alexakarpov

OK, so it is the same argument, then, as what liberals use, when they say I am responsible for the death of a starving person by not feeding him. I "created the situation", by not giving him food. No matter what behaviour and what choices led him to that state.I do not require (or force) you to continue this conversation. But insofar as you're making statements which pertain to the conversation, I don't think it's unethical to respond to them.Cheers.

You are absolutely correct in that no one is responsible for a crime of the other. This is correct, moral, and I accept this, and hold to that view myself.But, if you but re-examine my thought experiment, you will see that there is nothing of the sort present. By drinking from the bottle - which you were *warned* not to drink from! - you're corrupted your genes. Now, your offspring are facing the consequences of your actions. They are not "guilty" of anything that you did, it should be obvious. Yet, they do bear the consequences of what you have done, because mechanism of genetics is built this way. The consideration of how many generations ago it was is irrelevant to the scope of our discussion. You cannot call physics "unjust" or "unethical" if children in the village are born deformed a thousand years *after* you have dumped radioactive toxic waste upstream of the village - maybe toxins are seeping into the water very slowly? And/or maybe the half-life of the radioactive waster is 2000 years, so the water is still radio-active. Please, don't throw irrelevant pieces into the puzzle - you're distracting yourself from the questions I'm posing. There are no threats, and so far neither you, nor Witin were successful in pointing out the alleged duress either. There are, I repeat, consequences. Just as in my example you have corrupted your DNA by drinking from the bottle before you received the necessary portion of a "pre-cursor" agent, in Christianity man tasted of a Fruit (which, of course, was there for him to eat, *after* he is ready to do so), And, just as in my example you have corrupted your DNA, and will now pass the mutation to your children, same happened to Adam and Eve characters in our book - they've damaged their human nature, and passed that damage onto all the following generations.No duress, just consequences.

Sorry if the experiment proposed above isn't clear. No one "poisoned the water". I did warn you the drink will poison you, if you drink it, and I did not lie. I also created that drink, and it was created for you to drink, but only after you are prepared to do so. I did not tell you that bit, exactly because you believing my warning as is (which was honest) and obeying it was a part of the "preparation" process.I don't see any force in the picture - I see a fair warning about the consequences of consuming the drink. There is no duress - just the drink, my warning, and your free choice to listen to it, or consume the drink regardless. Excuse me, but how "not drinking from the bottle" is different from "not eating a fruit from the Tree"? What followed after, human mortality, illnesses, suffering and all, is exactly the consequences of eating the forbidden Fruit - or, in my example, drinking from the bottle. You have poisoned yourself freely, without any duress. You're on uneven ground here, sire =) God didn't create hell - He only created your eternal soul, which has no other place to go after death, but eternity. And you can either arrive there poisoned - and remain poisoned for all eternity - or you can accept the doctor and the antidote, and accomplish what your first ancestor failed to. I am very surprised you don't see how this is literally a copy of a story of the Forbidden Fruit, the warning about consequences of eating it, absence of any duress, and free human choice of eating it. The experiment proposed is about how it all started. After poisoning yourself, you didn't die right away, but you corrupted your genetic material. Then your kids got corrupted because of it.I am sorry you lost the appetite for debate at this most interesting point, when I finally distilled the core of the issue. I thank you for your participation, though. You did help me to clarify the picture in my mind, somewhat.

Hm, it looks like we're going in circles. Let's try a different angle. We are sitting at the table. You want to drink some sweet-smelling liquid from an unlabelled bottled. I claim that the bottle contains a vile poison which will kill you. You drink anyway, because it smells good, and you're free to do as you please, and I, having absolute respect for your freedom, do not force the bottle out of your hands. Soon afterwards, you start experiencing nausea, vomiting and pain, which is the effects of the poison. Is there duress in the situation? I don't think there is, and our definitions of duress are likely identical (you've posted a dictinoary definition, it helps). But, the way we apply the same definition to the same situation is obviously different. That's why I'm asking whether you see duress here =) Assuming you don't see duress (which I am positive you do not), let's change one parameter of the experiment: I have previously demonstrated you my very thorough knowledge of the room and it's contents. Still, you did not believe my warning about the consequences of drinking from the bottle - because you, freely, had chosen to trust you sense of smell and a feeling that you've called "self-determination", more than my knowledge. Is duress present now? I still don't think there's any duress, but I want your answer. Let's make a second amendment to the experiment - now there's a third person in the room. He's supporting your choice to drink from the bottle, and is asserting that my warnings are false. Duress yet? Finally, one last amendment - I have created the room, the bottle with it's contents, and you, and endowed you with freedom. In case you're wondering - the bottle's content is not poison, but is in fact an exquisitely good liquor, which I meant as a treat for you to consume, but only after some necessary preparations. Without those preparations, it is poison for you. Any duress yet? I think I see the problem now. Note the response above, where I've proposed a simple, "godless" kind of an example. What you call "duress" and "anti-freedom", I call "consequences". I am very much perplexed at this difference in terminology.

I see a contradiction in your reasoning.God created the world where all actions, and inaction, have consequences (including negative ones, up to and including eternal perdition). You consider that to be a form of duress, but I disagree. It seems to me - and correct me if I am wrong - that, following your logic, the mere act of creating humans free is an act of duress. I see a contradiction here.Remember, we believe that humans were created immortal into a world free of any form of suffering. But they were created free, because that was a necessary condition for them to join God - that can only be achieved by a free choice.So humans freedom was a necessary condition for joining God - but not a sufficient condition, because being free, they could have chosen, and did choose, separation from God. So now, humans have two possible outcomes; one, which they were created for, and another, which they opened through their disobedience - which was the effect of their freedom. The only way to avoid this unfortunate development would be to create them not free - but that would contradict the very purpose of creating them.Do you see the contradiction I am talking about? There are two ways to go, left or right. Going right leads to victory, going left - to failure. You are instructed to go right, but you go left - freely. You fail. You're making a conclusion that there's no freedom, that I personally am not free, and that this is a hard pill to swallow... I find this strange, sorry =)

My apologies if my wording mislead you. God has no authority or ownership over our personalities or our choices; over our freedom (that would be a contradiction - "authority over freedom" is like "rape is love"). But God has authority over "existence". He created the board, and the game, and the players. The players He created "in His image and likeness", which is to say - eternal and free. He doesn't own us - but He owns the game; he set the rules, which are such that there's a victory condition, and a failure condition, and there's no choice for not playing. That's what we believe in. Your concerns remind me - please forgive me if I don't read you right, I mean no offence - of some of my statist friends' concerns about libertarianism; they say things like "but if you chose to not feed a hungry person, you're violating their freedom to live". I find it very difficult to explain to such a person that their idea of "freedom to live" is deeply flawed. Similar is the reaction that your words invoke in me (again, forgive me if I have misread you) - if you think such God violates your desire for ultimate freedom and self-determination, then I feel this is like saying that human biology violates my right for... infinite life span, indestructible health, flying like a bird - you name it. He created this world, and put you in it, and He set the rules, and you either win or lose; and either ending is ultimate, "perfect" and complete. I guess, my response, ultimately, would be this - "yeah, sure, you can have all the self-determination and freedom we want - the question is, what good will it do you in the end?" Fundamentally, freedom, in Christianity, is the most precious resource - not the end goal. And this resource can be used either for winning the game, or squandered. But I do reject the notion of "subservience" - to me, it's like calling a human being subservient to biology, or physics. Or, maybe, I didn't get your point =)

I think it's both - but more of the latter than the former, so to speak. Please don't take this as a dishonest answer or an attempt to avoid some inconvenient truth! I assure you, I'm not here to preach, but am genuinely interested in a philosophical debate; if my faith *can not* be reconciled with anarchy, I honestly want to know! =) So now let me trail the sequence of important points, last one tying to the first. 1) If humans were created "in image and likeness" of God, then I'd think it natural that they possess this mysterious, immanent property - that feeling of, or drive for, sovereignty. 2) Christian texts, especially in divine services, often refer to God as King and Lord. "Sovereign Lord of all Creation" is one of such designations. 3) Humans were created to be sons of God. This very language is often invoked in the Scriptures. I'm not very familiar with how Wester Christian tradition evolved here (when I espoused Christianity, it was of Eastern Orthodox variety), but in the writings of eastern Fathers we have this very important concept of humans (Christians) "evolving" through 3 stages: - "slave" (motivated mostly by fear of punishment) - "hireling" (motivated mostly by a promise of reward) - "son" (motivated by love alone ) 4) from 2 and 3 it follows, then, that a son of God becomes a "heir to the Kingdom" -- and, indeed, that language is abundantly present in the Scripture (the status of a Christian who never attained to the level of son-ship is presumably less glorious, but that's beyond the point). 5) As you've already established (at the age of 8! I still marvel at that...), Christianity doesn't provide a choice to "opt out" of the game, to "undo" one's immortal, eternal soul's existence. We're here, we're "stuck" in the game, where our endgame is to either to become "sons of God", or "sons of perdition". 6) OK, now this is a pretty important theological point; bear with me. - (a) God is uncreated - everything and everyone else, including rational beings (human, angels, demons), is created. - (b) humans can not become [sons of] God through their own powers, because it's impossible to bridge the gap between the Creator and the creature from creature's side. - © but, "what is impossible with men is possible with God" (Luke 18:27), thus God can "adopt" a human being into His Godhood. - (d) a necessary condition here, however, is complete submission of that human's will to God's will - else there would be a contradiction, of God "creating", or "forcing", Godhood on a human - God, being uncreated, cannot be forced or "created" - Godhood can only be accepted freely. So that last point, 6.d, is what ties into the first point, which is where I admit that humans were created with this paramount property of freedom, this drive for sovereignty. It has only one "good" use - to unite it with God's will. Leaving it dangling, or expending it in the pursuit of vain things, is considered very dangerous. The parable of the Prodigal Son covers that topic. Of course, someone might ask - "what kind of freedom is that, if there's only one right choice?". But that, in my opinion, would be the same fallacy as what our "liberals" and "progressives" make, when they claim libertarianism is "anti-freedom", because, apparently, not giving food to a hungry person violates their freedom not to die... I kid you not, I've been told that by a "progressive". Thus, this is the conclusion - we believe in a world, where there are consequences of people's choice regarding God's existence; and that choice is theirs to make, but their existence is not their own. Only God's existence is His own.

