idiot or a racism apologist?
What you said at your 10:23 mark...
Speaking of unproven claims, either provide links and quotes to back up your "racism apologist" claim
If you will look, read and understand the words in the English language, you will see that there IS NO CLAIM. I have made NO FACT CLAIM there. I asked a reasonable question.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND REALITY?
DO you understand the difference between a question and a claim?
Do you understand that, rather than answering the question, you made a false demand that I back up a claim I didn't make?
No, it does not appear that you understand any of that.
Rather than read what follows Craig's Sept 6th comment, I read what came before. Craig cited Dan correctly, and Dan has done no more than qualify the statement later, insisting basically he was generalizing by using that "95%" number. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but it's a pretty specific number to use for the purpose of generalizing. So to once again disparage Craig for once again taking Dan at his word is totally lacking in grace. A more gracious response would have been something along the lines of, "Sorry Craig. I was using the '95%' figure to make a point. I should have just said something like, 'the vast majority of blacks---'95%' in some cases---vote Democrat.'" That would have avoided at least this one false claim, regardless of whether or not the intention required any number at all. Ironically, Dan bristles over citing exact words he says, when we're supposed to focus solely on those exact words and not imagine we know what Dan is thinking. Here, we're supposed to know that Dan was thinking in general terms despite the use of a specific figure.
As to exact words, in that same post, Dan makes another claim regarding my intelligence. He says (paraphrasing) "Art thinks blacks are more stupid than he is." The problem here is that clearly I am not stupid...more clearly is that neither he nor his sock puppet feo have ever proven I'm stupid at all. In short, another baseless truth claim Dan makes no effort to prove to any extent. And again, the lack of the all important grace is glaring. A more gracious and factual alternative would be something like, "Art thinks blacks aren't as smart as he is because they vote Democrat." That's both gracious AND factual, and factual in two ways:
---Art is smart for not voting Democrat
---Blacks who vote Democrat are not as smart as Art
Here's another falsehood (lie) Dan told and repeated in presented what he "literally" said: He claims that the GOP "chased out black voters". I'd love to see him try to back up this steaming pile. Here in the real world, history shows that Dems lured blacks with their various handouts and bribes. Intelligent people of character, regardless of race, see that and the problems it has caused the nation and thus vote for the most conservative candidates available.
Wow, get defensive when held to the standards you demand of others.
As for your original "95%", claim. You claimed that "95% of blacks" vote DFL. Which is clearly not factual. It's interesting that it's taken you multiple explanations on this one to finally settle on one you like. Of course it doesn't addresses your original claim...
So, you phrased your claim in the form of a question. Multiple times in that thread you referred to me a a "racist" or claiming that I have endorsed racism. So, if your question wasn't intended to be one more instance I'd calling me a "racist", then what was it?
If you weren't being so obstinate and evasive about simply doing what you demand others do, I'd give you a pass on that one. But, you're just being an asshole, so I won't.
Clearly Dan is accusing us both of racism simply due to this one false premise: The GOP is racist. Those who vote Republican, or do so generally even if the presidential candidate is not Donald Trump, also falsely accused of racism, are therefore racists, or apologists for racists or enablers of racists.
And of course, Craig, it is as I said above: Dan whines about us saying things about him that he "clearly didn't say". But when we quote his exact words, and comment on nothing but those exact words, we're wrong for not taking it as he intended. So I'm confused as to whether we're to deal strictly with the exact words he types for us to read, or to read his mind if those exact words don't express his intentions accurately. Which do you suppose it is and how can we be sure if he even tells us?
Quoting Dan means nothing, he's accused me of slander for copy/pasting what he's actually said.
Clearly we're having two different conversations and I have little hope that he'll ever accept any sort of biblical case for anything. But I feel like continuing to focus on this one specific example of his double standard, is valuable. For the example if nothing else.
What I don't get is why someone who ostensibly is convicted in his positions won't boldly defend them without all the tap-dancing, two-stepping, equivocation and obfuscation. A true seeker of truth lays all his cards on the table, face up for all to see so that there is no confusion about the seeker's beliefs. Such a person welcomes all scrutiny and criticism for his own sake, as well as for the sake of those he might wish to benefit when he responds with boldness to it all. And good gosh, how much time and keystrokes are saved by doing so!
