Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ryujin]

I'm not a big fan of Starbucks, but I may have to get a red cup of something before the Apocalypse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...ping_b_8510244.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Feuersetin. Ugh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That is not a limit of science, but of humanity. Nobody is capable of dealing with things that cannot be observed. Or, at least, such "dealing with" cannot be demonstrated, even to yourself.

Morality can't be observed, yet it's a core dealing of philosophy. Numbers can't be observed, yet science assumes their reality.

That's not actually a base assumption. That observation reveals truth is gleaned by science through inductive reasoning. Science is very much, "the proof is in the pudding".

Inductive reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms. If you're using inductive reasoning to verify your axioms, you're doing it wrong.

Again, not actually a base assumption, but more inductive reasoning. If math didn't produce results, we would not use it in science.

No, it is a core assumption. If it is not, please provide the formal inductive reasoning, with no underlying axioms, that proves it, as a Fields Medal is in your immediate future.

Upon what do you base that assertion?

You need to be very careful with the reasoning here, in that there's a gulf between, "science isn't suited," and, "science is not yet advanced enough." Can you support the assertion that even with advances in psychology, cognitive sciences, sociology and anthropology, science will not ever be able to take on moral questions?

Ah, the 'science will one day be able to uncover all truths.' Truly, sir, I did not mean to offend your religion.

 

[Kramodlog]

Ah, the 'science will one day be able to uncover all truths.' Truly, sir, I did not mean to offend your religion.

Positivism is a philosophy, not a religion.

 

[Umbran]

Morality can't be observed, yet it's a core dealing of philosophy.

You know what I'm going to say to that, right? How do you *know* morality cannot be observed? Your personal assertion of it as fact is hardly sufficient. We need at least some logic there.

You have undoubtedly seen, at some point, someone who saw a charitable action by a person, and said, "That was a good thing she did," or, "She's such a good person!" How is this not someone observing morality?

I will accept that, at the moment, morality is much like pornography - "I'll know it when I see it." But the fact that it is currently difficult to define does not prove that we cannot observe it. The fact that we know it when we *see* it, instead, speaks to it being observable, but that quantifying it is difficult.

Numbers can't be observed, yet science assumes their reality.

No. Science assumes their *utility*. Whether numbers have some intrinsic reality is generally left to the philosophers. We use them because they happen to be extremely functional. Functional to the point where, in our philosophical moments, we do wonder about their reality, sure. Even scientists have their moments of musing.

Inductive reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms. If you're using inductive reasoning to verify your axioms, you're doing it wrong.

Um, no. *Deductive* reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms. Inductive reasoning is the process of making many specific observations, and deriving general principles from their commonalities. Note that this is different from "mathematical induction", which, despite the name, is a form of deductive reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

No, it is a core assumption. If it is not, please provide the formal inductive reasoning, with no underlying axioms, that proves it, as a Fields Medal is in your immediate future.

That comes across as a bit snarky. Maybe you want to review the terminology, and see if you want to continue with that tone. Inductive reasoning admits to a measure of uncertainty - inductive reasoning does not give "proof" in the formal mathematical sense.

Ah, the 'science will one day be able to uncover all truths.' Truly, sir, I did not mean to offend your religion.

Religion is not sentient, and cannot be offended. You have not offended me. You have wandered into being what I am tempted to call, "not even wrong," which is not offensive, merely regrettable to see.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You know what I'm going to say to that, right? How do you *know* morality cannot be observed? Your personal assertion of it as fact is hardly sufficient. We need at least some logic there.

You have undoubtedly seen, at some point, someone who saw a charitable action by a person, and said, "That was a good thing she did," or, "She's such a good person!" How is this not someone observing morality?

I will accept that, at the moment, morality is much like pornography - "I'll know it when I see it." But the fact that it is currently difficult to define does not prove that we cannot observe it. The fact that we know it when we *see* it, instead, speaks to it being observable, but that quantifying it is difficult.

Seriously, that's the extent of your argument? A weak form of the argument from ignorance? You're actually proposing that there is a definite, universal, absolute morality with measurable quanta that science can get a hold of? Interesting theory. I'll just stick with my 'science and morality don't mix' and accept your poo-pooing that I can't prove it so. The alternative is a bit too wonky for me to work with.

No. Science assumes their *utility*. Whether numbers have some intrinsic reality is generally left to the philosophers. We use them because they happen to be extremely functional. Functional to the point where, in our philosophical moments, we do wonder about their reality, sure. Even scientists have their moments of musing.

So you're freely admitting that science is based on an assumption of the utility of something that may or may not exist, not that science can prove it, yes?

It's like I say, "science has some fundamental assumptions that it cannot resolve," and you say, "no, it doesn't," and I say, "look at numbers," and you say, "numbers are something we just take on faith because their useful, whether they exist or not is up to [not-science]." And then, I say, "thank you for making my point for me."

Um, no. *Deductive* reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms. Inductive reasoning is the process of making many specific observations, and deriving general principles from their commonalities. Note that this is different from "mathematical induction", which, despite the name, is a form of deductive reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

I was aware of that, and was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't serious mean inductive reasoning, and had intended deductive. Inductive reasoning is saying 'our best guess' which is totally unsuited as an answer to my statement that the fundamental axioms of math are true. You've essentially stated by using inductive reasoning that 'since we use math, we assume math is true.' Which is exactly what I said when I said that science assumes fundamental facts in order to function.

