tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2663854207423613593..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: God fails triple morality testUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19751817030758041162012-03-08T17:26:58.879-05:002012-03-08T17:26:58.879-05:00How do you know he wrote nothing? Maybe it's n...How do you know he wrote nothing? Maybe it's no longer extant! Are you seriously trying to impose modern standards on an ancient oral culture?<br /><br />Besides, Matthew could write and you should do some research on the ancient scribal system. How long are skeptics going to effectively wipe out all of ancient history just because they are determined to attack Christianity?Kevin Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04422067437134051672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70156459923407963702012-03-08T17:18:00.112-05:002012-03-08T17:18:00.112-05:00Despite any consequentialists, the Problem of Evil...Despite any consequentialists, the Problem of Evil is no longer considered seriously in professional philosophy as a disproof of God, thanks in part to Alvin Plantinga. God could have good moral reasons for allowing evil (God permits but does not promote evil, etc.). It's still a thorny problem, but cannot be used to disprove God.Kevin Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04422067437134051672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90823531105233325642012-03-08T17:08:03.014-05:002012-03-08T17:08:03.014-05:00Plato recognized that the very nature or essence o...Plato recognized that the very nature or essence of (God) can comprise the Good. There is nothing more ultimate than God (ontologically, yet God is consistent with his nature (epistemologically). C.S. Lewis added that "evil" is parasitic on "the good". Evil doesn't exist purely or apart from good, but is a perversion or twisting of that which is good. Therefore, "the Good is higher up and further back...". This splits the horns of the dilemma.<br /><br />How or why God has acted in history (the Caananites, etc.) is an internal question for another time.<br /><br />As to "is", (2) is closer to identifying the nature or essence of God, i.e. that is just how God is! God's nature comprises what can be called "the good" and God expresses that via commands and prescriptions, etc. (this is a form of the Divine Command Theory). So God's commands are not arbitrary, nor does God go outside of himself for a moral standard.Kevin Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04422067437134051672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75375383481776172742012-03-08T14:59:05.450-05:002012-03-08T14:59:05.450-05:00Aren't Christian apologists all consequentiali...Aren't Christian apologists all consequentialists? That is, on the ultimate "refuge" for the problem of evil question, the claim that god is inscrutable? In essence, the claim is that god is a consequentialist and we don't know the consequences driving him.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1255366115709881532012-03-01T18:44:29.099-05:002012-03-01T18:44:29.099-05:00Eamon,
When making an argument it’s good to not vi...Eamon,<br />When making an argument it’s good to not violate logical norms. My point was that the universe doesn’t have to obey them and pointing out that religious dogma doesn’t follow logic is silly and unproductive. Massimo just did a series on ethics and it never occurred to him to mention that values are developed via a social dialogue. It’s unfair to be so dismissive of Christianity when perhaps the greatest moralist of our time Dr King was a devout Christian. Anyway, I am sorry that that you got so stuck on the whole PNC thang. It was really just an aside. Had I known it was going to cause you so much trouble and illumination, I would have left it out . . .Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397471313091314320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4048032107951908352012-03-01T18:15:37.786-05:002012-03-01T18:15:37.786-05:00Eamon,
I don't give a damn about PNC either. ...Eamon,<br />I don't give a damn about PNC either. My point was it doesn't matter if these dogmas adhere to the rules of logic . . . Pointing out that these dogmas are illogical is silly and needlessly insults people who share many common values with Massimo. My argument isn't meant to be contentious . . . I just don’t think Massimo is as clear as he thinks he is regarding ethics. The first part of his series was particularly confused and lays it out as if ethics is just some guy thinking about what he ought to do. Nowhere does he consider it a social dialogue. It is through that dialogue more than anything else (and not via logic as Massimo stated) that we develop a fuller understanding of values.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397471313091314320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52393987527393048062012-02-28T06:59:35.020-05:002012-02-28T06:59:35.020-05:00"The Euthyphro is a false dilemma...God's..."The Euthyphro is a false dilemma...God's very nature comprises "the good". As such, God is in keeping with God's own nature and self-consistency."<br /><br />That doesn't escape the dilemma. It still sits on the horns: either (1) this god's nature is good because it is good, so the definition is independent of god's nature; or (2) this gods's nature is good because what it's nature says is good is good, which is still a subjective position (a la divine command theory).<br /><br />It doesn't get anywhere, and it looks like a cheap sleight of hand to try to separate this god's "nature" from it's "thinking".David Spanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17493626335486327169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22683491553010809032012-02-27T14:17:01.143-05:002012-02-27T14:17:01.143-05:00Correction:
Patrick,
