That's neat. I see a lot of parallels to a dispute I have with Stephan_Kinsella:

SK: Okay, if you think libertarianism is consistent with IP, then why "term lengths" for patents? How long? On what basis?

me: I will ask you one thing, and answer me: Must you place a footstep over every square inch of a land plot in order to homestead it?

SK: [Hm, if I say yes, that rules out canonical examples of homesteading I gave before, but if I say no, then I have to defer to arbitrary conventions of each area that lack an objective basis.] Well, the exact nuts and bolts of it all depends on the local conventions.

me: Neither will I tell you what a libertarian patent length is.
 

Very good point about Jesus. My favorite examples of Jesus' character are the events he used to launch his ministry and end it. They're the same events, about 3 years apart. His first act in beginning his ministry was to make a whip and drive the money changers and sellers of animals from the temple. One of his last acts was to do the same thing again just before he was crucified. By doing that, he made clear to everyone that he thought the high priest, the religious establishment and the Jewish government were corrupt and should be put out of business.
 

Hmmmm... love to see how libertarians would react to Obama/some other politician pulling that stunt.
 

Leave it to the eternal gadfly to make even this about his monomaniacal obsession, IP.

BTW, Bob, I've wondered before about the coherence of the idea that Satan "tempted" Jesus--offered him all kids of power if he would... what, join Satan or something. But given that Jesus IS God, first, why would this even be a tempation? As God, Jesus had omnipotence already. And anyway, power over the earth is trivial, since it's only temporary anyway. Further, Satan being a former angel and all, you would think he knows the ways of the universe--knows that he is "tempting" God himself. He would only do this if it was at least a possibility that Jesus/God would accept, give in to the tempation. but supose Jesus had accpeted. What then? There is some kind of heavenly divorce? Jesus leaves God-the-Father and God-the-Holy-Spirit to fend for themeslves, sort of like when you Protestants split from the Catholic Church? But the doctrine of the trinity is not that there are three separate entities, but only one Godhead. The idea that it could split into 2 or 3 is incoherent. So Satan would know this. It's even possible to accept the offer; so why make it?
 

Good post Bob. I thought your blog might have been a refuge from the Silas_Barta / Stephan Kinsella feud, but I guess I was wrong.
 

What I don't understand is how God in the Old Testament practiced "save the boss, kill the workers" leadership, while Jesus in the New Testament did the OPPOSITE with "kill the boss, save the workers" leadership. That his father let him die is supposed to be proof of God's love for us?
 

The doctrine of the Trinity is very tricky stuff; I'm not sure I grasp it very well, but I get it better than I did a few years ago -- see Collingwood's metaphysical treatment, for instance, for some light, perhaps. In any case, I think the direction in which to answer Stephan is remembering that while Christ was God he was also genuinely Man; Satan is tempting the "man part" (and get your dirty minds off of what you just thought).

The answer to anonymous is that he was, also, genuinely God; God allowed HIMSELF to be killed in human form; you might see it like going through what, say, your kid goes through in a day at school so you understand her better.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"In any case, I think the direction in which to answer Stephan is remembering that while Christ was God he was also genuinely Man; Satan is tempting the "man part" (and get your dirty minds off of what you just thought)."

Yes, but tempting him with what? When he was "killed", he was not really kiilled... he came back after all. But at least there, it makes sense to say he was killed: his body was murdered, etc. But what does it mean to tempt God? What are you trying to get him to do? What is the end goal? What if Jesus had given in? Would it have split heaven? or just have been play-acting to make Lucifer giggle? And then what? Now Lucifer and Jesus-man fight Jesus-god, holy spirit, and God-father? It makes no sense.

I found some discussion on this here.
 

Say, what is the point in trying to deduce the "logic" of god. Isn't religion supposed to be about faith? You believe it because you have faith that it's true, not because it makes logical sense, right?

Because the "logic" seems to get squirrelly just as soon as god/Jesus start contradicting themselves and their omnipotence.

Wouldn't it be easier/more honest to just say "Dude, you wouldn't get it, it's god logic, not human logic"?
 

Yes, Taylor, if you were totally ignorant of the two millenia-long tradition of rational Western theology, you might say something like that.
 

God Gene, I sure am an idiot! Thanks for pointing it out again!

So rational, this theology. Let's alllll rationalize something that isn't about rationality in the end. Must be an idiot to be ignorant of that whopper of an intellectual concept.
 

Given that last response, I'd have to say, "Yes, apparently you are."
 

Zing!

In case you were wondering since you last comment, nope, you've still got it Gene!

Bravo, I ask a question which has been answered by "two millenia" of thought and your observation that I must be ignorant of this massive volume of thought is enough to simply slap me right back into my place.