That you don't understand my defense, explanations or reasoning does not mean I have not laid them out there. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
For instance, how much more clear can I be: I believe it is a basic human right that humans should have the freedom of self-determination, without some religion, gov't or person trying to tell them what they can and can't do (with the exception of causing harm to others).
I repeat: IT IS A HUMAN RIGHT to be self-determining. That is as vital and important as hell. And it is clear.
Do you disagree?
If so, okay. If not, your trouble is with basic reasoning and decency and morality, not understanding me. You understand me fine, if you can understand that much.
But continuing, IF self-determination is a basic Good and Right, then people being free to marry who they wish IS an act of self-determination.
Again, do you disagree? Do you not understand? That IS making a helluva easy and strong case for marriage equity. Whether you agree or understand or not, defending human rights is a pretty noble and vital role for anyone to undertake.
Now, beyond that, if we want to talk about the unprovable, "Does God support marriage equity," we both have gone over in repeated detail our cases for and against this idea. Did you miss all the times I've made my case? Did you read it and just not understand it?
This is just an irrational claim, Marshall, given the tens of thousands of words I have used in making my case to you all. I'm left with either you just don't understand basic English communication or your choosing a self-imposed blindness. Or some other dysfunction with your thinking, I just don't know. All I do know is that if you have not seen me defending my positions, you're missing out on a good bit of basic reality.
That fourth paragraph should have read, "Do you agree?"
So, should I apply Dan's standards or give him grace? WWDD?
As you've ignored elsewhere, if you want to make an argument that the self is the ultimate determinative entity, please do so. It's at least a more honest representation of your worldview. But please, stop trying to dress up your self centered philosophy as if it has any connection to a biblical view.
I've always tried to be quite clear that it is just reality that we, OURSELVES, use OUR reasoning to sort things out, make judgments on things like morality, interpretations, prayers and whatnot. What else do we have but OUR reasoning?
Now, if YOU'D like to make the case that you have some magical other thing besides YOUR reasoning, by all means, make that clear and be honest with your worldview. But then, support it.
The problem is almost certainly that you want to say "the Bible is my determinative entity," but that begs the question, HOW are you understanding the Bible if you're not using your reasoning? You are, of course, like me, you using your reasoning.
And when I use MY reasoning, I find great value in biblical teaching, specifically and especially Jesus' teachings. And so, as a point of fact in the real world, there IS a clear and distinct and real connection to the Bible.
You can't deny reality just because you don't like it.
"But continuing, IF self-determination is a basic Good and Right, then people being free to marry who they wish IS an act of self-determination."
Possibly so. But to demand that everyone recognize and accept that your marriage to your goat is worthy of the same respect as a normal union of one man with one woman is not a right at all, and in fact infringes upon the self-determination of others, such as bakers, florists and those who preach the true teachings of the Christian Bible (to name just a few).
So you go ahead and enjoy your goat, but don't go trying to force everyone else to pretend it's not the abnormal and immoral act it is. The same goes for SSM. No one was stopping them (since Lawrence v Texas) from pretending their unholy and deviant relationships were "marriages". They were free to self-determine their way to shorter lifespans with diseases almost unknown among their hetero counterparts.
So the whine about "equity" is based on a false premise (not surprising given the plethora of lies upon which the LGBT agenda is based), that homosexuals were denied the "right" to enter into lifelong relationships. That was crap and still is. The truth was whether or not they had the right to demand that their relationships provided the same benefits to society as normal marriages. The problem was that government involvement was due to the potential for childbirth, without which the state has no interest in personal romantic relationships. From there, the lies just piled up and liars like you promote those lies as true. Shamefully, you do this with Scripture as well, perverting the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture in order to pretend there is some "Christian" argument for "marriage equity". What an incredible and willful lie!
"Did you miss all the times I've made my case?"
No. But I'm still waiting for responses to the many, many problems with your "case" that you've never, ever addressed. In other words, you've not finished making your case at all and all the thousands of words you've posted are mostly petulant whining that you've made your case in great detail. That's simply not true no matter how many times you say it.
At the same time, you've not come close to providing even soft data that suggests my positions on what Scripture teaches is not true. Again, whine on, but whining doesn't equate to truth.
So I'm neither incapable of understanding your words, nor am I blind to that which has never existed (a solid argument filled with irrefutable evidence). Basic reality is that you've not simply dropped the ball...you've not picked it up and played the game like a man. I'm still waiting patiently for you to do so and willing to hear you out, if only you had the courage to truly engage.
