Questioning all communication. Except for mine.

In the very large combox of a recent post, Paul C has been advancing an 'argument' that has become one of my biggest pet peeves.  Its history and usage is inclusive among liberals, Emergents (but I repeat myself), Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, other skeptics, and now Paul C (who doesn't really divulge his own position).  It's a pet peeve of mine because it casts doubt on all communication.  It is self-defeating.  It is absurd.  And it's an obvious smokescreen to conceal when someone is out of substantive arguments on a given topic.
In this case, Paul C unwisely decided to question Coram Deo and me on biblical doctrine.  Sidenote - it's never advisable for a skeptic to challenge a Calvinist like Coram Deo on such grounds, and I don't recommend doing so with me either.

So, let's get on with it.
Paul C said:
"God said you do" = "your specific interpretation of the Bible". There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try.

Rhology said...

Let's say Jimmy were to come along and ask, "Hmm, what does Paul C's last comment mean?"
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."

Paul C might later object and say "No, I was discussing whether I'm a sinner a la Christian theology."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

Wed Dec 08, 03:22:00 PM CST 

Paul C said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.

Thu Dec 09, 04:27:00 PM CST

Coram Deo said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

In Him,
CD

Fri Dec 10, 06:33:00 AM CST

Paul C said...

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Well, this is pretty easy to resolve - you can ask Rho to clarify, and he can post a comment for both of us to see right here, in this very comments box. This gives us *additional* information to clarify the *original* information, and is therefore not circular.

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?

Sat Dec 11, 06:32:00 AM CST 

Now, let's stop for a moment and see how Paul C has already lost the argument.  Why, if the text of the Bible is unclear, is more communication going to help?  Adding more unclear information that requires interpretation, where necessity of interpretation = necessary lack of clarity in Paul C's view as expressed here, is not going to help.  It's going to hinder.  When you want to clear smoke, do you add more smoke?

He thinks that another comment from me will help, but will he allow the Bible that same thing?  Isn't the Bible pretty long, and doesn't it comment on the same topic in multiple passages on most topics?  Does Paul C want a Pope?

And why is his comment exempt from this "problem" as he has set it out?  If I have a different interpretation of:

-His comment

-His clarification

-The clarification of his clarification
-Etc

to the effect that I'm still convinced he's discussing tortillas, will Paul C simply throw up his hands, as he is pretending to with respect to the Bible?  Yeah, probably not.

Coram Deo picks up on this:

Coram Deo said...

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?

Why should I believe Rho's additional information? After all he might be lying or confused.

I like my interpretation just fine, and since Rho might be lying or confused can you think of any non-circular reason why I should give more credence or weight to an external authority over my own personal autonomous authority?

What if I think I know best?

In Him,
CD

Sat Dec 11, 10:21:00 AM CST 

Paul C said...

What if I think I know best?

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!

Sun Dec 12, 05:59:00 AM CST

Coram Deo said...

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!

Close, but you missed.

The point is that I was inserting myself into your worldview. If the One true and living God is not the ultimate authority, and if His truth has not been revealed in the 66 books of the Holy Bible, then you and I and Rho are truly autonomous, and we are each our own ultimate authorities.

This gets back to my prior point that you are your own god. You dismissed the suggestion pretending not to know what I meant, but hopefully now you can understand.

The irony is that your worldview is self-defeating because you have no grounds from which to make an objection about anyone else's interpretation of anything, because everything is ultimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation, which is ultimate for each individual.

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. - Judges 17:6; 21:5

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21:2

Although not not entirely on subject, you might find this article to be of interest.

In Him,
CD

Sun Dec 12, 08:41:00 AM CST

Rhology said...

Paul C said earlier: There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try. 


Paul C says now: I don't believe that “everything is ulimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation”, so this argument has no purchase with me whatsoever.

Now, Paul C has many times shown himself to be willingly, intentionally obtuse, so I don't expect him to accept the obvious here, but it should be obvious to anyone else reading.

Mon Dec 13, 11:04:00 AM CST

Paul C later circles back around on himself, as if he forgot, never read, or just didn't comprehend what has gone before:

Paul C said...

