Now, if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity.
You copy pasted it in MS Word and that is where you got 3564 as word count. MS word counts many things as word for example a paragraph change followed by a line bread is considered as a word. A line break followed by a symbol (,.;'!@#$%^^&*&()_+ etc) is considered as a word. It also counts numbers (1234567890) as words. It also considers space after full-stops (.) as words. Check it for yourself. I am an upright person who doesn't like lying. I typed the document in wordpress which shows an exact word count and you can check it there.
So your evidence that the revelation of that God is another revelation from that God. How do you know that the latter revelation is also from that God?
"perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined"
It's doubtful that you've examined "competing worldviews" in any depth. For example, when asked whether you were prepared to read the writings of utilitarian philosophers, you replied "No deal. I don't care enough." Why should we believe that you've examined any other "worldviews" in any meaningful way?
How do you know that the latter revelation is also from that God?
God revealed it to me Now, if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity. IOW, the impossibility of the contrary.
It's doubtful that you've examined "competing worldviews" in any depth.
1) Whether you think it's doubtful is of zero concern to me. I don't answer to you. In fact, probably nobody answers to you. 2) You don't know me. 3) Perhaps you think I'm 17 years old and have been a Christian for a couple of years. Neither are even close to correct. I've been thinking about this a long time. 4) My reluctance to read utilitarian philosophers stems from the fact that right now I'm reading Dennett, Plantinga is up next, I'm debating a Muslim, and I have a life. 5) That said, I've talked to many utilitarians. You may not believe me, but I don't care. 6) You seem to have little faith in your own ability to properly and sufficiently represent the utilitarian position. Why are you so down on yourself? And if you are, maybe everyone reading this should doubt that you have any idea what you're talking about, just as you seem to doubt it.
You said “if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity”. I would be interested what “competing worldviews” you've examined, and what that examination consisted of.
I am merely pointing out that in the case of at least one of what you call “competing worldviews” - utilitarianism – you have not merely acknowledged that you have never read any utilitarian philosophers, but also stated that you “don't care enough” to read any utilitarian philosophers. That being the case, you have not examined utilitarianism enough to judge whether it fails.
I don't doubt that you've spoken to many utilitarians, and that will obviously inform your views. However I wouldn't accept the word of somebody claiming that the Christian religion was an “utter failure” if they had never read the Bible or any theological texts, and I definitely wouldn't think they were arguing in good faith if they aggressively stated that they didn't care enough to read any.
merkur, Since you couldn't be bothered to take what I just said into account but instead acted like I hadn't said anything, I see no reason to progress further here until you do.
Since I specifically responded to the point that you were trying to make, but are now either unprepared or unable to engage with the implications of your own point, we can certainly agree that you won't progress any further.
Well, I think I did, but perhaps I didn't grasp the point you were trying to make. I thought the point you were trying to make was that your defense of your belief was that you'd compared it to "competing worldviews". I pointed out that - in at least one case - you haven't seriously compared it to a "competing worldview", since you expressly "don't care enough" to do any reading at all about that "worldview". That being the case, your claim that you've compared your beliefs to "competing worldviews" looks exceedingly weak, unless for some reason you've specifically singled out utilitarianism to ignore.
If I've misunderstood or misrepresented your point, then I apologise. It would help me to understand better if you could summarize the point you were trying to make. Thanks!
I can only go by what you've written here on your blog, Rhology. What you've written is that
a) you "don't care enough" to read any utilitarian philosophers, and b) your "reluctance to read utilitarian philosophers stems from the fact that right now [you're] reading Dennett, Plantinga is up next, [you're] debating a Muslim, and [you] have a life."
Both of these are perfectly valid, and establish that you haven't examined utilitarianism in any depth. Obviously you've talked to utilitarians but, as I pointed out, that doesn't really do as a serious examination of utilitarian philosophy. I also asked what other "competing worldviews" you've examined, so that we can understand in what way you've examined them.
