stoicfury

846 reputation

114

bio	website	stoicfury.com
	location	Silicon Valley
	age	27
visits	member for	1 year, 8 months
	seen	Feb 4 at 2:17
stats	profile views	77

Your friendly neighborhood Philosophy Mod. :)

Research Psychologist and HF Engineer at NASA.
Background in Psychology, Philosophy, and Computer Science.

Interests / areas of study:
artificial intelligence, linguistics, natural language processing, evolutionary psychology, persuasion, perception, developmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, perception/phenomenology, Kant, Hume, Buddha.

	846 reputation	bio	website	stoicfury.com	visits	member for	1 year, 8 months
114 badges		location	Silicon Valley		seen	Feb 4 at 2:17

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

112 Actions

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

Jan 12	awarded	Popular Question
Nov 8	comment	Are there any statistics that show how many scientists are Christians or otherwise believe in a personal God? @svidgen - Why not both? :P
Sep 18	awarded	Yearling
Jul 10	accepted	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible?
Jul 7	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? (a) Not necessary. I only need one to be correct. (b) Read your own answer "b" (c) Oh, I thought you meant something else from that statement (i.e. "No you're wrong and the Bible is right cos I said so"). What you actually meant is, however, irrelevant. I've discussed this with Monika — I could cede you that the Bible is right or wrong, it wouldn't matter to my argument. My argument relies on inconsistency, i.e. change. Yes, I'm sure most people on this planet would generally agree with me that our morality is changing for the better (as opposed to worse), but it doesn't matter.
Jul 6	comment	How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe The problem is that God doesn't appear to want to convince people on a large scale that He exists. Most reasonable Christians admit they have no proof of God — that's where their faith comes in. Then you have Muslims saying they have proof of their version of the Abrahamic God, and Hindu's claiming they have proof, and so on and so forth. In reality, no one has any proof; it's a matter of *faith. I don't think you will find a lot of success trying to reason* someone into believing God; statistically, you're be much better off (more likely to succeed) appealing to emotions.
Jul 5	comment	How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe There are innumerable arguments "if causality then first cause." Strange, I've only heard one and it's not even logically coherent. As to your point though, I'm curious (honestly) — who doesn't believe in causality? I can't think of single philosopher who denies causality (the idea that everything is caused; nothing comes about uncaused). Since this is such an unlikely position to hold, I'm inclined to think you're not being consistent with your question (which is exactly what JonEricson is trying to clear up).
Jul 5	comment	How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe @IgnatiusTheophorus The text you provided above, that comment you just made, what is that in response to? I'm having a hard time figuring out how it really means anything in the context of what I just said...
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? @MonikaMichael - :) I'm actually quite calm (as a stoic), so I hope I don't appear furious in my comments. I just like the irony of the juxtaposition and the idea of using fury in a state of calmness as a tool to give oneself focus and resolve, as opposed to most people letting their fury control them. :P
Jul 5	comment	How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe Regarding my point above, "1) it's a baseless claim", by that I simply mean it's a claim that stipulated without valid reasoning or justification. If I said, "I'm the smartest man in the world." You'd say, "Really now? Prove it." If I said "I can jump 20 feet", you'd say "Okay then, prove it." Well here, you're saying "There must have been a first thing", and I'm saying, "Prove it." Can you actually prove that there has to have been a first thing? It's harder to do than you might think! :)
Jul 5	comment	How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe The title question is not the same as the body question. Denying that there is a *first* cause (or that we can possibly pretend to know anything about it) is not the same as denying causality altogether. The argument is rejected because 1) it's a baseless claim and 2) it could just as easily be a universe-causing rock or an super-powerful alien toaster that started it; nothing says it has to be "God". If this question is asking for the Christian method of replying ("How do we [Christians?] argue for God when we cannot even agree on this?") it would not be appropriate for Philosophy.SE.
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? Jas - Thank you for this answer; I have a profound respect for you because you have the wit to understand the logical structure of my argument and the honesty and integrity of character to address it directly. Now, I am only curious as to what % of Christians are in group 1 and what % are in group 2... @Monika - Actually, it's not a contradiction nor a problem; once again, my point is that my argument doesn't rest on whether the moral views got better or worse — it only matters that it changed. Anything else I added in my question is secondary (background info / context) and not required.
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? @JonEricson – I would be interested in your response on this! :)
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? (a) Yes, that may be true. But am I misreading it in every case? I'm not the only person who thinks this… (b) ... what? It's not necessary to list every morally ambiguous passage in the Bible (that's a long list and I only need one). "Are mentally retarded people less valuable as human beings than geniuses?" According to the Bible, yes. Apparently, the Bible values people by how much work they can do... (c) That's not really a good argument.
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? "The idea that morality is changing in a positive direction…" While I think most of the rational world agrees with me in a general sense (I've studied the philosophy of ethics, I understand moral relativism), once again it doesn't matter for this argument. I could cede you this entire point. My argument solely hinges upon the fact that it changed (for better or for worse). But at least you acknowledge that there are some differences in your second paragraph so you do agree with my premise. The answers you follow with are helpful in that (particularly the 1st) they reveal your own method.
Jul 5	revised	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? clarifying that direction of the change in morality does not matter...
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? @MonikaMichael You seem to be stuck on this whole bad/good dichotomy. Just to be clear: I don't care about that point, I could cede you that morality has or has not gotten better; it is entirely irrelevant to my argument. If you think it is, you are not understanding the argument properly.
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? I never claimed morality must change, only that it has. It is not bold to say that the moral views of people 2000 years ago is different than what it is today. Next ¶ ("as to your references") is not an argument. The rest up until the last 3 ¶ ("and though in…") is a tacit answer to my question — you try to justify it by reinterpreting the text in a morally acceptable manner. The morality of humans has changed over time. This is a fact. There is no way around this in reality (only in your mind). Last 3 ¶ are irrelevant — there could be more slaves but that doesn't mean people find it okay...
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? “Morality is not a constant ... evolves over time ... in a positive direction”. That's not what I said. I said we like to think it occurs in a positive direction, but either way it doesn't matter which direction it occurs; what matters is that it changes. The argument is that the morality revealed in some parts of the Bible is *different* that most Christians adhere to today. Second, no, it is not implicit, and it's irrelevant to the argument. Third, with all due respect I don't think you understand what "metaphysically" means, but either way, your argument is nonsense. (cont.)
Jul 5	comment	How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? The premise of my argument is that the morality of some of the passages in the Bible may advocate for a moral view that most modern day people (Christian's included) don't adhere to (see any of the provided examples). There are a lot of people who agree on this. The question is, how do Christians deal with the moral dissonance that would result.