tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1182305797084593860..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Problem of Evil AtheismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50054950606811348512010-04-30T04:37:16.558-07:002010-04-30T04:37:16.558-07:00"I sure that he could have removed those peop..."I sure that he could have removed those people another way. The fact that He chose to do it the way He did for someone who is all knowing and all – powerful as you state tells us then that the way He did it was the best possible way."<br /><br />By slaughtering them all and setting a precedent for genocide? What could POSSIBLY have been a WORSE way?<br /><br />"It says that He obviously knows something that we do not."<br /><br />So God gives us a moral sense and the ability to judge actions as right or wrong, and then acts in a way which we would deem wrong? Isn't that like creating flawed beings and then punishing them for being flawed? Besides, if we really are ill-equipped/unable/unworthy to judge his actions as bad, then we must also be ill-equipeed/unable/unworthy to judge his actions as good and worthy of praise too.<br /><br />"I'm certain that God follows a similar kind of ethic. i.e. maximise the number of people that will come to Him and avoid destruction."<br /><br />That's not the same. God's goal here is to have everyone worship him and to ruthlessly kill anyone who doesn't. That's called bullying! And it's not much of a moral ethic.<br /><br />"The fact that He carries out these deeds tells me that He has determined that this is the best way to minimise harm to the rest of the people in the world."<br /><br />If He sanctions genocide, He clearly does not care very much about minimizing suffering at all.<br /><br />"If you had a cancer in your body how many of those cancer cells would you be prepared to slaughter to ensure that it would not kill you?"<br /><br />Unbelievers are a cancer on humanity? This is exactly the kind of hate that religion breeds - nurturing a sense of superiority over 'heathens' to the point where they are dehumanised and may even be killed. 9/11 anyone? It is genuinely frightening.<br /><br />Every human being's life has value - the same value. We are all human, and our lives are of equal worth. We are all capable of love, compassion, empathy - as well as the darker emotions. We may sometimes decide that certain individuals need to be removed from society - individuals who have proven by their own actions that they are a tangible danger to others around them. But to divide people up into in-groups and out-groups over something as arbitrary as lineage, religion or race and then decide certain groups are simply more worthy than others - and that certain groups may be slaughtered, is immoral, barbaric and wrong. And it does not help to then invoke the Nuremberg defence of 'We were just following orders', no matter who you think those orders come from.<br /><br />Were the Nazis right to purge the Jews like a cancer? It seems to me that if you truly believe what you are saying here, then you have no grounds on which to condemn the holocaust.<br /><br />"Certainly not the reason given in the bible for their removal."<br /><br />Really? Okay. If I've got that wrong, then please enlighten me. What reason does God give which justifies the genocide of the Canaanites et al?<br /><br />"The bible explicitly tells us that the scriptures are not for private interpretation. If we are to work out from the scriptures what is right and wrong we need directions from God Himself."<br /><br />But if we cannot judge God or his actions, then why should we follow his instruction? We might be following instructions to do evil. If we do not judge God, we would never know if we were. We are simply blindly obeying. Obeying an enitity we have no reason to believe is a good one. <br /><br />Effectively your argument boils down to 'God is good because He says He is'. It is a circular argument. An evil deity might lie and make the same claim.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25891578392364732482010-04-30T02:20:50.876-07:002010-04-30T02:20:50.876-07:00Ritchie
Besides which, He is God - He is all-know...Ritchie<br /><br /><b>Besides which, He is God - He is all-knowing and all-powerful. Was he really incapable of removing the residents without slaughtering them all? Was there really no better solution for an omnipotent being? That, frankly, beggars belief.</b> <br /><br />I sure that he could have removed those people another way. The fact that He chose to do it the way He did for someone who is all knowing and all – powerful as you state tells us then that the way He did it was the best possible way.<br /><br /><b>The only conclusion we can draw is that God approved of their slaughter and of sanctioning genocide. What does that say about Him?</b><br /><br />It says that He obviously knows something that we do not.<br /><br /><b>I try to follow a rather simple moralistic ethic - I try to do what will cause the least harm and greatest joy. Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you. It seems a worthy principle, and rarely steers me wrong. And it screams at me that genocide is a truly awful, despicable wrong. Imagine all the suffering it causes. I would not want to be murdered just because of my race, family or nationality. Would you?</b><br /><br />I'm certain that God follows a similar kind of ethic. i.e. maximise the number of people that will come to Him and avoid destruction. The fact that He carries out these deeds tells me that He has determined that this is the best way to minimise harm to the rest of the people in the world. If you had a cancer in your body how many of those cancer cells would you be prepared to slaughter to ensure that it would not kill you?<br /><br /><b>What kind of a reason is 'I want my people to live where you are living'?</b><br /><br />Certainly not the reason given in the bible for their removal.<br /><br /><b>"And who will be the adjudicator that determines whether what occurred in the bible is heinous? "<br /><br />If you are playing that game, then we have no grounds to judge anything in the Bible as RIGHT either.</b><br /><br />You are more correct than you realise. The bible explicitly tells us that the scriptures are not for private interpretation. If we are to work out from the scriptures what is right and wrong we need directions from God Himself.woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2891788512283076942010-04-29T20:03:29.001-07:002010-04-29T20:03:29.001-07:00"You have only looked at the fact of slavery ..."You have only looked at the fact of slavery but you have not researched the conditions of slavery except for the one where the slave is beaten within an inch of his life. Take a look at the rest of the conditions if you really want a serious discussion on whether it can be supported or not."