h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hi Jordan,

Gosh, it was getting kinda lonely around here.

A question. What exactly is *your* viewpoint on christianity - what sort of christian are you? I've never been sure as mostly you end up defending other christians and not really saying what it is that you believe. Just saying 'I'm a christian' means nothing to me as there are so many different types.

You've made some interesting points on Insight's behalf, but I think I would rather take them up with him. However, if you happen to share any of these views then let me know and I'll debate them with you. For me the debate isn't specifically about Insight's faith in his god but about christianity in general.

<>

Ahem. You mean like the American government is 'helping' the Iraquis? I don't think having someone else's version of god and religion shoved down my throat is a form of helping me to live. You wrote What do *you* think?

Time to get off the fence and come play in the sandbox with the rest of us.

az

'It's not so much that he shouldn't refer to the bible, as that this, by itself, is not sufficient, particularly when conversing with those who do not take the bible as true, a priori, as it were. There also needs to be reference to shared forms of reality and logical inference. Science is in a slightly different position, because these references are already part of the methodology of science.

I've been thinking about that too. [Warning: Off Topic!] Logic is simply a mode, or style, of thought, so using it as a shared method of communication requires that all parties, a priori, accept it as valid. It didn't work with Justin, because his mode of thought was not dependent on logic. It wouldn't work with a significant number of other groups in history, because the prevailing modes of thought were mystical or supersticious.

Perhaps logic reflects ultimate reality better, and the scientific method makes for more accurate explanations or predictions, but that doesn't make it the natural or only form of communication. Most rhetoricians know this, which is why they employ emotional and verbal attacks as often as they use logic - illogic often affects the human mind as powerfully as logic. The internal (the mind) does not have to reflect the external (reality) perfectly, but only so far as accurate reflection is required for internal harmony.

That is, of course, mostly irrelevent to the current issue. If one is trying to change someone else's internal beliefs, they must argue not from their own perspective but from that other's, or from agreed knowledge. However, the situation is not that Insight is trying to change other people's beliefs, but that they are questioning the validity of his - therefore, the effort to argue from someone else's mindset, or from common consensus, should be on their part.

That's why I simply couldn't argue with Justin - his mind is totally alien to mine, and all I could do was argue from my own perspective in a clumsy attempt to strike a chord with him. It's like trying to play a song on a guitar tuned to one key when the song is written for another, but without hearing the results except in the faces of other listeners!

'The problem is that that knowledge and experience is partly *produced* by belief and forced into conformity with them, so that while the validity of a particular belief within a system can be judged from within the system, the validity of the system as a whole cannot be, except in as much as it leads to successful prediction, perhaps.'

That is correct. Belief and expectation distort reality and blind one to what is often obvious from another point of view. This is beautifully demonstrated in studies related to visual perception (e.g. J. Deregowski's study on cross-cultural depth perception, or the many studies on optical illusions).

'For a successful dialogue all parties need to stand back a bit and find whatever common ground there is, or all that results is "talking past each other."

Also correct. However, because the aim of this conversation seems to be to question David's beliefs, and most of the people here are arguing from their own perspectives, that is all that is happening. If people want to question him about his beliefs, they have to start arguing from his perspective. To question him about them and expect him to defend them without referring to his personal take on reality is simply useless.

- Jordan

'A question. What exactly is *your* viewpoint on christianity - what sort of christian are you? I've never been sure as mostly you end up defending other christians and not really saying what it is that you believe. Just saying 'I'm a christian' means nothing to me as there are so many different types.'

A good point, and the answer is, I'm not really sure what I am. I can't honestly say I'm entirely a Christian any more, because I'm willing to consider anything. It's a rather uncomfortable, but necessary, stage in my spiritual and personal evolution.

I have been through Catholicism, Mormonism, atheism and agnosticism. I don't really know what I am now, because while I believe there are absolutes I don't want to embrace any. So... I'm lots of things, and nothing at the same time.

I defend people when I feel it my duty to clear up misunderstandings between them and others. You might recall that, once or twice, I restated your views to Della (though it was mostly the other way around) because I felt obliged to reconcile and clarify your opposing viewpoints. I may have been acting as a buffer, but I certainly found it an expanding experience, and I hope that it helped both of you understand each other.

'For me the debate isn't specifically about Insight's faith in his god but about christianity in general.'

A lot of the time, you seem to start by making a point based on Insight's beliefs. I simply try and justify his belief, or point out where you may be misinterpreting him.

'Ahem. You mean like the American government is 'helping' the Iraquis? I don't think having someone else's version of god and religion shoved down my throat is a form of helping me to live.'

From some perspectives, the American government is helping the Iraqui government. (Is this a shared ground between you and Della?! ) I don't have an opinion on whether this war was right or wrong, because I really don't consider myself expert enough on such matters, and frankly, I don't have time to become one! Besides, they don't exactly 'shove' it down your throat, unless there have been some radical additions to the range of valid missionary techniques!

'That's it! Get that bible down her! Stuff her like foie-gras!'

- Jordan

<>

If I do that I suppose it's because he is the only christian on the thread who is debating. I certainly don't mean to single him out.

<>

Figure of speech, darling boy! You know, all that 'my way or the highway' sort of stuff. I guess you're right that if one chooses a monotheistic god and religion then it pretty much excludes all other options. So perhaps it just isn't possible to debate religion with a christian?

I have a question for you. What exactly *is* a christian? I don't think I know any two that actually believe in the same thing. There are either fundamentalists (of which there are several varieties) and then there are the pick & mix ones, whose main link to christianity seems to be that that's what they call themselves. Anyhow, do you know what a christian is? Just wondering.

Gotta go now - have to be at work in half an hour and my HAIR (so to speak) is still wet!



az

'Christian' is a word. There is a threshold value for which any person is prepared to call someone else a Christian, and that is different for each person. Justin thinks it only applies to his lot. Other people say it applies to anyone who follows Christ, or anyone who agrees with certain viewpoints, or anyone who chooses to call themselves one.

My personal definition seems to be that (a) they call themselves a Christian, and (b) they believe in Jesus as a manifestation of something supernatural. The perception of God, interpretation of biblical statements or worth and their specific beliefs are not important, so long as they believe that Jesus was not merely a conjuror, but something approximating 'the Christ,' where the word has some supernatural relevence.

- Jordan

'I guess you're right that if one chooses a monotheistic god and religion then it pretty much excludes all other options. So perhaps it just isn't possible to debate religion with a christian?'

Of course it's possible, haven't you heard of Jesuits?! It depends on the Christian, really, and the basis you choose for argument.

- Jordan

But it's his "personal take on reality" that I'm questioning, rather than the specifics of his belief - which is what I meant by the "validity of beliefs within a system" comment in an earlier post. Sort of What rules does reality have to follow in order for it to be possible for any "supernatural" belief to be true?

Noggin

Ooh... I'm saving this for later!

- Jordan

Thought you'd like it

Noggin

Prof. Robert Winston was talking to Bel Mooney on Devout Sceptics last night. You can hear it @ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/devout_sceptics/index.shtml

Alji