No one is demanding that you "accept" or "recognize" something as horrible as two people in love actually getting married (and comparisons to bestiality are part of the reason you all lost this debate... it's just a nasty, mean and irrational comparison and demonstrates a meanness and pettiness of heart that drives people away from those who do this).
But, just like with those who "don't accept" the "blacks" or the right to marry different races... we don't demand that they accept it at all, BUT, if they run a business, they can't discriminate based on race or marriage choice.
There's a significant difference that "your side" has failed to recognize... another one of the reasons you've lost this debate.
And yes, until very recently, people HAVE been and still ARE putting up roadblocks to gay folk being married, adopting children and otherwise being normal families and citizens. Or just using a simple bathroom!
But, then, at least you are recognizing reality and recognizing I HAVE made arguments about my case and my reasoning. It's not that I've offered nothing, it's that you don't accept my reasoning. Which is fine (see, I don't make you accept my reasoning, you're free to be wrong all day long). But that is a step in the right direction.
But I'm still waiting for responses to the many, many problems with your "case" that you've never, ever addressed.
Name one. Your very best argument for which you think you're waiting for a response. I'm willing to bet it's an idiotic point with an obvious response, but hit me with your best shot.
As to your hunches about the Bible's teachings, I've responded with my hunches. That IS soft data that is every bit as strong as your soft data "supporting" your hunches.
The question remains: Do you recognize that these hunches are OPINIONS held by you, not authoritative facts that you can prove objectively with hard data?
Craig, you wrote in this post...
It's the people who, when confronted with the possibility that the Bible is the unique, revealed, communication from the God who created the universe to us, respond with "Well first you need to scientifically prove that God exists, then you have to scientifically prove that God is actually able to communicate." and so on.
I would just ask, Isn't this only reasonable?
If someone "confronts you with the possibility" that the Quran is the unique revealed communication from God and that any conclusions they draw from their human interpretations of the Quran are therefore, facts, because "Allah..." would you not say that they have an obvious burden to support their rather unbelievable claim?
I suspect that you agree with what you say is an unreasonable demand for proof for all other sacred texts besides the one you favor... at least if those adherents to those books are insisting they have facts because their book told them so. If so, perhaps you can see that it's not odd at all that people do this, yes?
Of course it's unreasonable. It's unreasonable to demand scientific proof for something that science isn't equipped to prove. Different types of claims lend themselves to different types of proof. The problem is that once you make "scientific proof" your standard for everything, you then remove anything that can't be "proven" by science from the realm of being True.
For example, your claim that "95% of blacks" vote DFL. Clearly this claim can't be proven scientifically, but it can be proven. (Or disproven). In this case, you can look at the actual numbers of black voters and average them over time. (Since 1960 it averages out to about 86%). But, since not all blacks vote. If we assume a 56% rate (the same as all voters) that means that less than 30% "of blacks" vote DFL.
But, back to your point, as long as your philosophy excludes certain things from the category of being True based on arbitrary standards, while at the same time exempting itself from those same standards, it seems problematic.
Before I would even begin to discuss appropriate "proof", I would reasonably ask that you scientifically prove that scientific proof is the only standard by which to judge Truth.
I guess if you could do that, I'd consider giving you a pass on the unproven claims stil outstanding.
Also, stop guessing about what I would agree with or wouldn't agree with. It's just you trying to project your biases.
I would suggest that Christianity is the only faith tradition which subjects its central text to as much examination as it does. There is nothing in Ialam that critiques and examines the Koran like the various textual criticism schools of thought in Christianity. By all means, let's subject the Book of Mormon to the level of scrutiny of the Bible.
Seriously, if the Bible is True, then it will stand up to critique, if it's not then it won't.
So, by all means, provide "scientific proof" that the Bible is false. I'd be thrilled to see you do it.
But, first, you have to "scientifically" prove that the only way to discover Truth is through "scientific proof".
Good luck. If you'd like I'll do a special post just for you to do this and will block anyone else from commenting until your done.
I'm not the one making a fact claim. Marshall is. And you are somewhere vague and wishy washy in the middle.
Further, I'm not claiming that "the Bible" is "false." I do have serious doubts, however, about some human interpretations of what THEY THINK the bible is suggesting.
For instance, I do not for a single second think that Genesis is "false." BUT, I have serious doubts about the opinions of people who insist it is a literal history told in a modern style when it seems to fit the mode of myth and epic and other common ancient storytelling styles more aptly.