<br /><br />Exactly what is it about slavery in Biblical times which leads to you believe it is morally acceptable?<br /><br />"Where did you get the idea from that we shouldn't be allowed to have slaves? Is it a moral thing? A cultural thing?"<br /><br />Well our modern culture certainly does disapprove of it. The concept of freedom from oppression certainly does pervade western culture. But I disapprove of it personally too.<br /><br />I would not want to be a slave. I would have no (or extremely few) human rights, and my owner would be free to do with me exactly as he wished. My potential, my dreams, my future, my suffering, my whole life and even my death, would all count for nothing.<br /><br />"Have you ever researched the history behind the abolition of slavery? I get the impression that you haven't. "<br /><br />I don't pretend to be an expert, but I imagine I know more than you think I do.<br /><br />As a final point, I'd just like to ask - does it really not bother you at all that you are defending slavery and genocide as morally acceptable? If I ever found myself doing that, it'd be a big red flashing warning sign for me. It really should be a clue that you've gone wrong somewhere, surely? Frankly, with all due respect, I find it hard to accept that you truly believe the position you are taking here...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49927979170732774892010-04-29T20:02:52.265-07:002010-04-29T20:02:52.265-07:00George -
"God not only sanctioned genocide, ...George -<br /><br />"God not only sanctioned genocide, He actually carried out some himself. Consider Noah's flood where a whole world of people were wiped out save eight."<br /><br />Good point. But it seem you are adding fuel to MY argument here...<br /><br />"If you were to think about it you would probably be in favour of genocide yourself under the right conditions."<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that I am actually having to make this claim, but no, I do not approve of genocide under any circumstances.<br /><br />"Eg. If you were to come across a nation full of active Nazi type people or a nation full of pedophiles and child abusers."<br /><br />You are talking about capital punishment, which is a totally different subject. Executing a large number of people for heinous crimes of which they are guilty is ethically miles apart from cold-bloodedly killing people just because they happen to belong to a particular race, tribe, family, or political or religious group. It is bizarre and perverse to morally equate the two.<br /><br />If all the Canaanites et al were slaughtered (as it says they were), then that includes children and babies too. What crimes could they possibly have committed which merited a death sentence? <br /><br />It is ironic you mention the Nazis and apparently deem them worth of hate - wasn't genocide their chief crime? Why does it suddenly become morally acceptable when God does it?<br /><br />"To answer this question you would need to consider under what conditions you would be prepared to wipe out a whole group of people. Maybe you would be prepared to wipe out a nation of people who think like myself, then what?"<br /><br />I cannot imagine ever approving of genocide - unless for some bizarre reason I would save the lives of a greater number of people by doing it. How that would work exactly, I really can't imagine.<br /><br />Can this excuse be given to God in this case? Well the only reason He appears to want the Canaanites dead is that they happen to be living on land which He had in mind for His chosen people. That certinaly doesn't seem very good grounds to me. Besides which, He is God - He is all-knowing and all-powerful. Was he really incapable of removing the residents without slaughtering them all? Was there really no better solution for an omnipotent being? That, frankly, beggars belief. The only conclusion we can draw is that God approved of their slaughter and of sanctioning genocide. What does that say about Him? At the very least, it certainly sets a very dangerous precedent for his precious chosen people.<br /><br />"By what standard do you claim that these are in fact actually atrocities?"<br /><br />I try to follow a rather simple moralistic ethic - I try to do what will cause the least harm and greatest joy. Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you. It seems a worthy principle, and rarely steers me wrong. And it screams at me that genocide is a truly awful, despicable wrong. Imagine all the suffering it causes. I would not want to be murdered just because of my race, family or nationality. Would you?<br /><br />"Especially when reasons are given as to why they are carried out?"<br /><br />What kind of a reason is 'I want my people to live where you are living'?<br /><br />"And who will be the adjudicator that determines whether what occurred in the bible is heinous? "<br /><br />If you are playing that game, then we have no grounds to judge anything in the Bible as RIGHT either.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76410172523427606912010-04-29T04:08:49.266-07:002010-04-29T04:08:49.266-07:00Ritchie said
You apparently favour the latter. Th...Ritchie said<br /><br /><b>You apparently favour the latter. This is exemplified in your willingness to defend slavery rather than acknowledge the Bible as morally flawed. Slavery may well have been different in practise in Biblical times to the slavery of America 200 years ago, but it was still slavery - ownership of human beings. You truly believe this is morally defencible?</b><br /><br />You have only looked at the fact of slavery but you have not researched the conditions of slavery except for the one where the slave is beaten within an inch of his life. Take a look at the rest of the conditions if you really want a serious discussion on whether it can be supported or not.<br /><br /><b>So it's okay to beat your slave to death - as long as they linger a day or two before dying? Do you honestly not find this deplorable?</b><br /><br />Where did you get the idea from that we shouldn't be allowed to have slaves? Is it a moral thing? A cultural thing? Have you ever researched the history behind the abolition of slavery? I get the impression that you haven't.woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42441382064963826632010-04-29T04:07:27.664-07:002010-04-29T04:07:27.664-07:00I'm curious, what is you position on genocide?...