Herein lies the ancient roots of many atheological arguments, especially pop arguments by amateur internet atheologians. Just because a woodchuck could chuck would, doesn’t mean he would. Perhaps it would be different for each woodchuck. Maybe Bob the woodchuck would chuck 1 pound of wood because Bob doesn’t happen to like chucking wood. But, Jim the woodchuck likes the idea of chucking wood and so he would chuck 100 pounds of wood. Maybe, though, the question just means, if a woodchuck could indeed chuck wood, how much could he chuck. But, then, “would” is used as a synonym for “could.” Thus the twister would read: “How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.” “Would” usually connotes a disposition or willingness to do something, i.e, “Would you pick up eggs for me while you’re at the store?” So, just because Bob could chuck wood doesn’t mean he would chuck as much as Jim. That a woodchuck could chuck wood doesn’t entail that he would. This is a modal fallacy. Now, before you go getting all upset and say that I’m taking this children’s game too far, remember that I’m just saying that the roots of many amateur atheological arguments have their roots in children’s games. The difference is that the game doesn’t pretend to be making any serious point, and so we can go easy on any in depth analysis.
I’m of course granting the atheist the gratuitous assumption that claims like this:
“At a larger level, if Jesus were God, he could have performed so many real miracles. He could have, for example, eliminated smallpox and a host of other diseases that science is busy eliminating today.”
The argument is basically claiming that Jesus must not have been God because if He was he could have done certain things, and, being supposedly “all-loving,” he would have done those things.
Or, take these myriad claims by John Loftus,
God could reveal himself in every generation in a myriad of ways since he is supposedly an omniscient being.
He could become incarnate in every generation and do miracles for all to see. If people wanted to kill him again and he didn't need to die again, he could simply vanish before their eyes.
He could spontaneously appear and heal people, or end a famine, or stop a war.
He could raise up John F. Kennedy from the dead.
He could provide a blazing cross in the sky.
He could restore an amputated limb in full sight of an crowd of people which would include all of the best magicians along with the Mythbusters and James Randi, who would all find fault if fault could be found.
He could do any and all of the miracles he did in the Bible from time to time, including miraculously feeding 5000 men with their families. The list of things God could do in each generation is endless.
We can find these argumentum ad tongue twistums all over the place, though. One more should suffice.
God could have appeared to Herod in a dream and told him not to kill these children.
God could have killed Herod.
God could have guided the wise men so that Herod would not have felt mocked by them.
God could have protected the babies.
God could have spoken to the murdering soldiers and turned them away from the task.
God could have sent all of these families to Egypt when he sent Jesus and his family there.
God could have made it so that no male children besides Jesus were born during that time.
God could have changed history so that Herod was not king.
So, like we agreed above, just because a woodchuck could chuck wood, doesn’t mean that it would. “Would” implies desire or willingness. I know you “could” pick up eggs at the store for me -- after all, you are going there, and have the money, but I want to know if you will (or, “would”) pick them up for me.
Indeed, we apply this type of reasoning all the time. If a person S gets murdered, then S1 - Sn are not considered suspects just because they could kill S. Now, if S* was willing to or desired to murder S, then we would have a suspect. Just because someone S could do some action A does not imply that S would A.
Now, if S* could not murder S, say, he was a quadriplegic and was 1,000 miles away at the time, attending a dinner with President Bush, then it wouldn’t matter if he desired to. But, we must all agree that just because someone could doesn’t imply that they would. To blame someone for an action, they must have at least been able to do it, but that’s not sufficient to charge someone with a crime.
Thus the atheological arguments must not simply make the rather obvious point that an omnipotent being could do X, Y, and Z, and then enthymematically conclude that God would have done X, Y, and Z if He were really God.
Since could doesn’t imply would, the atheological argumentum ad tongue twistums tendentiously smuggle in anthropocentric notions of what God would or would not do. That is, since could does not entail would, it is tendentious to tell us what God is willing to, or desires to, do; especially if He has not revealed that He is so willing, and you're importing humanistic desires on to God. The atheologian has not taken any of these supposed Divine desires out of Scripture. And, if I may be so bold, I don’t think God told the atheologian what He desired. So, upon inspection, all these (fairly frequent) atheological arguments tell us is simply a autobiographical report of what the atheist thinks God should, or should not, be like if He existed.
They atheist supposes that God is like Jim, our wood-loving woodchuck. And since the atheist knows God’s dispositions, he can then say that God “would” do X, and since He’s omnipotent, nothing should stop Him.
So, take Loftus’ “arguments” (yes, those were intended to be scare quotes). Given the assumption that God wants to reveal himself to everyone in a way that the person would think is acceptable enough to believe -- like God is some puppy clamoring for anyone and everyone’s affection and attention -- then maybe God “would” have reincarnated Himself every subsequent generation, vanishing before their eyes if they tried to kill him. (One must wonder, though, why they would try and “kill him” if Loftus thinks this is such a good way to reveal yourself. I mean, who would want to kill God. Humans would love God if only they had the opportunity to believe in Him, says Loftus. Despite Loftus’ slip, I digress in continuing on…)
Basically, the argument goes like this: “But, but, but, God could save every single person on earth.” We can reply, “Why would you think God would do a thing like that?” Surely the “But, but, but, that would make God a big meany” argument isn’t the comeback here, is it?
The atheist would laugh if police knocked on his door and said that since he merely “could have” murdered his neighbor, they were going to arrest him. The atheist must admit that the mere fact that God “could” X, does not imply that He “would” X. The atheist must show that God is disposed, or willing to, do X. This latter requirement is simply lacking.
Frequently the atheist will say, “Well if I could have stopped 9/11, I would have.” Why? “Well, because then all those people wouldn’t have died.” But here the “willingness” to stop 9/11 is that man, his life, and avoidance of human suffering is the highest good. So we see that the atheist views God as having the same desires as him. God is simply a more powerful humanist. Jehovah is a crypto-humanist! And the atheists say that Christians have made God into their image (yes, that was meant to be sarcastic).
The “God could do X” argument is simply an argument from certain unbiblical assumptions of what God would be disposed or willing to do given that He’s the kind of being the atheist thinks He is, or should be. Since God doesn’t do what the atheist (says) he’d do if he (the atheist) were running the universe, then God must not exist. The atheist is jealous that s/he isn’t running the show. The atheist looks at divinity in a modern, Burger King way; he wants it his way. And since things aren’t done his way, he’ll take to undermining the one in charge. This is Monday morning quarterback atheology. “Oh, he shouldn’t have thrown it to him on that one play.” “Boy, if I were coaching I would’ve went for it on 4th down.” Or, like those clawing for a promotion at a large company: “Smith totally botched that deal, if I had his job I would have handled the Yakazawa’s differently.”
It’s actually sad to see atheists acting like this. Kind of pathetic.
Bottom line, God owns the company. He’s running the show. He has shown that He will judge the world by raising His Son from the dead. This Easter Sunday you should reflect on the fact that Jesus has shown that death isn’t the end of us. Each and everyone of us will stand before God on judgment day. Jesus rose from the dead some two thousand years ago. You don’t have to like it, but it happened. You can trust in Christ as your only hope, or, like a dog returns to his vomit, you can come back on Monday and shop these types of pathetic arguments around some more. Cross your arms, stiffen your upper lip, and throw a big hissy fit because God didn’t give you wings so you could fly or neuter you like Loftus dog. Pout because Jesus doesn’t come back every generation and disappear before people kill him. “Harrumph(!), I won’t believe in God because He won’t ‘provide a blazing cross in the sky.’” Seriously, jokes over guys. Grow up.
"Seriously, jokes over guys. Grow up"
ReplyDeleteHAW HAW HAW!!!
Another classic Manata-ism...
Pot
Kettle
Black
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIf an atheist accepts the traditional (and highly *uncontroversial*) interpretation from John 3 that "God so loved the world" means something like "God so loved the world", it's certainly fair for them to contemplate what that might mean. The verse in question here goes on to tell us that God gave his own Son to humbled and killed on a cross, so much He did love the world, that that sacrifice might atone for all the sins of those who call on Jesus' name.
And it's hard to type something like that in on Easter morning without throwing in a triumphant "Alleluia!" so:
Alleluia!
But it's quite reasonable for atheists (and Christians) to follow this line of reasoning:
1. God loves the world.
2. God is capable of saving the world -- all of us.
3. Not all of us are saved -- why???
Well, one immediate answer, in the mode of C.S. Lewis is that many do not *wish* to be saved, and would rather languish on their own, apart from God then commune with Him and worship Him.
But, on a more practical level, there's this:
1. God loves the world.
2. God can remedy any and all wrongs in the world.
3. If God loves us, why doesn't he heal us, stop the wars, and poof all Barbra Streisand albums instantly out of existence?
The only good answer (and it *is* a good, if challenging answers) is that Justice, another part of God's character, and one that comes into conflict with Love on the issue of man, simply requires just consequences for man's sin -- both Adam's in a transcendental way, and each man's own transgressions in a local way.
I don't think Loftus, or other atheists are struggling with the difference between "could have" and "did", as you seem to be focusing on here. I think it scratches your "taunt the atheist itch", and your post makes sense if viewed in just a "taunt the atheist" way. But as a matter of reasoning, it's pretty much just a bunch of hand-waving.
I often wonder the same things Loftus wonders; one needn't be an atheist to entertain such questions. They are natural and organic responses to a review of the history of God and man.
I love my kids, and often let them suffer the consequences of their actions as a way of raising them to be Godly men and women, and also to serve the interests of justice. But to an act, those cases of suffering are temporary and (hopefully) edifying.
God isn't like that. Or, more precisely, isn't *only* like that. He permits all manner of suffering and misery and horrors to be visited upon those we humans understandably identify as "innocent" -- a pastor friend of mine returned from India last week to tell tales of kids in a remote village who are suffering agonizing , painful deaths as a result of being eaten from the insides out because of some vicious parasites that they have happened upon that devour the intestinal walls of the victim. Two, three, seven, eight year old kids.
Now maybe those were really bad kids? Maybe this is something they deserved? It's true in a way; in the squinty-eyed, husky voiced words of Dirty Harry:
We all got it coming, kid.
And there are worse things than suffering and death -- even that kind of suffering and death.
But it's just sort of sad, and chilling, to see you cast the way you have, as if this kind of moral reaction isn't completely reasonable and natural -- how could a good and all-powerful God let this happen?
It's perfectly reasonable to wonder why God doesn't just "fix" things like that, in my case particularly in the area of young children suffering. Such are the wages of Adam's sin, and that *is* the answer. But even for a Christian, especially for a Christian with a (human) moral conscience and a sense of compassion toward his fellow man, this answer is not immediately intuitive, or comfortable even after years of "settling".
So, I'd say it's perfectly disingenuous to deny the initial, superficial logic of the arguments offered by Loftus, and others. They are completely reasonable places to start. And unless one can accept the reality of Adam's fall and it's cosmic consequences, it will remain a very frustrating, and alienating situation.
The answer to Loftus' questions are difficult ones. It's the truth, and it's binding on us all, but it's difficult on several levels.
Ultimately, God's justice is something quite alien from what we humans call justice. When God tell us He loves the world, God's meaning of "love" is something different than what we humans conceive for the term, even in the most sublime, agape-love senses.
Your post takes fun of Loftus/atheists for their "anthropocentric" view of God. I think that *is* a common mistake, but it's a completely reasonable one, given the language used in the Bible. When an atheist is told "God loves you", it seems reasonable for the atheist to understand "love" to mean something like what "love" means in the rest of his experience. It may turn out that the "love" of God is something quite different than "love" among men (even agape love), but I can't see where one might demand these distinction from Loftus, or another unbeliever.
God *could* have done the things Loftus asks about. Just is as Just does, though, and it's simply a brute fact that it did not please God to do those things. But any man with a basic, healthy conscience, Christian or no, will eventually (often quickly) come to the same questions as Loftus poses, and reasonably so.
My answer/conclusion is different than Loftus', but he's on quite reasonable, thoughtful ground for his questions as a starting point.
A blessed Easter to Paul, John Loftus and everyone else!
-Touchstone
T-stone,
ReplyDeleteI didn't focus on "could" --> "did." It was on "could" --> "would," And, that is a modal fallacy.
You thus seem to me like someone who just wanted to "taunt the Calvinist." Other than that, I'm not even sure you really read my post.
Pretty much everything you brought up was answered, or seen to be irrelevant, if you actually took the time to digest what I wrote.
It's a little disheartening to see professing Christians just commenting for the sake of showing up other Christians.
You say Christians reason "could, therefore would," but I don't. Maybe you do, but I don't. I try to check the fallacies at the door.
Anyway, thanks for doing me the courtesy of not reading my post and then making me comment in the combox to answer you, even though it could have been avoided in the first place. That's how I wanted to spend my time.
But, just because you *could* have avoided it, why *would* you? After all, any chance to show the atheists what a level headed person you are, you'll take. They won't read what I write, so you can afford to butcher people's posts.
T-stone pretends like he has the answers atheists want. Watered down Christianity. Guess what, though, they laugh at you too, T-stone. They think you believe in a sky daddy. So, I'd rather tell them the truth, unwatered down, then butter them up and act "cool" just to have them laugh at me and call my God a sky daddy.