Understand?
The problem you have, then, is that by your measure (or lack of measure), one has to say that all sacred texts are equally representative of "facts" and can't be doubted or disproven because, well, they are sacred texts and thus, they speak for themselves and are self-validating.
Again: What is your specific, consistent criteria, your rubric for "knowing" a particular text from Sacred Source 1 is a "fact," but Sacred Source 2, 3 and 4 are not facts?
I would suggest that Christianity is the only faith tradition which subjects its central text to as much examination as it does. There is nothing in Ialam that critiques and examines the Koran like the various textual criticism schools of thought in Christianity.
So, how much examination does a text require to be proven "factual," by your reasoning? 100 hours of reading and research by 1000 readers? A million hours of reading and research by 10 million readers?
And what does that mean, exactly, specifically? If it were the case that the Book of Mormon has been studied for 10 million hours and some people find it to be full of excrement and some people think it's a literally factual record of God's ideas, what then? Do a certain number of people need to agree that it's a literal history/record of God speaking? What is that number?
What if one million Mormons all read and studied their Book and 99% found it to be exactly and entirely trustworthy and, thus, a factual record of God's ideas that can be called facts, does that meet your criteria? Or do critics of their Book have to also agree and by what margin?
I need specifics to know if the BoM, the Bible, the Quran and whatever they call Zoro's book are all "fact books," or only some of them.
I sure don't know the data, but with Islam being the second largest religion behind Christianity, and billions of both books being sold, and with both groups being known (to varying degrees) as People of the Book, that the Quran and Bible have both been studied seriously by millions of people over decades and centuries, even. If it's a pure numbers game, does that mean by your measure that the Bible AND the Koran both are Fact Books and people who interpret them (correctly. According to... someone?) are able to know objective facts?
"No one is demanding that you "accept" or "recognize" something as horrible as two people in love actually getting married..."
Obvious and intended problems with the above:
---No is making a claim about "two people in love". Willfully generalizing about something so distinct and specific is lying.
---No one is making a case that two of the same sex can't unite as if married. Another willful distortion of the argument.
---Imposing through judicial fiat and legislating unsupported by the will of the people laws reflecting a false definition of "marriage" is forcing acceptance of the lie in all public and professional arenas. Pretending it matters that one can believe differently while not being allowed to live, work and speak accordingly is a lie and an empty guarantee.
---"Horrible" is enabling anyone who intends to engage in behavior God calls detestable. "Horrible" is the enabler.
"comparisons to bestiality are part of the reason you all lost this debate...etc."
Obvious and intended problems with the above:
---The debate is not over. It is no more over now than it was when the US Supreme Court ruled in the early 1970's (not long after it ruled in the Loving case that marriage was a "right") that homosexuals had no standing to demand their relationships be licensed as marriages.
---Comparisons to bestiality are not nasty, mean or irrational. They are, however, purposely misrepresented by the homosexual activist/enabler. The truth is that it is an appropriate argument given that like bestiality, incest and the like, homosexuality is, according to God, an example of sexual immorality and prohibited.
---What drives people away is the truth of the comparison, not the mention of it. The supporters of sexual immorality, like you, cannot bear the truth that the form of immorality you support is on par with those other examples in that they are all displeasing to God.
If you want an example of inappropriate and deceitful comparisons, there's this:
"But, just like with those who "don't accept" the "blacks" or the right to marry different races..."
Homosexuality is a behavior or the compulsion to engage in the behavior. "Black" is not a behavior in any way. The comparison is a lie told by liars to defend the indefensible.
"...BUT, if they run a business, they can't discriminate based on race or marriage choice."
And this is the issue...that rogue justices and morally bankrupt legislators codified into law the lie that behavior is a parallel to race or gender. No one has the right to force another to act contrary to their firmly held beliefs, particularly their religious beliefs. Liars have forced a conflict of an invented "right" with an actual Constitutionally enumerated right. This is a significant FACT that liars like you refuse to acknowledge in your defense of sexual immorality.
"And yes, until very recently, people HAVE been and still ARE putting up roadblocks to gay folk being married, adopting children and otherwise being normal families and citizens. Or just using a simple bathroom!"
Defending truth is pleasing to God and beneficial to all, including those who perpetuate lies, like the LGBT community and their enablers such as yourself.