I would like to add that yo...Correction:<br /><br />Patrick,<br /><br />I would like to add that your willingness to eviscerate fundamental principles of logic in order to substantiate (as you mistakenly assume you are doing) your particular form of unreason is illuminating.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12789025696239280102012-02-27T14:12:23.052-05:002012-02-27T14:12:23.052-05:00Ah, no biggie. I just thought I was missing someth...Ah, no biggie. I just thought I was missing something. Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090536433138780130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27493076955936234652012-02-27T14:06:39.456-05:002012-02-27T14:06:39.456-05:00Probably poor wording on my part. I meant that A (...Probably poor wording on my part. I meant that A (Fido) cannot both be (B) and not be (~B) a dog. A=something, B=something else. Without this qualification we are talking about the principle of identity (A=A), not of non-contradiction.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22628547656631812982012-02-27T14:03:17.452-05:002012-02-27T14:03:17.452-05:00I must be misunderstanding something here, because...I must be misunderstanding something here, because your example seems to fit my description. <br /><br />You said non-contradiction means that you "cannot be and not something *else*." I read that as saying that you cannot be one thing and not a different thing simultaneously. My description says that you cannot be and not be the *same* thing. where am I going wrong here?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090536433138780130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51270012283105795492012-02-27T14:02:28.775-05:002012-02-27T14:02:28.775-05:00Patrick,
I would like to add that your willingne...Patrick, <br /><br />I would like to add that your willingness to eviscerate fundamental principles of logic in order to substantiate (as you mistakenly assume you are doing) your particular form of unreason.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91503163670306017872012-02-27T13:21:05.706-05:002012-02-27T13:21:05.706-05:00Yes, but you can't be a dog and not a dog at t...Yes, but you can't be a dog and not a dog at the same time. So my description stands: Fido cannot be both a dog and not a dog.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86208511036797806722012-02-27T12:34:48.009-05:002012-02-27T12:34:48.009-05:00"...the law of non-contradiction says that ¬ ..."...the law of non-contradiction says that ¬ (P & ¬P), meaning that something cannot both be and not be something else (in this particular case, God cannot both be unitary and trinitary)."<br /><br />My understanding is that non-contradiction says that something cannot be and not be the same thing, not necessarily "something else", simultaneously. I agree that being unitary and trinitary would violate non-contradiction, but not because of the description provided by Massimo above, but because being 1, containing the property 1, etc, entails not being 3. <br /><br />Going by the description in the quote, we can have an animal that simultaneously is a dog and is not a cat without any contradiction.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090536433138780130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58365221896759850352012-02-27T11:49:07.638-05:002012-02-27T11:49:07.638-05:00Patrick,
The principle of non-contradiction (PNC)...Patrick,<br /><br />The principle of non-contradiction (PNC) is true in a way physical laws (such as the laws of thermodynamics) are not. The PNC is not predicated upon any scientific methodology or generalization from observed phenomena.<br /><br />Rather, it is true analytically, which, crudely, is to say true formally or by virtue of the meanings of the relevant terms. Anyways, as I really have no interest in debating the merits of the PNC here, suffice it to say that that the PNC is true is seems much clearer to me than that any contentious argument proffered by yourself is true.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72932631032446426612012-02-27T11:37:21.993-05:002012-02-27T11:37:21.993-05:00Hey Massimo,
When I first read this post where you...Hey Massimo,<br />When I first read this post where you are bashing the Christian God and all . . . It felt the way it often does that you’re standing over and above Christianity and just picking apart its dogma. That the dogma violates the law of contradiction is meaningless since even quantum theory seems illogical. But it’s meaningless also because it’s dogma. Someday it will go away. The same way the science of eugenics came and went. Religion isn’t as simple as science, it's a part of our culture and it expresses who we are as a people so it’s understandable that it takes longer to weed out the its dogma. But there is more to Christianity than that. Many of its expressions come much much closer to the heart of ethics and morality than what you came up in your multi-part series on ethics. It is ironic, but not surprising I suppose, that I don’t recall you mentioning love or forgiveness anywhere in that series. <br />One definition of reason is to make ones thoughts (and/or feelings) conform to the world outside yourself. It is to know the world the way it is, rather than the way you might want it to be. In this way it’s self-transcending. I like the way Buckminster Fuller describes love because he makes me think it can be self-transcending:<br />“Love is omni-inclusive, progressively exquisite, understanding and tender and compassionately attuned to other than self.”