How apropo. Steve's post above just commented on something T-stone said. See, T-stone advocates lazyness. Keeps atheists lazy, then you can respond. I mean, after all, "loves the world" just means "love the world." Here's Setve's section on that, I'll substitute T-stone for Henry:
ReplyDelete__________________
"“Kosmos” doesn’t have a single meaning in NT usage generally or Johannine usage in particular. Rather, it has wide semantic domain. For example, Peter Cottrell & Max Turner list seven different senses (among others) for kosmos, including “the beings (human and supernatural) in rebellion against God, together with the systems under their control, viewed as opposed to God,” Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (1989), 176.
Which meaning is appropriate depends on the given context as well as overall theology of the author.
Likewise, Horst Balz defines kosmos in such ways as: “in the Johannine theology one finds again the basic elements of the Pauline understanding of kosmos in the extreme and intensified radicality of the estrangement and ungodliness of the kosmos…the concern is with the nature of the world that has fallen away from God and is ruled by the evil one,” EDNT 2:312.
And as Andrew Lincoln, in his recent commentary on John, explains, “Some argue that the term ‘world’ here simply has neutral connotations—the created human world. But the characteristic use of ‘the world’ (ho kosmos) elsewhere in the narrative is with negative overtones—the world in its alienation from and hostility to its creator’s purposes. It makes better sense in a soteriological context to see the latter notion as in view. God loves that which has become hostile to God. The force is not, then, that the world is so vast that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it, but rather that the world has become so alienated from God that it takes an exceedingly great kind of love to love it at all,” The Gospel According to St. John (Henrickson 2005), 154.
T-stone pays lip service to Scripture, but he’s too lazy to consult the standard commentaries, lexicons, or monographs on lexical semantics. In Johannine usage, “kosmos” does not mean “everyone.” Rather, it’s a loaded word with a qualitative rather than quantitative connotation.
But even if you don’t know Greek, or read the standard exegetical and lexical literature, you could figure out for yourself that “kosmos” can’t mean “everyone” in general Johannine usage, by spending a little time with an English concordance. Just try substituting “everyone” for “world” in the following verses and see how much sense it makes:
“The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (Jn 14:17).
Note the contrast between those who receive the Spirit and those who don’t. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then no one receives the Spirit.
“If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (Jn 15:19).
Note the contrast between those whom the “world” loves and those whom it hates. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then no such dichotomy is possible.
“I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world” (Jn 17:14).
Same disjunction as we saw under Jn 15:19.
“The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 Jn 2:17).
Note the contrast between the fleeting world and eternal life. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then the existence of the believer is just as transient as the existence of the unbeliever.
“For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (1 Jn 5:4).
Notice the antithesis between the regenerate who overcome the world, and the state of the unregenerate. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then no one overcomes the world.
“We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19).
Observe the contrast between the children of God and all those who lie under Satan’s dominion. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then everyone is a Satanist."
______________
Note to the atheists. You may not like us, but at least we'll do the common courtesy of making you think. Not allowing bad reasoning, or lazy reasoning, to go unanswered. We respect you enough to do that. Guys like T-stone pander to your nullifidian, Appalachian Mountain version of Christianity. Dumb-dumb theology. Catering to your humanistic assumption, gusy like T-stone are there to stroke your humanistic egos. We'll at least shoot straight with you.
Touchstone said:
ReplyDelete"So, I'd say it's perfectly disingenuous to deny the initial, superficial logic of the arguments offered by Loftus, and others. They are completely reasonable places to start....My answer/conclusion is different than Loftus', but he's on quite reasonable, thoughtful ground for his questions as a starting point."
But he isn't at "a starting point". He's middle-aged. He's had a significant amount of theological education. He's had many discussions about issues like these with many Christians. His mistakes have been corrected repeatedly, by multiple people in multiple contexts. He frequently makes little of the questions he can't answer while making much of questions he claims that Christians can't answer, many of which have been answered for him many times. He isn't advocating his views through e-mail or in a conversation with his neighbor over his backyard fence. Rather, he's advocating his views by means of a web site, a book, and other public platforms that he uses to criticize Christianity and to encourage people to leave the faith. Paul wasn't writing a response to a seven-year-old child who was asking these questions for the first time in a private conversation.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIf you sit in on theology classes at you local Bible college, or even at a secular university, you shouldn't be surprised to find that in terms of Christianity, one of the most meaty, intractable issues is the problem of evil, specifically the problem of natural evil, as opposed to moral evil.
As for scoffing at those who take "world" (kosmos) to mean, um, world, that's pretty funny from a group of bloggers that are happy to assert that "six days" means "six days" -- the natural witness of the earth itself be damned.
Even if we should end up at an oddly complex meaning for "kosmos", the point stands that it's quite reasonable -- just as with "six days" -- to begin with a face value meaning. You can call that watered-down if you want, but whatever it is, it's the same heuristic Calvinists plead for all the time in other places.
As for the "Johannine Greek" (heh! you guys kill me), what greek word would you suggest John would have used if he *had* meant each and every individual in all the earth?
My NT greek lexicon has 'kosmos' with this definition providing definitions like 'the earth, the universe' (#3), and 'the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family' (#5), and ' the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ' (#6). Sounds pretty universal to me, there. Should I throw that lexicon out, or what?
From what I can gather from Loftus, he's aware of the "could/did" difference, which is precisely why he's pressing the issue thus. The "woulds" involved seem quite natural, obvious even. If you love all men, and have compassion on them, there may be reasons to allow them to suffer from a vicious legal plague, but it's certainly quite natural to wonder why, given the powers available, God would not intervene on man's remedial behalf.
Like I said, I think there are answers, but any Christian, or atheist for that matter, who's familiar with Christian theology will understand that the problem of evil is the toughest ground to cover, philosophically, and has been for millenia.
So Loftus is raising the question of evil, the toughest topic for Christian theology to address, and Paul is beside himself. How could Loftus be so stupid to take on the questions that the greatest Christians minds have struggled with for ages?
Stupid Loftus!
-Touchstone
Jason,
ReplyDeleteJust heading off to Easter dinner with the extended family, so this has to be short -- I can expand later. By 'starting point' I didn't meanLoftus was *ignorant* of the suggested answers. I'd wager he's familiar with a good amount of Christian thinking on the problem of evil.
By 'starting point', I meant the logical premises. James is starting from a position that of atheism, or at least agnosticism, and thus doesn't have "Just is as Just does" as a brute fact in his set of axioms, as I do. That's an important difference in jumping off points, and accounts for why the discussion usually fares badly as it progresses between atheist and Christians; what Paul and accept as a brute fact "God is as He is because that's the way He is" seems a tautology from the outside.
In any case, I'm sure Loftus is more than familiar with the lines of reasoning Christians have offered through the ages on these questions.
Sorry for the confusion.
-Touchstone
Touchstone said:
ReplyDelete"By 'starting point', I meant the logical premises....In any case, I'm sure Loftus is more than familiar with the lines of reasoning Christians have offered through the ages on these questions."
Then why does he keep repeating the "starting point" arguments, ignoring large amounts of material that have been written in response to him and in response to others on these issues? Why would somebody so familiar with the issues keep approaching them as if he's not?
You keep referring to the difficulty involved in the problem of evil, but we have to distinguish between different types of difficulty. A Christian may have difficulty experiencing some sort of suffering or trying to discern the details of God's reasoning in allowing a form of suffering. But some of the "starting point" objections that people like John Loftus often raise aren't what Christians find difficult.
It's difficult to experience getting a shot from a doctor, and in some situations it may be difficult to discern all of the reasons why getting the shot makes sense (the medical benefits involved, etc.). But it's not difficult to figure out that there are potential justifications for getting the shot or to discern that the doctor is trustworthy. People like John Loftus aren't just objecting to the difficulties involved in experiencing the shot and discerning all of the details involved. They're also objecting on the basis that they supposedly can't even think of any potential benefit to getting the shot and can't see any reason to trust the doctor.
When we refer to Christians struggling with the problem of evil, we should distinguish between what they struggle with and what people like John Loftus claim to be struggling with. Christians have moved beyond the "starting points" you refer to, whereas people like John Loftus refuse to move beyond those starting points, even when they know enough to do so and have repeatedly seen their objections refuted. Yes, Christians struggle with the problem of evil, but not in the same way.
You've made reference to some of these facts, but I don't think that you're incorporating them into your comments consistently. You'll acknowledge at one point that Christians have answers for objections like the ones John Loftus raises, but then you'll go on to act as if he's reasonable for continuing to maintain those objections after he's seen them answered repeatedly.
T-stone,
ReplyDeleteA lot of people have poor theology. So?
As far as the "could/would" issue, I didn't think you were so dense. It's *fallacious.*
Atheist frequently argue that God, if He were God, *would* have done X, Y, and Z, and they point to the fact that He *could* have done so.
You'll note that I don't have a problem with the argument from evil qua argument. I have a problem with *fallacious* arguments. I have a problem with *bad* arguments. It's not that I have a problem with someone asking why God wouldn't do something (depending on the situation). It's that atheists just point out the fact that Goid *could* do such and such, and so He would have if He really existed. But, since those things aren't taken care, He must not exist.
It's too bad you don't share my disdain for bad arguments.
You still show no familiarity with my post.
But, you go on thinking Loftus and the other internet pop atheists have a right to throw temper tantrums because God doesn't do what they would do.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteJust so I'm clear: what's the word John *should* have used if he intended to include *everyone*, like, the unqualified *everyone*? Given your treatise imported from Steve, I just want to know what word you would expect in place of 'kosmos', had John really meant all of us, to the last man, woman, and child?
As for Loftus, he can (maybe won't now, does he bother with this place anymore?) speak for himself, but the rationale I encounter from atheists isn't that God *can't* exist because he didn't do something He *could* have done. Rather, the fact that something wasn't done that seems intuitive/natural/congruent with the concepts they are applying (love/justice/grace), simply *suggests* a difficulty, a dissonance between what one might expect, and what one finds actually happened.
That's a natural feature of human reasoning, trying to identify and smooth out what appear to be incongruities. My reasoning brings me to the same questions, or at least has in the past. Like I said, the apparent incongruencies for Christians are resolved by the acceptance of a fundamental precept -- the brute fact of God as a sovereign, independent, normative will. Just is as just does. Without such a trump card, I expect atheists will never
At some point, faith *does* make a contribution, here, Paul. It's OK to allow that the problem of evil doesn't shake out as cleanly as the Pythagorean Theorem, even if it those pesky atheists posing the questions. Christianity can survive and flourish, despite difficulties with the problem of evil.
-Touchstone
Jason,
ReplyDeleteWhat's at work here is something like this, by my reckoning:
Christians can and *do* resolve the apparent/initial problems (which we agree, I think, are at least reasonable questions to launch at the beginning) with the brute fact of God's will. God does as He wills, according to His nature, and that nature and will are not subject to our little human brains' understandings and reasoning.
But, this brute fact *is* a brute fact, and one that necessarily supplies an answer to the question at hand: Does God exist?
So, on one hand, you have arguments along the lines of:
If God *were* a reality, I think he would have....
These are (often feeble) attempts to model what conditions would exist that support the argument for God's existence, *without* prior concession that He does, in fact, exist.
Christians come along with answers like this:
Well, it makes no sense to assume what conditions support the existence of God in our own views, because He does exist, and some features of the world don't match up with some of our natural expectations. So the "anticipatory argument" (if God were to he exist, this is what we would expect to see..) is useless.
Which is fine, but really just jumping to an answer to the big question -- begging the question, after a fashion.
Atheists concede: "Of course, if you simply assume God exists and can behave any way He wants, you can explain it, but that begs the question at hand!"
Christians simply shrug. God is an immanent, present reality, and is overwhelming proof that "God, if he existed, would have..." arguments.
Which means that it all hinges on a brute fact (or non-fact, from the atheist view). That's the way it is.
But the impression Paul leaves here is that this brute fact is some kind of production from some other deductive syllogism, which, duh, you atheists, you should have absorbed long ago!
So what separates the believer from the unbeliever here is not some sort of intellectual capacity, but the acceptance or rejection of a brute fact. Atheists are on the wrong side of this assessment, but I don't pretend that this breaks one way or the other on some kind of philosophical novelty that Manata has a grip on that the poor, hapless infidels just can't grok.
-Touchstone
T-Stone,
ReplyDelete"Just so I'm clear: what's the word John *should* have used if he intended to include *everyone*, like, the unqualified *everyone*? Given your treatise imported from Steve, I just want to know what word you would expect in place of 'kosmos', had John really meant all of us, to the last man, woman, and child?"
First, say he used the same word. our point is that the *contxt* determines the extension.
So, say that someone says that since John says that " the world has hated them" in referring to the disciples. Say that someone critiques Christianity by saying that it seems self-referentially incoherent. Say that they say that the disciples are among those that hate themselves. Now, you respond by saying that "world" doesn't mean every single person. They ask you, "Oh yeah, well what world should John have used if he meant to refer to "every single person. Afterall, 'world' means 'world,' doesn't it?"