"But, then, at least you are recognizing reality and recognizing I HAVE made arguments about my case and my reasoning. It's not that I've offered nothing, it's that you don't accept my reasoning. Which is fine (see, I don't make you accept my reasoning, you're free to be wrong all day long)."
Another willful misrepresentation (or lie). I never said you've never made an argument. I said you haven't finished. Your "reasoning" (a word that doesn't really apply to what you do) is rife with holes you've adamantly refused to address. And while you're so gracious in allowing me to be wrong all day long, I have yet to be on this issue that you've ever been able to prove.
"Name one. Your very best argument for which you think you're waiting for a response."
I've never thought of the facts you won't face in terms of which is "best". But we can begin with one mentioned very recently: the universality of Lev 18:22 (or the entire chapter for that matter). You claim all Levitical law is specifically for the tribes of Israel at the time the law was handed down, and that we can't know if any of it is universal and applicable to Christians today. But if this is true, then why the reference to the prohibited behaviors of the chapter being practiced by the Egyptians and Canaanites? God said, "Don't do as they do". On what basis do you insist that homosexuality is only detestable to the Hebrews in the time of Moses? Are you suggesting that though God said, "don't do as they do", that homosexual behavior wasn't detestable for the Egyptians in God's opinion? God said, "Don't do it. It is detestable." When did He say it no longer is? You've NEVER addressed this, except to say you don't agree, so you don't need to reiterate that. You only need to address on what basis you disagree with what is so clear.
But here is another: On what basis can you make the claim that the word "marriage" in Scripture can mean anything remotely inclusive of two of the same sex? If you cannot provide evidence that even lightly hints at such a ludicrous notion being true, then to suggest that any possible regard in Scripture that marriage is a good thing means also good for two of the same sex to "marry", that's an argument that can't in good faith be used to support your position. It's a lie and thus not evidence at all.
"As to your hunches about the Bible's teachings, I've responded with my hunches..."
Another misrepresentation (lie). I don't have "hunches". I have conclusions based upon verifiable facts concerning what Scripture says. You have preferences that ignore facts from Scripture. As I use actual verses as well as a variety of means by which we can affirm the meaning (though so much more often than not, the meaning is crystal clear to begin with), I provide HARD data. You provide nothing to counter my position or support yours.
"The question remains: Do you recognize that these hunches are OPINIONS held by you, not authoritative facts that you can prove objectively with hard data?"
I recognize that you so desperately want it to be so, not that it is so. I recognize that you subjectively reject facts that don't work for you...that "hard data" is determined by what supports your position, not what exposes truth.
"If someone "confronts you with the possibility" that the Quran is the unique revealed communication from God..."
This is irrelevant given that we're working on the not necessarily factual premise that we're debating another Christian. Why an alleged Christian would suggest that the quran is the revealed Word of God, equal to or more so than the Bible leaves me dumbfounded. So yeah, it's "odd" (deceitful, really) for an alleged Christian to expect that Christian opponents must prove God's existence before proceeding with the debate.
"Further, I'm not claiming that "the Bible" is "false." I do have serious doubts, however, about some human interpretations of what THEY THINK the bible is suggesting."
Until you can support your position in the same way and to the same extent you demand of your opponents, then all you're doing is denying the truth of Scripture. You're claiming it is false on whatever issue is being debated.
More later...
Before you get nuts and start demanding that people do what you want, you need to lay some groundwork. If you won't or can't I'll have to decide how to proceed.
Before anything else, you need to prove the premise that underlies your worldview. Or, put another way, you need to prove your worldview by the standards you demand of others.
Clearly you can't be bothered to prove or retract the 5 fact claims (I guess you kind of weaseled around/retracted one), so instead you have a harder hurdle.
You need to prove that the only things that can be known as facts are those things that can be proven beyond any doubt.
Once you do that, we can move on.
As to your strange comparison, all I ask is that all texts be scrutinized and evaluated by the same standard.
But, that's for another day, you have some proving to do.
I need to "prove" that "facts" are those things which can be proven beyond all doubt?
I have not made that claim, not exactly.
I. It MAY be a fact, that intelligent aliens exist in space and it MAY be a fact that these aliens have visited the earth, for instance. But, if you have not seen them, if you have no hard data that they exist (a space ship, a reliably identifiable artifact, a dead or living alien body, etc), then one can not correctly say they "know" it as a "fact." It's an opinion based on some assumptions and non-conclusive evidence.