Answers to all your questions:

Are you equally interested in my metric to support the accuracy of my personal interpretation that chocolate ice cream is superior to vanilla ice cream, or why I believe my chosen brand of chocolate ice cream is superior to the brand of chocolate ice cream selected by others?

No, I'm only interested in what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Why or why not?

Because this discussion is about what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Are my religious metrics more important or meaningful to you than my ice cream metrics?

Yes, I'm only interested in what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

If so, why?

Because this discussion is about what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Anyway, why should I answer your questions?

I can offer you no reason why you should answer my single simple question, other than to demonstrate what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Why would you care? What difference does it make to you?

Why I care and what difference it will make to me is irrelevant to the question of what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

So, now that I've answered all of your questions in full, perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of answering the single question that I posed to you before you started throwing irrelevant questions at me. What metric do you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians?

Thu Dec 16, 05:33:00 PM CST

Rhology said...

One last time, then: what metric do you use to decide that your interpretation of your own comment is more accurate than another skeptic who doesn't share your specific beliefs?

Either you have one, or you don't. If you do have one, I'd have thought that you want to share it both with other skeptics and non-skeptics alike, in order to help them come to truth.

But perhaps you don't have any metric at all. That would be funny, wouldn't it? So very, very funny.

Fri Dec 17, 07:27:00 AM CST 

Finally, David, having totally missed the point, chimes in with a completely unhelpful aside:

David said...

Paul C,

The problem is that Alan and CD do not have an answer to your question. Hence, the need to evade and digress.

Fri Dec 17, 09:09:00 AM CST

Let's just answer him here so as to get it out in the open.

David,

My interpretation of your comment is that you're inviting Paul C for coffee on Mars.  

Please give me a good reason to think that my interpretation of your comment is wrong, whereas your preference of interpretation is correct.  Then make sure to let me know why I should prefer your interpretation of your answer to that question over mine, b/c my guess is that I'll continue to think you're discussing coffee on Mars.  Answer that question as many times as you can, and let me know when you're done, so I can just say, with Paul C: "That's just your interpretation" one more time, so I can distract and divert you, so that you won't have to deal with the actual topic at hand.

On the cosmological argument

Discussions on this blog come around to the Cosmological Argument every so often.  I enjoy talking about it and think it is a compelling argument, so that's why I bring it up.

From the last post's comment box, I thought this interaction between the Jolly Nihilist and I was worthy of posting:


JN said: our confidence is commensurate with the evidence

You mean, what you think the evidence is, now.  But this is not the face you usually put forward; you guys like to present science as pretty much the be-all, end-all of knowledge.  Then when we ask enough questions, we break you back down to the nitty-gritty - we can't actually be certain about these things.  But we're sure we can form conclusions "commensurate with the evidence", even though we're relying on inductive reasoning and arguments from authority, and it could all be totally different tomorrow.


Ppl used to say that about geocentrism, spontaneous generation of flies from rotting meat, etc. How do you know you've got it right this time?


Again, science is not structured to provide absolute certitude, and thus, no scientific truth, no matter how well evidenced, is immutable.

So you don't know you've got it right this time.  Cool, thanks.



In the very, very distant future, all the other galaxies will have receded from us to the point that, no matter how hard we look, their light will be unable to reach us.

What's even funnier is that you don't know you're looking at galaxies now.  Have you ever looked at something like a 2-D illusion from one spot, which looked like it was flat, then moved to a different spot to get a different perspective, and it was a 3-D figure?  Well, in our case, we can't exactly change our perspective by moving an appreciable distance w.r.t. these far-off views.  But I don't hear lots of hemming and hawing from the scientific establishment that would be commensurate with the caveats you're giving us here. Why is this, if not self-deception in action, leading to deception of others?


Cosmologists of this very, very distant future could do the very best, most perfect science and reach the (erroneous) conclusion that our galaxy is alone in the cosmos.

If the cosmologists of the future are anything like the evo biologists of today, who don't have access to the past and yet presume to tell us that evolution is a "fact", they won't say what you're saying.  They'll say they're sure of what we know to be true.  And if you ask them enough questions, they'll throw a fit and excommunicate you.



I see no reason why those laws must exist temporally. Why could they not exist outside of space-time as we know it?