So, we see that you'd fall into the same trap as you're trying to spring on us. Your point is sophomoric and naive. But, being the agreeable fellow that I am, one way in Greek to emphasize universal quantitative import is to use universal language repetatively. So, for example, in Rom. 3, Paul says that "there is none who do good, no not one." That's an example of repetative universal import.
"As for Loftus, ... the rationale I encounter from atheists isn't that God *can't* exist because he didn't do something He *could* have done."
First, that's not my argument. So, either read or re-read my post. Try being as charitable with me as you are with the atheists. All this just makes you look like a hypocrit.
Frequently the claim is just thrown out there: God could do X.
There's no analysis or argument.
The claim is in the context, frequently, that God would do certain things, if he were a certain kind of God. Then, making this claim, they say, "God could do X." Since God could, there's nothing stopping him, so God *would* if he existed.
My claim is that one needs *argument* for this. "Would" speaks of disposition and willingess. The atheist must show that God has this disposition, desire, or general willingness. They do not use the Bible. And, that it seems "natural" to them to suppose that the God of the Bible is a crypt-humanist, shouldn't be *my* problem. Who gives a rat's patookie what sinful man's "natural" idea of what God is disposed to do? I mean, like I said, you're free to cater to humanistic assumptions, I can't do that to these people. They may hate it, but at least they get the straight shot from us. We don;t stroke people's egos here, T-stone.
"That's a natural feature of human reasoning, trying to identify and smooth out what appear to be incongruities."
Yeah, and the natural feature seeks to "supress the truth" and "exchange the truth for a lie." Furthermore, just because someone is disposed to think of God in certain athropocentric terms, doesn't imply that their reasoning gets a free pass. Could doesn't imply would. All the times the atheists simply assert that God could do X, and enthematically leave it at the conclusion, "therefore God would," and since it hasn't been done, He must not exist, are times when they reason poor. I'm assuming better of them than you. I assume, generally, peoiple want to know when they use bad arguments. I don't stroke their egos and tell them how common and natural their questions are. How we all have the same problems. Speak for yourself and your liberal theology.
"At some point, faith *does* make a contribution, here, Paul. It's OK to allow that the problem of evil doesn't shake out as cleanly as the Pythagorean Theorem, even if it those pesky atheists posing the questions. Christianity can survive and flourish, despite difficulties with the problem of evil.'
I never said faith doesn't enter the picture, T-stone. Read my response to Lazarus on the problem of evil. See how I rest upon *trust* in God's say-so. I guess my question to you is, why do you harp on us for allegedly misrepresenting atheists? Do you think that gives you a free pass to be ignorant of our/my arguments? A free pass to misrepresent me? Take your false piety and glad-hand someone who's buying.
Anyway, I don't know what "problems" you're referring to. I've admitted that there are *psychological* problems for the Christian. There is no *logical* problem (as even the majority of atheists admit). And, as those like Adams point out, the evidential problem simply assumes facts not in evidence to make its case. Furtherore, most atheists are anti-realists about ethics, and so the only "problem" they can raise are *internal* ones. Now, I'm a calvinist, unlike you, and so I don;t have any internal problems. That doesn't entail that I'm right, it just entails that internally my system doesn't have incoherency. You may not like it, but that doesn't entail internal incoherence.
Anyway, you're free to keep your defeatist attitude. I'm not stopping you. I don't harp on you for giving up, why harp on me for my appraoch?
"But the impression Paul leaves here is that this brute fact is some kind of production from some other deductive syllogism, which, duh, you atheists, you should have absorbed long ago!"
ReplyDeleteAnother misrepresentation and blatent lie by T-stone.
T-stone does what he accuses us of doing all the time. He's a hypocrit. He's an Uncle Tom Christian.
Anyway, the statement above is relative. So, yes, in some instances, especially where the atheist argues fallaciously, it is as simple as saying, "Duh, don't you get it." I'm not critiquing an Oppy, Q. Smith, etc., here. It's amateur internet atheologians. So, learn to be more flexible and come down to reality. Loftus' arguments are not even in the same *universe* as an Oppy's et al.
Touchstone said...I often wonder the same things Loftus wonders; one needn't be an atheist to entertain such questions.
ReplyDeleteWho are you, Touchstone, to be so reasonable? Wow. You amaze me, even if we disagree.
Stupid Touchstone....
Touchstone writes:
ReplyDelete"As for Loftus, he can (maybe won't now, does he bother with this place anymore?) speak for himself, but the rationale I encounter from atheists isn't that God *can't* exist because he didn't do something He *could* have done."
You then go on, in your reply to me, to refer to how you think Christians in general argue and how atheists in general would respond. John Loftus has had many discussions related to the problem of evil with Steve Hays, Paul Manata, and other people who post here. Have you read any of those discussions? If so, and you want to defend John Loftus, then you ought to defend the approach he's taken in response to the people he's interacted with rather than telling us what you think Christians in general and atheists in general say in their discussions with each other.
You go on to tell me that "it all hinges on a brute fact", but it doesn't. If an atheist wants to offer an external critique of Christianity, in which he doesn't accept what you call the "brute fact" of God's existence, then he would need to justify the standards he's using from his atheistic perspective. If his atheistic worldview can't justify the standards he's appealing to, then we can reject his use of those standards before we even get to a discussion of God's existence. People can approach the problem of evil from a variety of angles, and John Loftus has chosen to use specific arguments. Either those arguments are valid or they aren't. I've repeatedly seen John, in discussions with Paul Manata and with other people, use bad arguments of the "starting point" nature that you referred to earlier, even after being corrected repeatedly. He's often failed to properly distinguish between an internal and an external critique. He's often failed to properly distinguish between suffering in general and gratuitous suffering. Etc. Telling me that Christians in general and atheists in general disagree about "a brute fact" doesn't address what I've said about the indefensibility of a particular atheist's (John Loftus) behavior in particular discussions.
You write:
"But the impression Paul leaves here is that this brute fact is some kind of production from some other deductive syllogism, which, duh, you atheists, you should have absorbed long ago! So what separates the believer from the unbeliever here is not some sort of intellectual capacity, but the acceptance or rejection of a brute fact. Atheists are on the wrong side of this assessment, but I don't pretend that this breaks one way or the other on some kind of philosophical novelty that Manata has a grip on that the poor, hapless infidels just can't grok."
Are you suggesting that there are no philosophical arguments that lead to your "brute fact"? And what do you mean by "some kind of philosophical novelty"? Surely you aren't suggesting that Paul Manata is the only person who uses such arguments or that they're new.
By the way my friend Paul, I know John F. Kennedy, and you are no John F. Kennedy. Nor are you Van Til, or John Frame. So? Big deal if neither one of us is as articulate as others. I still think we offer up some of the same arguments. My vegetarian argument, even if not as articulate as Q. Smith's, is the same argument.
ReplyDeletePaul, in August I'll probably be in in Reno NV. I think you live in California, correct? I would really like to meet ya, and I'm serious. I would like to take you up on a debate about Christianty, if it were a public one. Are you game? Do you have a church that could bring us there from Reno? If so, it's on, But only if it's a public one in front of an audience.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDelete1. Hinging on the brute fact.
I think you (and Paul) are simply failing to think about this from the other side. If you did *not* accept the existence of God as a brute fact, then arguments like Loftus', whether expressed roughly and informally as Loftus has on the Internnet or with some burnish in the form of, say Michael Martin's work or Quentin Smith, seem a reasonable way to proceed.
Or, if you did not grant outright that the Christian (or any) God exists, what kind of analysis would you bring to bear to test the Christian assertions?
I can understand someone asking how a "just" God would countenance some of the things the Christian God has countenanced, when being called "just". As a Christian, I'm completely comfortable with the idea that "Just is as Just does", but if I start from a point of view that doesn't admit that normative role, then I'd surely be inclined to say that Christian claims of God being a just and loving God are hard to reconcile with the historical record. That would be using a contemporary, popular notion of what "just" and "loving" mean, but seriously, what do expect an atheist to use as operating definitions, if not that?
As for internal/external critiques, the whole "internal critique" mojo you guys project is just silly. When you have an ominpotent, omnipresent, ominiscient God built into the equation, one that isn't bound by any human constraints of notions of justice, love, grace, or [insert favorite term here], then you have constructed a paradigm which is *by definition* impervious to internal critiques! It's *always* consistent, because something within the system -- *God* gets to define what consistent *means*. It's such a scam to try and represent Christianity as simultaneously *liable* to internal critiques, and somehow untouched by them. Christianity, as constructed, is logically impossible to provide internal critiques upon. I don't know how many of your interlocutors you guys can bamboozle with that -- if I recall, Barker fell for that trick hook line and sinker -- but here, please spare me the internal/external critique snowjob. And for the record, Jason, I can't recall you offering this stuff yourself, but I've certainly seen Paul do it, and Steve Hays, well, that's one of his favorite little hiding places when someone actual brings a real question to bear...
I've no idea if Loftus has been a bad guy in his polemics in other circumstances. I've been reacting to what I've read Paul quote from Loftus here. I get the overarching sense that Paul and Steve (not sure about you) simply identify anything out of their VanTillian presuppositions as foolish or bad arguments. As a result of all the stuff I've read on this blog, you'll pardon me for some doubts as to whether you guys know a bad argument when you see one.
You later wonder if there are no philosophical arguments that lead to my "brute fact". In my view there are *no* philosophical arguments that even begin to approach the scope of the brute fact itself -- it eclipse everything else around it. That means that yes, there are good historical evidences that support the Christian argument for God and the Bible, but none of these are independently compelling on their own, without faith. There are good scientific clues to indicate that the physical world not only operates according to a core set of ordered physical laws, but also that these laws may be emergent properties of a "bubbly" megaverse, no divine intervention necessary, at least at the "local universe" level.
Yet, it takes a good measure of faith on the part of the atheist to adopt that narrative as well.
Philosophically, then, we are left in "the agnostic zone" -- there are not overwhelming arguments either way. We stake out positive positions based on the brute fact -- does God exist, or not? -- and everything breaks one way or the other based on that key finding.
That's one of my primary beefs with Triablogue; you guys are way ahead of yourselves, in a most amateurish way, when you declare that there exist compelling philosophical arguments for God, arguments that don't BEG THE QUESTION, AND PRESUPPOSE THE ANSWER TO WHAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED.
Paul just makes a lousy thinking-atheist, I suppose, a characterization I don't think he'll mind at all. But it's actually a big problem, as he's handicapped by that in understanding how to think, how others think, when they don't bring the presuppositions to the table that he does. Sure, if you assume the Christian God exists, then Christianity makes mince-meat out of atheism. Is that the level of intellectual gravitas we can expect here?
And no, Paul isn't the innovator of the position he's taking. It's an old and venerated position. By novelty I meant "light-weight" or "superfluous" in contrast to the question of whether God exists or not. It's not new, and I've no illusions about seeing it prop up again and again from other Christians, even should Paul get a grasp on what I'm saying.
-Touchstone
John,
ReplyDeleteI don't have a Church that could bring you here. You can make it on your own, or have some atheist financiers get you "here."
Anyway, if you're serious, you can email Lazarus for my email address and we can talk about it.
~PM
Paul,
ReplyDeleteRE: "kosmos"...
First, my point was, in contrast to Steve's suggestion (get this one from Steve: 'In Johannine usage, “kosmos” does not mean “everyone'!), that "kosmos" *is* what we would expect John to use if he did in fact mean *all* of humanity.
Second, the 'context' your building up is a TULIP-infused one, that obligates you to complicate kosmos with the notions of the elect and non-elect, each with different standing in terms of God's love and sacrifice for them. That's an eisegetical exercise, which isn't bad per se. But it's not a contextual inference from the grammar or the *logical* context of the verse and its surrounding verses and chapter/book.
2. God could do X.
I suggest it's implausible to suggest that atheists simply throw out there "God could do X", all by itself. Christians will also affirm that God *could* do X (e.g. remove AIDS from the face of the earth), so that just doesn't make any sense on its own.
The natural implication of "God could have done X", is, of course, that "God *should* have done X if He is [loving|just|gracious], but didn't, meaning He is not [loving|just|gracious]".
This is where the whole internal/external critique ruse raises its ugly head and blows smoke all over the discussion. Paul , you complain that God can't be judge by external criteria (e.g. man's notion of what is just), but at the same time, assert that God *defines* any and all of these attributes. If something *inside* the system is definitive in a transcendant way, it's is in principle impossible to put to an external test!
An atheist hears you and then asks: all right then, what are the criteria, if not those, by which we might reasonably evaluate this?
Your answer must be "None!" and with a smug kind of grin at the convenience that circumstance. Cool, a system that is completely self-defining, impervious to internal critique. Not impervious due to its inherent philosophical strength, but simply because it has turned the concept of an external critique into a non-starter, an oxymoron.
Later, you complain that the atheist view of God as "crypto-human" isn't your problem. It very much is your problem if we are starting with a bunch of humans discussing this -- and the very existence of God is on the table, up for debate. If that's the case, I suggest that the natural, reasonable starting point for someone who has not accepted the brute fact of God's existence is to extend our own human understanding of concepts like love and justice. What would you suppose might be an alternative, more natural/reasonable approach?