That comes across as a bit snarky. Maybe you want to review the terminology, and see if you want to continue with that tone. Inductive reasoning admits to a measure of uncertainty - inductive reasoning does not give "proof" in the formal mathematical sense.

I meant the snark. I mean it more now that you've clarified that you did indeed mean to use inductive, not deductive. You've ceded the argument to me while arguing otherwise.

Religion is not sentient, and cannot be offended. You have not offended me. You have wandered into being what I am tempted to call, "not even wrong," which is not offensive, merely regrettable to see.

No, that turn of phrase isn't meant to say that I offended religion itself, only your religious beliefs -- that science will one day be the answer for everything.

I respect science. I use it and it's products daily. But it's a tool, nothing more. It's not the only tool, and sometimes not even a useful tool, but it's mostly a damned good one. I just don't mistake the tool for anything more.

 

[Istbor]

I just can't understand fellow Christians some times. How one can take the Bible and its teachings as absolute when it concerns things you are against, but then completely ignore the words that profess humility and understanding. In the same book.

What is worse, is that there are no official denouncements of such people. I mean sure, it can go without saying that another's opinion does not reflect on the Religion as a whole. At a certain point though? What would be so wrong with denouncing a few practitioners who are consistently spouting misinformation and vitriol.

 

[Umbran]

What is worse, is that there are no official denouncements of such people. I mean sure, it can go without saying that another's opinion does not reflect on the Religion as a whole. At a certain point though? What would be so wrong with denouncing a few practitioners who are consistently spouting misinformation and vitriol.

It isn't like most denominations are unified enough, or have authority figures well-known enough, to be heard. How many people off the tops of their heads know the name of even a single current major religious authority other than the Pope? And sure, the Pope or a Cardinal might denounce some major Catholic public figure who goes off the rails, but nobody is going to listen to a Catholic denouncing a Baptist, or a Lutheran, or something.

Any number of moderate Muslim clerics, for example *have* denounced the policies and actions of Muslim extreme factions. Can you name one? I can't. Some American politicos keep asking why the moderate Muslim community doesn't come out against the extremists, when they *have* been doing so!

There is also an issue of possible conflict of interest involved. Major religious authorities, of course, want their voices to be heard by as many as possible. How much can you advocate for your own voice to be heard at the same time as you are effectively trying to silence another? We have, in the past, had bloody wars over even minor bits of Christian dogma, and "Papist" was used as a dirty word for a long time in mostly-Protestant early America. I suspect the community overall is not interested in engaging in the business of telling some of their number they are *wrong* these days.

So, maybe the question isn't so much, "What would be wrong with...?" as "What's the point, and does it help to do so, really?"

 

[Istbor]

I see where you are coming from. It is true that some of the denominations do not have a central figure or system so it would be that much more difficult.

I can't agree with your final point however. I may have presented a flawed question that I can admit. The thought that it is futile and so we just need to let it be, is something I will not get behind. Ultimately it is up to those organizations. If they are fine with followers producing such content, they cannot be forced. I just don't believe a call for change or betterment should be stifled with "but what good will it do?".

I will adjust my question to "What should be done?", or "Are we okay as a society with allowing such actions to perpetuate?" and perhaps even "Should something be done about this?".

 

[Kramodlog]

I will adjust my question to "What should be done?", or "Are we okay as a society with allowing such actions to perpetuate?" and perhaps even "Should something be done about this?".

Ain't the fact that it ended up in the media and that Christians like you say it isn't Christian behavior enough? The Christian persecution sentiment that emerged in the US (maybe), didn't emerge overnight because of one incident. The counter movement will also take time. Racism and sexism are still being fought for.

The question is how far are you willing to go? What you say in your everyday life and on the web is enough, but you can get involved more if you want. Christian messianism is such a poweful force when it is time to convert pagans, but when it comes to this or defend homosexuals, it doesn't seem to be able to mobilize as much.

 

[Istbor]

Ain't the fact that it ended up in the media and that Christians like you say it isn't Christian behavior enough? The Christian persecution sentiment that emerged in the US (maybe), didn't emerge overnight because of one incident. The counter movement will also take time. Racism and sexism are still being fought for.

The question is how far are you willing to go? What you say in your everyday life and on the web is enough, but you can get involved more if you want. Christian messianism is such a poweful force when it is time to convert pagans, but when it comes to this or defend homosexuals, it doesn't seem to be able to mobilize as much.

It is certainly good to see people, hopefully fellow Christians included, telling off someone who only seems to focus on more negative interpretations of the Bible and Religion as a whole. It is a good start. To drive something like that home though, more seems to be needed. I think responses from the organized Religion, whatever the denomination, can come across as more official.

Even if it is just the local parish or community. Stating that such gross statements go against fundamental teachings. I cannot speak 100% for every different church, generally there is the pervading theme of "Love thy neighbor".

I agree with you, that the moderate followers of a given Christian faith are not doing all that can be done to refute that their Religions categorically are against homosexuality. It is getting better though.

For what it is worth, I don't think God would care one bit about sexual orientation. If God does, it is not the sort of God I would want to worship.