First Stones
In BiO Spiritualism--which is shorthand for "the integration of Objectivism philosophy and Biocentric psychology in the individual", in BiO Spiritualism--a fundamental value for your mental and psychological development is: check your premises and if they are wrong, change them and if they are correct, keep them.
Christians dare not check their premises because there are so many that are wrong that they would have to spend all their time checking and changing checking and changing checking and changing and on and on.
(That is, they dare not--in the serious sense of the term--they dare not--in the fear sense of the term--they dare not check their premises because they run the risk of collapsing into what I call the SVTOUL--Spiral Vortex Theory of Unlearning--and as such since they don't have correct BiO Spiritualism premises to protect them during their collapse--like I did during mine--they could be so devastated that they run the risk of not being able to uncollapse themselves--epistemologically speaking--as I did manage to do--epistemologically speaking--and so such premise checking is--I do understand--a very risky risk but ... )
That they should do this is of course a no brainer, but whether or not any particular individual Christian will do it is of course up to that particular individual.
For one example of a Professional Christian individual who has not checked his premises in the past 12 years--hence we can conclude, is one Christian individual who refuses to so check--is Christian Commentary editor-about-town D.J. Tice--to wit from my 2002 unpublished lte's:
EDITOR St. Paul Pioneer Press Fax: 651-228-5564 May 1, 2002
Dear Editor:
"In answer to D.J. Tice's question on Moral clarity"
In his May 1, 2002 opinion-editorial piece Mr. Tice asked: ...which part of the definition on terrorism that says "...terrorism is the deadly and deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political purpose" does not apply to the American and British bombing of German and Japanese cities during world War II?
The correct answer is: the last part about achieving a political purpose. The purpose of the American and British bombing was to stop the Germans and Japanese from killing Americans and Britons.
If one wants to call stopping killing a political purpose and starting killing a political purpose then I can see why one would be confused and unclear about their moral position on lots of things, not just terrorism.
It wouldn't be that much different if one said, since both murder and self-defense involve violence and since violence is bad it is as bad to defend yourself against a murderer as it is to be a murderer. Since this position, if advocated, would make the world a safe-haven for murderers, rational people not only do not accept it but they go further as they should and reject it with a sense of moral outrage. And some even go so far as to reject it with a justified sense of moral certitude as the means to preventing those who would dare advocate such a thing from gaining a foothold in their culture.
Gary Deering, retired Engineeer
My address
My phone number, Myemail@myISP
Be sure to click your Browser's BACK button to get back to the text from whence you cometh.
This one was actually published in full, hence the (full) green color for the Click-to-title (versus ones that only had parts of them published).
*****************************************************************************************
And today in 2014--some (almost-to-the-day) twelve years later--see D.J. Tice's op ed piece titled: "For those who have faith in the free market, an asterisk"/(Inequality seems to be a real-life outcome, and loyalists shouldn't ignore it.) (Star Tribune.com/Opinion, Section OP, Sunday, May 4, 2014).
A free market that isn't free isn't a free market--in a free free market, Economics and State are separate just as in a free country so to is Church and State separate--so that calling the markets in the United States Free Markets is like calling the countries in the Middle East free countries.
So in addition to the foregoing false premise, Tice invokes two other false premises of his. His first false premise (that is, his first one after the above one that asserts that an unfree free market isn't a contradiction in terms) is about those of us who do not believe existence comes from non-existence since it is logically obvious that non-existence is the derivative concept and as such depends on the concept existence: without the concept of existence, non-existence has no meaning whatsoever.
To wit from the third paragraph of Tice's op ed piece where he quotes C.S. Lewis:
"C.S. Lewis said that a young atheist can never be too careful about his reading - meaning that encounters with great religious writers can undermine the most determined unbelief."
If this isn't an example of the shop worn cliché about the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
Since belief in (the non-existent) god is belief in non-existence, to suggest that those "determined unbelievers"--i.e., those such as myself who do not believe non-existence is a thing just like existence is--are wrong and those who do believe in non-existence (i.e., the believers) are right, is an example of a person who does not check his premises.
If he did he would discover that you cannot--absolutely cannot--be a Christian and NOT hold the following false premise:
Consciousness has metaphysical primacy over Existence.
This premise is the opposite of what is the true premise:
Existence has metaphysical primacy over Consciousness.
(That is to say, you cannot--absolutely cannot--be a BiO Spiritualist and NOT hold the foregoing true premise about existence having metaphysical primacy over consciousness, which essentially means, reality always has the final say.)
Always.
The other false premise of Tice's (to list just three of his in this short critique) is:
Atheists should check their premises but Christians should not check theirs.
To wit, his line from C.S. Lewis:
"C.S. Lewis said that a young atheist can never be too careful about his reading -... "
That is, atheists should check their premises.
This is proof that Mr. Tice is aware of the issue of checking premises and at minimum the importance of changing incorrect ones.
Somewhere in my King James Version of the Christian's Holy Bible is the sentiment, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, hence, you can call me:
Stone caster.
Have a nice day,
PS
For short hand purposes, rather than calling me Gary Deering, caster of stones, you could call me, Gary Deering, one who refuses to be intimidated by religion's bullshit.
FPS
For my definition of bullstuff see Yes, Chapter 4 (Nice guys who came in last ... ) page 27.