Consider this. Some other party shows up and challenges Loftus that a much different God exists as ruler of the universe and commands us all to serve it, named, oh, I don't know, Zool. Zool's scriptures make all manner of claims about Zools nature and relationship with man, primarily focusing on *hatred* as the defining principle of his character. Zool hates everyone, and everything. He is the God of Hate.
So Loftus looks around and says, "Hmmm, I can see a lot of things that do fit with a God of Hate. But I gotta tell you, this is a beautiful planet, and I have a lovely, beautiful wife who cares for me, and I can recount 10,000 features of this world that looks like someone who *loved* us and cared for us as humans arranged things this way. If Zool is as you say, this is not what I would expect to find.
The Zoolist apologist would then retort that Loftus has *no* basis to assess the hatred of Zool based on Loftus' own understanding of the concept of hatred. What basis does Loftus have to think that Zool's hatred should conform to Loftus' puny little conceptualizations of the term. Zool is hateful, and his creation of the earth, even the glacier-clad peaks of the Rockies and the mighty surf of the California coast stand as acts of vengeance against us. It *is* hateful, but just a higher form of hatred, one which Loftus should just accept in deference.
I don't know about you, but I, as a Christian, would probably be leveling the same kinds of critiques of Zoolianism here as Loftus does: what about all the love and good and beauty in the world. If Zool is pure and supreme hatred, is this what we would expect to find? To me, that would be a suggestion that this Zoolian apologist had some really shaky ground to stand on, philosophically. He's attempt to assert dominion over any and all terms, all criterion by which Zool might be assessed as a (non)reality.
If you were approached with the Gospel of Zool, God of Hate, would you accept being called a fool if you were to point out that there exists a good section of the world that doesn't comport with what we would understand to be "hate-driven"? Or would you capitulate to the Zoolian apologist, conceding that if Zool existed, he would define what was truly hateful, not you, and that you really had no basis for assessing what was hateful and hate-centric after all, as Zool is the Definer of Hate?
Serious question, Paul. How would you respond to the Zoolian apologist?
My hope is that this little example provides a glimpse of where an unbeliever might be coming from intellecutally, as it puts *you* in the infidel role vis-a-vis Zool.
-Touchstone
T-stone is so naive about our world. He thinks Christians are the only ones with presuppositions. He writes,
ReplyDelete"If you did *not* accept the existence of God as a brute fact, then arguments like Loftus', whether expressed roughly and informally as Loftus has on the Internnet or with some burnish in the form of, say Michael Martin's work or Quentin Smith, seem a reasonable way to proceed."
If they did accept humanism and Polly Anna Deity as their starting point then arguments of a Plantinga or a Van Til seem a reasonable way to proceed.
"Or, if you did not grant outright that the Christian (or any) God exists, what kind of analysis would you bring to bear to test the Christian assertions?"
Well, since sin affects the mind, I might reason that God should have given us wigs so we wouldn't fall to our death and gills to we wouldn't drown. I'd probably say that God should care about *me* since I'm the center of my universe, thinking I'm a little god, and therefore, whatever went on that didn't happen to float my boat would be evidence against god.
"I can understand someone asking how a "just" God would countenance some of the things the Christian God has countenanced, when being called "just"."
So can I. But that's not Loftus. We've already given him answers. It's his job to move the discussion foward. If he wants to keep asking questions that we've already answered (whether you/he agrees or not), pretending that no one can answer them, then he moves in to the arena of mockery and ridiculing.
"a Christian, I'm completely comfortable with the idea that "Just is as Just does", but if I start from a point of view that doesn't admit that normative role, then I'd surely be inclined to say that Christian claims of God being a just and loving God are hard to reconcile with the historical record."
No norms, then no standard by which you can say God is wrong. So, you admit you'd make poor arguments? I just want atheists to be consistent. You want to lie to them. I respect them as people more than you. I'm not here to give their bad arguments an "atta boy."
"As for internal/external critiques, the whole "internal critique" mojo you guys project is just silly."
Strike all my previous arguments against atheists. I'll now use T-stone's. Apparently if I claim that Loftus' arguments are "just silly," then I'll score a T-stone point.
"When you have an ominpotent, omnipresent, ominiscient God built into the equation, one that isn't bound by any human constraints of notions of justice, love, grace, or [insert favorite term here], then you have constructed a paradigm which is *by definition* impervious to internal critiques!"
And that's our fault? Not my faultLoftus' worldview has internal inconsistencies.
"It's *always* consistent, because something within the system -- *God* gets to define what consistent *means*."
Some version of what christainity is *are* internally incoherent. So, that kind of wipes out your entire argument.
"I don't know how many of your interlocutors you guys can bamboozle with that -- if I recall, Barker fell for that trick hook line and sinker -- but here, please spare me the internal/external critique snowjob."
Actually, this is standard philosophical lingo. Brush up on the debate before you go around making Christians look so ignorant. Here's just *ONE* example:
"We don't need objective morality to level an internal critique... [b]ut don't we ever wants to criticize the ultimate commitments themselves? For this we need an external critique. ...If these [ultimate commitments] can ever be misguided - not just according to me, or my culture, but misguided period - then (so long as there are any correct moral standards at all) there must be some objective morality that reveals error." (Landeau, Whatever Happened to Good and Evil, Oxford, p.16-17)
So, I take it that T-stone thinks Oxford publishing is in the ahbbit of publishing shoddy and "silly" and "snowballish" material. Give me a break, T-stone. Save the bravado and tough guy act for someone else.
"And for the record, Jason, I can't recall you offering this stuff yourself, but I've certainly seen Paul do it, and Steve Hays, well, that's one of his favorite little hiding places when someone actual brings a real question to bear..."
Let's not forget that it was *Loftus himself* that said he was offering *internal critiques.* So, how does John like you saying he got "snowed?" Furthermore, it's pretty simply. There's two options.
(a) Atheist says God is evil. I say, "evil according to what." He gives ethical standard S. Say S is supposed to be objective, we go one way. But, say that it's subjective. He then looses his critique because, as you should know, all he's now saying is that he *disagrees* with God.
(b) Atheist says God is evil. I say, "according to what standard." Atheist realizes that, say, his worldview cannot hope to provide objective morality, he knows the pitfalls of saying that God is evil according to his subjective opinion, so he then says, "according to God's morality."
So, (a) is external and (b) is internal. I've seen atheists argue *both.* T-stone is just out of touch with atheological arguments of a substantive nature. he spends all his time defending the nullifidian nit wits that he's forgot how decent arguers, argue.
"I get the overarching sense that Paul and Steve (not sure about you) simply identify anything out of their VanTillian presuppositions as foolish or bad arguments. As a result of all the stuff I've read on this blog, you'll pardon me for some doubts as to whether you guys know a bad argument when you see one."
Unfortunately, all T-stone has done is to atack me 'cause he don't like me. he couldn't even characterizze my argument. Probably didn't read it.
"Philosophically, then, we are left in "the agnostic zone" -- there are not overwhelming arguments either way."
First, most philosophers would not agree that lack of "overwhelming" arguments means we are to be "agnostic."
Anyway, T-stone pretends to be so learned. So cosmopoliton. But, fact is, the majority of Christian philosophers disagree with him. So, not only are the "T-bloggers" a bucnh of dumb dumbs, but so are Plantinga, Craig, Helm, Moreland, Byl, Frame, Beilby et al. a bunch of dumb dumbs.
"That's one of my primary beefs with Triablogue; you guys are way ahead of yourselves, in a most amateurish way, when you declare that there exist compelling philosophical arguments for God, arguments that don't BEG THE QUESTION, AND PRESUPPOSE THE ANSWER TO WHAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED. "
Well, as Wolterstorff, Plantinga, and many atheists would say, there's circularity that is acceptable. T-stone has not shown that our are of the unobejctable sort. Where have we included a premise that is the conclusion? T-stone needs to brush up on his epistemology.
Anyway, say that induction and scientific laws presupposes God, or couldn't be made sense of in an atheistic universe (say, something like Foster argued in The Divine Lawmaker, Oxfor press). Then, *all* of T-stone's arguments from science "presuppose" God. T_stone is just as bad as the atheists. He thinks his failure to keep up on literature is an excuse to make such huge errors.
"But it's actually a big problem, as he's handicapped by that in understanding how to think, how others think, when they don't bring the presuppositions to the table that he does."
Apparently T-stone can;t think how I do, and so that's a big problem is understanding me. Apparently T-stone likes to stick his foot in his mouth. And, btw, I can cite many atheists who do not think of me the way Loftus and T-stone do.
T-stone,
ReplyDeleteThanks for making it so easy:
1. Nice didge. I answered you on your own grounds, and you can't admit defeat but have to shift the goal posts. There was no "tulip" infused into my post. I simply showed that *even you* have the same problem and so you point about what word John could have used was decaptitated. Secodnly I answered your question about how a greek author could show he meant *everyone.* You ignored all of this and just painted me in as bad a light as possible. You're a hypocrit.
2. I didn't say that *all* atheists do that. But, that's what the ones *I cited* did.
Second, I don't say an "external critique" can't be given. So, represent me properly or else it makes all your *talk* about "understanding your opponant" ring hallow.
So, I'll just ignore the rest of your post as it was predicated on a misrepresentation.
Now, for my question:
T-stone, how can you misrepresent me so bad while at the same time chastising me for not representing people properly? Don't you feel dirty taking the low road.
Btw, most people recognize that Swinburne has shown the internal problems with an all-evil god. It's related to critiques against the OA. So, brush up on your literature. I'd rather not spend time re-hashing already agreed upon rebutted objections.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the issue of internal and external critiques, that's precisely why I drew out the example of Zool and his apologist. If you and I are asked to provide an internal critique of Zoolianism, we are utterly helpless in your approach to apologetics (the one you bring to the table yourself), as Zool in this case is the final arbiter of what *consistent* means.
There's no possible way an internal critique could stand, as the Zoolian apologist would simply say, "Zool doesn't think that way, and doesn't see that as inconsistent at all" to whatever possible objection you raised. You can't resist, because in this setup, *Zool* is normative as to what is consistent and what is not, not you, you puny mortal!
Got that?
If so, tell me how an internal critique could ever be mounted against Zoolianism, or whether you're ready to just concede that Zoolianism is impenetrable and impervious to internal critiques -- something I just made up on the fly is "bulletproof" in that regard, flying by your rules.
And, the all-evil thing is irrelevant to this point. Zool could be the God of the Color Green, and the color green is the defining characteristic of God's nature. We might suggest that if Zool aspires to all-green all the time, there might be a problem given all the non-green out there.
But sheesh, please stop with the flares and distractions (Swinburne, for example). The point is you can protect *any* paradigm you wish from internal critiques if the God you advance defines what *consistent* means.
The kicker here is, of course, the heart of Euthyphro's Dilemma -- who defines what is the measure of consistency? You seem to think an internal critique does not rely on some object (i.e. external) measure applied to determine whether the internals are actually consistent.
In math, for example, Riemannian geometry is analyzed for *internal* consistency, but the arbiter of what *consistent* means lies outside Riemannian geometry itself. The internal critique relies in part -- always -- on external measures, else it can't possible be a critique.
In any case, forget "all-evil", or "all-green", if those are distracting. Choose your own favorite attributes for Zool, and tell me how you could -- even in principle -- mount an internal critique of Zoolianism if Zool gets final say over what is consistent and what is not.
This goes to the heart of the objections of many atheists -- Christians dismiss perceived inconsistencies as illegitimate obejctions, since God determines what is just or loving, independent of what outside expectations might be...
-Touchstone.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteShould have added above:
I don't think, and don't believe I've said you've misrepresented Loftus arguments. I trust the quotes you provided are just cut and pasted from his writings elsewhere -- no reason to doubt it. I've no complaint against your representation of Loftus arguments -- the problem of evil, etc.
It's not your recounting of Loftus' arguments that's a problem. It's your analysis and evaluation of those arguments that leaves so much to be desired. That doesn't get us any closer to agreeing, I know, but you complain about my criticisms of you for mis-representing Loftus' arguments. That's not one of my criticisms.
It's the thinking that goes into rebutting those arguments that has me objecting here.
-Touchstone
T-stone,
ReplyDelete"Regarding the issue of internal and external critiques, that's precisely why I drew out the example of Zool and his apologist. If you and I are asked to provide an internal critique of Zoolianism, we are utterly helpless in your approach to apologetics (the one you bring to the table yourself), as Zool in this case is the final arbiter of what *consistent* means."
That's not my method. But, nice caricature. And, that's not how I use "consistent" in my claims about Christianity's "internal coherency."
So, continue on with the misrepresentations and straw men while you chastise me for the same.
And, you've not provided enough info on Zoolianism for it to be subject to internal critique. There's plenty to go on in the Bible. So, it's a bit disanalogous to claim that my claim is *the same* as the Zoolian's when I actually have a *worldview* that can be subject to critique. I mean, I'll do you better than Zool. Call it P. I assert "P." So, that's internally consistnet.
