http://apdraper2000.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] apdraper2000.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] nameandnature 2009-02-23 12:32 pm (UTC)

You have a substantive objection to my objection, which I understand as: if Christianity doesn't have a fixed cognitive content, where it makes assertions about the world that can't just be changed at the convenience of an individual or an entire culture, then we can all be done with it. It simply has nothing to do with truth.

My objection to that objection would be weak, in particular ad hominem, and would run along these lines: if you're not done with it, how do you expect anyone else to be done with it?

I don't try to consciously think like a Christian most days. The exception is probably when I'm arguing with Christians, in which case I try to experience some sort of empathy, I suppose.

That I have the impression otherwise is probably an example of the myopia of online exchanges. A lot of your thinking about Xianity makes it online; less of your other activities (such as dancing).

Again, though, my concern is not with empathy: not relating emotionally to Christians, but with (still don't have the right term or analogy) trying to relate cognitively to Christians. In that respect, your link to the "freud v god II" post is spot on. That's EXACTLY the problem I'm talking about.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting