Does all this debate have any real value

[orcel]

Tertullian was a first centuary theologian who often argued for the support of religion and faith alone. To Tertullian reason amounted to nothing more then distractions placed before humanity as a temptation away from faith.

Personally I disagree with Tertullian completely. I believe both faith and reason are God given gifts to humanity. But Tertullian did have one intersting thing to say...

" A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art destroys as much as it builds, changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion."

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I get endless entertainment from debates, so I find great value in it.

 

[orcel]

I get endless entertainment from debates, so I find great value in it.

Yes, I too enjoy a hearty discussion, but are we really accomplishing anything here?

 

[*Anne*]

I can see endless quarrels being a problem. However, if one has the patience to get past that ~ meaning you can focus on the good points of a person's argument without getting your feathers all ruffled ~ then I think debate helps encourage growth. Our understanding evolves. Hopefully.

 

[Quagmire]

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything?

Remember that there are a lot of people reading these things that never post (check out the views to replies ration on any thread). There are even people who go to the trouble of registering for RF and never post, yet if you look on the list of who's been here in the last 24 hours their names keep popping up.

You have to ask: why would someone go to the trouble of registering for a forum and keep coming back on a regular basis if they never post anything? To me, it's obvious: they're looking for something.

In one way or another, Religion has or has been a huge influence on just about anyone you can point to on this planet. A lot of people have their own personal debates going on in their own private thoughts about the very things that get discussed in here. For some of these people, the outcome of these personal debates is going to play a crucail role in how they choose to live their lives.

A lot of information comes to light during the course of any worthwhile debate. Hopefully, some of the people who are just watching can find something useful in that.

 

[meogi]

It's often the reason why I debate using so many counter-questions. It's always my hope that in thinking about questions posed, people will better understand their own belief, or I'll better understand theirs. I find people, generally, learn more about a topic when they have to think about it. Sadly, I think some people often misinterpret this as attempts to sway people from their opinion; and more often, they don't think about it at all and toss it aside as a whimsical attempt at baseless conversion, so don't give it much thought.

Thought is all we have, and it is our best measure of ourselves and reality. Any ideas on if I should end this form of debate or do you think it might have any merit? I've been wondering about this a lot the past few weeks.

I do love to learn though, ever since I joined 7 years ago. Figuring out other people's perspectives (and using it to adapt my own view) is a hobby of mine.

 

[Skwim]

In one sense Tertullian was an indolent apologist who would rather make up clever excuses than face theological problems head on. Therefore, in defense, he regarded theological debate as not only troublesome but a worthless pursuit. So I wouldn't look to Tertullian as a model for approaching theological issues. For me, debate serves to sharpen my thinking and sometimes forces me to reassess my positions. Besides, it's fun to learn from others and match wits with them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, I too enjoy a hearty discussion, but are we really accomplishing anything here?

Yes, enjoying a hearty discussion, for one example.

 

[Quagmire]

It's often the reason why I debate using so many counter-questions. It's always my hope that in thinking about questions posed, people will better understand their own belief, or I'll better understand theirs. I find people, generally, learn more about a topic when they have to think about it. Sadly, I think some people often misinterpret this as attempts to sway people from their opinion; and more often, they don't think about it at all and toss it aside as a whimsical attempt at baseless conversion, so don't give it much thought.

Sometimes, getting someone to better understand their own beliefs is going to upset them because holding those beliefs is dependent on their not understanding them.

Thought is all we have, and it is our best measure of ourselves and reality. Any ideas on if I should end this form of debate or do you think it might have any merit? I've been wondering about this a lot the past few weeks.

Again: I think it can benefit the audience as much or more then the participants. When someone sees someone asking questions they've been asking themselves, or see's vague doubts they may have verbalized in concrete terms it can help them understand their own questions and even help them find some answers.

I do love to learn though, ever since I joined 7 years ago. Figuring out other people's perspectives (and using it to adapt my own view) is a hobby of mine.

I think we'd all be better off if that were a more popular hobby.