Anyway, your critiques that land are simply elementary, for the most part they're simply misrepresentations and misunderstandings.
Why can't you "understand" my position, T-stone? It seems like you'd be able to given all the "advice" you've been giving me.
"There's no possible way an internal critique could stand, as the Zoolian apologist would simply say, "Zool doesn't think that way, and doesn't see that as inconsistent at all" to whatever possible objection you raised."
But of course that's not "all I say." You're totally misrepesenting and oversimplifying how I've approached certain apologetic encounters.
Given your disdain for sloppy thinking and misrepresentations, I wonder how you can stand yourself? Or, do you think it's only T-bloggers who need to hold to your strictures, all else can ignore them, including you?
"If so, tell me how an internal critique could ever be mounted against Zoolianism,"
First, tell me all about Zoolianism. Do they have a revealtion I could read for myself to save you time? Now, if what you said is *all* to Zoolianism that there is, then there's no logic or rules of consistency. And, there's no reason to think Zool made our minds able attain truth. Indeed, it seems we have a sort of Humean defeater for all our beliefs. Descartes reasoned that the only way he could count on God to not deceive him was that God was loving.
So, what's the probability, given Zooliianism, that our cognitive faculties are aimed at truth? Low, inscrutable at best. Therefore the Zoolian apologist has a defater for all of his beliefs.
That's one example. Depending on more info, I could do better.
Or, if we're gonna play games, I'll say that Zool told *me* that P while he told you that ~P. How would you arbitrate between the two claims.
Zool has problems on top of problems.
So, go take this kindergarten stuff back to your own blog.
"It's not your recounting of Loftus' arguments that's a problem. It's your analysis and evaluation of those arguments that leaves so much to be desired."
No, it's your characterization of my arguments that leaves something to be desired. You do *the same* thing to us as you accuse us of doing to Loftus. This inconsistency makes me question your claims to being open minded. I think you just don't like orthodox Calvinists. Maybe they excommunicated you from a church. Maybe because we've called you a heretic. I don't know. But, don't use your emotional problems as an excuse to come here and pretend to be interested in "truth" and "good arguments."
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSo, to keep things as simple as possible, a short list of allegedly divine revelation from the Zoolian apologist:
1. Zool loves green and desires for all things to be green.
2. Zool hates read and desires that nothing be red.
3. P
4. ~P
OK, so now you have the "Four divine truths of Zool", according to the Zoolian apologist. Note that his piece of work supports revealing to you "P", and to me "~P".
Isn't that a problem? Not according to the Zoolian apologist. What do you know of true logic, puny mortal!? Zool *defines* logic, and if you accept the reality of Zool, you accept that both P and ~P are true.
Simultaneously.
So there you have it. Seems plenty inconsistent internally, but only if I'm using an *external* measure for consistency (by convention -- outside of Zoolianism -- P and ~P are logical exclusives and can't both be simultaneously true). But if I can't bring to bear an external criterion for consistency, one that superordinates Zool, then I'm completely hosed.
Maybe you'll fare better, as well versed as you are in all the relevant literature, and all that.
So given Zool's Four Divine Truths above, is there any basis for an internal critique here, or not? You suggest that the Zoolian apologist, as related above, is representing "no logic or rules or consistency". But that simply begs the question, according to the Zoolian apologist, who simply says "Paul, what do you know of consistency or logic, puny mortal?!?! Zool is the source and arbiter of logic, consistency and rules!"
This has great bearing on how you deal with Loftus, and the like.
-Touchstone
Touchstone, thank you.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that internally irrefutable positions cannot all be correct, the adherent of any of these religious belief systems must consider the obvious, like kicking a stone when it comes to Idealism, and the presence of intense evil when it comes to a good, omnipotent, all-knowing God.
Link
Touchstone said:
ReplyDelete"I think you (and Paul) are simply failing to think about this from the other side. If you did *not* accept the existence of God as a brute fact, then arguments like Loftus', whether expressed roughly and informally as Loftus has on the Internnet or with some burnish in the form of, say Michael Martin's work or Quentin Smith, seem a reasonable way to proceed....I've no idea if Loftus has been a bad guy in his polemics in other circumstances. I've been reacting to what I've read Paul quote from Loftus here."
I've explained that I was addressing John Loftus, not somebody like Michael Martin or Quentin Smith, and Paul has explained that he, too, had particular atheists in mind, not all atheists. It seems that you haven't read enough of John Loftus' material to be defending him as you have in this discussion.
You tell us that an approach like John's "seems a reasonable way to proceed" if God's existence isn't accepted as "a brute fact", but, as I explained earlier, John would still have to address the issue of how he justifies his standards from his atheistic perspective. If he can't justify his standards in such a manner, then his critique fails without our accepting what you call the "brute fact" of God's existence. Nobody is stopping John from offering an external critique. But he has to be able to justify it. As you would know if you had read much of John's material, including his discussions with other people, these issues have been explained to him repeatedly. You keep referring to how his "starting point" arguments would "seem reasonable" to somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of God, but John isn't at the starting point. He's been involved in thinking about and discussing these issues for a long time. It's reasonable for us to expect him to have advanced beyond the starting point argumentation, and it's reasonable for us to hold his arguments to a higher standard than the "popular notions" of what "seems reasonable" that you refer to.
You write:
"That would be using a contemporary, popular notion of what 'just' and 'loving' mean, but seriously, what do expect an atheist to use as operating definitions, if not that?"
I expect the atheist to use notions that he can justify. And popularity isn't a justification.
You write:
"It's such a scam to try and represent Christianity as simultaneously *liable* to internal critiques, and somehow untouched by them."
Paul has explained that he doesn't define his terms the way you're describing, but, even if he did, the atheist wouldn't be limited to an internal critique. He wouldn't have to accept a belief system just because it's internally consistent, and he would be able to offer an external critique of it. The problem that people like John Loftus have had is that they can't justify an external critique on this issue. Their belief system isn't capable of it. If the system they're objecting to is internally consistent, and they can't justify a relevant external critique, then they're left with no objective critique. John can appeal to what he claims is "obvious", as he just did in a post in this thread this morning, or he can appeal to "popular notions" of what's right and wrong, as you suggested earlier, but what seems obvious to John and what's popular aren't objective refutations of Christianity.
You write:
"I don't know how many of your interlocutors you guys can bamboozle with that -- if I recall, Barker fell for that trick hook line and sinker -- but here, please spare me the internal/external critique snowjob."
As Paul has mentioned, and has documented, the internal/external criteria are commonly accepted. John Loftus has accepted that framework in some of his discussions.
You write:
"Philosophically, then, we are left in 'the agnostic zone' -- there are not overwhelming arguments either way."
As Paul has mentioned, the arguments don't need to be "overwhelming" in order to support one side of the dispute over the other.
You write:
"Sure, if you assume the Christian God exists, then Christianity makes mince-meat out of atheism. Is that the level of intellectual gravitas we can expect here?"
No, that's not all that's been argued here, and you should know that.
As Josh McDowell tells us, there was a psychologist who proceeded to help someone who thought he was dead. He convinced him that dead men don't bleed, by referring him to several textbooks. Then he stuck him with a needle, and he began to bleed.
ReplyDeleteThis nutcase concluded, "I guess dead men do bleed after all."
He had an internally consistent set of beliefs, and no outside evidence was ever to change his mind. He lived in la la land.
When it comes to defending a Calvinistic God who decrees that you desire to do evil, decrees that you do it, and then condemns you for doing it, I find you to be doing much the same thing as that nutcase.
Oh, I'm sorry. The answers have been repeatedly explained to me. Yes, they have. It's not that I don't understand them. It's that I reject them. I have repeatedly told you this. What's there not to understand.
There is no way you would accept any of your own answers if you were brought up non-Calvinistic.
And you find I have no objective external critique of your beliefs....Sheesh. You have no rational basis for claiming to be able to believe what the evidence points to. God decrees that which you believe, and he could be doing so even if there was no evidence for your beliefs.
Oh, but I've explained this repeatedly to you before. Link
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete“As for scoffing at those who take ‘world’ (kosmos) to mean, um, world, that's pretty funny from a group of bloggers that are happy to assert that ‘six days’ means ‘six days’ -- the natural witness of the earth itself be damned.”
Kosmos doesn’t mean “the world.” That’s just one English rendering. Kosmos has more than one meaning in Greek. So you parallel falls flat.
“Even if we should end up at an oddly complex meaning for “kosmos’.”
There is nothing “oddly complex” here. I quoted some standard exegetical and lexical resources.
“The point stands that it's quite reasonable -- just as with "six days" -- to begin with a face value meaning.”
i) The “face-value meaning” of what? An English translation term (“world”), out of several other possible English translation terms, with its English connotations and semantic range—or the Greek word in Johannine usage?
ii) Does what T-stone is pleased to call the “face-value meaning” comport with the verses I cited?
iii) Is “face-value meaning” a category in lexical semantics?
“As for the "Johannine Greek" (heh! you guys kill me), what greek word would you suggest John would have used if he *had* meant each and every individual in all the earth?”
That question is a diversionary tactic.
I said nothing about “Johannine Greek.” Rather, I spoke of “Johannine usage” with reference to this aspect of his vocabulary. Does T-stone deny that John uses certain words in his own way? He needs to bone up on Johannine scholarship.
“My NT greek lexicon has 'kosmos' with this definition providing definitions like 'the earth, the universe' (#3), and 'the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family' (#5), and ' the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ' (#6). Sounds pretty universal to me, there. Should I throw that lexicon out, or what?”
The question at issue is whether kosmos means “everyone.” By his own admission, it doesn’t. Rather, it has range of different meanings.
The “earth” is not the same thing as “everyone.”
He also misses the stated distinction between a qualitative and quantitative import. John isn’t talking about the *number* of people, but *kind* of people—people in league with the fallen world order. The love of God is exhibited, not by how many men he loves, but by the fact that he has extended his love to evil men.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't understand the distinction between a polished, formal rendering by Michael Martin, and a more "pop" version by John Loftus. It seems to me they are different manifestations of the same core objection. For example, I run into people online who are offering a rather amateurish rendering of TAG. I suppose I can pounce on the "amateurishness" of their rendering, but it seems a distraction; what I'm dealing with is the transcendental argument for God. They aren't "stupid" or "foolish" because they don't carry the case with the alacrity of Bahnsen or Frame.
So when you say Paul (and you) are not arguing with Martin or Smith or Sansone, I'm aware of that in the direct sense, but even if it were Derek Sansone posting here, you are really dealing with a developed conceptual argument, not a particular atheist, just as I identify TAG being promoted elsewhere by people who are manifestly not Bahnsen or Frame.
Regarding internal/external critiques, I think we understand each other. Christianity in general, and Calvinism in particular, is designed such that it is not liable to internal critiques, even in principle. I'll agree that if Paul can get an opponent to commit himself to an internal critique of Calvinism, he's got his opponent checkmated. It just means the opponent isn't aware of the built-in unacccountability of Calvinism to internal critiques.
You said:
Their belief system isn't capable of it. If the system they're objecting to is internally consistent, and they can't justify a relevant external critique, then they're left with no objective critique.
I think that's correct. All Christians are happy to know there does not exist an objective means of falsifying Christianity. I don't know Loftus' position on this, but atheists I talk to on this tell me that's not at all how it's approached on their end. They a)understand Christianity defies all internal critiques, since it reserves the right to declare what is consistent internally or not, and b) understand that the objective external critique you refer to is an exercise in trying to prove a negative.
Or, as my friend says, the demand for an positive external critique is another "gotcha", a trick offered to get the opponent to engage in a non-starter.
What atheists *do* feel comfortable with, what they bring at me is a burden of proof argument, and that really is where the real pushing and shoving takes place, and ought to. I'm told that the burden is on me to *prove* God, rather than on them to *disprove* God, etc.
But that's another issue. Christianity doesn't fit into the internal/external critique framework simply because it's exhaustively authoritative, and transcends both internal and external critiques. I know that. Paul knows that. Yet Paul seems to continue right along, using this "feature" of Christianity to his polemic advantage where he can. For someone who sees debate as a war of attrition, I guess that makes sense. For one who sees debate as a quest for the truth, it seems like a bit of Three Card Monty.
You say the internal/external critique are "commonly accepted". That's not my experience, at least when debating atheists, but even if it *is* accepted in the cases you are thinking of (Loftus?), it hardly matters, since you know that internal/external critiques are bogus to begin with because of the transcendant nature of God. Or, it sounds to me like you are saying "Yeah, that's bogus, but we still find people who bite on it, so we use it." If so, that's not a high-minded approach to the situation.
Just to finish up regarding the "agnostic zone", I didn't suppose you or Paul held the evidences either way (for or against God's existence) to be overwhelming, and that was precisely my point: without a commitment yea or nay to the existence of God, there are evidences that point each way, but the there's nothing philosophically, objectively convincing in either direction. As I said, everything turns on the brute fact of God's existence, or non-existence. That one premise divides the camps into distinct epistemological frameworks, so distinct that, except in rare cases, there's simply no shared context for understanding.
-Touchstone
T-Stone,
ReplyDeleteI already gave arguments against Zool that you didn't address. As it stands, the Zoolian apologist has a defeater for all of his beliefs.