<b>I'm curious, what is you position on genocide? That is sanctioned in the Bible. God specifically orders the utter annihilation of the Caananites (and others):<br /><br />"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them." (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)</b><br /><br />God not only sanctioned genocide, He actually carried out some himself. Consider Noah's flood where a whole world of people were wiped out save eight. Then later on the cities of the plain of Sodom were wiped out with fire and brimstone. Then of course He does command them to wipe out these nations that you list. When you look at all the times that mass destruction of nations occurs you will also notice that reasons are given. The same occurs when one looks at the passage you quote. If one keeps reading one also finds a reason that God commands this to be done.<br /><br />If you were to think about it you would probably be in favour of genocide yourself under the right conditions. Eg. If you were to come across a nation full of active Nazi type people or a nation full of pedophiles and child abusers. You probably wouldn't bat an eyelid if someone were to go in and wipe them off the face of the earth. You might even volunteer to join in the fun. If it were a nation full of slaves and slave owners you would probably happily wipe out all the slave owners. And if you are in favour of abortion you are then saying that you want the right to be able to terminate an innocent life while denying God the right to do the same.<br /><br /><b>There are many examples of God ordering or enacting despicable evils, but this is perhaps one of the most famous - and grievous.</b><br /><br />If you are in favour of any of the above examples then it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.<br /><br /><b>To any sensible person I would imagine genocide counts as one of the blackest of crimes. And yet God orders it in the Bible. What are we to make of this?</b><br /><br />To answer this question you would need to consider under what conditions you would be prepared to wipe out a whole group of people. Maybe you would be prepared to wipe out a nation of people who think like myself, then what?<br /><br /><b>Are we to conclude that there are indeed atrocities sanctioned in the Bible, that it is morally backward or flawed, that it is not in fact inerrant?</b><br /><br />By what standard do you claim that these are in fact actually atrocities? Especially when reasons are given as to why they are carried out? Could it be that your inability to accept what is done in the bible is an example of moral backwardness on your part?<br /><br /><b>Or are we to start of with the ASSUMPTION that the Bible is completely good, true and infallible, and therefore work to defend absolutely anything it says, no matter how heinous?</b><br /><br />And who will be the adjudicator that determines whether what occurred in the bible is heinous?woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30897556812227288372010-04-28T11:06:42.141-07:002010-04-28T11:06:42.141-07:00George -
I'm curious, what is you position o...George - <br /><br />I'm curious, what is you position on genocide? That is sanctioned in the Bible. God specifically orders the utter annihilation of the Caananites (and others):<br /><br />"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them." (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)<br /><br />There are many examples of God ordering or enacting despicable evils, but this is perhaps one of the most famous - and grievous.<br /><br />To any sensible person I would imagine genocide counts as one of the blackest of crimes. And yet God orders it in the Bible. What are we to make of this? Are we to conclude that there are indeed atrocities sanctioned in the Bible, that it is morally backward or flawed, that it is not in fact inerrant? Or are we to start of with the ASSUMPTION that the Bible is completely good, true and infallible, and therefore work to defend absolutely anything it says, no matter how heinous?<br /><br />You apparently favour the latter. This is exemplified in your willingness to defend slavery rather than acknowledge the Bible as morally flawed. Slavery may well have been different in practise in Biblical times to the slavery of America 200 years ago, but it was still slavery - ownership of human beings. You truly believe this is morally defencible?<br /><br />Let us turn to the Bible to discover exactly how slaves could be treated:<br /><br />"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)<br /><br />So it's okay to beat your slave to death - as long as they linger a day or two before dying? Do you honestly not find this deplorable?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79845390654314585882010-04-28T06:23:07.976-07:002010-04-28T06:23:07.976-07:00I left out a few qualifications because I wanted t...I left out a few qualifications because I wanted to see how you viewed slavery. You response tells me that you have the modern day view of slavery that looks back to the time of the civil war and what slavery was like in those days. If you take a look at the kind of slavery that was on the go in Old Testament times then you will find that the slavery of the last 200 odd years certainly does not follow the biblical model.<br /><br />You may wish to look at some biblical precedents which refer to things that were allowed in those times that Jesus spoke against in the New Testament. For example divorce. He made it clear that the only reason that it was allowed at the time was because of the “hardness of your hearts”. In other words there were a group who were so dead set on having divorce that God decided to set some rules to manage the problem.<br /><br />It would be very easy to conclude from this that God was more than likely dead set against slavery but obviously there were a group that were so strongly opposed to the idea of no slaves that He set some rules by which slaves could be had.<br /><br />If you take a look at the overall conditions under which slaves were had in those days you see that they were very different to modern times. In addition God gives the reason for these kinds of rules. He wanted them to remember how it felt when they were slaves in Egypt.<br /><br />If you think about it you will probably realise that you may be in support of slavery in some form in today's society. What about those criminals who as part of their sentence are sent off to hard labour. Would you be in support of that? And what about the millions of illegal immigrants that come into your country and work virtual slave wages? Would you rather have them do that or have them sent back home?woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2637514747191158832010-04-27T08:20:05.410-07:002010-04-27T08:20:05.410-07:00Rather serve, I meant to say.Rather serve, I meant to say.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61972592882391492492010-04-27T08:18:20.085-07:002010-04-27T08:18:20.085-07:00Because it (the first two anyway) is at odds with ...Because it (the first two anyway) is at odds with the thing a lifetime of experience and reflection on that experience tells me (and should tell you) is the precious thing in existence:<br /><br />Love.<br /><br />But I don't expect a concern for others to penetrate the shell of dogma some people muffle their hearts with. Some would rather the totem of a clearly unjust God depicted in an old book. If there is a loving God I suspect he would be ashamed of the words you wrote above coming from someone who claims to be his follower.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59277079412052317382010-04-26T01:00:25.256-07:002010-04-26T01:00:25.256-07:00David,