 

[Luminous]

Tertullian was a first centuary theologian who often argued for the support of religion and faith alone. To Tertullian reason amounted to nothing more then distractions placed before humanity as a temptation away from faith.

Personally I disagree with Tertullian completely. I believe both faith and reason are God given gifts to humanity. But Tertullian did have one intersting thing to say...

" A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art destroys as much as it builds, changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion."

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?

both correct faith and pure reason are gifts of humanity.

A plague on Tertullian, who taught them the anti-dialectics of faith, the art does nothing at all, exchanges its opinons like hats, sneaks in its conjectures, is devoid of argument, works hard at being complacent and is a burden even to itself. For it considers only a few points simply to make sure it finishes a discussion.

To Luminous faith amounts to nothing more then distractions placed before humanity as polyfalse temptations away from the ONE reason.

Tertullian's dialectic against dialectics has no point at all.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

In one sense Tertullian was an indolent apologist who would rather make up clever excuses than face theological problems head on. Therefore, in defense, he regarded theological debate as not only troublesome but a worthless pursuit. So I wouldn't look to Tertullian as a model for approaching theological issues. For me, debate serves to sharpen my thinking and sometimes forces me to reassess my positions. Besides, it's fun to learn from others and match wits with them.

Agreed.

If I were to pick a Church Father who is also a heretic, I'd go with Origen.

 

[Sunstone]

Tertullian was a first centuary theologian who often argued for the support of religion and faith alone. To Tertullian reason amounted to nothing more then distractions placed before humanity as a temptation away from faith.

Tertullian lived, ate, and died in filth. Faith never once in all of human history has built a water and sewer system. Reason, science, and engineering have. And modern water and sewer systems have added more than a decade to the average human life span. All of Tertullian's theology never managed to add even a month.

Personally I disagree with Tertullian completely. I believe both faith and reason are God given gifts to humanity. But Tertullian did have one intersting thing to say...

" A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art destroys as much as it builds, changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion."

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?

The various scientific methods of inquiry are demonstrably the world's foremost instruments for arriving at intellectual consensus. Neither theologians, nor philosophers, nor lawyers, nor politicians, nor popes, nor generals have been nearly as effective as the methods of science have been at getting people to agree that x is the case. And the various scientific methods all allow for debate.

It is demonstrable that theological debates seldom create consensus, while scientific debates routinely created consensus. The issue is not whether or not there is debating, the issue is whether or not one debates using the methods of a Tertullian, or more wisely debates using the methods of an Einstein.

 

[orcel]

In one sense Tertullian was an indolent apologist who would rather make up clever excuses than face theological problems head on. Therefore, in defense, he regarded theological debate as not only troublesome but a worthless pursuit. So I wouldn't look to Tertullian as a model for approaching theological issues. For me, debate serves to sharpen my thinking and sometimes forces me to reassess my positions. Besides, it's fun to learn from others and match wits with them.

Well said.

 

[orcel]

Tertullian lived, ate, and died in filth. Faith never once in all of human history has built a water and sewer system.

To play devil's advocate: Another first centuary theology was gnosticism. To the gnostic everything physical was a distraction from the spiritual. The gnostic could agrue that he has no need for water and sewer systems.

Reason, science, and engineering have. And modern water and sewer systems have added more than a decade to the average human life span. All of Tertullian's theology never managed to add even a month.

Of couse it could be argued that the dedication to faith adds eternal life.

 

[Oneatatime]

Tertullian was a first centuary theologian who often argued for the support of religion and faith alone. To Tertullian reason amounted to nothing more then distractions placed before humanity as a temptation away from faith.

Personally I disagree with Tertullian completely. I believe both faith and reason are God given gifts to humanity. But Tertullian did have one intersting thing to say...

" A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art destroys as much as it builds, changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion."

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?

Tertullian was afraid of change and the requirement that indivuduals justify their positions. People in general are highly reluctant to modify their views and practices and will resort to a plethora of tactics ranging from the benign to the brutal to protect them.

Debate is healthy because it forces individuals to justify their position and if they can't then that position can be disregarded until we have reason to accept it again. This gives us a degree of flexibility in a rapidly changing world which is neccessary if we are to survive and prosper, and hopefully work towards a better world for everyone.