The answer to anonymous is that he was, also, genuinely God; God allowed HIMSELF to be killed in human form; you might see it like going through what, say, your kid goes through in a day at school so you understand her better.

It's like some bad movie where the director couldn't figure out how to tie the various plot points together so he leaps straight for the absurd. Some of the people walking out of the theater are upset and confused over the complete nonsense they just witnessed while others who "get it" chide them on not being so hip.

Alright, I admit I'm out of my element (if I even have one to begin with) trying to discuss faith with a bunch of believers... I still haven't seen anyone comment on my suggestion that libertarians would not find Obama/politicians to be so wise if they employed this "logic", maybe if anyone out there who doesn't think I am too stupid to get this could explain it to me, I'd be ETERNALLY grateful (har har har har har).
 

Taylor, try out Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice, Which Rationality?, and you won't feel so out of your element anymore.
 

Anonymous: “That his father let him die is supposed to be proof of God's love for us?”

It’s a little more complicated than that. God didn’t let him die. As Jesus said, no one took his life; he gave it freely. In the Bible, all mankind is in rebellion against God and the only way it can be reconciled with God is through the sacrifice of the God-Man, Jesus. There are several analogies that give some insight into the reasons for this, such as the substitutionary death, the ransom, etc. The main point is that nothing man could do would fix mankind’s problem. God had to do it and it required the death of a perfect man. But they don’t fully explain it.

Your question brings up an important point about theology. If we could understand everything about God, he wouldn’t be God. He would be merely a smart man. Because God is so much superior to us in every way, there are bound to be mysteries. However, that doesn’t mean we cannot know anything true about God. We can know what we are capable of grasping and we can test that to see if it is true.

God demonstrated his love for us by making a way for us to be reconciled with him.

Taylor: “what is the point in trying to deduce the "logic" of god. Isn't religion supposed to be about faith?”

This is a natural follow up to Anonymous. Everything isn’t to be taken on faith. The main emphasis in the Bible is on reason. We can test much of what the Bible says to see if it conforms to reason or not. However, because God is not a man, there are some things we simply can’t understand. The trinity is one of those. The process is like this: test the things we can know and understand; because we find those things to be true and reasonable, we can trust the things we don’t understand.

Biblical faith is based on reason. The idea that faith is totally irrational, and the more irrational the greater the faith, is not a Biblical idea but an invention of Kierkegaard.

Stephen, We know from the NT that Jesus was as tempted as other men by worldly things. Satan clearly thought that he could tempt Jesus into worshipping him in exchange for control of the world. That says a lot about Satan’s ignorance. Why would Satan rebel against God in the first place? He should have known that he could never defeat God. But he did it anyway. I think the answer lies in arrogance. Very intelligent people do some incredibly stupid things once arrogance takes hold of them. It’s easy to delude yourself into thinking you can do what no human can, and that you know more than any human is capable of knowing. That was Hayek’s warning to socialists. Maybe Satan was a socialist?
 

"Stephen, We know from the NT that Jesus was as tempted as other men by worldly things. Satan clearly thought that he could tempt Jesus into worshipping him in exchange for control of the world."

Jean,

Okay. Maybe. Just makes no sense to me.

BTW whether Kierkegaard "invented" the idea that faith is irrational, does not mean it is not. You can assert that "Biblical faith is based on reason." but that is a far from uncontroversial assertion.

"That says a lot about Satan’s ignorance. Why would Satan rebel against God in the first place? He should have known that he could never defeat God. But he did it anyway. I think the answer lies in arrogance. Very intelligent people do some incredibly stupid things once arrogance takes hold of them. It’s easy to delude yourself into thinking you can do what no human can, and that you know more than any human is capable of knowing. That was Hayek’s warning to socialists. Maybe Satan was a socialist? "

I'm sure he was. It's hard to imagine an evil demigod who respects property rights.
 

sorry, I meant that last one for fundmintlist, not Gene.
 

I share SK's thoughts on the Kierkegaard remark. I read Fear and Trembling and I'd have to say you'd need to explain to me, fundamentalist, why that "faith is irrational" bit is an invention. Maybe I don't understand faith but the idea of "it's based upon reason, except the part where it isn't" seems self-contradictory to me.

In effect, there seems to be nothing intellectual to me in attempting to demonstrate the logic of it up to a point, and then at that point saying, "The rest, is magic!" and expecting people to be so impressed with the volume of reason and logic leading up to that point that they just concede you're not childish for putting "faith" in the unexplainable bit.