Again, laws are DESCRIPTORS.
1) Laws are statements of observed behavior.  If there's no observer, there's no law.
2) As I've said at least twice now, if there's no THING to behave, there's no behavior.  No behavior = no law.
3) And since, if a thing existed an infinite amount of time, we'd run into the problem of traversing an infinite, this argument fails.


We say this, we believe it, but can we prove it? No.”

Quite so - it's your blind faith religion.  Well said.



one must assume that the cause of the universe did not begin to exist because... failure to make this assumption makes WLC's argument potentially infinitely regressive and, thus, absurd?

I don't know what's so hard about this.  When given a choice between a logical fallacy and a logical non-fallacy, why wouldn't you choose the non-fallacy?


Merely pushes the question back a step. This is not an answer.


Exactly! And neither is WLC's argument a genuine answer.

Look, you can say that all you want, but the Ultimate First Cause, outside of spacetime, is a causally sufficient answer for the problem we're dealing with.  An infinitely old piece of matter isn't.  And as we've seen, "laws" aren't either.
You need to provide an argument why the UFCause doesn't answer the problem, not just assert it.


P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.

Premise 1 is the problem.  Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered.

An example of why I hold Hitchens in pretty low regard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVA5GB_6nWQ#t=4m40s

"...what we now know about the quantum...suggests that nothing from nothing isn't as much of a contradiction as it may seem..."
You know, because if there's nothing and something came from nothing, it's because the quantum did it.  Got a gap in your knowledge?  Quantumdidit!
And of course, quantum is something.  Which shows, of course, that something could come from nothing, since something came from nothing, because of quantum.

This reminds me of a clever quip from Dinesh D'Souza -
"Now, we live at a time unfortunately where what physicists call 'quantum weirdness' has become an excuse for theoretical promiscuity. You don't know how to explain something, all you have to do is keep chanting repeatedly the word 'quantum'. You don't understand consciousness, 'well, it's probably some sort of a quantum thing'. This is not explanation; this is idiocy."
- Dinesh D'Souza, debate with John Loftus, minute 47:00

The Westboro cult is coming to protest at my church

Over the course of time, I've had skeptical commenters here and elsewhere compare me to the Westboro freaks.  Such comparisons are gratuitously ignorant and insulting, with no substance whatever.
I guess there are a few similarities I can think of:
-Both our churches contain the name "Baptist"
-We both say "Jesus" and "God" and "judgment", though with varying degrees of frequency
-We're all human beings
-We have breathed the same air molecules at times in our lives
-We drink water
-That might be about it.

Now, what are the differences?
-They're led by one guy and the entire "congregation" consists mostly of his extended family
-It would appear that all they do is attract media attention to themselves by explicitly hating most everyone
-They do in fact hate most everyone
-Etc.
-Most importantly, they are all law and no Gospel.


I've commented on this before, but their main problem is that, unlike most of America and American evanjellyfishism, which is highly antinomian, the Westmorons preaching literally nothing but law, judgment, and destruction.  To the ignorant, it can seem like my message is the same, but let's look a little more closely.

Westmorons - America, and you personally, have offended God and there is no hope for you. You are doomed.  Repent. It won't do you any good, but repent anyway.  God hates you and you'll burn in Hell.
The Gospel (good news) I preach - America, and you personally, have offended God and there is only one hope for you - Jesus Christ. You are doomed outside of Jesus Christ.  Repent. It will do you every good.  Refuse to repent and you'll burn in Hell, and though God has love for you, it will be as if He hates you.

Huge difference, foundational difference.  The Westboro cult is a completely different religion than mine.  Neither I nor the Southern Baptists (I attend an SBC church) want anything to do with Westboro; we have both explicitly rejected any tie with them.

I discovered yesterday that the feeling is mutual.
From their wehateeverybody.com site (or something like that):

Trinity Baptist Church in Somewhere, OK    December 5, 2010  10:10 AM - 10:40 AM

WBC will picket Trinity Baptist Church to remind these so-called Christians that the Lord commanded them to boldly preach the whole truth of the Gospel, not the lies about a weak, effeminate "God loves everybody" Christ. The Baptists know full good and well that God hates fags and that he casts fags and those that enable them into Hell forever. They are afraid to tell the truth about God's Word because they do not want to suffer afflictions for Christ's sake.