<br /><br />Martin Luther King, Jr. did a great moral work. It was one of the great achievements in all of history. He took two groups of people, separated by fear and hate and brought them together. He pointed out that blacks had a false sense of inferiority and whites had a false sense of superiority. He gave white people no reason to fear him. He didn’t make them feel they had to apologize for being white. He appealed to their better nature. Of course he was hated and ultimately murdered, but because of this great act of love and reason our culture is nowhere near as segregated as it was in the 50’s. <br /><br />In your first essay on ethics you concluded that ethical reasoning is determining the rules and outcomes that logically emerge from a particular set of assumptions. The type of logical reasoning you’re describing helps to discover the implications and develop a set of laws that embrace and safeguard our values. But what ethical reasoning actually is, is determining the set of assumptions that you take for granted. Your sense that it has to do with wellbeing is also what Sam Harris claims. A lot of people including Kenan Malik pointed out that this was not derived scientifically. It’s an aesthetic judgment (similar in many ways to the Fascist claim that the state is the ultimate good). Kant described aesthetic judgments as that which satisfies the mind, which is (I imagine) a lot like an “eminently sensible position” (which is how you characterized the assumptions you’d be starting with). Aesthetic judgments are not the same as moral judgments. They are at most the start of a dialogue. <br /><br />In this dialoge Kenan Malik and group of scientists, religious folks and philosophers ultimately come to the conclusion that ethical reasoning is a dialogue (a lot like the one MLK began) <br /><br />http://www.kenanmalik.com/tv/analysis_value.html<br /><br />Here is a part of Kenan Malik’s summary:<br /><br />Democracy is not about end results - it's about the means by which to achieve them. Democracy does not tell us what values are good, or how we may come upon them. But it does provide a method of debating such questions. And it provides a means of implementing change. This is why, in many cases, democracy will lead to unpalatable results. It is also why in the long run values that emerge through a democratic process are likely to be both more humane and more robust than those imposed from without. Democracy allows us to get away from the idea of values as eternally fixed, and yet to see them as potentially universal.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397471313091314320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14929770666700376832012-02-27T09:49:06.810-05:002012-02-27T09:49:06.810-05:00Hey Eamon,
The so called laws of nature are our cr...Hey Eamon,<br />The so called laws of nature are our creations, they are approximations of what appears to be happening . . . If the Universe had to obey the laws that we have written down, there would be no need to experiment. The idea that brain has to behave in a certain way - the way Jerry Coyne thinks it ought to behave is a good example of scientistic dogma that often appears in these pages . . . So actually I think I am write . . . but I do like the poetic way in which you put that . . .Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397471313091314320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41500651870086644612012-02-27T02:02:16.677-05:002012-02-27T02:02:16.677-05:00Re: "Where does it say that reality and the u...Re: "Where does it say that reality and the universe have to obey our logic and our laws?" <br /><br />Of course and not of course, it says it both nowhere and everywhere at the same time and not at the same time. So, what you say in your post is both right and wrong. So, since you are right, you are not wrong, but since you are wrong, you are not right. So, I guess, you are right and not right and wrong and not wrong.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23036711693186228522012-02-26T21:52:01.146-05:002012-02-26T21:52:01.146-05:00There is also the problem that the Gospel Jesus co...There is also the problem that the Gospel Jesus could not accurately quote passages the his father was supposed to have written, or cause to be written, in the Jewish scriptures. Apparently he did not know how to write, either, as he left no written record of his message. He even failed to recruit followers who were literate enough to write down his teachings by dictation. Are these failings all due to the human half of this god-man? If so, how can anyone realistically decide which of this god-man's actions and pronouncements are human and which are divine?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265673638659855406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48845262167217261192012-02-26T21:45:07.448-05:002012-02-26T21:45:07.448-05:00How does this group explain how the godly half cas...How does this group explain how the godly half caste was able to withstand daily contact with the sinful when his father could not? <br /><br />Did this bastard half-caste only have half his father's powers while on earth? Was he half-omniscient? half omnibenevolent? half-eternal? half unchanging? half impotent? If he only had half his father's godly quotient how could anyone tell whether what he preached half right or half wrong?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265673638659855406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65532068273920189102012-02-26T20:41:31.456-05:002012-02-26T20:41:31.456-05:00Hey Massimo,
This is all very clever and cute, but...Hey Massimo,<br />This is all very clever and cute, but it feels phony and it’s like a slap in the face to Quakers, Catholics, Methodists, Jews and Muslims who would otherwise appreciate your scientific, political and social point-of-view because it’s often full of heart and humor and it’s sometimes even smart. In fact after visiting your blog for over a year now I think your political and social outlook is closer to most Quakers than most members of the skeptic community. <br /><br />Woody Guthrie has a song called Jesus Christ where he talks about the cops and the lawyers hanging him in the air. It ends with a verse that goes something like this, “This song was written in New York City home of rich man preacher and slave and if Jesus was to preach what he preached in Galilee they would put Jesus Christ in his grave”. That says more about the life and death of Jesus than anything you’ve written here. <br /><br />Your criticism above about violating the law of non-contradiction is similar to Jerry Coyne’s statement in USA today regarding free will,<br /><br />“. . . we are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics. All the