Now I'm a bit confused, because you sounded very indignant when you thought I was suggesting that you hadn't been thinking about this for a long time. I wasn't suggesting any such thing, but if you *have* been thinking about this for a long time, it seems strange that you haven't read a single utilitarian philosopher, especially considering that you recently singled out utilitarianism on your blog.
I'm not claiming to be the best apologist for utilitarianism - in fact, I distinctly remember writing that I'm not an apologist for utilitarianism at all - but that's not actually relevant here. Based on what you've written, then, we can't really take your claim that "competing worldviews" are an "utter failure" at face value; if that's the "best way" to defend your beliefs, then IMO those beliefs are not particularly well-founded.
Both of these are perfectly valid, and establish that you haven't examined utilitarianism in any depth
How?
Obviously you've talked to utilitarians but, as I pointed out, that doesn't really do as a serious examination of utilitarian philosophy
Got an argument to support your assertion?
especially considering that you recently singled out utilitarianism on your blog.
B/c of the aforementioned factors and b/c I'm not the most creative person I've ever met, I often blog in reaction to things I encounter. Just so happens that recently I've been talking to a utilitarian.
I'm not claiming to be the best apologist for utilitarianism
Maybe I should just borrow a line from your own argument list and start dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about. Maybe you'd figure out that sufficient examination ≠ exhaustive examination.
Based on what you've written, then, we can't really take your claim that "competing worldviews" are an "utter failure" at face value
Do what you want, but so far all you've done is express your ignorant opinion. It's really funny how you obviously think you're really pretty clever and that you've got me figured out. Yet we're going to see that you'll have to back away from answering the challenges I've laid out here, which will reveal your bloviating for what it is.
Because by your own admission, you've never read any utilitarian philosophers. In order to have examined utilitarianism in any meaningful way, it would seem obvious that you would need to have read at least some utilitarian philosophy. Perhaps you mean something different when you say that you've examined “competing worldviews”?
“Got an argument to support your assertion?”
Yes, the argument that I gave in the comment above. I wouldn't accept the word of somebody claiming that the Christian religion was an “utter failure” if they had never read the Bible or any theological texts, and I definitely wouldn't think they were arguing in good faith if they explicitly stated that they didn't care enough to read any. Would you?
“Maybe I should just borrow a line from your own argument list and start dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about.”
I haven't been “dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about.” You're perfectly entitled to talk about whatever you want. I'm merely pointing out that the fact that you're not an expert undermines what you claim is the best defence of your religious position.
“Do what you want, but so far all you've done is express your ignorant opinion.”
This is just bizarre. You've stated that the best defense of your religious position is “the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity.” I've merely pointed out that by your own admission, in at least one of those competing worldviews, you are not an expert, have never read any of the literature, and do not care enough about it to do any reading.
This being the case, you're not in a particularly strong position to judge it an “utter failure”, and if your knowledge of other worldviews is at a similar level, then you are not in a particularly strong position to judge them “utter failures” either. If that is the best defence of your religious position, then it is not a particularly strong defence. That's not my “opinion”, it's simply a logical conclusion based on your own statements, which is why it's unclear to me why you're taking such offense.
In order to have examined utilitarianism in any meaningful way, it would seem obvious that you would need to have read at least some utilitarian philosophy.
Argument?
Yes, the argument that I gave in the comment above.
So you don't have an argument. Gotcha.
I wouldn't accept the word of somebody claiming that the Christian religion was an “utter failure” if they had never read the Bible or any theological texts
What is utilitarianism's equivalent of the Bible?
I haven't been “dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about.”
Yes, actually you have.
I'm merely pointing out that the fact that you're not an expert undermines what you claim is the best defence of your religious position.
Where did I claim that was the "best defence" of my position?
This being the case, you're not in a particularly strong position to judge it an “utter failure”
Argument?