"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."  Matthew 5:11 

These so-called baptists care for this world, not the world to come.  They tell you what you want to hear to keep the money coming in.  It is the blind leading the blind and you will both land in the pits of hell!

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"  Isaiah 5:20

I'd like to extend my appreciation to Phred Felps and his inbred clan for their contribution to the clarity of the good news that it is my heart to proclaim to everyone in all nations. Interestingly, they're mostly wrong about my church.
-We do boldly preach the truth of the Gospel.  So much so that we routinely encounter persecution and reviling, much like Matthew 5:11 says.  (BTW, what does "Gospel" [good news] mean to Westboro? You're doomed without hope. Not very good news.)  It's simply ignorant to say our fear of affliction leads us to chicken out of controversy for the sake of truth.
-They'd have a hard time producing biblical proof that God does not in fact love everyone.  He doesn't love everyone the same, but that's not what they said, is it?
-We know full well such things.  I don't know about full good.
-Yes, God will cast unrepentant homosexuals into Hell, just like all unrepentant sinners.  We offer the homosexual healing and restoration to a relationship with Jesus, just like all sinners.  It's what we all need.  Westboro offers no healing, no love, no restoration.  When it comes to sin, they cut themselves the slack they need to assuage their own consciences, but they're unwilling to extend to others the same mercy.
-Our church is, um, not monetarily rich.  The elders don't even have access to the giving records in order to know who gives what.

All that to say that Westboro has excommunicated me.  Let that be a lesson to you, hater.  Felps and I want nothing to do with each other.  Even if I do plan to offer him coffee and cinnamon rolls Sunday morning.
Luke 6:27“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. 30“Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. 31“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33“If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

bossmanham, Pope Benedict, condoms, and me - 2

Good stuff on the previous post's comment thread.

Joel said:
since the Catholics did kinda sorta take a lot of it back in Vatican II, don't you think that amounts to a de facto retraction, at least of some of it?

The inconsistencies and complete lack of clarity with respect to this issue make such questions an exercise in wishing upon a star, I should think.  Which side do you want to prefer they meant?  They certainly can't tell you; the RCC has felled thousands of trees in its self-"clarification"; if they could, they'd'a done it by now.
So, what are we, Reformedigelicals, to do?  I guess it comes down to what you want to do.  I think it's far more useful to nail people to Trent and hold them there, b/c ISTM this allows the difference inherent in the true Gospel to shine forth that much more brilliantly.  Much like the Law kills in its condemnation, and it is in finding our condemnation to a messy and awful eternity lifted by the messy and awful sacrifice of Christ that we understand how exalted and wonderful the free gift of grace truly is. 
There's also the smaller issue that people need to come out of RCC, whether you think RCC teaches saving doctrine or not.  Being right before God is not the end; it is the beginning.  And most ppl are far more familiar with Vat2 and the modern squishy liberal RCC than they are with the heretic-burning Trent RCC.  I seek to remind them that the modern RCC has not taken back Trent, and remind them that they need to come out of such a screwed up church in favor of one that is far less doctrinally screwed up.  Even if you're saved, it does you no good, and in fact does you a lot of bad, to be bowing down to Mary all the time.


bossmanham,

Let's go further into Trent, though:

  CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

  CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

(In other words, if you say you're justified ONLY by the sacrifice of Christ, anathema to you.)


  CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

(Anathematises Calvinists.  And Augustinians.)



Oh, and "anathema" to RCC generally means "cut off from the Church".  It's a roundabout way of damning you, but a few observations on that:
1) It's sort of a cowardly way of affirming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus w/o affirming it. 
2) It allows a man the time to come back to the Church.
3) It's a different meaning than what the Bible means when it uses the term.  Which is a problem.
4) It's supposed to be a bad deal for the anathematised man b/c he is thus cut off from the reception of the Sacraments (confession, Eucharist, etc), which are the main ways thru which grace is infused into the soul.  The hidden message is:  "Good luck getting to Heaven without the Sacraments.  If you know what's good for you, you'll come back to The Church®".