tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post8602543528170976861..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Rev Sam on evilStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13546660580001558132007-07-25T10:36:00.000+00:002007-07-25T10:36:00.000+00:00A bit more bull, if you're interested.<A HREF="http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2007/07/bit-more-bull.html" REL="nofollow">A bit more bull</A>, if you're interested.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29640379528070727562007-07-24T12:59:00.000+00:002007-07-24T12:59:00.000+00:00Stephen: My sincere apologies. It won't happen aga...Stephen: My sincere apologies. It won't happen again.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57196983492505857132007-07-23T18:56:00.000+00:002007-07-23T18:56:00.000+00:00I related your discussion of the God of Eth to Hum...I related your discussion of the God of Eth to Hume's Hypothesis of Indifference, <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/07/problem-of-goodness-and-humes.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49415347787906983612007-07-23T18:48:00.000+00:002007-07-23T18:48:00.000+00:00Let's cut out the insults BB. We're giving Sam a h...Let's cut out the insults BB. We're giving Sam a hard enough time as it is...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-59596985139542473542007-07-23T18:46:00.000+00:002007-07-23T18:46:00.000+00:00Sure he could. So far we are agreed that such a d...Sure he could. <BR/><BR/>So far we are agreed that such a deity is logically possible.....<BR/><BR/>of course, that isn't a very high bar to hurdle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9052222652640594912007-07-23T17:18:00.000+00:002007-07-23T17:18:00.000+00:00david ellis said..."That isnt an argument. Simply ...david ellis said...<BR/><BR/>"That isnt an argument. Simply four premises with no conclusion."<BR/><BR/>Whatever. <BR/><BR/>Maybe that's how it is. God could be omniscient, and omnipotent and not involved in human events such as suffering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33517287909171087432007-07-23T16:06:00.000+00:002007-07-23T16:06:00.000+00:00That isnt an argument. Simply four premises with ...That isnt an argument. Simply four premises with no conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77267675386992736642007-07-23T15:36:00.000+00:002007-07-23T15:36:00.000+00:00Perhaps its more like this:P1: God is omniscientP2...Perhaps its more like this:<BR/><BR/>P1: God is omniscient<BR/>P2: God is omnipotent<BR/>P3: God does not concern itself with suffering.<BR/>P4: There is sufferingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64929114802069573892007-07-23T13:21:00.000+00:002007-07-23T13:21:00.000+00:00And I frankly don't know why Rev Sam would prefer ...And I frankly don't know why Rev Sam would prefer the logical problem of evil: It forces one, as Rev Sam has shown us, to define one's "god" into pure vacuity and embrace "mystery" (a.k.a. ignorance) as a positive virtue.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29342520152669282902007-07-23T13:13:00.000+00:002007-07-23T13:13:00.000+00:00Rev Sam: We are not interpreting your work in an a...Rev Sam: We are not interpreting your work in an academic context. We're not nitpicking your terminology, verifying your sources, checking your footnotes, nor are we criticizing the fine details of your supporting arguments.<BR/><BR/>A non-academic context does not, however, shield you entirely from criticism, especially as you are simply wrong on a number of points and do not engage in anything more than bloviating bullshit to avoid even addressing other points. (And I'm glad you're at least <I>starting</I> to back off on your assertion that atheists are generally more overwhelmed by tragedy and suffering.)<BR/><BR/>There's value to rigorous academic investigation, but academic expertise is not at all necessary to think and speak clearly, logically, sensibly and without bullshit.<BR/><BR/>The assertion that our notions of "good" do not apply to God is not an "axiom" in any sense: It is the <I>lack</I> of an axiom. It is, essentially, the dropping of not only <I>omni</I>benevolence but any sort of benevolence as a characterization of God. But as I mention: Why is a being who is not benevolent deserving of worship? In fact, you drop <I>all</I> characterizations of God.<BR/><BR/>What then are you arguing for? It's plausible to conclude that you are arguing directly for the value of comforting bullshit. Comforting bullshit might be fine for five-year-olds, but it's an infantile, puerile stance for adults.<BR/><BR/>You're profoundly mistaken about metaphysics. Rationality <I>is</I> a metaphysical system, a "worldview". Rationality <I>is</I> rationality, it is not <I>based on</I> rationality. You might eschew rationality, but we do not.<BR/><BR/>Why is it good to live with unanswered questions? How do we "grow" into understanding in some method other than rational reconciliation of intellectual problems? Does this happen by magic?