So you consider slavery morally acceptable...David,<br /><br /><b>So you consider slavery morally acceptable? You think we should stone apostates and unruly sons? You think it immoral to wear wool and linen together?<br />For the sake of this discussion I will say yes,yes and yes. Now what? <br /><br /><br />I'm asking your honest opinion. Do you consider these things morally acceptable? And if not, must you not revise the statement which my pointing out of these Biblical quotes was in response to? </b><br /><br />I've had to spend some time thinking about your questions and the potential consequences of supporting or not supporting what the bible has told us to do. In the end I'll have to admit that the short answer is that I honestly do support the kinds of rulings that you've outlined in the bible.<br /><br />In other words I do support slavery, The stoning of rebellious sons and God's ruling on the kind of fabric mixes that He rules against.<br /><br />Can you tell me if there is any reason why I should not?woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70699868278514355052010-04-24T08:13:00.718-07:002010-04-24T08:13:00.718-07:00Why not? We've been at it for nearly two thous...<b><br />Why not? We've been at it for nearly two thousand years longer than those guys.<br /></b><br /><br />That one irrational belief system has been around longer than another does not entail that it's more irrational (assuming here, that the two belief systems actually are irrational---something we probably aren't in agreement on).<br /><br /><b><br />In the same kind of numbers as the Christian Martyrs? Even now in places such as North Korea it is a death sentence for a Christian if they are found out to be one.<br /></b><br /><br />The argument for the truth of a religion based on martyrs only pertains to martyrs that would have had first-hand knowledge that the thing they were being martyred for is false. Surely this is obvious. The fact that a modern Muslim, for example, might be willing to die for his religion is only evidence of the sincerity of his faith in his religion---not evidence for the truth of the Koran or Islam.<br /><br /><b><br />OK I'll jump first then. I'll give you two. Resurrection from the dead. By this I mean someone who has not just been dead three days but someone who has been put through a crematorium and exists only as a pile of ashes in an urn. Forecasting the future 100% accurately. How about like predicting that someone is going to have a baby boy and what his name will be but the mother and father haven't been born yet.<br /></b><br /><br />The first claim sounds like a good start---I'd certainly agree that my non-belief in the supernatural would no longer be tenable if we have good reason to think that has occurred. What evidence is there for the claim?<br /><br />As to the second, I agree that foreknowledge of the future is a good one. But predicting the birth of a baby boy, even to someone who hadn't been born yet, is not terribly impressive. After all, most people have at least one child in their lifetimes and there are, after all, only two sexes to choose from---and the odds aren't even as low as 50% since many have multiple children. Guessing the name of the child accurately is better. But still not terribly impressive. I've heard more impressive claims of prophetic foreknowledge than that from Christians---pick your best example. I don't want to be shooting fish in a barrel.<br /><br /><b><br />some of the commands it(bible) attributes to God could be utterly immoral (as certainly appears to be the case with those quotes).<br /><br />---Could be? On what grounds?<br /></b><br /><br />I've already discussed my views about metaethics and moral epistemology. I've yet to hear yours other than "the bible says so".<br /><br /><b><br />So you consider slavery morally acceptable? You think we should stone apostates and unruly sons? You think it immoral to wear wool and linen together?<br />For the sake of this discussion I will say yes,yes and yes. Now what? <br /></b><br /><br />I'm asking your honest opinion. Do you consider these things morally acceptable? And if not, must you not revise the statement which my pointing out of these Biblical quotes was in response to?David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2295726205274836112010-04-24T08:12:04.046-07:002010-04-24T08:12:04.046-07:00The difficulty I have is in trying to understand h...<b><br />The difficulty I have is in trying to understand how you think the Ideal Observer would agree with you that slavery is wrong?<br /></b><br /><br />I conclude that by making an honest, long-term effort to approximate to the best of my ability the characteristics of the IO and reflecting, over the course of my life, on moral questions.<br /><br /><b><br />Do you know what those moral truths are? How can you be sure that the moral truths you believe in would be in line with what the Ideal Observer thinks.<br /></b><br /><br />I don't claim infallibility in moral questions (nor any other kind of question). Since I'm not infallible, obviously, absolute certainty is not reasonable. <br /><br />But isn't that true of almost everything in life? I can't prove, for example, that vampires don't exist but I'm none the less extremely confident (and reasonably so) that I'm right in thinking them fictional. We are not limited to the two extremes of absolute moral certitude or total moral cluelessness. The suggestion that we are would be a false dilemma.<br /><br /><b><br />After all the IO as defined is something that only exists in the imagination of some and the definition is loaded with value judgements such as “fully informed and vividly imaginative, impartial, in a calm frame of mind and otherwise normal”.<br /></b><br /><br />Being, for example, vividly imaginative is not a value judgment. It's an ability. The proposal is not that these qualities are morally right (one might or might not argue that) but rather that these qualities are the ones that allow us to understand what is and isn't right---to make accurate moral judgments.<br /><br />In order, for example, to understand whether love is intrinsically worthwhile one has to have the ability to experience love. A sociopath is unable to weigh this question reliably because he lacks the ability to experience the thing being evaluated.