Socrates meets Jesus

[Dimentio]

Socrates meets Jesus (http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/prometheus/socvsjes.htm)

Brilliant

[Comrade J]

Jesus:
God works his wonders in mysterious ways.

The old Christian favourite :lol:

[Publius]

That's good.

This is better: http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing.../godTaoist.html (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html)

[Yardstick]

^That is better.

The first clearly sets up Jesus to look foolish.

[LSD]

It's somewhat better.

I will grant that it's a much less didactic than the former, but in some ways it's actually more insidious.

Whereas the Socrates piece is a rather overt deconstruction of Christian theology; Smullyan's work can be read as a broad metaphilosophical document, when in reality it's virtually a Taoist recruiting letter. Not that I have anything particularly against Taoism, but neither do I have anything for it. And I certainly don't think it should be promoted as some sort of "third way" faux eastern mysticism bullshit.

The point of this thread, if you could call it that, was to illustrate (yet again) the philisophical absurdities inherent to Christianity. The Socrates piece was a tad prosaic, but at least it was upfront in its message. The Taoist article, by contrast, in typical Smullyan style, is entirely unclear. If you really break it down its a tongue-in-cheek treatise on logic; but superficially, it's a rather coherent defence of some sort of naturalistic theism.

Which is why, I suspect, it's so popular. It manages to be both intellectually stimulating and emotionally uncontroversial (i.e., non-threatening) at the same time.

No doubt it's miles better written than the Socrates piece, but, for me, its self-assuredness borders on the sycophantic.

[Publius]

It's somewhat better.

I will grant that it's a much less didactic than the former, but in some ways it's actually more insidious.

Whereas the Socrates piece is a rather overt deconstruction of Christian theology;

As if it's anything more than a parody.

Even as an atheist I have to cringe at how lame Jesus was, as if the Son of God couldn't do a little better than that. Shit, I could give a better defense of Christianity than that.

Not that a similar piece couldn't do the same thing, more effectively. In fact, I'd quite like to see that, but this one (while amusing) really doesn't have much depth.

Maybe it'd get a totally ignorant "Christian" to take a look at what they've been told, but it's no serious challenge to the religion itself.



Smullyan's work can be read as a broad metaphilosophical document, when in reality it's virtually a Taoist recruiting letter. Not that I have anything particularly against Taoism, but neither do I have anything for it. And I certainly don't think it should be promoted as some sort of "third way" faux eastern mysticism bullshit.

The great thing about it is, that it doesn't have to be read like that at all.

Probably this is what was intended, it's what the name implies, but so what? If we read everything the way the author intended, we'd be fucked to begin with.



The point of this thread, if you could call it that, was to illustrate (yet again) the philisophical absurdities inherent to Christianity. The Socrates piece was a tad prosaic, but at least it was upfront in its message. The Taoist article, by contrast, in typical Smullyan style, is entirely unclear. If you really break it down its a tongue-in-cheek treatise on logic; but superficially, it's a rather coherent defence of some sort of naturalistic theism.

It is. But that sort of Spinozastic wankery is really of no concern to me: I've trained myself to treat this sort of "God" (I don't know much about Toaism, but I believe, in the Eastern tradition, that it's roughly pantheistic) as essentially "No God, but something we call God."

And I like how it twists and turns on its own logic, quite apart from any overt religious message. I especially like the treatment of free will which is really one of the better ones I've come across.

It seems to get exactly at what free will really does mean, not what partisans intend for it to mean.



Which is why, I suspect, it's so popular. It manages to be both intellectually stimulating and emotionally uncontroversial (i.e., non-threatening) at the same time.

No doubt it's miles better written than the Socrates piece, but, for me, its self-assuredness borders on the sycophantic.

That's why I just ignore all the nonsense "talk to a tree" stuff and just read it as a purely atheistic piece. I know it isn't, but you can so easily extricate the nonsense that you're still left with a rather clever, lucid piece of philosophy.