The Fallacy of Belief: modernity and its tells.

This guys seems to do a pretty good job of laying out some flaws in Christian thinking.

via The Ridiculousness of some Christian Arguments — Christianity Simplified

Comment:

Notice that his argument is being made against claims of another theorist in the debate.

One should ask how it is possible that he can move from the specific theoretical claim made by another person to the actualities of occurrence in the world.

This should really be the debate.

I have to laugh at his arguments because they are so good and so true; I am not denying his rebuttal for Christianity. I wish I could have heard the other guys too though.

The real issue, or the issue of the real, doesn’t have anything to do with who made the stronger points. As I have said elsewhere, there is no argument that can change what I believe about God because I have no belief. And those, including this dude we hear, who is placing his whole being upon his ability to make claims about what people believe, is himself a believer, and can just as well have his beliefs changed upon a good argument. As well as all those others who believe in the power of human thought as a divinely inspired tool.

The plain fact is that millions of children will die every day regardless of what anyone believes. This is a fact. It has only to do with belief in as much as people have beliefs that frame how the world is supposed to be. Just like Doctor Coolness Smooth Sam in the video. Can he offer a different belief that does not consider why or how these children die that prevents them from dying? Science? Rationality?Lets hear some moral arguments about these beliefs, huh?

Is it any less moral for him to participate in this debate while a 17 year old junkie just overdosed and died 3 blocks away because of such arguments against Christianity (such as Sam’s) that told him not to do into the church that day because Christianity is a stupid superstition, than it is that people buried children in post holes? Is Sam any less responsible than the post-hole diggers?

Oh yeah; for the debate he is. This is an entirely different situation…

Lets get a little real here. OK Sam.

And lets put the most significant feature of his oh so great anti-Christian argument: Shall we mention that this debate, is taking place in a Christian institution, that the manner by which he is making his name, his holier-then-thou white guy suave, is through the idea of Christianity? By virtue of Christianity he gets to make a living (in this moment at least) Shall we ask where  and how his clothes were made, how much money he spent in it?

I am fairly confident that if he was so offended by the beliefs and activities of Christians that he could make a better moral statement by not having theoretical discussion in an institution that makes claim to The Mother of God in its namesake, Notre Dame.

Lets face it: His corcern and passion for morality is an act. It is a strict performance that argues itself as substantial through its own implicit assertion of power: We call this privilege. He doesn’t have anymore concern for the millions of children dying in the name of Christianity than he does for the lint in his pocket. He whole purpose is to make name for himself on the substance of substance-less claims. Despite Christianity being a narcissistic belief, he should more look at himself and his own mode of operation.

Hes a sham. The debate is a sham. Sam Harris does not care about the children; he cares about the debate. Thats all. He is arguing for his own religious belief that is supposedly more moral than that of the “superstition” of Christianity.

It was a debate that has no more substance than the one I have in my head over what shampoo I should use today.

Should I wear my $24 socks that have a picture of Einstein on them, or my $15 socks that absorb moisture so well?

Maybe its Einstein today. Im feeling on top of the world.

Ah modernity. The perfect world.

Oh. Not also to mention that people do not hold beliefs based in what arguments can be made. The whole methodology that sees itself in a unitive category is itself is based in a type of thinking that at best we should call disorganized and at least largely unreflective.

In short, I think the discussion about the existence of God and various theological justifications, in as much as there are indeed people who feel that such discussions are important, nevertheless, are evidence or part of a kind of thinking that upholds qualifiers for existence that are of a different kind or of a different order than thinking that considers what is true.

Here is an example of how we could begin to distinguish types of philosophy. And which types are good for which areas of problem.

Here we thus have the need to make notice of offence, accept it not as a negation of it, to thereby be able to discuss true aspects of what humanity does. Not what is ‘more true’ to thereby propose to eliminate it as an incorrect appropriation of what is effectively transcendent knowledge, but an approach to truth that takes examples of belief as true situations not to be discounted, but only left to those who see it as important. To hence locate facts of humanity. Not so much as an ironic analysis of primitive belief, but merely ‘belief’ as a religious term, the use of which located an effective religious structure.

Religion: that state characterized by a supported organization that does not reflect upon itself, except through diversionary tactics which avoid its own inherent disorganized conceptual foundations.

44 thoughts on “The Fallacy of Belief: modernity and its tells.

  1. But, kind sir, no belief is still belief, isn’t it? Lol! In matter of belief, I think I will go by what many enlightened ones said – that all these lead to one mountain. Maybe we follow a path of faith that is in accordance to our own maturity. I was raised a Christian but even at an early age there were traditions I noticed that did not sit well with me — and so I deviated. In a country that is largely Catholic, taking a path that is different from Christianity is not easily understood. It means being on your own and, worse, labeled as cultic.

    1. We must believe, yes. Because we can not exit the world before us, and this real world has belief.

      I would say ‘being on your own’, as you say, is more heretical than like a cult member. To say, as I do, I have no belief around God to discredit or confirm is heretical, because In a way —I mean I just said, we must believe. So I am indicating an absence rather than an existence or substance. People don’t like that. 😆 but also, in a way, it can appear I am being dishonest.

      Because, what is belief? I suppose this question goes to a more basic ideal: What does it mean to have belief or to believe?

      1. A concept is different for each person. So my definition of belief may be different from yours. Really, does it matter? For as long as we are comfortable with our concept, then we can live in peace. My idea of God differs from others – but it is better to follow that idea where my heart rests easy than to follow the herd while my soul has many questions. If I appear dishonest, heretic or cultic, I can sleep soundly at night because my soul is at peace.

      2. And I would suggest that your peace has nothing to do with believing anything. But as you say, that’s just my version of belief. 😁

      3. We view people based on how we view ourselves. Hence, I think you are having belief by non-belief — while you think my peace has nothing to do with belief. Lol! Sometimes, I want to be easy in how I express my views in writing thinking I might come across like the subject of your post. On the other hand, it is a personal blog and therefore we can express our personal opinions and it is up to the reader what to think of it.

      4. I think there is a loose thread somewhere. It took me a while to notice your December 22 cement-dirt thoughts, and reply to them — somewhere.

  2. I am wondering if the thoughts you have. I am guessing. But I’m thinking that in the context of me not believing you (but I think more you notbelieving me). You have a certain, what you figure is compassion, maybe praying to God or Jesus that he come into my life; a sort of pity maybe.

    Would that make you better than me? Like. A better human?

    I mean, I always eventually come back to it, but the end run here has got to be that you get to have eternal life. An eternity of happiness and contentment with God, I suspect.

    What happens to me?

    In you mind, in the last judgment, what happens to me?

    1. On more than one occasion, you have made it clear that you aren’t concerned about “Judgment Day.” If there is one, you will simply accept whatever God does. So, in asking me what I think will happen to you on “Judgment Day,” I’m assuming that you are just coming at the “are you better than me” question from another angle.

      I’m not better than you. I don’t think I’m better than you. I do pray for you. I don’t feel pity for you. I do think judgment is a part of our story. And, I do think that Jesus is our only hope for grace, mercy, and the quality of life that humanity was created for.

      Have a great holiday with your family!

  3. ***. Here I got a good one I think; not directly about our conversation right this second but our ongoing conversation:

    OK. Let’s say there is this person that didn’t know how to walk very well. And they would walk on the sidewalk and they would fall down all the time and hurt themselves.

    this person starts to understand that this thing that he was planting his face and nose and elbows and hips and butt upon is called “cement”. As he learns to walk, he reaffirms for everyone he knows (who all have this odd walking problem) that ‘cement’ is that which can punish them. But also teaches them to walk without getting hurt. So everyday all the time he and they repeated themselves cement cement cement is this cement is that that is cement cement does this cement does that. Then eventually they come to rely upon the cement and they don’t have to per claim cement everywhere in order to walk and rely upon the cement and not be hurt but be utterly supported by it.

    They meet some other people and the other people say dirt. And at first they get in the battles over whether it is cement or whether it is dirt. But then eventually they realize that they’re talking about the same thing.