<br /><br /><b><br />All of these are value judgements and work on the premise of majority rule.<br /></b><br /><br />You keep throwing out this absurd idea that IO theory comes down to majority rule. In fact, it's just the opposite. The opinion of the majority, if that majority lacks the qualities necessary to make correct moral judgments, is bound to be frequently mistaken according to IO theory and the person desiring to improve his moral insight will have to be willing to go against majority opinion in the pursuit of that aim.<br /><br /><b><br />Good, we are getting somewhere. Yes we are all fallible so doesn't that necessitate a source of moral values that is infallible?<br /></b><br /><br />The fact that you and I and every other human being is fallible in his moral judgment does not entail the existence of a person or being whose moral judgment is not fallible. At least, I see no logical entailment of the one from the other. If you think otherwise I'd like to hear an argument in support of such a claim.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6795828212437245242010-04-24T06:36:37.992-07:002010-04-24T06:36:37.992-07:00It is not my position on metaethics that human bei...<b>It is not my position on metaethics that human beings have an innate knowledge of moral truth. We humans are capable of error---that position is fundamental to ideal observer theory. So it's difficult to see why you would think your statement presents facts which contradict or present explanatory difficulties for my views on metaethics or moral epistemology.</b><br /><br />The difficulty I have is in trying to understand how you think the Ideal Observer would agree with you that slavery is wrong?<br /><br /><b>I think there are moral truths.</b><br /><br />Do you know what those moral truths are? How can you be sure that the moral truths you believe in would be in line with what the Ideal Observer thinks. After all the IO as defined is something that only exists in the imagination of some and the definition is loaded with value judgements such as “fully informed and vividly imaginative, impartial, in a calm frame of mind and otherwise normal”. All of these are value judgements and work on the premise of majority rule.<br /><br /><b>a person is likely to make sound moral judgments to the degree that he embodies the "ideal observer". And, of course, no one embodies it perfectly (or even close to perfectly) so all of us are fallible in our judgment.</b> <br /><br />Good, we are getting somewhere. Yes we are all fallible so doesn't that necessitate a source of moral values that is infallible?<br /><br /><b>I wouldn't go that far. The Mormons and Scientologists (just to name a couple of many) are giving you a good run for the money.</b><br /><br />Why not? We've been at it for nearly two thousand years longer than those guys. And we've got the martyrs to prove it.<br /><br /><b>As pointed out with the Joseph Smith counter-examples, religious frauds can and do get martyred.</b><br /><br />In the same kind of numbers as the Christian Martyrs? Even now in places such as North Korea it is a death sentence for a Christian if they are found out to be one.<br /><br /><b>You can state what you consider the best examples of evidence of the supernatural</b><br /><br />OK I'll jump first then. I'll give you two. Resurrection from the dead. By this I mean someone who has not just been dead three days but someone who has been put through a crematorium and exists only as a pile of ashes in an urn. Forecasting the future 100% accurately. How about like predicting that someone is going to have a baby boy and what his name will be but the mother and father haven't been born yet.<br /><br /><b>some of the commands it(bible) attributes to God could be utterly immoral (as certainly appears to be the case with those quotes).</b><br /><br />Could be? On what grounds?<br /><br /><b>So you consider slavery morally acceptable? You think we should stone apostates and unruly sons? You think it immoral to wear wool and linen together? </b><br />For the sake of this discussion I will say yes,yes and yes. Now what?woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20989473096349984122010-04-23T11:49:31.099-07:002010-04-23T11:49:31.099-07:00You seem to have missed the point that any sexual ...<b><br />You seem to have missed the point that any sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded by the bible as wrong. That includes all forms of rape.<br /></b><br /><br />You seem to have missed the fact that I referred to child MARRIAGE. Pedophilia can in institutionalized in the custom of child marriage and rape can occur within marriage.<br /><br /><b><br />If you take a look at Leviticus 18 your will see all manner of human relationships that are not allowed included the denial of sex with the daughter of a woman you are having sex with or your daughter-in-law etc.<br /></b><br /><br />Which is not a prohibition against pedophilia. It presumably applies even when the daughter-in-law is adult. Not to mention that pedophilia does not necessarily involve sex with daughters or daughters-in-law. <br /><br /><b><br />No specific directive admittedly but then the bible does not specifically forbid smoking yet when we see the damage that smoking does to the body and the bible claims that our bodies are God's temple and that we are to treat our bodies with respect then it is not hard to make the connection.<br /></b><br /><br />I don't expect the Bible to make rules on every possible immoral act (though pedophilia is a rather major one---if the bible is going to make rules about things like wearing wool and linen together you'd think it could make one on an issue as important as a prohibition against sex with children and against child marriage).<br /><br />Regardless, my main issue is the question I asked earlier and you have yet to answer: why think the Bible is authoritative on morality---especially in light of the Biblical quotes I mentioned.<br /><br /><b><br />Yes they could go on and on but then I would ask of you, by what standard are you able to claim that these laws are as bad as you claim them to be.<br /></b><br /><br />You're trying to dodge the question. Even if you were right about there being no basis for morality apart from theism the Bible might still not be the word of God and some of the commands it attributes to God could be utterly immoral (as certainly appears to be the case with those quotes).<br /><br /><b><br />I don't. The bible is my measure of what is right and wrong.<br /></b><br /><br />So you consider slavery morally acceptable? You think we should stone apostates and unruly sons? You think it immoral to wear wool and linen together?David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17138505672799045422010-04-23T11:28:54.434-07:002010-04-23T11:28:54.434-07:00So it appears to me that you are either stating th...