Anyway, if the system really has P and ~P, then you have the internal inconsistency.
Now, Zool's laughing at my mere mortalness doesn't do anything to change necessary laws of logic.
Furthermore, how would we communicate, at all? If P and ~P are not contradictory, then you can't call the above divine Zoolian *truths.*
At any rate, your caracterization of how I employ internal arguments is nothing I recognize.
I asked above, but didn't get an answer:
Why do you think you can misrepresent me, but we can't do so to the atheists?
Why spend all this time talking about "understanding" your opponant?
I've already shown that internal/external arguments are made by contemporary philosophers. You called that "just silly." It appears that you're extremely biased.
Your Zoolian argument has *nothing* to do with my dealings with Loftus. (A) It is *LOFTUS* who sais that *HE* gives *INTERNAL* critiques. So, you're making fun of him, not me. Secondly, (b) Loftus hasn't shown P and ~P *internally.* (c) I've shown no Zoolian, even you, can defend or argue for Zool. Language and meaning are out the window. Thus I guess Zoolianism is pointless for us to talk about. Indeed, he couldn't "reveal" those "truths" to humans since humans opperate according to certains laws of logic in our thinking. We have categories of thiught, etc. So, if Zool revealed himself, then Zool isn;t who you say he is, hence Zool refutes himself.
Anyway, take this kindergarten stuff back to your blog. You're obviously unlearned in how to defend, let alone agrue, the notion of presuppositional apologetics and/or the use of internal critiques in argumentation.
I mean, you act is if anyone who says that internal argumetns must be given are a bunch of dolts. But, I just pulled *one* quote of my book shelf from the doltish publishing house, Oxford. I have plenty more. Why are all these non-Christian philosophers in agreement with me, not you? It can't be because they have any stake in the debate. They're not ebil "Van Tillians" who speak for "da debil." What does T-stone know that they don't? Perhaps you should email Landeau and tell him how "silly" he is.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
There is no way you would accept any of your own answers if you were brought up non-Calvinistic.
---
I was brought up "non-Calvinistic". I was a Christian for ten years before I was a Calvinist.
Guess Loftus can't help but be wrong about everything....
I was brought up in an Arminian church. Knew that Calvinism was correct, *even though I had never heard the name or teachings!* I rejected the faith, thought Christianity was ridiculous, and about 15 years later I met a Calvinist and he explain what I knew had to be true if the Bible was true.
ReplyDeleteSo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
PM said...Anyway, take this kindergarten stuff back to your blog. You're obviously unlearned in how to defend, let alone agrue, the notion of presuppositional apologetics and/or the use of internal critiques in argumentation.
ReplyDeleteTranslation: Anyone who doesn't accept presuppositionalism is "unlearned."
Pike, please do tell us how it is you came to accept Calvinism. Be honest. What person influenced you? Surely you didn't come to it on your own. That would make you another Calvin. We have this strong tendency to adopt the beliefs of respected people we know if we're in their company and if we discuss these issues a great deal, especially if we really were not very well-grounded in what we believed about such matters in the first place.
So, how strongly committed were you to a version of Arminianism? And who influenced you? Influence. That's what I'm talking about, regardless of how you were raised, although how we're raised is the biggest influence of all.
And yes, I must be wrong about everything...everything. Your conclusions, even when you attempt some humor, are far beyond what your arguments lead anyone to think.
Looks like Paul just weighed in. And he answered just as I had expected. He was influenced by someone. We all are. Face it. That's how we learn. If we respect a person we will trust what he or she says.
John W. Loftus said:
ReplyDelete"There is no way you would accept any of your own answers if you were brought up non-Calvinistic."
I was brought up in a non-Calvinistic home. My Dad was agnostic. The family faith (on my mother's side) was Church of God (Anderson), which is in the Wesleyan/holiness tradition.
As I kid I attended a moderate Lutheran church, followed by a moderate Presbyterian church, followed by a UMC.
I was never exposed to Calvinism as a child or teenager. I had to discover that for myself.
Um, I fail to see your point Loftus. Who cares if I was influenced by anyone? Obviously I was, but this is a non-issue.
ReplyDeleteI love the way your "logic" works here.
* You say X.
* I demonstrate ~X.
* You coutner with Y and think you've made some valid point somewhere.
Sure...whatever.
The fact of the matter is that I was about an "average" Christian, Arminian without knowing why. I got in a debate with an atheist who cleaned my clock on the sovereingty of God issues. At that point, I began actually studying the issues. Because of my studying of the issues, reading many different books, as well as actually studying Romans, Ephesians, and John, I became convinced that the Arminian traditions I held to originally were so easily refuted by atheists because they were wrong.
But more foundationally, I know that God was at work "behind the scenes." God uses means; He doesn't just ordain the ends. Part of those means involved books by folks like R.C. Sproul and A.W. Pink. Even the atheist I debated, etc. My entire genetic make-up, my homelife, etc.--all this contributed to this.
You seem to think that God has to act without means, and that acknowledging He uses means somehow is inconsistent with Calvinist; yet this is the very heart of Calvinism.
Hense, the WCF III:vi -- "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto."
And V:iii -- "God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."
This is the basis for III:i -- "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
So how I came to believe what I believe is no internal problem in Calvinism. Likewise, it isn't an external problem either--if it were, it would be like saying you're not justified in believing the moon is made of rock even though you've never been there to verify it isn't made of green cheese.
By the way, I'd also note that Calvin didn't come to Calvinism "on his own" either. Not only did other church fathers (especially Augustine) believe the concepts, but they're Biblical principals then even random people who never had the scholarly tradition could, using just Scripture alone, conclude the themes we call "Calvinism." They wouldn't know the "terminology" per se, but the concepts would be there.
ReplyDeleteJohn said, "Surely you didn't come to it on your own. That would make you another Calvin."
ReplyDeleteWhat?? Calvin came to these on his own??
You're kidding right?
Actually, considering the 'church fathers' didn't let the common man read the actual Bible, its doubtful anybody would have come to believe those 'concepts' on their own.
ReplyDeleteThe crazy gyrations that make Calvinism 'make sense' are not available to the common man, you see.
Calvin came to his conclusions via Augustine and before him Plato. When I refer to Calvin and Calvinism I usually mean the doctrines themselves. I mispoke myself.
ReplyDeleteBut the history of Calvinistic ideas means we all stand in a tradition, an intellectual tradition. And it evolves as history moves on.
I can only visit here for so long before I start to lose it....
ReplyDeleteI can only be refuted by Pike's Peak so many times before I must run and hide.....[that's a joke, son, I said that's a joke son].
So off I go.
And cheers to Steve who owns his theological position due to his own individual study, without outside influence, right?
Not. And he knows this.
Loftus,
ReplyDeleteI said: Anyway, take this kindergarten stuff back to your blog. You're obviously unlearned in how to defend, let alone agrue, the notion of presuppositional apologetics and/or the use of internal critiques in argumentation."
Loftus said:
"Translation: Anyone who doesn't accept presuppositionalism is "unlearned."
No, that's not the translation. the translation is based on *T-stone's* characterization of how one goes about arguing for internal consistency. And, how they understand it. Furthermore, it's based on how he shot himself in the foot in arguing for Zoolianism. Zoolianism, according to what T-stone tells us, can't reveal itself to makind. But, he said Zool did. Hence, if Zool did, then he's not the Zool T-Stone portrays.
Now, I don't know why you would take a statement that had as its referent the one person, T-stone, and say that I meant that *anyone* who doesn't accept presuppositionalism is "unlearned." I thought you ran on the platform of "understanding" you opponant and seeking to "interpret them in the best light." You're just as bad a hypocrit as T-stone. Save the sappy Rodney King atheology for Debunking, where people buy what you peddle.
Then Loftus says this,
"Looks like Paul just weighed in. And he answered just as I had expected. He was influenced by someone. We all are. Face it. That's how we learn. If we respect a person we will trust what he or she says."
And, given the arguments and defenses I've been posting on compatibilism for the past couple weeks, why would John think I denied *influences?*
Anyway, notice how Loftus shifts the goal posts. He said, originally:
"There is no way you would accept any of your own answers if you were brought up non-Calvinistic."
I then showed that I wasn't "brought up non-Calvinistic." Loftus then says,
"see, we're all influenced."
Uhhh, is this guy for real? What does being "influenced" at age *24* have to do with being "brought up" non-Calvinistically???
My little stroy totally refuted John's hypothesis. Back to the drawing board. "Outsider test" fails again.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteAbove, you offered this:
Anyway, if the system really has P and ~P, then you have the internal inconsistency.
Now, Zool's laughing at my mere mortalness doesn't do anything to change necessary laws of logic.
Furthermore, how would we communicate, at all? If P and ~P are not contradictory, then you can't call the above divine Zoolian *truths.*
This suggests to me that you have *not* given much thought to how a Christian apologist comes across to an unbeliever, for these are the same arguments unbelievers launch against the Christian model of God's nature, purely with respect to Justice.
Atheist: Killing infants and toddlers along with every one else in the group, at God's behest, this is justice? I see P (God is just) and ~P (God commands slaughter of innocents) here in tension.
Christian Apologist: God's Justice is unsearchable, unquestionable, and not predicated on mere man's concepts of justice. It just appears to be P and ~P. There really is no conflict here; Just is as Just does.
and....
Manata: You can't have P and ~P, that's a contradiction!
Zoolian Apologist: Bow to Zoolian logic, puny mortal! What does man know of Zool's logic? There's no contradiction between P and ~P, the conflict is only apparent, not actual. Logic is as Logic does, Manata!
So, it's interesting to see you respond to the Zoolian Apologist in just the sort of way unbelieving critics respond to Christianity, especially around the topic of natural evil and Justice. You complain that P and ~P isn't allowed BASED ON AN LOGICAL FRAMEWORK EXTERNAL TO ZOOL. You then turn around and tell Loftus and the like that they may NOT apply their own logical frameworks, their concept of Justice, because God defines justice, and man has no place to assess God in terms of justice.
So, you are to the Zoolian apologist as Loftus is to you. Yet you insist on your own criteria (the "necessary laws of logic", thing, feh!), yet deny any such thing exists when examining natural evil in the context of Christianity.
Or when you say:
Furthermore, how would we communicate, at all? If P and ~P are not contradictory, then you can't call the above divine Zoolian *truths.*
Zool just laughs. "Who are you Manata, to tell Zool what is or is not a truth, divine or otherwise. What "necessary laws of logic", what first cause supercedes the almighty Zool, supreme deity of all?" replies the Zoolian Apologist.
You are bringing in some undeclared platonic "legal framework" of logic and reason that I can't find any basis for, here Paul, and I'd be mighty interested to know if those same "necessary laws of logic" are supreme in such a way that the Christian God is subordinate to them, and thus can be judged/evaluated by them.
I think this *does* attach to Loftus', at least the quotes you provided in the original post, because the basis for your rejection was "could doesn't mean would or should". But the "would and should" of it all in Loftus' view was, I believe, his "necessary laws of logic", or more locally here, his "necessary laws of justice". He sees the Christian God painted as "just" and "loving" then doing things that by his "necessary laws" run completely counter to those ideals.
You, then assert that there are no "necessary laws" -- Loftus can't judge God on what's "just" or "loving". In precisely the same way as the Zoolian Apologist laughs an obnoxious laugh when you try to put the mighty Zool in Manata's Box of Logic. If Loftus is without a criterion to stand on here, then you are in precisely the same predicament with the Zoolian Apologist.
You just don't see it yet.
Or, perhaps there exist some self-evident, self-asserting before-even-God regime of Logic and reason that you are appealing to?
-Touchstone
Paul, come on, my translation was more like a Jay Leno paraphrase. Try to discern when I'm being serious.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when I said "brought up Calvinist" I didn't specify all that I meant, so you can have me on that one. But now that I have specified more of what I meant would you like to give that a go?
And yes, I said I was off, didn't I.
Let me say it again.
I'm off.
The Outsider Test?
ReplyDeletePaul, you cannot refute an inductive argument leading to a specific conclusion with antecdotal evidence. The conclusion of an inductive argument is either more probable or less probable than an alternative conclusion.
You're asking me to explain the exceptions to the rule? Show me the exceptions, then. Give me some hard evidence that there are exceptions to the rule. Since people here disagree with me on about everything I can't help but wonder if you are all being truthful with me, since as an apostate I don't deserve the truth, according to you. And I question whether you can be honest with yourselves on this issue, since a rule is, after all, a rule.
I can deal with the exceptions. But you need to explain the rule itself. Why is it people adopt the religion they grew up with based upon their culture? Why? That's the rule. Why is there this rule? Big deal if there are some exceptions. I think those exceptions can be explained. How do you explain the rule?
Now I'm off, again.
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
Atheist: Killing infants and toddlers along with every one else in the group, at God's behest, this is justice? I see P (God is just) and ~P (God commands slaughter of innocents) here in tension.
Christian Apologist: God's Justice is unsearchable, unquestionable, and not predicated on mere man's concepts of justice. It just appears to be P and ~P. There really is no conflict here; Just is as Just does.