II. But, for instance, IF I personally saw the aliens, was taken aboard their space ship and experienced them first hand... but then they left me on earth and departed, leaving NO evidence that they were here... in that case, I KNOW as a fact that they exist, but can't prove it. Nonetheless, it is a fact (assuming I wasn't delusional), just one that can't be proven.
So, empirical facts exist that can't be proven empirically. So, I'm not saying that facts must always be provable, especially/specifically empirical facts about events and the opinions held by entities.
But, what I'm saying is that Marshall's (and yours? You won't step up and be clear, so it's hard to say) claim that it is a FACT that God exists, that God "wrote" the Bible and that we can, therefore, "know" as a "fact" that God opposes gay guys marrying... that claim is much more in the category I. I list above... that is, you all have not heard personally from God that this is what God thinks. You all have not heard from God that you are understanding the Bible correctly. It is an opinion based on some PRESUMPTIONS held by you about the Bible, not a fact... at least not in the empirical sense.
So, my "proof" is just the meanings of words. That is, in the English language, when people are speaking about "facts" about someone's opinion, they are making an empirical claim of known data and should be able to support it, or explain why they aren't able to support it.
For instance, if Marshall said, "God came to me in the form of a Holy Donkey and said to me, Marshall, you are correct! Then the Holy Donkey flew away to heaven, leaving the room smelling of lavender and vanilla!!" then he "knows" he's correct about his "fact" because of first hand experience. But Marshall is not saying that. It appears he's saying that IF you hold the unprovable assumptions that he holds, THEN it seems quite reasonable to him to reach his conclusion.
But not everyone holds those assumptions, so it's just not quite the same thing as a "fact," not in the sense that it is used in the English language.
Does that make sense?
~Dan
So, your saying that you don't have to provide proof for the presumptions that underlie your worldview. Great place to start.
It's becoming more clear, that your likely to offer excuses to avoid providing proof for what you believe, than to actually provide proof.
The problem is that proof is a moving target with you. You continue to demand "empirical" proof for metaphysical things. So, why bother offering anything when you've already rejected it.
You won't prove your claims, you won't prove the truth of your worldview, hell you'll barely even have the spine to make a definitive claim or stand by the few you do make.
You're insistence that the only things you'll accept as fact is that which can be "empirically" proven, simply means you've established a standard that can't be met. This allows you to avoid engaging with things that don't meet your standard, of course you choose to ignore that your own standard doesn't meet your standard.
If you can't establish a basis for your worldview, then what good does it do to argue about details? You criticize others for what you perceive as "assumptions", yet exempt your assumptions from the same scrutiny.
So, once again, if you want to go furthe, you need to provide the proof that the assumptions that underlie your worldview. Hell, you need to prove that it possible to prove things to the level you demand.
I'd suggest a couple of excellent resources that might help you, but it's simply wasted effort.
your saying that you don't have to provide proof for the presumptions that underlie your worldview. Great place to start.
I'm saying that in the English language, "fact" means something. I've cited that definition. It just means something. Now, if you're operating from a different definition of the word, that's fine, but if you're operating with that definition, well, then provide the objective, observable, demonstrable data.
The presumption is that we're using the same English word and with a common meaning. What is it you want me to "prove..."?
The notion that we communicate in English and "fact" is an English word with a meaning is not so much a claim, but just what is.
Is it the case that you all are speaking of "fact" in some way other than the normal meaning of the word?
hell you'll barely even have the spine to make a definitive claim or stand
If I think that my OPINIONS about God ARE opinions and that they're not provable, does it make sense that I would make a definitive claim? It seems like you're asking me to do something that is counter-logical, given what I think is self-evident, what I see in the available data.
It sounds like you all are upset because I don't hold the same presumptions you do and don't hold dialog sharing your presumptions, but that's just the way it is. Why would I argue based on your presumptions and not the ones that make sense to me?
I mean, I do try to meet you half way in offering my biblical case for why, in part, I think things, as someone influenced by biblical teaching. But I don't hold that the Bible is a rulings book or The Sole Source for knowledge, so why would I insist on trying to make a case solely on biblical texts?
It sounds a bit like you're saying, "Dan, assume that the Bible IS the Sole Source for knowledge and that it IS a rulings book from God... given that, make your case...." when I don't hold that assumption and think that assumption is a failed one, both rationally and biblically. So, I'm not going to argue that way or take on those assumptions. Why would I?å
No, what bothers me, is that you label your worldview as opinion, then act as if it's s fact.