That's not my “opinion”, it's simply a logical conclusion based on your own statements
You haven't provided an argument. That's not my “opinion”, it's simply a logical conclusion based on your own statements. Thanks!
Yes, the argument that I gave in the comment above. Maybe I should simplify it?
1. In order to judge if a particular philosophy is an “utter failure”, it is necessary to examine that philosophy. 2. Examining a particular philosophy requires a certain amount of reading of the critical written sources for that philosophy. 3. Therefore if somebody has not read the critical written sources for a particular philosophy, they are not in a strong position to judge it to be an “utter failure”.
If you disagree with my argument, that's fine, and I'm happy to defend it. Note that I'm not arguing that people aren't entitled to their opinions – of course they are – and I'm not arguing that everybody has to be an expert – of course they don't. However it should make you more cautious about making sweeping statements about topics which – by your own admission – you don't know much about.
“What is utilitarianism's equivalent of the Bible?”
It depends what you mean by equivalent – obviously there isn't a “holy text” per se! The foundational texts for utilitarianism are Bentham's The Principles of Morals and Legislation (http://www.constitution.org/jb/pml.htm) and Mill's Utilitarianism (http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm), closely followed by Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, (http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/sidgwick/me/index.html). The most important contemporary utilitarian book is Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, although I wouldn't assume that Singer's views represent all utilitarians – there are a few disputes about the details, this being philosophy. All of these are pretty readable, BTW, with the possible exception of Sidgwick :)
“Yes, actually you have.”
Well, I don't believe that I have, but if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. As I said above, you're perfectly entitled to talk about whatever you want.
“Where did I claim that was the "best defence" of my position?”
In your second comment on this thread, the fourth comment overall, when you said “if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined”.
I'm happy to leave this here, with two exceptions: 1) You're right, I did say that. My mistake. 2) That said, utilitarianism is an ethical theory, not a worldview, so your criticism still misses the mark.
No, my criticism still hits the mark squarely. The underlying point of the argument is not that you're ill-informed about utilitarianism specifically, but that you're prepared to make sweeping statements about things that you know almost nothing about - furthermore, that you're prepared to make sweeping statements about things which you have no intention or interest in finding out more about. Your lack of knowledge of utilitarianism is just a useful illustration of that, so thanks for helping me make such a strong case.
Oh, and you probably haven't noticed, but the "utter failure" of "competing worldviews" is not in fact proof that the revelation you received is from "the God Who exists, Who cannot lie, and Who is omniscient." The one simply doesn't follow from the other.
Rho- what Saaib is objecting to here, as I understand it, is that despite the apparent fact that donkeys are important to God, He orders their killing, along with all the other Amalekite stuff: men, women, children, chattel, etc. What did the poor donkeys do? I would add, what did the poor Amalekite children do?
Not really in an "Islam related" group......... And sorry to say christians have very poor memory....
I was supposed to debate Ustad Chakha and you invited me to debate you instead.... I hope you remember that conversation on Ustad Chakha's status update.....
And sorry to say you are not doing that great in this debate.... In fact, it will be one of those which will be thrown out of this blog....
Ah, that is possible. Were you complaining about Ustadh's deciding not to debate, and then I said I would? Is that what happened?
My memory is better when I can look back at stuff, but FB's archiving and links are...poor.
And I can tell you with 100% certainty that this debate will not be "thrown out of this blog". I know you think you're doing well, but you're really not.
"How do you know that not one single error entered into the remembrance of what would later become the written text of the Qur'an during this in-between time?"
Clearly the irony is lost on Rhology himself, but once again this is comedy gold.
Since if atheism is true, nobody can know anything, I'd say the fact that you think this is an ironic question means that: 1) you have not sufficiently grappled with the implications of atheism 2) you are thus a Pollyanna 3) you haven't understood my argument.
"Since if atheism is true, nobody can know anything"
Sadly untrue, but this is a wonderful attempt to avoid addressing my point.
"1) you have not sufficiently grappled with the implications of atheism"
And if I was a Christian, it would still be ironic, and my point would still stand.