---
Yup, more proof T-stone doesn't understand the presuppositional response.
The problem with the atheist's argument is this. He says: "God commands slaughter of innocents." But this is not the case; these people are not innocent, as anyone who understands the doctrine of original sin would grasp.
Thus you have these people "innocent in the eyes of the atheist"--yet even that's not true, because there's no rational grounding for "guilt" or "innocence" in atheism.
The atheist has neither an internal nor external critique here, and that's why it fails.
So, T-stone, THAT is how the Christian apologist ought to have answered, not your strawman misrepresentation.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
And yes, I said I was off, didn't I.
Let me say it again.
I'm off.
---
I still don't believe you.
Pike said these people are not innocent, as anyone who understands the doctrine of original sin would grasp.
ReplyDeleteIs there any place else where you would assign moral guilt to a child or a grandchild because of their father's or grandfather's sin? No?
Let's say you were my son. Would it be fair of God to throw you into hell for my unbelief? If I committed any crime, would it be fair for any sane judge to sentence you, my hypothetical son, for my crime?
Such a notion as original sin is quite plainly and obviously false...obviously. The whole reason you accept it is because of some statements in the Wisdom of Solomon which the apostle Paul and others picked up on, and which you as a Calvinist have interpreted in the manner you do because you were exposed to it by someone you trusted? Really? What are the odds?
What are the odds that this process which led you to believe such nutty ideas are correct over something that is so obvious that it takes a sacrifice of the intellect to accept?
This Cheshire cat may or may not be off.....
Loftus asks:
ReplyDelete---
Is there any place else where you would assign moral guilt to a child or a grandchild because of their father's or grandfather's sin? No?
---
There is another transaction just like Original Sin, and that's the imputation of our unrighteousness to Christ. Original Sin is what makes salvation possible in the first place.
Loftus said:
---
Let's say you were my son. Would it be fair of God to throw you into hell for my unbelief?
---
But this isn't what Original Sin teaches. No one goes to hell for Adam's sin; they go to hell for their own sins.
Loftus said:
---
If I committed any crime, would it be fair for any sane judge to sentence you, my hypothetical son, for my crime?
---
Is it fair for God to judge His Son for my crimes?
Likewise, from your worldview, these things aren't "crimes" to begin with. There's nothing actually immoral about being unfair, in your atheist worldview. Thus, you have no position to argue from here.
Loftus said:
---
Such a notion as original sin is quite plainly and obviously false...obviously.
---
Oh yes, the repetition of "obviously" in lieu of an argument.
Loftus said:
---
The whole reason you accept it is because of some statements in the Wisdom of Solomon which the apostle Paul and others picked up on, and which you as a Calvinist have interpreted in the manner you do because you were exposed to it by someone you trusted?
---
Obviously you need to stop drinking...obviously.
Pike: There is another transaction just like Original Sin, and that's the imputation of our unrighteousness to Christ.
ReplyDeleteLoftus: If I committed any crime, would it be fair for any sane judge to sentence you, my hypothetical son, for my crime?
Pike: Is it fair for God to judge His Son for my crimes?
You do see what you've just done haven't you? You offered an explanation for something you could not explain on its own terms with an analogy of something else you believe which you cannot explain on its own terms.
On bad analogy cannot save another bad analogy.
But since you went there, could you please explain how Christ's death imputes anything to us? Can you rationally explain how the death of Jesus on the cross does anything for us? Can you rationally explain why blood needed to be shed because we disobeyed God? Can you rationally explain why God punished an innocent Jesus for our sins?
Awww no you cannot. All you might be able to do is to quote the Bible to me. Quote away. But what are the odds that your quotes are true when this whole problem, beginning with imputed sin and ending with imputed righteousness cannot be rationally explained?
Just forget I mentioned this. Go on your merrily delusional way.
Touchstone said:
ReplyDelete"I guess I don't understand the distinction between a polished, formal rendering by Michael Martin, and a more 'pop' version by John Loftus. It seems to me they are different manifestations of the same core objection."
I was addressing John Loftus. The fact that you think that there's a "core objection" that John Loftus and Michael Martin agree about doesn't justify your earlier claims about John Loftus.
You write:
"You say the internal/external critique are 'commonly accepted'. That's not my experience, at least when debating atheists, but even if it *is* accepted in the cases you are thinking of (Loftus?), it hardly matters, since you know that internal/external critiques are bogus to begin with because of the transcendant nature of God."
Paul Manata has given you examples of atheists who accept the internal/external framework, and John Loftus was the atheist I was discussing. Telling us about your "experience" isn't in the same category as the scholars Paul has cited, and your "experience" doesn't refute what I've said about John Loftus.
You assert that the internal/external framework is "bogus" because of "the transcendant nature of God", but you give us no reason to agree with that assertion.
You write:
"I don't know Loftus' position on this, but atheists I talk to on this tell me that's not at all how it's approached on their end. They a)understand Christianity defies all internal critiques, since it reserves the right to declare what is consistent internally or not, and b) understand that the objective external critique you refer to is an exercise in trying to prove a negative."
Even though I was addressing John Loftus, you're once again dismissing him, and you're addressing other atheists instead. And you tell us that those other atheists supposedly understand that they can't offer an internal or external critique of Christianity. Do they offer some other type of critique instead? If so, what is it? And how are these unnamed atheists you're referring to relevant to what I've been saying about John Loftus?
You write:
"Or, as my friend says, the demand for an positive external critique is another 'gotcha', a trick offered to get the opponent to engage in a non-starter."
If neither internal nor external critiques are valid in your view, then why did you enter this thread with a defense of the reasonableness of arguments atheists use against Christianity, and why did you give us examples of arguments you would use in response (your reference to justice, etc.)? If the atheists you've been defending aren't using internal or external critiques, then what are they doing? If they aren't offering internal or external critiques, and you don't have "convincing" answers, then why are you having discussions with them in which the two sides exchange arguments? If people either accept your "brute fact" or they don't, and it isn't something they can be brought to accept by means of arguments, then why are you defending atheists' use of arguments, and why did you offer arguments in response to them in your first post in this thread?
JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“But since you went there, could you please explain how Christ's death imputes anything to us? Can you rationally explain how the death of Jesus on the cross does anything for us? Can you rationally explain why blood needed to be shed because we disobeyed God? Can you rationally explain why God punished an innocent Jesus for our sins? Awww no you cannot. All you might be able to do is to quote the Bible to me. Quote away. But what are the odds that your quotes are true when this whole problem, beginning with imputed sin and ending with imputed righteousness cannot be rationally explained?”
There’s nothing counterintuitive about this. It’s based on the same principles of friendship and patronage which govern modern-day relationships.
An essential feature of friendship is favoritism. Jim is a mutual friend of John and Jerry. However, John and Jerry are not friends. They aren’t enemies, but they aren’t friends.
Jerry needs Jim to do a favor for him. However, only John is in a position to do it.
So Jim asks John to do this for Jerry. And John does it for the sake of Jim. Jim is acting on behalf of and in the stead of Jerry.
Jerry doesn’t deserve anything from John since Jerry has done nothing to befriend John in the past or put him in his debt.
Vicarious atonement operates on the same transitive principle.
John W. Loftus said...
ReplyDelete"Just forget I mentioned this. Go on your merrily delusional way."
Even if, for the sake of argument, we deem Peter to be delusional, what difference does that make to Loftus? He doesn't believe that it's intrinsically wrong to be delusional.
In the long run, both he and Peter will be pushing up the proverbial daisies, and that's that.
Loftus can never kick the habit of thinking and talking like a moral absolutist, even though he admits that secularism cannot sustain the intrinsicality of good and evil.
Loftus keeps gambling with Confederate currency. But it doesn't matter if you win or lose with funny money.
What's funny is T-stone's incessant claims that we "misunderstand" and "misconstrue" and "fail to seek to understand" our atheist interlocutors, yet he pulls stunts like the ones here! T-stone is simply a hypocrite. He fails to live up to his own standards. He holds himself and his atheist buddies to a different standard than he holds us to. Proof that his "arguments" against us are merely based on his dislike of orthodox Christians, probably due to his being labeled a heretic or being excommunicated by an orthodox church. Anyway, see below:
ReplyDelete"This suggests to me that you have *not* given much thought to how a Christian apologist comes across to an unbeliever, for these are the same arguments unbelievers launch against the Christian model of God's nature, purely with respect to Justice."
And this is how T-stone says I "come off:"
"Bow to Zoolian logic, puny mortal! What does man know of Zool's logic?"
And of course this is using hyperbole and gross mischaracterization. T-stone fails to actually *quote me* (or Steve, or Pike, or Engwer) saying things like that. And, of course I deny that I reason that way. This will be fleshed out below.
Furthermore, say that T-stone is correct that this is how I "come off.* There's a difference in how someone "comes off" to another, and his argument really mirroring how it was *perceived.* The problem is that T-stone's Zoolian tripe "comes off" exactly how it is in reality. There's no difference in how it "comes off" and how it "really is." So, even granting his point about how we may "come off," it's disanalogous to the situation between us and Zool. T-stone continues to grasp at straws here. He's clearly been corrected and refuted, yet he's too proud to admit when he's wrong. He doesn't care about representing people correctly. he just cares about having his friends laugh at us. Ironically, it is seen that T-stone acts towards us just like he *says* we act toward atheists.
I had noted that T-stone said that P and ~P existed in Zool’s doctrine (below he slips big time, but we'll examine that later). He then says that this is what the atheist thinks he shown *in* our system (remember, we're dealing with *internal* critiques. T-stone is the one trying to show that they are "silly" and so in order to not misrepresent he must make sure that he's *really* presenting an *internal* critique. This is how *he* chose to situate the debate). So, T-stone wrote:
"Atheist: Killing infants and toddlers along with every one else in the group, at God's behest, this is justice? I see P (God is just) and ~P (God commands slaughter of innocents) here in tension."
But we see that this is not an *internal* critique, it is, rather, *said* to be internal based on the *atheists assumption* of what the Bible says. If the assumption is false, then there's no *in*ternal critique. This simple point shows just how much T-stone is in over his head.
Furthermore, notice that the question, to be *internal* must use the Bibl's definition of justice. So, I'm not saying that P and ~P even exist, even apparently. This is disanalogous to T-stone's claims, then.
So, the quickest way to refute the notion is to point out that the critique isn't *internal.* An *internal* critique must take two doctrines, D* and D**, showing that D* and D** are in conflict with *each other* and that when they are considered, there is also not *another internal* doctrine, D***, that renders the apparent inconsistency between D* and D** null and void. This works conversely as well.
Say that I make two claims:
1. Bill has a pet names Rusty.
2. Bill does not have a dog.
Those are *consistent.*
But, add this third claim
3. Bill's pet Rusty is a dog.
So, 1 and 2 taken by themselves do not form an inconsistency, given 3, they do.
Conversely, say that we have some claims that appear inconsistent with each other:
1* We are justified by faith.
2* We are justified by works.
Those appear inconsistent with themselves, prima facie. Say I add a third claim:
3* The faith is ours and the work is Christ's.
Hence, given 3*, what was thought to be internally inconsistent is seen to disappear when *other* relevant internal evidence is brought forth.
Therefore, the atheist must study and refuse to be lazy. When he makes a charge of internal inconsistency, he should be sure that no D*** or D**** exists in the system, thus rendering what he *claims* is inconsistent with D* and D**, null and void.
With that ground work we can proceed to show that T-stone's "internal" inconsistency is not a true internal inconsistency since other *internal* evidence is brought to bear, thus negating the inconsistencies (as seen in 1*-3* above).
Let's draw out the supposed inconsistency, though it is poorly stated:
1.** God is just.
2.** God kills "innocent" infants and children.
Technically speaking, these two statements are not inconsistent, let's add the enthymeme presupposed by it:
3.** Killing "innocent" infants and children is unjust.
Now, there's many problems here.
i. As Peter said, where is the atheist getting the *internal* evidence that "infants" are "innocent?" This may be an *external* assumption, but, recall that it is *T-stone* who is trying to show how *internal* critiques are "just silly." So, it is *he* who chose to play this game. he must not, therefore, avoid playing by the rules. Hence, if the idea that "infants" are "innocent" is *not* "internal* to the Bible, he has failed to show an *internal* critique.
ii. Since the *internal* evidence does not claim that infants are "innocent" then we must, according to T-stone's rules, change 3**.
3**' Killing infants and children is unjust.
Of course, this idea is, again, *brought* to the text. It's not *internal* and T-stone said he was going to show how *internal* arguments are "silly." And, he was going to show that the atheists see P and ~P *within* the Bible. But, of course, if ~P *is not* within the Bible, then he's not showing that atheists see P and ~P.
iii. Let's add another doctrine:
4.* All mankind are criminals, thus their death by God is just since, as even the atheist admits, it is just to give criminals what they deserve.
Hence, we can see an instantiation of the case I brought out above. I showed that given *other* doctrines, the supposed inconsistency between 1* - 3* (even though there was no formal inconsistency, I just granted a lot) has been rendered null and void. Therefore, T-stone has *failed* to show anything even remotely resembling his *granted* existence of P and ~P in Zoolianism.