    Perhaps Jesus and God and all I and Krisna. Are different terms to talk about the same thing that all human beings experience and go through in one way or another.

    Some people go about their lives saying ALlah. And they hear other people saying Christ and they say that person is a heretic we need to destroy that person.

    Other people say Buddha and then they hear other people saying Jesus and they say we need to destroy that person they are incorrect and they are totally wrong.

    Perhaps once Jesus comes into a persons life and becomes effective it no longer becomes an object of faith but it becomes merely something that is a part of the person that they feel no need any longer to express to other people because they are the example of the case.

    What you think about that?

  4. But as to your question to me: I’d say that millions of humans die each day regardless of what they believe. Christians die terrible deaths. As do atheists, as muslims. As some other believers do all the time.

    1. My questions were:

      What is the context of that fact? What is the story we all share within which that fact occurs?

      Does this fact matter and why does it matter? Does each of those children matter and why do they matter?

      1. The fact matters because it rebuts his Christian context for his argument. Because he’s saying that Christianity is responsible morally for such a myopic and narcissistic faith.

        I’m saying that Christians are not responsible for that morality. Or that people would die anyways, even if I was. Buddhist. He is using Christian morality against itself. I’m just saying people make what ever sense they have Available to them, just like Sam is.

        And I don’t think it matters.

        On the ground, I might want to do something to help people, but the fact is I still have a 70” television and Pay stupid amounts of money for cable tv and live in a nice nieghborhood. I do what I can; nothing wrong with that, and if millions of people die per day, nothing wrong with that either —. Except in as much as I think I can help in some manner, which I do sometimes, where I can.

      2. I don’t give up all my things for the sake of the millions who are dying. But, I think people’s lives matter, and I think I have some responsibility to people as they suffer.

      3. Perhaps I am being presumptive, but I can imagine that the discrepancy between your lived life, it’s luxury in comparison to millions of other Christians, your desire to help and your inability to give up your luxurious lifestyle, might be understood as an inherent and inescapable condition of sin, that is reconciled through Christian faith ?

      4. I don’t know if there are any clear, easy routes through this fallen world. But, I think the Christian story shows God opening gracious and hopeful routes for us. I would like to walk faithfully on my route.

      5. So. What about the babies put into foundation holes so that God would keep the building up?

        And what about the millions of people who die so you can live your happy life?

      6. I don’t know anything about babies put into foundation holes so that God will keep the building up.

        Millions of people are dying so I can live my happy life? I don’t know what you are referring to.

      7. We live in a global economy. there is no more reasonable segregation of effect; everything is interrelated. At some point in the recourse chain, people, and probably christians, are being abused. This means that the life I live is based upon abuse. To deny this, I think, is to live in a fantasy land.

        I don’t know about the postholes either, but I bet there is documented history of Christians who would place babies into holes under their houses so that God would bless their house. He wouldn’t have been able to say that if it were not documented.

        But perhaps that is why I say: Yes God makes it so; part of the plan. But that also thats just the way it is, that I do not have a moral obligation to saving millions who’s lives go into my luxurious lifestyle. that is, to abandon my ‘world goods’.

      8. Yes, I think that this world is a mess, and the complexity of the mess is beyond our comprehension. But, I don’t think that’s just the way it is. I think we do have obligations to each other.

      9. Can someone else have an encompassing reason that is not the same as yours, but cannot explain it to you to convince you theirs also explains everything?

      10. Feel free to try one out. But, how does anyone know if it explains everything if it can’t be explained?

      11. There are many things that I know are true that I cannot convince you of their truth. And apparently there is something that is true to you that you are unable to convince me as to its truth. Isn’t that evidence that there are at least two truths that are different from each other?
        Just hypothetically, I would think the fact that you cannot convince me of the truth of your truth shows that what you feel is has the most explanatory power somehow fails at least at some points. Just the bare facts – I mean think of how many people are in the world. There is like 7 billion people. Even if 1 million people could not see what you see so obviously, to me doesn’t mean they’re stupid or ignorant, it means that they have an explanation that is just as full and complete as yours.