"2) you are thus a Pollyanna"
"I do not think that word means what you think it means." I guess we can add another item to the long, long list of things that you are woefully ignorant?
"3) you haven't understood my argument."
Yes, I understood your argument. It's exactly the same argument that I put to you at the start of the comment thread THAT'S WHY IT'S IRONIC DUDE.
Your entire comment is merely a demonstration that you haven't understood my argument. Keep laughing, though. Fellow shallow thinkers will join you and you'll have a cute little following.
Please help me to become less shallow, then, by explaining to me my error, rather than trying to mock me for my stupidity.
Here's my perspective. It looks to me like you're asking Saaib exactly the same question that I asked you at the start of this comment thread.
Is it the same question? If not, how is not the same question? If it is, then would you be satisfied with his potential answer that the Qu'ran is "the revelation of the God who exists, Who cannot lie, and Who is omniscient", which he knows because Allah revealed it to him? And if you would not be satisfied with those answers from him, then do you think that we should accept exactly the same answers from you?
It looks an awful lot like you asked: "And how do you know it's the revelation of that God?" And I asked Saaib: "How do you know that not one single error entered into the remembrance of what would later become the written text of the Qur'an during this in-between time?" So no, it's not the same question. If you don't want stupidity called out, don't say stupid things.
If not, how is not the same question?
Because the words are different, are in a different order, and are on a different topic.
And if you would not be satisfied with those answers from him, then do you think that we should accept exactly the same answers from you?
Oh, are you a Muslim theist? No, you're an atheist. You have much more fundamental questions to answer in defense of your own position, such as answering the EAAN. If atheism is true, you can't know anything, including whether I actually exist and whether you're reading words on a screen. You may think you can, but you can't prove it. You merely assume it. You're a fideist, and an inconsistent one. Your position is completely indefensible. Thus, no, I don't particularly care about such ill-founded critiques as yours. The fact that you asked the question shows, again, that you still haven't understood my argument. Maybe read over my opening statement a couple more times.
“So no, it's not the same question. If you don't want stupidity called out, don't say stupid things.”
I'm sorry, I should have remembered who I was talking with. I'll keep my sentences as simple as possible from now on. Obviously you aren't so stupid that you don't recognise that the semantic intent of two sentences can be the same even if the words are different, so obviously you were being satirical!
When I asked you how do you know the Bible is the revelation of God, obviously it's implied in my question that you assume that the Bible is 100% correct, and that errors in transcription or translation do not undermine your assertion that the Bible is the revelation of God. This is essentially the same question that you're asking Saaib, is it not?
49 comments:
How do you know the Bible is true?
Because it is the revelation of the God Who exists, Who cannot lie, and Who is omniscient.
And how do you know it's the revelation of that God?
God revealed it to me.
Now, if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity.
About word count:
You copy pasted it in MS Word and that is where you got 3564 as word count. MS word counts many things as word for example a paragraph change followed by a line bread is considered as a word. A line break followed by a symbol (,.;'!@#$%^^&*&()_+ etc) is considered as a word. It also counts numbers (1234567890) as words. It also considers space after full-stops (.) as words. Check it for yourself. I am an upright person who doesn't like lying. I typed the document in wordpress which shows an exact word count and you can check it there.
Thanks.
"God revealed it to me."
So your evidence that the revelation of that God is another revelation from that God. How do you know that the latter revelation is also from that God?
"perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined"
It's doubtful that you've examined "competing worldviews" in any depth. For example, when asked whether you were prepared to read the writings of utilitarian philosophers, you replied "No deal. I don't care enough." Why should we believe that you've examined any other "worldviews" in any meaningful way?
Saaib,
Thanks for the clarification.
merkur,
How do you know that the latter revelation is also from that God?
God revealed it to me
Now, if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity. IOW, the impossibility of the contrary.
It's doubtful that you've examined "competing worldviews" in any depth.