I don't think you were delusional. I'm not a specialist, but psychologically, a child, who is still growing, and developing mature defence mechanism, is harder (for me) to label as delusional. But I salute you, sir, for raising a *very* good point; I totally mean it. This is, philosophically speaking, the root of conflict between anarchism and Christianity: you didn't will to be created; you weren't asked to be born, and yet you're now stuck in this life, which, according to Christian beliefs, may end up in you being an eternal failure. You're playing a game that you never had a chance to choose, and you don't have an option to quit; to "un-create" yourself. And you grasped that at the age of 8? I find it amazing. I can see how you could call it an unfair situation - and many do. But I, personally (this is not the first time I am thinking on the subject), do not consider it to be unfair or violent, and this is why. If you had your own existence; if you were somehow ontologically autonomous, then condemning you to something without your choice or your will would be, trivially, unjust and violent. And this is how I reconciled anarchy with Christianity for myself (I became Christian first, at the age of 28, and anarchist later, at age of 32) -- since only God has His own existence; since He is the only un-created entity, and everything else, that exists, owes it's existence to Him, then we don't have grounds for challenging Him for our existence; it's not, in fact, "ours", but His. This subject, by the way, is entirely covered in the biblical Book of Job. Not very surprisingly, it was that book, and that very idea, that started me on the way to Christianity (it took a while - I was 22 at the time).

Regrettably, no. "The fear of God", as we know it, is one of the most sought-after virtues of faith. Of course, we always make sure to distinguish fear of God from various forms of psychological neuroses, or psychoses, or depressions, or what else people are prone to call "fear of God". In essence, the real "fear of God" is a very advanced stage of faith. Likewise, "loving God" - that is the most advanced stage. Most people, however, who claim to fear God or love God, are delusional. I never made such claims - I *want* to fear God and love God, but who am I kidding? I fear [some] people and love people and things of this world far more than God, there's no question about it.

As a Christian myself, I can tell you something you're not likely to hear often in your debates with Christians in North America -- if you're wrong, you're, actually, likely to be better off than us. Let me explain. We (I belong a pretty strict and orthodox bunch) consider Christianity to be the highest calling that the world has for human beings. And, because of that, if a person calling himself a Christian falls short of the name (which most of us, regrettably, do), that person will have to answer for a transgression more severe than almost anything an atheist is capable of. You see, as an atheist, you have an excuse, of a sort - you can claim ignorance at the Judgement. You can - truthfully - claim that you just didn't know. You've been surrounded by a lot of people who called themselves Christians, and they appeared to be a nasty bunch (unfortunately, a common thing in both East and West), and they totally ruined Christianity for you. So that will be your excuse. Now, we, who call ourselves Christians, and nevertheless, act like "dogs, who return to their vomit"... we will have to answer for that, with far less room for making excuses and claiming ignorance. This is not my own fantasy, by the way - this thought is a commonplace in writings of the Holy Fathers. So yeah.

The problem is, "self-evident" is entirely subjective. Some find God hypothesis self-evident! I am not one of them - I arrived to my choice of faith through a very different process, but "self-evidence" was never close... to be honest, I rather distrust people who claim it's like that for them. I suspect them to be delusional (though it's not necessarily the case).

Fight tooth and nail for "dragging us down? Look, I'm really sorry if you've suffered in hands of abusive parents and/or priest, who tried to force their religion on you. But I've never forced my religion on anyone, much less you in particular; more than that, I consider such forcing to be extremely evil, because it is both immoral (as any violence is), *and* because it is detrimental to one of the two main goals a Christian has (the one about spreading the word). That said, I ask you to please tone down your hostility. There's really no need to fight me tooth and nail - not on the forums, at least =) Next, it seems to me you didn't quite grasp the meaning of the word "axiom". Let me repeat: an axiom is a proposition which is considered true, *without* a proof of it being true. For example, 2+2=4 is NOT an axiom, because there EXISTS a proof of that proposition, based on Peano axioms, which are the basis of our arithmetic. The first two of Peano's axioms is a good example of what an axiom IS: [*]0 is a natural number. [*]For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive. One could say these axioms are "evident", but "evident" is not a term used in logic; these propositions are accepted to be true. That is the important part. That is why we call them "axioms". Same is the case with God. God is an axiom that some people choose; some others do not. Some people persecute those who do not hold the axiom to be true. Some people persecute those who do hold the axiom to be true. Both are guilty of initiating violence. Now, if someone didn't chose to believe in God freely (i.e. was forced to accept, or feign acceptance under duress) - that is a bad, bad thing. It's bad because it's a form of violence, and it's bad, inside of Christian "theory", because it destroys faith, instead of creating it. Do you see my point(s)?