If, for example, you truly felt that your opinion about Genesis as myth was only opinion, then why would you not show humility and grace toward those with a different opinion? Why would you insist that others accept your opinion that the earth evolved over millions of years as "reality"?
Why would you demonize someone for merely disagreeing with your opinion?
Of course, it is frankly bizarre to find someone who is completely unwilling to assert almost anything as fact.
You hang so much on your opinion about how you claim that the Bible is "clear" about wealth, you criticize those who don't agree, yet you don't have the spine to make a definitive claim.
Honestly, you just don't get it. It's not about details or specifics, it's about your unwillingness or inability to do two things.
1. Demonstrate that you subject your worldview to the same level of scrutiny that you do others.
2. Admit that you have made fact claims, and admit that you will/won't provide the same level of proof you demand of others.
Everything else you're bringing up here is just a smokescreen to divert attention from those two things.
I identified 5 specific claims you made (none of them were phrased as opinion, nor prefaced by anything to indicate opinion), and instead of simply proving proof that your claims were factual or admitting that you misspoke, you've wasted countless hours and time to try to avoid doing so.
If you want to keep filibustering and avoid what should be a simple task, that's fine. I'll even give you as much room as you need.
But until, you prove your claims factual and your worldview correct, I see no reason to indulge your rabbit trails.
why would you not show humility and grace toward those with a different opinion?
They are free to disagree with my opinion. They are free to hold other opinions. How is that not exhibiting grace and humility? Are you suggesting we should give a pass to people who hold the opinion that their opinion about it is a fact? Because fact claims require support that opinion claims do not.
Why would you insist that others accept your opinion that the earth evolved over millions of years as "reality"?
I've never insisted that.
You hang so much on your opinion about how you claim that the Bible is "clear" about wealth, you criticize those who don't agree, yet you don't have the spine to make a definitive claim.
I think your problem is one of understanding words. If we can't prove our ideas on empirical claims, they are opinions, not "known facts." But that is not to say that all opinions are equally valid. Someone may read the Bible and say that it justifies slavery because God is cool with it and that's all that matters and thus, they will work to legalize slavery.
That is a stupid ass opinion. I can't prove that God would disapprove of slavery, but I don't need to. There are other reasons to oppose slavery that don't require God's approval or disapproval. Not all opinion claims are equally valid or equally benign. I will strongly make my case against slavery, or in favor of simple living or in being wary of wealth accumulation... I will make my case in a variety of ways and do so strongly because I think a strong case can be made and it matters. Especially if we're talking slavery! Or women's rights. Or LGBTQ rights. Our opinions matter because laws have been enacted that have caused harm and it's legitimate to oppose harm.
1. Demonstrate that you subject your worldview to the same level of scrutiny that you do others
I do. When I make fact claims, I provide the data to support them, if asked. If it's truly an obvious and known claim, I may merely suggest a simple google search, but that IS support. For instance, if someone argued that the world is flat, I may not personally hand him a bunch of data, I'd tell him it's obvious and look it up. I wouldn't waste too much time trying to prove the obvious. At any rate, I DO hold my fact claims to the same level of support that I hold others to.
The same is true for opinions. I hold my opinion claims to the same degree of support I hold others to. Which is to say, I don't expect them to "prove" something that is not provable. I just ask that they recognize that it's not provable.
2. Admit that you have made fact claims, and admit that you will/won't provide the same level of proof you demand of others.
It's not reality, at least not generally speaking (I am not perfect so I'm sure there's a chance it happens, but not generally). In the times where some (like you) THINK I have made a fact claim, it is almost always the case that they/you have misunderstood.
Where I make fact claims, I support them or am willing to do so. I expect the same from you.
That you expect me to support these makes me wonder, do you expect Marshall to support his, as well? Because I haven't seen you do that.
No, what bothers me, is that you label your worldview as opinion, then act as if it's s fact.
By all means, try to offer one time where this has happened, where I have not clarified the misunderstanding for you.
For instance, your oft-repeated, oft-debunked "95%" misunderstanding... it's not the case that I was making a fact claim of 95%, but of "the vast majority." You misunderstood the point. I clarified... and yet you KEPT "misunderstanding" the point, even after clarification. That is belligerent self-deception and false claims on your part, not a fault on my part.