1) Whether you think it's doubtful is of zero concern to me. I don't answer to you. In fact, probably nobody answers to you.
2) You don't know me.
3) Perhaps you think I'm 17 years old and have been a Christian for a couple of years. Neither are even close to correct. I've been thinking about this a long time.
4) My reluctance to read utilitarian philosophers stems from the fact that right now I'm reading Dennett, Plantinga is up next, I'm debating a Muslim, and I have a life.
5) That said, I've talked to many utilitarians. You may not believe me, but I don't care.
6) You seem to have little faith in your own ability to properly and sufficiently represent the utilitarian position. Why are you so down on yourself? And if you are, maybe everyone reading this should doubt that you have any idea what you're talking about, just as you seem to doubt it.
You said “if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity”. I would be interested what “competing worldviews” you've examined, and what that examination consisted of.
I am merely pointing out that in the case of at least one of what you call “competing worldviews” - utilitarianism – you have not merely acknowledged that you have never read any utilitarian philosophers, but also stated that you “don't care enough” to read any utilitarian philosophers. That being the case, you have not examined utilitarianism enough to judge whether it fails.
I don't doubt that you've spoken to many utilitarians, and that will obviously inform your views. However I wouldn't accept the word of somebody claiming that the Christian religion was an “utter failure” if they had never read the Bible or any theological texts, and I definitely wouldn't think they were arguing in good faith if they aggressively stated that they didn't care enough to read any.
Would you?
Hey Saaib! Nice work- so far I like Allah more than Jehovah, especially because of the donkeys, but I think I'll stick with Darwin for the time being.
merkur- still peddling your reality-informed evilness?
merkur,
Since you couldn't be bothered to take what I just said into account but instead acted like I hadn't said anything, I see no reason to progress further here until you do.
Since I specifically responded to the point that you were trying to make, but are now either unprepared or unable to engage with the implications of your own point, we can certainly agree that you won't progress any further.
Sorry, that should of course read "but you are now". God is my co-pilot, but apparently not my spellchecker.
I've just received an update. God is my spellchecker, but not my copy-editor. Good to know!
Since I specifically responded to the point that you were trying to make
Yeah, that's the thing. You didn't.
Well, I think I did, but perhaps I didn't grasp the point you were trying to make. I thought the point you were trying to make was that your defense of your belief was that you'd compared it to "competing worldviews". I pointed out that - in at least one case - you haven't seriously compared it to a "competing worldview", since you expressly "don't care enough" to do any reading at all about that "worldview". That being the case, your claim that you've compared your beliefs to "competing worldviews" looks exceedingly weak, unless for some reason you've specifically singled out utilitarianism to ignore.
If I've misunderstood or misrepresented your point, then I apologise. It would help me to understand better if you could summarize the point you were trying to make. Thanks!
I haven't ignored it. Read my comment AGAIN.
I can only go by what you've written here on your blog, Rhology. What you've written is that
a) you "don't care enough" to read any utilitarian philosophers, and
b) your "reluctance to read utilitarian philosophers stems from the fact that right now [you're] reading Dennett, Plantinga is up next, [you're] debating a Muslim, and [you] have a life."
Both of these are perfectly valid, and establish that you haven't examined utilitarianism in any depth. Obviously you've talked to utilitarians but, as I pointed out, that doesn't really do as a serious examination of utilitarian philosophy. I also asked what other "competing worldviews" you've examined, so that we can understand in what way you've examined them.
Now I'm a bit confused, because you sounded very indignant when you thought I was suggesting that you hadn't been thinking about this for a long time. I wasn't suggesting any such thing, but if you *have* been thinking about this for a long time, it seems strange that you haven't read a single utilitarian philosopher, especially considering that you recently singled out utilitarianism on your blog.