      12. … I mean regardless of whether not they can explain it to you. Maybe they don’t want to explain it to you doesn’t matter whether not they want to explain it to you or not. ? Why is the criterion of whether or not the biggest story has the most explanatory power based on the fact that someone would want to explain it to you? Is there some sort of imperative that says the most complete story must be accompanied by an impetus to explain it to everyone?

      13. Is there something you can say about obligations that human beings have to each other — and lead me to a boundary of unexplainability in that conversation?

      14. Obligations exist because they do. There is no requirement for an explanation of why I care. God allows for it. That’s all.

        If there is more explanation you require for it to have significance, then that is a boundary that exists, since there is no explanation I can make to you that will satisfy you until I agree with your Big explanation. That is a boundary.

      15. That doesn’t sound like much of a foundation on which to build relationships with other people. The “why” is tremendously important. Otherwise, you could simply not care about — or even harm — a person and it wouldn’t matter. I don’t think that’s the case. I think that, in general, caring about people is good, and not caring about people is not good. And, I think there are essential reasons why it’s good to care about people.

        I hope that agreement with my “Big explanation isn’t at the core of this. I think humanity shares an essential story, and I think it will help us to know what that essential story is.

      16. The simple fact is that regardless of what people think is the reason for their compassion, they still have compassion. Just because I may be free to harm someone does not that I will or that I am able or that I want to There are atheists who are loving and there are Christians who are hateful. Having no cause for me to care about people does not convince me to not care. I still care. And so do billions of people, Christian or not.

        I could care for someone because I like their toenails. It may not make sense to you, but to me that is a reason to care for someone. If they don’t have toe nail fungus then I really care about them.

      17. Here’s one::

        Did God make you understand the Bible as the big story? Or did God put the big story out there on the planet and then people get to decide on their own whether or not it is God story?

      18. Perhaps the story is that we make stories? That it works so well that once a story makes sense to a person it is nearly impossible to change their mind about it. 🎄

      19. I’m not all that interested in who has the moral high ground — Christians, non-Christians, Athiests, Toenail Fungus Lovers. But, I am interested in a ground for compassion. Liking toenail fungus as an impetus for compassion doesn’t seem very sound. It seems like it would be just as legitimate for me to dislike people with toenail fungus.

        I think I was born into The Big Story. (When you see those words “The Big Story,” you don’t necessarily have to read that as “Dave’s Version of The Big Story.” Most broadly, I’m referring to humanity’s story; the essential story we all share.) However, I also think that God has revealed Himself and critical parts of our story in The Bible.

        I think it’s true that we make stories, but I don’t think “the story is that we make stories” is a good, essential summation of our story.

      20. I think. Even if the human being species was hard wired to come to the conclusion of the Big Story sense such that reason would imply that God made it so, it would only mean that God hardwired is that way. That The Story is still just a story that makes sense in a certain context.

        But you and I have gone on for years. And I don’t think either of us has nudged from both of our Big Story sense. In fact it seems very obvious to me that we have two senses of what the Big Story is really saying. And that neither of us is going convince the other either way. 🙂🌈

  5. “The plain fact is that millions of children will [suffer and] die everyday.”

    What is the context of that fact? What is the story we all share within which that fact occurs?

    Does this fact matter and why does it matter? Does each of those children matter and why do they matter?

      1. Merry Christmas!

        I did listen to him. Those are questions that I would ask him.

        Central to his comments in that video clip is the idea that a god who allows such horrors is either evil or impotent. I think there is power in this thought. And a question like, “If God is able to stop the painful death of a child, why doesn’t God stop it?” is an important question.

        I would not respond by appealing to the mystery of God or to Divine Command theory. I am finding certain events within The Bible’s story to be more helpful as I ask questions like the one immediately above.

      2. Perhaps I agree with you in a way, because in one sense I would say “yes god is allowing for all those deaths”.

        But I don’t think the non Christians who die would goto hell.

        But also the millions of children dying I would say is terrible. But I don’t look to God to explain it.

        And putting children in post holes. Well. Let’s just put that one in the category of history. But say that is terrible also

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s