success of science rests on the regularity of those laws, which determine the behavior of every molecule in the universe”. <br /><br />Where does it say that reality and the universe have to obey our logic and our laws? It’s amazing that it often does, but it’s unscientific to say that it has to. You ought to know that science never proves anything. That’s the difference between science and math. Math (and logic) is a closed system with no inherent reference to the natural world. You can prove something mathematically; but in science you have to refer the results back to a real world problem to see if they hold true. You have to experiment to see where the logic breaks down. Reality is complicated; that’s why theories are never proven, we just build up a body of evidence that makes us reasonably certain the theory is true. I could be mistaken but as far as I know Schrodinger’s Cat describes quantum theory and depending on your point-of-view and interpretation it seems to violate the law of non-contradiction. <br /><br />Violating the law of non-contradiction is of course cause for concern. I once read a philosopher state that tradition and dogma are signs immaturity in every field of human experience. I believe it. I also think you should take the beam out of your own eye before you go pointing out the speck in your neighbor’s. I've yet to hear you give a fair description of Christian ethics. In your series on ethics you assume Christian ethics is all about laws handed down by God, then you use Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma to dismiss it and move on. But St Paul said people aren’t saved by the law, but by love. And what about forgiveness and love thy enemy and the kind of empathy that is expressed in “do unto others”? In Malik’s review of “The Moral Landscape” he implies that moral norms “emerge through a process of social engagement and collective conversation”. Where in your series on morality did you mention that? Christian ethics on the other hand seem to be very much concerned with that kind of thing; and that's how Baptist preacher ended up winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397471313091314320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55436453409255539982012-02-26T19:52:04.288-05:002012-02-26T19:52:04.288-05:00No, not schizophrenia (which is delusional "s...No, not schizophrenia (which is delusional "split" thought, but Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) aka multiple personality). <br /><br />Since DID is typically the result of a traumatic stressor one can only wonder what was the precipitator for the Yahweh god.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265673638659855406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78940499445389382182012-02-26T19:25:41.020-05:002012-02-26T19:25:41.020-05:00Kevin,
Is the 'is' employed in the senten...Kevin,<br /><br />Is the 'is' employed in the sentence 'God is the good' the 'is' of predication or the 'is' of identity? <br /><br />That is, by using 'is' do you: (1) mean to assert an identity relationship between 'God' (whatever that utterance signifies) and 'the good' in the same way we mean to draw an identity relationship between Clark Kent and Superman when we assert 'Clark Kent is Superman', such that whatever is assert truly about one is asserted truly about the other, or (2) rather intend to predicate some property, viz., 'being good', to 'God' in the way we would predicate a property in the normal way, e.g., 'The emerald is green'? <br /><br />If (1), it is not at all clear what the utterance 'the good' denotes, but whatever it denotes, in all likelihood 'God' cannot be said to be identical to it. Presumably, and charitably, 'the good' is a concept which denotes an abstract set the members of which are all the actions that all rational agents at all times would identify as morally praiseworthy / inscrutable. If this is the case, 'God' cannot be identical to 'the good' as 'God' is standardly conceived as a concrete object who is not composed of any proper parts. In other words, you do not mean to assert that 'God' is an abstract set of all and only those actions deemed morally inscrutable, do you? <br /><br />If (2), Euthyphro's dilemma stands: Does 'God' do / command x because x is good or is x good because 'God' does / commands x? <br /><br />If you intend to assert something else entirely, I would very much like to know what that something else is.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7522787020427685392012-02-26T17:50:05.949-05:002012-02-26T17:50:05.949-05:00So you're saying that Plato arrived at the con...So you're saying that Plato arrived at the conclusion that the gods love the pious because the gods are good? <br /><br />If so, then I don't remember that, but admittedly it's been a while since I read Euthyphro. <br /><br />So, taken at face value, how do we <i>know</i> that the gods are good? Perhaps they (or some of them) are a bit devious (which is how I recall Greek mythology). Or, translated into monotheistic terms, perhaps "God's a bit of a bastard" (to quote <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Being_Human" rel="nofollow">a TV show</a> that I recently enjoyed).<br /><br />That seems to me to be the basic problem with the second horn of the dilemma (or divine-command theory). It prescribes a form of ethical subjectivism, only with God positioned as the Subject - an imaginary one, in my opinion, but one that is fraught with all of the problems of theodicy.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5957913051361081292012-02-26T16:26:29.163-05:002012-02-26T16:26:29.163-05:00The Euthyphro is a false dilemma. Plato himself sa...The Euthyphro is a false dilemma. Plato himself saw the third option (in rather pagan terms). That is, God IS the good. God's very nature comprises "the good". As such, God is in keeping with God's own nature and self-consistency.<br /><br />I suggest clearing that up before proceeding.<br /><br />Kevin HKevin Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04422067437134051672noreply@blogger.com