I'm not claiming to be the best apologist for utilitarianism - in fact, I distinctly remember writing that I'm not an apologist for utilitarianism at all - but that's not actually relevant here. Based on what you've written, then, we can't really take your claim that "competing worldviews" are an "utter failure" at face value; if that's the "best way" to defend your beliefs, then IMO those beliefs are not particularly well-founded.
Both of these are perfectly valid, and establish that you haven't examined utilitarianism in any depth
How?
Obviously you've talked to utilitarians but, as I pointed out, that doesn't really do as a serious examination of utilitarian philosophy
Got an argument to support your assertion?
especially considering that you recently singled out utilitarianism on your blog.
B/c of the aforementioned factors and b/c I'm not the most creative person I've ever met, I often blog in reaction to things I encounter. Just so happens that recently I've been talking to a utilitarian.
I'm not claiming to be the best apologist for utilitarianism
Maybe I should just borrow a line from your own argument list and start dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about. Maybe you'd figure out that sufficient examination ≠ exhaustive examination.
Based on what you've written, then, we can't really take your claim that "competing worldviews" are an "utter failure" at face value
Do what you want, but so far all you've done is express your ignorant opinion.
It's really funny how you obviously think you're really pretty clever and that you've got me figured out. Yet we're going to see that you'll have to back away from answering the challenges I've laid out here, which will reveal your bloviating for what it is.
“How?”
Because by your own admission, you've never read any utilitarian philosophers. In order to have examined utilitarianism in any meaningful way, it would seem obvious that you would need to have read at least some utilitarian philosophy. Perhaps you mean something different when you say that you've examined “competing worldviews”?
“Got an argument to support your assertion?”
Yes, the argument that I gave in the comment above. I wouldn't accept the word of somebody claiming that the Christian religion was an “utter failure” if they had never read the Bible or any theological texts, and I definitely wouldn't think they were arguing in good faith if they explicitly stated that they didn't care enough to read any. Would you?
“Maybe I should just borrow a line from your own argument list and start dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about.”
I haven't been “dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about.” You're perfectly entitled to talk about whatever you want. I'm merely pointing out that the fact that you're not an expert undermines what you claim is the best defence of your religious position.
“Do what you want, but so far all you've done is express your ignorant opinion.”
This is just bizarre. You've stated that the best defense of your religious position is “the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined (which are numerous) contrasted with the rational consistency of Christianity.” I've merely pointed out that by your own admission, in at least one of those competing worldviews, you are not an expert, have never read any of the literature, and do not care enough about it to do any reading.
This being the case, you're not in a particularly strong position to judge it an “utter failure”, and if your knowledge of other worldviews is at a similar level, then you are not in a particularly strong position to judge them “utter failures” either. If that is the best defence of your religious position, then it is not a particularly strong defence. That's not my “opinion”, it's simply a logical conclusion based on your own statements, which is why it's unclear to me why you're taking such offense.
What's this buzzing I keep hearing in my ears?
In order to have examined utilitarianism in any meaningful way, it would seem obvious that you would need to have read at least some utilitarian philosophy.
Argument?
Yes, the argument that I gave in the comment above.
So you don't have an argument. Gotcha.
I wouldn't accept the word of somebody claiming that the Christian religion was an “utter failure” if they had never read the Bible or any theological texts
What is utilitarianism's equivalent of the Bible?
I haven't been “dogging you for not being an expert in something you dare talk about.”
Yes, actually you have.
I'm merely pointing out that the fact that you're not an expert undermines what you claim is the best defence of your religious position.
Where did I claim that was the "best defence" of my position?
This being the case, you're not in a particularly strong position to judge it an “utter failure”
Argument?
That's not my “opinion”, it's simply a logical conclusion based on your own statements
You haven't provided an argument.
That's not my “opinion”, it's simply a logical conclusion based on your own statements. Thanks!
“So you don't have an argument. Gotcha.”
Yes, the argument that I gave in the comment above. Maybe I should simplify it?
1. In order to judge if a particular philosophy is an “utter failure”, it is necessary to examine that philosophy.
2. Examining a particular philosophy requires a certain amount of reading of the critical written sources for that philosophy.