<b><br />So it appears to me that you are either stating that truth is that which the majority decides to be correct or that each person decides for himself what truth is.<br /></b><br /><br />My position is that human beings can and inevitably must make their own judgments about moral questions (even when they submit to someone or something elses authority on the subject, like the Bible, it is they themselves who is deciding that they think the Bible a sound and true moral guide). And my position is that those judgments can be mistaken. We can be mistaken about moral questions as much as we can anything else. What ideal observer theory states is that there are characteristics that are most apt to allow us to judge correctly on moral questions. That a person is likely to make sound moral judgments to the degree that he embodies the "ideal observer". And, of course, no one embodies it perfectly (or even close to perfectly) so all of us are fallible in our judgment. <br /><br /><b><br />Indeed. Now St Paul in the New Testament tells us that if Christ was not raised that we would be the most deluded group of people on the planet.<br /></b><br /><br />I wouldn't go that far. The Mormons and Scientologists (just to name a couple of many) are giving you a good run for the money.<br /><br /><b><br />The fact that he was prepared to lay his body on the line (read 2 Corinthian11:23-33) for a list of things he went through because of what he chose to believe. The fact that he and eleven of the twelve apostle were killed for their belief should tell us something. Would you be prepared to die for what you knew to be a lie? Do you know of anyone who would?<br /></b><br /><br />Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) died for his religion too. And he was pretty clearly a con artist and fraud rather than just self-deluded.<br /><br />Regarding the early Christian martyrs:<br /><br />A. We don't actually have anything approaching good historical evidence that any (much less eleven) of the apostles were martyred. And:<br /><br />B. As pointed out with the Joseph Smith counter-examples, religious frauds can and do get martyred. When someone is arrested or grabbed by a mob they generally aren't likely to just let the guy go because he says "My bad, you're right, I made it all up."<br /><br /><b><br />To be able to give evidence we would first have to agree on what you would consider valid evidence. We really couldn't progress any further until that is sorted out. <br /></b><br /><br />You can state what you consider the best examples of evidence of the supernatural AND WHY you consider it good evidence. If I disagree with your statements as to why it constitutes good evidence you can be sure I'll let you know and explain why. It is not necessarily that we first carry on a lengthy discussion about the nature of evidence in abstract terms before doing so. Your statement above, frankly, smacks of being a stalling tactic.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69495627373057316992010-04-23T11:03:10.056-07:002010-04-23T11:03:10.056-07:00In other words they were effectively not human and...<b><br />In other words they were effectively not human and were property just like horses and cattle. Do you agree with this ruling by the top court in your country? (I'm assuming you're a US citizen)<br /></b><br /><br />Of course not. Which involves no contradiction in my views since I don't consider the supreme court an infallible moral authority---quite unlike the sentiment expressed in this statement about God and the rules set forth in the Bible:<br /><br />"If any rules were to be changed then it would mean that God's nature would change as the rules that we have now are a reflection of His own nature."<br /><br /><b><br />There are obviously a number of people in the world today who view slavery a lot different to what you apparently do.<br /></b><br /><br />So what? It is not my position on metaethics that human beings have an innate knowledge of moral truth. We humans are capable of error---that position is fundamental to ideal observer theory. So it's difficult to see why you would think your statement presents facts which contradict or present explanatory difficulties for my views on metaethics or moral epistemology.<br /><br /><b><br />If you were going to do so how would you convince them that they are wrong?<br /></b><br /><br />I don't assume that I could. Human beings are often obstinate in both their irrationality and their greed. Which is, again, no problem for my position. I don't hold that all people will recognize moral truths In fact, probably all of us make at least some errors in our moral judgment---again, part and parcel of ideal observer theory. Perhaps you should read at least one of those short articles on the subject before trying to criticize my views---nothing you've said indicates the slightest awareness of what my position actually is.<br /><br /><b><br />All the above questions presuppose that there is some kind of absolute standard by which we can render judgement against what the bible is telling us.<br /></b><br /><br />Yes, I think there are moral truths. Again, I suggest you read the short article on ideal observer theory I linked to.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66028646731434734492010-04-23T06:03:52.751-07:002010-04-23T06:03:52.751-07:00Part two
I was just reading the other day about p...Part two<br /><br /><b>I was just reading the other day about protests against the practice of child marriage (the article told of the horrible case of a nine year old girl who was taken to the hospital for genital injuries after her husband, I think he was 25, raped her).<br /><br />Nothing in your comment indicates that the Bible even addresses the topic of pedophilia. And even if it had, you still haven't given an argument as to how you know that child rape is wrong unless you pare it with a good basis for thinking that the Bible is right in it's moral claims.</b><br /><br />You seem to have missed the point that any sexual acts outside of marriage are regarded by the bible as wrong. That includes all forms of rape. If you take a look at Leviticus 18 your will see all manner of human relationships that are not allowed included the denial of sex with the daughter of a woman you are having sex with or your daughter-in-law etc. So we can see in this passage an allusion to the immorality of such an act. No specific directive admittedly but then the bible does not specifically forbid smoking yet when we see the damage that smoking does to the body and the bible claims that our bodies are God's temple and that we are to treat our bodies with respect then it is not hard to make the connection.<br /><br />To expect God to spell out everything that is wrong is akin to telling the mathematician that you won't accept that four is the correct answer to 2+2 until you've had him spell out for you all the possible wrong answers for that arithmetic statement.