Again, not trying to be profound I am sure other idiots like me have said the same, stupid, idiotic things before but there is this odd authoritarianist link between the principle god operates off of "Dude, just trust me" and the principle the government operates off of "Dude, just true me". It's beyond stupid for anyone to accept that when the government says it, but it's reasonable to accept it when god says it. Only if you accept the premise that god deserves that faith. But for people who don't, you demand a uniform standard of logic for proving the value of all things, there is nothing to do but scratch one's head and get called names by admittedly much more thoughtful, intellectual types (whose superiority rests in the fact that at a particular point they have the courage to make Kierkegaard's "leap of faith.")

Ha... it'll be so funny if you guys are wrong, won't it? In an ironic kind of way.

So, again, the impression I am getting here is "True faith is actually based upon reason" which sounds to me like integrating a contradiction but I guess it works because it's about god and he can do that kind of thing.
 

See, Taylor, you can tell you're not serious about this discussion because you want two millenia of philosophical thinking summed up on a blog. Well, you know what, it ain't gonna happen. If you're serious, go read MacIntyre's book or Summa Theologica, etc. If you're not, then stop pretending you are just so you can entertain yourself making smart-aleck remarks.
 

Haha Gene, you're so authoritarian yourself. No wonder this all makes sense to you.

You regularly decide, with your all-powerful authority, who is serious or not, according to criteria you come up with. So, to participate in this discussion about "logic", I have to familiarize myself with two millenia of thought?

But, I thought it was all "logic" so, if I am a logical person (which you would dictate I'm not, I'm sure), shouldn't I be able to follow along without "getting serious" about it?

I certainly don't want to participate in a discussion with you either way. You have proven yourself too authoritarian for my tastes in the past. So, if you see me write something further... assume you don't need to respond. And if no one bothers to, that's better than getting hashed by you again, oh Great Decider Of All That Is Serious In The Universe.

Haha wow, I can't believe that I am being told to go do homework before I can participate in a "logical" discussion of some topic. It seems so simple to me but I guess it's so wonderfully complicated that if I haven't brainwashed myself a bit beforehand I won't be able to follow along.

Faith: Believing in something without reason.

So, again, how does one "base faith upon reason"? Or are we saying that all faith is entirely reasonable and there is no suspension of disbelief involved? Have you all personally witnessed miracles? Do you blame me for my skepticism if I have not?
 

Ha ha ha Taylor. Ha ha ha. Oh, you're so totalitarian! Oh, oh, man oh man, you're coming on to me with you're totalitarian "logic." Reason: believing in something without faith. I can't believe you and your totalitarian ways are trying to force me to use "logic"! Faith seems simple to me but I guess to you it's all so wonderfully complicated by your "logic."

Now, just don't go asking me to READ anything or actually LEARN anything. I can't believe anyone would expect anyone to LEARN something in order to discuss it intelligently!

You and your damned "logic," that you accept on faith!
 

Taylor: “Faith: Believing in something without reason.”

That’s Kierkegaard’s definition, which has become the popular one. It’s not the Christian definition.

Taylor: “So, again, how does one "base faith upon reason"?”

As I wrote above, there are some things we can understand about God and some things we can’t because we don’t have the mental capacity. We use reason to test the things about God that we can understand. If we find those things to be reasonable and true, then we can extrapolate that the things we can’t understand are true based on the reliability of the things we can understand.

Taylor: “Or are we saying that all faith is entirely reasonable and there is no suspension of disbelief involved?”

No. There is nothing reasonable about the trinity, as an example. It doesn’t make any sense to humans.

Taylor: “Have you all personally witnessed miracles?”

I was waiting for that one. It always comes down to miracles. Is belief that miracles happened rational? Yes, it is. But you have to make some assumptions: 1) Assume the God of the Bible exists and he is all-powerful and all-knowing. 2) Assume that communication with people is important to him (not so difficult since communication is important to humans). Then how would God distinguish his communications from those of mere humans? He might use what we call miracles.

The popular perception of miracles is that they violate the laws of physics. However, computers would be considered miraculous to people of the middle ages. But we know that computers don’t violate the laws of physics. We simply have a better understanding of physics than did people of the middle ages. In the same way, God the creator knows physics better than we do.

Taylor: “Have you all personally witnessed miracles? Do you blame me for my skepticism if I have not?

Yes, I have experienced miracles personally. But that’s beside the point. Miracles are by definition rare events. Is your only criterion for accepting the miracles experienced by others that you personally experience a miracle? If so, do you really think that is rational? Are there no areas of life in which you accept the word of another person that you trust? For example, have you ever seen a super nova? Do you believe they happen?
 

fundamentalist,

I find definitions important because the definition of faith which Christians appear to rely on seems flawed at its premise because it's an entirely "internal" definition. You have to presuppose a god who exists for your definition to work.

It seems tautological to me, do you understand why I see it that way or do I just come across as zany for trying to integrate a contradiction.