3. Therefore if somebody has not read the critical written sources for a particular philosophy, they are not in a strong position to judge it to be an “utter failure”.
If you disagree with my argument, that's fine, and I'm happy to defend it. Note that I'm not arguing that people aren't entitled to their opinions – of course they are – and I'm not arguing that everybody has to be an expert – of course they don't. However it should make you more cautious about making sweeping statements about topics which – by your own admission – you don't know much about.
“What is utilitarianism's equivalent of the Bible?”
It depends what you mean by equivalent – obviously there isn't a “holy text” per se! The foundational texts for utilitarianism are Bentham's The Principles of Morals and Legislation (http://www.constitution.org/jb/pml.htm) and Mill's Utilitarianism (http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm), closely followed by Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, (http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/sidgwick/me/index.html). The most important contemporary utilitarian book is Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, although I wouldn't assume that Singer's views represent all utilitarians – there are a few disputes about the details, this being philosophy. All of these are pretty readable, BTW, with the possible exception of Sidgwick :)
“Yes, actually you have.”
Well, I don't believe that I have, but if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. As I said above, you're perfectly entitled to talk about whatever you want.
“Where did I claim that was the "best defence" of my position?”
In your second comment on this thread, the fourth comment overall, when you said “if you're asking how I'd go about defending that view to others, that's a different question, and perhaps the best way is the utter failure of the competing worldviews I've examined”.
u should have removed "
(Saaib's Word count: 3499.
My own word count comes out to 3564, but I'm not inclined to quibble.)" from ua post....
Kapoor- at least word count is an objectively valid way of judging this debate.
Kapoor,
Please take a look now. Thanks for the reminder.
merkur,
I'm happy to leave this here, with two exceptions:
1) You're right, I did say that. My mistake.
2) That said, utilitarianism is an ethical theory, not a worldview, so your criticism still misses the mark.
My first rebuttal is up.
No, my criticism still hits the mark squarely. The underlying point of the argument is not that you're ill-informed about utilitarianism specifically, but that you're prepared to make sweeping statements about things that you know almost nothing about - furthermore, that you're prepared to make sweeping statements about things which you have no intention or interest in finding out more about. Your lack of knowledge of utilitarianism is just a useful illustration of that, so thanks for helping me make such a strong case.
Oh, and you probably haven't noticed, but the "utter failure" of "competing worldviews" is not in fact proof that the revelation you received is from "the God Who exists, Who cannot lie, and Who is omniscient." The one simply doesn't follow from the other.
My response to your first rebuttal: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=252955114774034
"The Question remains. What had the poor donkey done?"
Saaib- right! What had the poor donkey done? Or what about that fig tree that Jesus withered?
zilch,
Help me out here.
What is your understanding of the point Saaib's trying to make about the donkey?
Wow. Where did you find this guy?
Haha, yeah, he's really something, isn't he?
He found me and challenged me, actually, on an Islam-related group on FB.
Rho- what Saaib is objecting to here, as I understand it, is that despite the apparent fact that donkeys are important to God, He orders their killing, along with all the other Amalekite stuff: men, women, children, chattel, etc. What did the poor donkeys do? I would add, what did the poor Amalekite children do?
I thought he was differentiating between the donkeys and, say, the cows. I didn't catch why he's objecting to the donkeys and not the cows.
Not really in an "Islam related" group......... And sorry to say christians have very poor memory....
I was supposed to debate Ustad Chakha and you invited me to debate you instead.... I hope you remember that conversation on Ustad Chakha's status update.....
And sorry to say you are not doing that great in this debate.... In fact, it will be one of those which will be thrown out of this blog....
Anyways.... huh/......
Ah, that is possible.
Were you complaining about Ustadh's deciding not to debate, and then I said I would? Is that what happened?
My memory is better when I can look back at stuff, but FB's archiving and links are...poor.