I use the word "faith" as follows: faith, in it's very essence, is a commitment to hold a proposition P to be true, without having any proof or rational argument for it to be true; indeed, in most cases it's impossible to either prove or disprove P. If you have evidence that P is true, then it's not faith, but rather proof, or deduction, or another process of arriving at a proposition being true, following the use of logic. However, if there is no such way to arrive to the proposition P being true, you can still hold it to be true; that is an act of faith. If a proposition is defined in such a way that it *can* be proven -- then, by necessity, it can be disproven also. This is called "falsifiability", as you may know. Thus, faith in a proposition that is falsifiable can be disproven, or proven. But, indeed, the term 'faith' is rarely applied to such propositions. Now, God is an unfalsifiable proposition. Most often, this is the kind of situations where we apply the word "faith". You are mistaken - there IS choice. Axioms ARE all about choice; axioms, by definition, are taken without proof, and are indeed impossible to prove. They are the basis of what's called "theory", in terms of logic. A theory is the set of all theorems which can be deduced from a given set of axioms. But axioms themselves are not proven or derived from anywhere. They are a static set. Look up "Axiom of Choice" in Wikipedia. Many mathematicians had simply chosen to hold it true, because it allowed them to do fun things. To prove results they love. It opened more exciting areas in mathematics to them. They wanted it. Same principle applies to some of us Christians - we pick God as an axiom (by choice), because it's more fun this way. The only difference with the Axiom of Choice is that we believe "God axiom" has a central place in our lives, whereas mathematicians don't have *that* kind of status for the Axiom of Choice =) And, if you read up on "falsifiability", you will see that, quite trivially, unfalsifiable propositions (hypotheses) can not be either proven, or disproven, by definition. God being an unfalsifiable proposition certainly can't be "disproven", as you claim.

Hold on a minute - we're not talking about some ignorant and repressed "believers", we're talking about philosophers, learned people, scientists. It's important. I am familiar with the stereotype of an ignorant, repressed, aggressive, superstitious and intolerant religious person. Alas, that stereotype is often realised and observed around us. But I urge you to consider, that virtually every philosopher of Middle Ages, and many of them in Renaissance/Enlightenment era were Christians. That fact doesn't add one bit to "validity" of religion - but it clearly indicates that claiming "religious people are ignorant idiots who don't know about contradictions" is a very weak position. Indefensible, in fact.

Thank you! Glad I finally made it here =) I don't think your definition works... because I fall under it, while being a Christian (Eastern Orthodox variety). To clarify: - I absolutely acknowledge lack of evidence for a deity; more than that - I "re-discovered" (after Tertullian) that such lack of evidence is a necessary condition for me to adopt a faith (which I did at age of 28, being a complete atheist before that). - I also acknowledge contradictory nature of many existing religions And yet, I am not an atheist. As for self-contradictory properties - I'd urge you to be cautious when making such strong statements. It is important to remember that, at some point in time, *all* philosophers were religious; most of those our culture borrowed from, specifically Christians. They might have been a slightly different breed, but they all knew Aristotle pretty darn well, including his "Law of Non-contradiction". Somehow, it didn't present a problem for them. Thank you for recommending the book; I was actually looking for something by Stefan (whom I absolutely adore for all of his other views). So far I only saw one short video, which I found to be missing the point completely... but then again, maybe it was targeted against a very *different* kind of faith, in which case it probably deserves all the bashing he can provide =)

Atheism is certainly not a religion, but it's a kind of faith. Just like in mathematics, you either hold the Axiom of Choice to be true (as most mathematicians do), or you do not. Neither group is "religious" in their choice - it's a matter of taste, I'd say. And that's not very different from believing there is God, or believing there isn't. God, by definition (I ask that you trust me on that) is impossible to "prove", deduce, demonstrate, catch, reveal, or otherwise "force" into existence. Neither is He a subject to disproving. He is an unfalsifiable proposition - just as the Axiom of Choice. You can or you can't - you do or you don't. If God actually is, or if God is not - doesn't matter in this regard. (sorry, I am an anarchist AND a Christian, so I had to chime in).