<br /><br /><b>Which seems a rather tall order. Have you actually read some of the atrocious laws supposedly laid down by God in the Bible? The death penalty for people who leave Judaism. Slavery, instead of being prohibited, is merely regulated (and with only minimal concern for the rights of the slave). One could go on and on.</b><br /><br />Yes they could go on and on but then I would ask of you, by what standard are you able to claim that these laws are as bad as you claim them to be. As I said before the US Government through its courts said it was fine to have slavery. Humans have all sorts of other interesting laws that in the past were seen as correct but “We know better now”. And just exactly how do we know better?<br /><br /><b>So let me bounce the second question back to you. How do you know anything is wrong, or that wrong even exists?<br /><br />I already said that I think ideal observer theory is the position I take on that.</b> <br /><br />The flaw in that position as I've already pointed out is that it presupposes that one knows what truth is. Can you demonstrate clearly that something is provably true getting away from the incompleteness theory of Kurt Godel?<br /><br /><b>How do YOU know something is wrong? Beyond just "the Bible says so".</b><br /><br />I don't. The bible is my measure of what is right and wrong. I use the bible to tell me what is right. Like maths if it doesn't measure up to the correct answer then by default it is wrong.woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25272317921192144632010-04-23T06:02:30.903-07:002010-04-23T06:02:30.903-07:00David I think you've conflated my post with so...David I think you've conflated my post with someone elses. The first paragraph is not my kind of way of talking so I'll ignore it and deal with the rest which I'll plead guilty to asserting.<br /><br />Breaking this answer into two parts<br /><br />Part one.<br /><br /><b>No one has to decide that a proposition is true for it to be true. As to who gets to make a judgment about what is or isn't true the answer is: all of us. Whether our individual judgments are correct or not is another question.</b><br /><br />So it appears to me that you are either stating that truth is that which the majority decides to be correct or that each person decides for himself what truth is. The problem with the majority deciding what truth is, is that over time the majority changes its mind as to what truth is. It is not two centuries ago that the majority were entirely comfortable with slave ownership. What caused the majority to change its mind on the morality of that. If they were wrong about the ownership of slaves then what else are they wrong on? Or is it possible that in some future time the majority may yet decide that slavery ownership is OK? How would you go about preventing human values from going back in that direction.<br /><br />If you're saying that each person decides for himself what truth is then what happens when your truth conflicts with my truth. Who then gets to decide that you are right and I am wrong. I might decide that I need to steal your car. It might be right for me. Why would you see it as wrong?<br /><br /><b>If the supernatural domain has direct and tangible impacts on the natural world then it's existence can be reasonably inferred. This is what people are doing when they, for example, claim that we know God exists because we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (would that we did)</b><br /><br />Indeed. Now St Paul in the New Testament tells us that if Christ was not raised that we would be the most deluded group of people on the planet. The fact that he was prepared to lay his body on the line (read 2 Corinthian11:23-33) for a list of things he went through because of what he chose to believe. The fact that he and eleven of the twelve apostle were killed for their belief should tell us something. Would you be prepared to die for what you knew to be a lie? Do you know of anyone who would?<br /><br /><b>Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any good evidence from which we can infer the existence of a supernatural realm. But if you know of any (or of any other means of knowing one exists) I'd be interested in hearing about it.</b><br /><br />To be able to give evidence we would first have to agree on what you would consider valid evidence. We really couldn't progress any further until that is sorted out.woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36964702509289732402010-04-23T05:14:48.755-07:002010-04-23T05:14:48.755-07:00So is it still OK to own slaves:
"However, y...<b>So is it still OK to own slaves:<br /><br />"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46)</b><br /><br />Before I commit myself to a position on the question of whether it is ok to own slaves let me remind of what the US Government committed itself to just a few years after Charles Darwin came out with Origin of the Species. <a href="%E2%80%9Den.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">Dred Scott v. Sandford</a> The US Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 that it is ok to own slaves and that slaves were not citizens of the US. In other words they were effectively not human and were property just like horses and cattle. Do you agree with this ruling by the top court in your country? (I'm assuming you're a US citizen)<br /><br />There are obviously a number of people in the world today who view slavery a lot different to what you apparently do. Eg <a href="%E2%80%9Dwww.law.murdoch.edu.au/news/slavery_trafficking.html%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">Trafficking</a>. Would you deny the traffickers a living by preventing them from trading in humanity in today's world? If you were going to do so how would you convince them that they are wrong?<br /><br /><br /><b>What about this gem:<br /><br />"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NIV)<br /><br />Or to stone apostates? How about stoning disobedient and unruly sons (Deut. 21:18-21)?<br /><br />How about this one:<br /><br />"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee" (Leviticus 19:19).<br /><br />Do you think it immoral to wear something whose fabric mixes linen and wool?</b><br /><br />All the above questions presuppose that there is some kind of absolute standard by which we can render judgement against what the bible is telling us. Can you tell me where this absolute standard comes from? Is it a standard that both you and I can accept?woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51208256709819166782010-04-22T06:06:42.712-07:002010-04-22T06:06:42.712-07:00If any rules were to be changed then it would mean...