 

[Morpheus]

It's often the reason why I debate using so many counter-questions. It's always my hope that in thinking about questions posed, people will better understand their own belief, or I'll better understand theirs. I find people, generally, learn more about a topic when they have to think about it. Sadly, I think some people often misinterpret this as attempts to sway people from their opinion; and more often, they don't think about it at all and toss it aside as a whimsical attempt at baseless conversion, so don't give it much thought.

Thought is all we have, and it is our best measure of ourselves and reality. Any ideas on if I should end this form of debate or do you think it might have any merit? I've been wondering about this a lot the past few weeks.

I do love to learn though, ever since I joined 7 years ago. Figuring out other people's perspectives (and using it to adapt my own view) is a hobby of mine.

:yes:
We only learn when we ask questions. Being 'right' never achieved anything other than stroking your ego.
I consider it a challenge to poke people in their perspectives and see if I can encourage them to consider different possibilities. We are usually in trouble when we whack a flag in the ground and claim a position.

 

[Penumbra]

Tertullian was a first centuary theologian who often argued for the support of religion and faith alone. To Tertullian reason amounted to nothing more then distractions placed before humanity as a temptation away from faith.

Personally I disagree with Tertullian completely. I believe both faith and reason are God given gifts to humanity. But Tertullian did have one intersting thing to say...

" A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art destroys as much as it builds, changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion."

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?

Look at how far people have come in the last 2000 years based on reason, discussion, and science.

Reconsidering every point is important because it's a self-correcting process that eliminates errors and improves over time as it collects new information. Forming a conclusion and then never reconsidering it even in the face of new information and new ideas is a recipe for disaster.

To play devil's advocate: Another first centuary theology was gnosticism. To the gnostic everything physical was a distraction from the spiritual. The gnostic could agrue that he has no need for water and sewer systems.

And they'd be hurting not only their selves, but those that live in that community that don't believe the way they do.

Of couse it could be argued that the dedication to faith adds eternal life.

Which faith? There are an uncountable number of supernatural things to potentially believe in. Some of them contradict one another, and some don't.

Remember that there are a lot of people reading these things that never post (check out the views to replies ration on any thread). There are even people who go to the trouble of registering for RF and never post, yet if you look on the list of who's been here in the last 24 hours their names keep popping up.

You have to ask: why would someone go to the trouble of registering for a forum and keep coming back on a regular basis if they never post anything? To me, it's obvious: they're looking for something.

In one way or another, Religion has or has been a huge influence on just about anyone you can point to on this planet. A lot of people have their own personal debates going on in their own private thoughts about the very things that get discussed in here. For some of these people, the outcome of these personal debates is going to play a crucail role in how they choose to live their lives.

A lot of information comes to light during the course of any worthwhile debate. Hopefully, some of the people who are just watching can find something useful in that.

Great point.

The number of people that view a thread is significantly greater than the number of people that post in a thread. I focus on posting towards not only the person I'm debating with, but also the audience.

 

[Seabear]

No there is no point to debate. Eventually everyone will die and the human race will cease to exist. Even if somehow we create a galactic empire that spans billions and billions of years we while still have no effect in the grand scheme of things. Stars will die and there will cease to be light after a couple of trillion of years then it takes a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years until the last atoms decay, that's a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years where absolutely nothing will happen, no one around to remember us or what we did. Then nothing. Forever.

 

[Penumbra]

No there is no point to debate. Eventually everyone will die and the human race will cease to exist. Even if somehow we create a galactic empire that spans billions and billions of years we while still have no effect in the grand scheme of things. Stars will die and there will cease to be light after a couple of trillion of years then it takes a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years until the last atoms decay, that's a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years where absolutely nothing will happen, no one around to remember us or what we did. Then nothing. Forever.

None of that affects your ability to live your life now.

 

[Seabear]

None of that affects your ability to live your life now.

I realize that and I attempt to live my life to the fullest and to make my self the happiest I can become. But if debate makes you happy then go for it, I was just answering the OP's question.