And I can tell you with 100% certainty that this debate will not be "thrown out of this blog". I know you think you're doing well, but you're really not.
Fine that... Live with it... Let the audience decide.... I don't know how much will you reply with 1000 words when you already wasted a 1000....
Maybe you should re-read it that "wasted" 1000 words...
I didn't catch why he's objecting to the donkeys and not the cows.
A good point, rho- I must admit that his reasoning here escapes me too.
"How do you know that not one single error entered into the remembrance of what would later become the written text of the Qur'an during this in-between time?"
Clearly the irony is lost on Rhology himself, but once again this is comedy gold.
And if anybody out there is too dense to recognise the irony, I would refer you to the first four comments in this thread.
Yep, merkur. But of course, there can be no errors in the Bible, because it was inspired by Our Guy, Jehovah, and not that Dark Guy, Allah.
Since if atheism is true, nobody can know anything, I'd say the fact that you think this is an ironic question means that:
1) you have not sufficiently grappled with the implications of atheism
2) you are thus a Pollyanna
3) you haven't understood my argument.
"Since if atheism is true, nobody can know anything"
Sadly untrue, but this is a wonderful attempt to avoid addressing my point.
"1) you have not sufficiently grappled with the implications of atheism"
And if I was a Christian, it would still be ironic, and my point would still stand.
"2) you are thus a Pollyanna"
"I do not think that word means what you think it means." I guess we can add another item to the long, long list of things that you are woefully ignorant?
"3) you haven't understood my argument."
Yes, I understood your argument. It's exactly the same argument that I put to you at the start of the comment thread THAT'S WHY IT'S IRONIC DUDE.
Your entire comment is merely a demonstration that you haven't understood my argument. Keep laughing, though. Fellow shallow thinkers will join you and you'll have a cute little following.
Please help me to become less shallow, then, by explaining to me my error, rather than trying to mock me for my stupidity.
Here's my perspective. It looks to me like you're asking Saaib exactly the same question that I asked you at the start of this comment thread.
Is it the same question? If not, how is not the same question? If it is, then would you be satisfied with his potential answer that the Qu'ran is "the revelation of the God who exists, Who cannot lie, and Who is omniscient", which he knows because Allah revealed it to him? And if you would not be satisfied with those answers from him, then do you think that we should accept exactly the same answers from you?
Is it the same question?
It looks an awful lot like you asked: "And how do you know it's the revelation of that God?"
And I asked Saaib: "How do you know that not one single error entered into the remembrance of what would later become the written text of the Qur'an during this in-between time?"
So no, it's not the same question. If you don't want stupidity called out, don't say stupid things.
If not, how is not the same question?
Because the words are different, are in a different order, and are on a different topic.
And if you would not be satisfied with those answers from him, then do you think that we should accept exactly the same answers from you?
Oh, are you a Muslim theist?
No, you're an atheist. You have much more fundamental questions to answer in defense of your own position, such as answering the EAAN. If atheism is true, you can't know anything, including whether I actually exist and whether you're reading words on a screen. You may think you can, but you can't prove it. You merely assume it. You're a fideist, and an inconsistent one. Your position is completely indefensible.
Thus, no, I don't particularly care about such ill-founded critiques as yours.
The fact that you asked the question shows, again, that you still haven't understood my argument. Maybe read over my opening statement a couple more times.
“So no, it's not the same question. If you don't want stupidity called out, don't say stupid things.”
I'm sorry, I should have remembered who I was talking with. I'll keep my sentences as simple as possible from now on. Obviously you aren't so stupid that you don't recognise that the semantic intent of two sentences can be the same even if the words are different, so obviously you were being satirical!
When I asked you how do you know the Bible is the revelation of God, obviously it's implied in my question that you assume that the Bible is 100% correct, and that errors in transcription or translation do not undermine your assertion that the Bible is the revelation of God. This is essentially the same question that you're asking Saaib, is it not?
Post a Comment