<b><br />If any rules were to be changed then it would mean that God's nature would change as the rules that we have now are a reflection of His own nature.<br /></b><br /><br />So is it still OK to own slaves:<br /><br />"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46)<br /><br />What about this gem:<br /><br />"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NIV)<br /><br />Or to stone apostates? How about stoning disobedient and unruly sons (Deut. 21:18-21)?<br /><br />How about this one:<br /><br />"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee" (Leviticus 19:19).<br /><br />Do you think it immoral to wear something whose fabric mixes linen and wool?David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47030568217024236362010-04-22T05:43:28.962-07:002010-04-22T05:43:28.962-07:00ALL proofs -- including those in mathematics -- de...<b><br />ALL proofs -- including those in mathematics -- depend upon truths which cannot be proven.<br /><br />So, this cute little attempted evasion actually undermines your atheistic position. But then, truth has a way of doing that.<br /></b><br /><br />If you think moral propositions can be proven then I invite you to do so. I cannot nor do I believe one ever has been proven but if I'm wrong I'd be happy to see it done.<br /><br /><b><br />The second proposition put forward in your first link is Some such propositions are true.<br />My question is – who or what gets to decide what is truth.<br /></b><br /><br />No one has to decide that a proposition is true for it to be true. As to who gets to make a judgment about what is or isn't true the answer is: all of us. Whether our individual judgments are correct or not is another question.<br /><br /><b><br />Is it true that the world as perceived through our five senses is all that there is of the universe or can would it be valid to assert that there is something out there beyond our perceptions? A supernatural domain if you wish?<br /></b><br /><br />If the supernatural domain has direct and tangible impacts on the natural world then it's existence can be reasonably inferred. This is what people are doing when they, for example, claim that we know God exists because we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (would that we did) or that the Koran anticipates scientific discoveries in a way not possible to a human of Mohammad's time (we probably both agree this one isn't true).<br /><br />Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any good evidence from which we can infer the existence of a supernatural realm. But if you know of any (or of any other means of knowing one exists) I'd be interested in hearing about it.<br /><br /><b><br />First the specific question on raping children. The bible presents the first man and woman of being nearly the same age. The bible by saying this is implying that we should ideally marry someone around our own age.<br /></b><br /><br />That seems a bit of a stretch. Just because the first man and woman were near the same age doesn't imply that God wants only people who are near the same age to marry. There's nothing in the Bible I can recall, for example, that suggests the belief that it's wrong for a 45 year old and a 25 year old to marry.<br /><br /><b><br />Second is that the ten commandments tell us not to commit adultery which is to say that any sexual relations outside the heterosexual marriage are a sin and we will have to give account to God for what we have done.<br /></b><br /><br />I was just reading the other day about protests against the practice of child marriage (the article told of the horrible case of a nine year old girl who was taken to the hospital for genital injuries after her husband, I think he was 25, raped her).<br /><br />Nothing in your comment indicates that the Bible even addresses the topic of pedophilia. And even if it had, you still haven't given an argument as to how you know that child rape is wrong unless you pare it with a good basis for thinking that the Bible is right in it's moral claims. Which seems a rather tall order. Have you actually read some of the atrocious laws supposedly laid down by God in the Bible? The death penalty for people who leave Judaism. Slavery, instead of being prohibited, is merely regulated (and with only minimal concern for the rights of the slave). One could go on and on.<br /><br /><b><br />So let me bounce the second question back to you. How do you know anything is wrong, or that wrong even exists?<br /></b><br /><br />I already said that I think ideal observer theory is the position I take on that. <br /><br />How do YOU know something is wrong? Beyond just "the Bible says so".David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19818164785422975832010-04-22T03:23:43.125-07:002010-04-22T03:23:43.125-07:00George: "So David it seems to me that you hav...<b>George:</b> "<i>So David it seems to me that you have just said that you determine what is good and evil by feeling. After all love is just a feeling is it not?</i>"<br /><br /><b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>Love is not a feeling.</i>"<br /><br /><b>George:</b> "<i>Some cultures love their neighbours, others love to eat them. Do you have a personal preference?</i>"<br /><br />My preference is to avoid equivocation, or to eliminate it, whichever is appropriate.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13654317680380165162010-04-22T01:33:22.594-07:002010-04-22T01:33:22.594-07:00natchuster,
If there is stuff in the universe that...<b>natchuster,<br />If there is stuff in the universe that is beyond what we have scene [sic] directly, and beyond what anybody else can verifiably see directly, and beyond what is seeable, then what good does it do us to believe in it? In fact, my spaghetti monster meets all of those criteria. So if we're going to open the door to believing anything we can dream up without verifying its existence in reality, then we should believe in God, gods, spaghetti monsters, unicorns, and anything else that we can explain through "magic" and that by all known metrics isn't real.</b><br /><br />"All known metrics" I'm glad you qualified your statement. Of the metrics that you don't know about which of them would you allow as proof that there is something beyond the natural realm?woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47108948922789380412010-04-22T01:27:51.681-07:002010-04-22T01:27:51.681-07:00Hello Ilion,
George: "So David it seems to m...Hello Ilion,<br /><br /><b>George: "So David it seems to me that you have just said that you determine what is good and evil by feeling. After all love is just a feeling is it not?"<br /><br />Love is not a feeling.</b><br /><br />Some cultures love their neighbours, others love to eat them. Do you have a personal preference?woodenavakluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084928110414337767noreply@blogger.com