But by all means, offer another example that hasn't been debunked already. WHERE have I offered an opinion as a fact?
~Dan
And label my "worldview" as opinion or specific claims? I don't know that worldviews are anything but opinion for anyone, are they?
As to my opinions - like God exists, we have too many personal automobiles and too much pollution, simple living is preferable to extravagant wealthy living, be wary of accumulating too much wealth... - I'm not "labeling them as opinions..." they are, IN FACT, opinions. In what way do you think, for instance, that I'm treating the opinion "God exists" as a fact? Or that "we should be wary of wealth accumulation" as a fact? What does that even mean to treat it as a fact?
I think it is a clear biblical teaching in my opinion and that opinion is supported by the many times that speaks of God's concern for the poor or God's anger for the wealthy, and just the general biblical tone towards wealth and poverty. I think it is clearly a consistent concern in the Bible, but where is the fact claim in that? That the topic comes up frequently? Okay, I can support that. I can demonstrate that the words "wealth, poverty, rich, poor" show up in the Bible as often, give or take, as "sex, sexuality, adultery..." I can point to other topics and show the relative preponderance of words. It's do-able.
But assigning MEANING to those words, that is the realm of opinion. "Those many biblical teachings mean, I think and others have said, that God has a preference for the poor..." THAT is opinion. it is a reasonable opinion IF one takes the Bible's teachings seriously and IF one believes in God... but it is still an opinion.
Right?
And what is wrong with calling opinions "opinions..."?
Not having the time to peruse all recent comments, what I've seen can be summed up more simply: Dan will do anything to avoid having to defend his defense of sexual immorality as having any basis in Christian teaching. He'll even go so far as to equate Scripture with the "holy books" of other faiths, and even force defenders of truth to prove God's existence as if those defenders are necessarily debating atheists. Nothing is more important than protecting the proliferation of sexual immorality.
More later.
"When I make fact claims, I provide the data to support them"
I've tolerated quite a bit, but this flat out lie is just too far.
I've identified 5 claims of fact you have made, either do what you just claimed you do and provide data, admit that you can't prove your claims, or admit that the above is a lie.
I've been patient, I've allowed you to filibuster, I've shown more grace than you, but this flagrant lie is not going to stand.
I do have to give you credit for chutzpah. You are the only person I know who will attempt to assert something as "reality", then try to pass it off as opinion.
Dan,
You did not make a case at all. You simply re-stated your beliefs. Making a case requires explaining how you came to believe as you do...why you hold the opinions you do. It requires evidence, facts, hard data. As such, we're all well aware of what you believe...just not how you can come to believe it, especially given what Scripture says so clearly and unambiguously (with regard to sexual immorality in particular).
With regard to living one's opinions as if those opinions are facts, I don't see the problem here. Unless you're leaving yourself an out should a desirable opportunity presents itself.
It's called "conviction". This isn't the first time your comments implied you are not convicted in your beliefs. It does, however, explain a lot.
Dan,
I told you what would happen, and you thought that more filibustering an intimidation would work. Instead I just get more of the same crap.
I'll give you a hint, and take the "95% of blacks" comment off the table, leaving you 4 to deal with.
The problem (I pointed this out before, but you appearantly ignored it) are as follows.
1. The % of black voters averaged about 86% since 1960, and would go down further the further back you go.
2. If blacks vote at roughly the same % as the rest of the population, then less than 60% of blacks vote.
So the real actual % of blacks that vote democrat is about 48%.
This your problem. Of course, the multiple excuses (it's common knowledge and doesn't have to be verified), etc.
All you had to do was just say you made a mistake, but that's just not how you operate.
4 claims left, prove them, retract them, or keep filibustering. It would have taken you less time to look for them than it did to write 3 comments full of BS.
Art, it's about presenting support for your beliefs, evidence, data.
But Dan's been clear enough, his beliefs are self evident. He's all about self determination. All that matters is that they make sense to him.
Dan
In the spirit of grace, I'll make one more concession. If you will be clear that any mention of "racist" or "apologist" for racism, were not in any directed at me and apologize for the appearance of calling me a racist, I'll take that off the table leaving you with only 3 claims to prove.
As there are only three left with this concession, I encourage you to list them so Dan can no longer claim he has no idea what you mean. Just a suggestion.
You're probably right, it's a pretty swamped week, but I'll try. He most likely won't do anything anyway.
Post a Comment