I want to return to my original comment: how would you react if Obama claimed the same logic?

I am guessing you'd reject it because he isn't god. But some people honestly seem to think he is. Do you blame those people for doing so? If they employ your same logic (test what we can, accept the things we can't understand that otherwise seem contradictory) and replace god with Obama, how can you make an honest argument that they're wrong? As soon as you observe "hmm, this doesn't make sense, much like the trinity" they go "a-ha! See, we can't understand god-Obama's vast intellect, we must rely on our faith here."
 

Taylor, I don’t want to give the impression that skeptics have no reason to be skeptical. I know that the evidence is not overwhelming, though I think the preponderance of evidence is on the side of Christianity. When defending the rationality of Christianity, I can come across as sounding as if skeptics are total idiots. I don’t think that at all. There are good reasons to be skeptical. Scientists used to say that the universe looks like a garden that has been left uncared for and is overgrown. In other words, there is evidence for a creator, but entropy obscures it. I think that is a good analogy and Christianity affirms that viewpoint because it claims that God created the universe to be perfect, but because of mankind’s rebellion, he cursed it by introducing entropy. Also, the Bible claims that God stepped back and let humanity have it way for the most part. So God has deliberately covered his tracks. On the other hand, he occasionally breaks through the chaos and delivers a forceful message, out of mercy and love for those in the rebellion.
 

fundamentalist,

You think that reasonable belief is on the side of Christianity because you want to, not because you've actually done some objective weighing of evidence (something "scientific"). The problem is, lots of stuff makes sense, but then when something not only doesn't make sense but is fairly absurd to consider from a earth-bound physiological perspective (such as the trinity) you just say... alright, whatever. You don't weight it very strongly.

Other religionists can make similar claims about the reasonability of their belief systems and point to various consistencies that give them confidence to leap for faith on the rest.

Sorry, not me.

What do people think about the Obama comment?
 

Taylor: "You think that reasonable belief is on the side of Christianity because you want to, not because you've actually done some objective weighing of evidence (something "scientific")."

You sure claim to know a lot about me just from a few blog entries. Or are you claiming psychic powers?

I began comparing the Christian and atheist claims back in 1974 when I entered college. I have read just about everything any prominent atheist has written on the subject, especially the great atheist philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. I know the atheist arguments better than most atheists. Judging by your response, I would say that you have never seriously studied the subject at all.
 

Nor dors Taylor have any interest in learning about the topic, fundamentalist! For heaven's sake don't recommend a book to him, or he'll tell you you're an authoritarian.
 

fundamentalist,

I was not alive in 1974, so you have definitely studied this longer than I have.

I am not trying to change your mind-- I wouldn't bother. Similarly, you don't need to try to defend your viewpoint... it's indefensible. This is by your own admission.

And this is my point. You are trying to make someone like me feel guilty for not taking you seriously when, by your own admission, there is a certain point at which you've just chosen to take the absurdities in front of you as truth. I'd say "on faith" but I don't even think I can use that word anymore because you'll nod and say "Yes, on faith, and my faith is informed by reason," at which point my head explodes.

I'm not going to "seriously study the claims" and here's why (again, this is the point I've repeatedly tried to make and I've asked you and others for elucidation numerous times on a specific angle of it but you refuse to respond to it, I don't know why): I treat all people's claims with equal skepticism. And my basic assumption is that "miracles" (I'd call it magic, but I don't want to use a word that would be pejorative in the context of our discussion) don't happen. Period. That's my assumption. I understand that the religionist refutes that, but to refute it you must have faith, again, by your own admission... you can study so many various miracles and acts of god and see why they're consistent with laws of reality but there are certain ones not even the religionists can explain and at that point they say "I've seen enough, I'll just go with it on this one." I am saying, I have never, and will never, see enough.

I believe all human beings are just that, human beings. I don't believe any have special powers. I believe claims otherwise have always been used to gain control and power over others. To take your line (that I've straw-maned over to you), "I've seen enough."

May I rot in hell if I am wrong.

Now, I'd still like some kind of religionist response to my question about "Do you begrudge people who put faith in the godliness claims of someone like Obama, and if so, on what grounds?"

Also, it's very impressive you've examined the atheist vs. Christian claims since 1974. It's news to me that those are the only two religious positions one can take in the world and that by studying just these two you are now, by your standards, informed enough to cast out the claims made by other religions.
 

"I treat all people's claims with equal skepticism."

Sorry, Taylor, that's not even a possibility. To be sceptical about A, you must have a B you believe in as the basis for your scepticism. What you really mean is that you have strong beliefs in atheism and materialism, and you'd hate to read anything that might disturb them.