<BR/><BR/>Your notion that this sort of magical understanding by the toleration of ignorance and the deprecation of intellectual investigation is not in the least parallel with science; I suspect you are profoundly ignorant about the intellectual process of science. The lab coats are <I>not</I> there to enable the priests of science to ritually commune with reality and magically obtain revealed wisdom.<BR/><BR/>"PS you shouldn't assume that I'm a 'theist' - I'm not convinced that that is an accurate description of Christian belief."<BR/><BR/>To be honest, I have to agree with you. I don't think you're a theist. I think, based on the arguments you've given that you're nothing but a <B>bullshit artist</B>, and you've successfully conned yourself.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43765676218866374672007-07-23T12:26:00.000+00:002007-07-23T12:26:00.000+00:00I think the biggest difference in our perspectives...<B><BR/>I think the biggest difference in our perspectives is that I don't believe that our worldviews are founded on rationality<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Of course they aren't (at least not perfectly or anything close to it). <BR/><BR/>Human beings are not naturally all that rational. But that doesn't mean we can't analyze worldviews (our own and those of others) to try to find out if we have valid reasons for thinking a think likely to be true. It doesn't mean we can't struggle to make ourselves and our opinions as rational as possible.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><BR/>It's very rare to reason someone out of a religious perspective.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Its not frequent. But also not as rare as you might think. Most deconverts from christianity to skepticism (like myself) did so because they saw intellectual problems with their beliefs that they weren't willing to ignore.<BR/><BR/>And most of us did not find life a bit less meaningful after giving up our belief in supernaturalism.<BR/><BR/>To use your top down/bottom up comment in a different way, most atheist find that meaning comes from the bottom up, from the intrinsic nature of the experience of life and not imposed from on high.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43859738569567279692007-07-23T11:13:00.000+00:002007-07-23T11:13:00.000+00:00Hi Stephen,on (i) I was combining both; I don't th...Hi Stephen,<BR/>on (i) I was combining both; I don't think restricting the discussion to what you call the evidentiary problem makes the slightest difference to the point I was trying to make. You're assuming that I'm trying to give a philosophical answer, which I'm not - that's the whole point;<BR/>on (ii) my post was written wholly independently of "the problem we are discussing" so it's a bit rich to suggest I wasn't addressing it! But in any case, it is precisely 'changing the subject' which I think is the important move; that is, I think it is fruitful to 'change the aspect' under which the problem is seen (however you want to define the problem, and I would reiterate that <I>the post was not meant to be an academic piece!</I>);<BR/>on (iii) I was merely pointing out a theological axiom which you may or may not see as relevant to the discussion. Our language of 'good' doesn't transfer directly onto God, nor does our language of evil, nor does our language of power (omnipotence) space (omnipresence) knowledge (omniscience) etc. This is discussed in great depth in the literature - in much greater depth, and with much greater academic expertise than I can bring to the table!<BR/><BR/>I think the biggest difference in our perspectives is that I don't believe that our worldviews are founded on rationality, and whilst I think the pursuit of rational reconciliation of intellectual problems is good, and can sometimes help our lives, it's not the highest good. Sometimes it's better to live with unanswered questions, and trust that we can 'grow' into a deeper understanding. Which does, of course, happen all the time (in an exactly parallel way to how science develops, for example). Put differently, I think a religious faith is built 'from the bottom up', ie this is how we live, this is the language we use which shapes our habits (and which we find meaningful). Academic discussions are 'top down', and don't really impact all that severely unless they start to engage with the issues on the ground. It's very rare to reason someone out of a religious perspective. Reason comes a long way after the deed.<BR/><BR/>PS you shouldn't assume that I'm a 'theist' - I'm not convinced that that is an accurate description of Christian belief: "considering the execution of an innocent man is a more promising starting point for sustaining Christian theology than proving that God exists" (Fergus Kerr)<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>"Life can educate one to a belief in God. And <I>experiences</I> too are what bring this about; but I don't mean visions and other forms of sense experience which show us the 'existence of this being', but, e.g., sufferings of various sorts. These neither show us God in the way a sense impression shows us an object, nor do they give rise to <I>conjectures</I> about him. Experiences, thoughts, - life can force this concept on us. So perhaps it is similar to the concept of 'object'." (Wittgenstein, 1950)Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.com