Moving along...
"Zoolian Apologist: Bow to Zoolian logic, puny mortal! What does man know of Zool's logic? There's no contradiction between P and ~P, the conflict is only apparent, not actual. Logic is as Logic does, Manata!"
Okay, so *now* Zoolianism does not claim P and ~P, it's apparent. But, above T-stone said that two of the divine *truths* were
3. P
4. ~P
Therefore, it is *not* the case that 3 and 4 are *true.* T-stone says that 3 (or 4) is not *really* P (or ~P), just apparently. But, if P (or ~P) were *really* P (or ~P) then they would be true! But he now says Zool says that they are not *really* divine truths, but one of them isn't *true* that it negates the other. Hence, T-stone's Zool refutes himself, again! (Now, all T-stone will do is play the child's game of saying "You pathetic human, kneel before Zool. Clearly, though, I have shown that I *do not* reason this way to get out of internal critiques. So, T-stone's little straw men mischaracterizations are laughable). It gets worse for Zool, though.
T-stone apparently forgets why I brought up P and ~P. He has not revelation. He has no authoritative source we can go to in order to see what Zoolianism says in order for us to subject it to internal critique. So, fine, I play his game better than Him. My claim is that Zool says that both P and ~P are true, and that he's a figment of my imagination. How could T-stone answer me back? I mean, his little game is cute, but when we actually try to put it to a test, to see if he's making a proper analogy, we find out that the situation is hardly at all analogous to Christian theism.
Continuing....
"So, it's interesting to see you respond to the Zoolian Apologist in just the sort of way unbelieving critics respond to Christianity, especially around the topic of natural evil and Justice."
But of course I don't respond that way. My debates and arguments are archived here, as well as on audio. It is documented that I don't act liek T-stone is acting for Zool. I mean, T-stone is free to lie about me, mischaracterize what I do, and slander the facts, but he's fooling himself if he thinks he's even made one substantive point regarding this whole internal external thing. He's clearly bitten off more than he can chew. Steve, Pike, Chang, Engwer, and myself have all sent this guy packing. He's all talk, no action. All bark and no bite.
"So, you are to the Zoolian apologist as Loftus is to you. Yet you insist on your own criteria (the "necessary laws of logic", thing, feh!), yet deny any such thing exists when examining natural evil in the context of Christianity."
But of course I've actually *showed* where the Bible claims otherwise, or where we have other doctrines rendering the supposed inconsistencies null and void. Of course I've actually taken the time to show Loftus how bad his "internal" critiques are. Of course I've actually refuted T-stone's Zoolianism. He's not bothered to interact with me. And, his latest maneuver to avoid internal critique has just been hanged, drawn, and quartered.
I said that if man cannot distinguish P and ~P, then communication breaks down. T-stone seems to not be able to understand this:
"Zool just laughs. "Who are you Manata, to tell Zool what is or is not a truth, divine or otherwise. What "necessary laws of logic", what first cause supercedes the almighty Zool, supreme deity of all?" replies the Zoolian Apologist."
My point didn't have to do with Zool per se, it had to do with the *apologist.* The *apologist* cannot understand Zool, hence the apologist cannot make these claims. Hence, Zool cannot reveal himself *to man* in an intelligible way. So, to say he has revealed himself is to negate other doctrines within Zoolianism.
Furthermore, is Zool an anti-realist about logic, or does it exist? If so, the first divine truth is that Zool desires to make everything green. So, Zool would have to make logic green! LOL.
Now, I admit that Zool can continue to be refined and refined. Unfortunately, if T-stone and I kept going, eventually Zool would end up looking like Christianity.
"You just don't see it yet."
T-stone, not crying uncle doesn't mean you haven't been beaten. I think all your points, from Kosmos to the external and internal ones have been sliced and diced. Run away and live to fight another day.
John Loftus,
ReplyDelete"The Outsider Test?
Paul, you cannot refute an inductive argument leading to a specific conclusion with antecdotal evidence. The conclusion of an inductive argument is either more probable or less probable than an alternative conclusion."
I can refute your claim that "we were brought up Calvinists." That was a specific claim, and your argument was based on yout stupid outsider test, so yeah, I said it was refuted.
Note that I said "again." So, I can refute an inductive argument by piling more and more evidence against it on top of it. It's so funny when you try to show off your big "logical" skills. Try and pay attanetion to little words like "again" and save me the time,, you the embarassment.
So, I was not "brought up" Calvinist. And, as a Calvinist, I have zero problem with historical antecedants or "influences" or "prior factors" or "geographic location" being used as means to bring in God's people.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
You offered an explanation for something you could not explain on its own terms with an analogy of something else you believe which you cannot explain on its own terms.
---
Not at all. I offered a quick analogy for something you claim you used to believe, and therefore ought to have a clue about, in order that you might see that your original counter argument was irrelevant. That you are too busy gouging your eyes out to see it is not my problem.
Loftus said:
---
But since you went there, could you please explain how Christ's death imputes anything to us?
---
Because it pleased God that this should be so.
Loftus said:
---
All you might be able to do is to quote the Bible to me.
---
That would be sufficient in and of itself.
Loftus concludes:
---
But what are the odds that your quotes are true when this whole problem, beginning with imputed sin and ending with imputed righteousness cannot be rationally explained?
---
How is it irrational? Steve has already given you an example of this concept already. Simply because you say, "That's irrational" doesn't mean it is irrational.
In point of fact, people enter into coventant agreements all the time, with stipulations for both sides, etc. We are born into a system of laws that pre-exist us even in our legal system. Just because you didn't vote on whether murder should be a crime doesn't mean you're not held accountable to it in our legal system. The very fact of your birth in a specific location puts you under certain laws justly enforced by our state governments.
Why then is it irrational when I say that by virtue of your being born of Adam you are under certain legal requirements that God has established. Why are you born justly serving under human laws but God cannot do the same thing?
For imputation it's the same thing. If I decide to pay off your library fine and the library decides to accept my payment of it, you wouldn't throw a tantrum about it, would you? And if I decided to not pay your fine, you might not like me but I'm not logically required to pay your fine.
Or to link it back to the idea of Original Sin: if you are born in America and, as a result of your having a lead foot, rack up a series of traffic tickets (when, where you born in Germany on the Autobahn you wouldn't have this problem), is it irrational for me to pay your fine or not pay your fine depending upon how I see fit? Where is the illogic involved in this?
Nothing of what you mentioned is intrinsically irrational at all. You simply don't like it and you disagree with it. But your personal tastes don't dictate reality.
You're going to actually have to prove it's irrational, Lofty.
Steve: Even if, for the sake of argument, we deem Peter to be delusional, what difference does that make to Loftus? He doesn't believe that it's intrinsically wrong to be delusional.
ReplyDeleteYou make this too easy Steve.
Even if, for the sake of argument, you deem me to be delusional, what difference does that make to Steve? He doesn't have any grounds for believing he is not delusional, or that it's intrinsically wrong to be delusional.
Continuing...
Steve merely believes what God sovereignly decrees him to believe, and he has no basis at all to think what he believes is true and based on the evidence, or that he will be rewarded after he dies because of what he believes. NONE. All he can say is that he believes what his God decrees him to believe, period.
Moreover, the God doing the decreeing of Steve's beliefs could be so much different than the God he believes in. There may be no atonement, no creation, no incarnation, no resurrection, and no afterlife at all. The God he believes in could very well be Descartes' demon; evil in every way. Steve's God may be playing a cruel joke on him and his compatriots, laughing at them all the way, and in the end reward people like me, the ones he derides.
How in the world could you possibly argue this is not possible? Everything you say to argue against this is something your God decrees for you to believe and to say. YOU CAN'T!
So let's have done with this crap that you raise every time I back you in a corner by saying I think there is nothing intrinsically good. You have no reasons for what you believe...at all! There is nothing that you know to be intrinsically and objectively true...nothing.
Pardon me if I'm no Michael Martin, BTW. But you're no John Calvin or John Frame, either.
Pike, let's say I punch you in the mouth for being an idiot.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you demand from me in order to forgive me? Would you demand to hit me back before you could forgive me? If so, you're not forgiving me at all. You're punishing me. If not, then forgiveness can be offered without punishment.
Some victims will never forgive their assailants even after being punished, while other victims have forgiven their assailants even though they were never punished.
What exactly is the realationship between forgiveness and punishment?
I see none. None at all.
You see, were not talking about a fine, which anyone can pay for someone else. We're talking about why we should be physically tortured and killed in order for God to forgive us.
Not to rain on Steve's parade, but I'll mention a couple of problems with Loftus:
ReplyDelete"Steve merely believes what God sovereignly decrees him to believe, and he has no basis at all to think what he believes is true and based on the evidence, or that he will be rewarded after he dies because of what he believes. NONE. All he can say is that he believes what his God decrees him to believe, period."
1. The first thing to note is that (a) if theism is true, and Loftus' claims are true, then Loftus has no reason to believe what he's written. And, (b), via tu quoque, if Loftus' physicalism is true, he has no reason to believe his charges here. So, if either (a) or (b) are the case, and what Loftus says is the case, Loftus has, by believing the conjunction of the two, a defeater for his beliefs, esp. his beliefs in his argument here. On top of that, if Loftus holds to Naturalism and Evolution, he has no reason to believe his cognitive faculties are reliable. Why would evolutuion select for truth *content?* It would seem that content would be invisible to evol;utionary processes. unless, of course, Loftus wants to identify content with syntax. But then why think that the *truth* of a proposition has any bearing on neural structures. Presumably a "false" neuron is the same, physcially, as a "true" neuron - this is supposing we can make sesne of "false and true" *neurons.*
2. Loftus' mere say-so that Steve has no basis for his beliefs does not, no matter how much Loftus wishes, mean that what he says has any basis in reality. Indeed, it does not make the argument stonger because Loftus writes "NONE" in all caps.
3. How does Loftus know that Steve has *no* reasons? How could be possibly know that? Is't not an analytic truth, i.e., there's nothing in the proposition "God decreed S's beliefs," that entails the claim, "therefore S has no reason to believe that his beliefs are true." So, how does Loftus propose to argue for this universal negative?
4. Say that something roughly similar to Plantinga's modle is correct. That is, say that God desined us with cognitive faculties that were successfully aimed at being reliable in belief production. Surely this isn't a logical impossibility. Hence, Loftus cannot say that there are *no* reasons to think our beliefs are successfully aimed at the production of true beliefs.
"Moreover, the God doing the decreeing of Steve's beliefs could be so much different than the God he believes in."
Notice an instantiation of the stupid arguments I discuss in this post. It baffles me how Loftus can think that his mentioning of "could" has any argumentative force, at all. If the fact that God "could" be different that Steve's conception is meant to conclude, "therefore Steve has no reason to believe that God *is* like Steve believes," then it appears that we can prove that God *is* quite like how Steve believes him to be. Counter:
(*) "God *could* be like the God Steve believes to be, therefore, God is (or most probably is) how Steve believes him to be."
So, it appears that (*) counters John's argument. If not, how does John suppose his argument to work?
Furthermore, why suppose that God *would* do something like this? Because of the broadly logical possibility that God *could* be deceiving Steve are we supposed to conclude that God *would* deceive Steve? That's the relevant question. If God *wouldn't* do X, the fact that he *could* doesn;t really matter. Loftus has given us no reason to think that God would do anything like what Loftus suggests.
"There may be no atonement, no creation, no incarnation, no resurrection, and no afterlife at all."
Say I have a model of faith roughly modled after knowledge by testimony. We must agree that the testimony of others is a valid way to gain knowledge. Some estimates put it that 98% of what we know is based on the testimony of others.
Say that testimony is a basic belief, and hence not subject to having to be "justified" or "proven" by appeal to proposition evidence in its favor.
Further, given this model, and a model of warrant similar to Plantinga's: A person S has warrant W for his belief that P only if the testifer T has W for P. If T is warranted in believing P, then S has warrant for believing in P.
Moreover, taken detailed defenses and explanations of defeaters by those like Bergman, Plantinga, Otte, et al., you can't defeat this by the mere mentioning that God could be lying. Trust in the word of God, especially if it has the epistemic role of ultimate authority, can trump some defeaters. Just like if all the circumstantial evidence pointed to me as being the theif of Franklin Loftus, my belief, based on clear and impressive memories that I was walking in the park 50 miles away at the time of the crime, serves to defeat those defeaters. If I have not called in to question the testimony of the word of God, then it remains undefeated for me, and I am warranted in believing in those doctrines because they have warrant (in an alaogous way, maximal warrant) for God. Now, *you* may doubt his word, but that doesn't mean that *I* have to. If I should, why shouldn't I doubt every thing I know from testimony? The only think here I think say would confuse the de jure with the de facto questions.
"How in the world could you possibly argue this is not possible? Everything you say to argue against this is something your God decrees for you to believe and to say. YOU CAN'T!"
Well, I gave a few ways above. But, there's two poinst here:
(i) That ~P is *possible* does not entail that we can't know that P. John's placing an infallibilist constriant on knowledge. He must first defend infallibilism if he wants to proceed.
(ii) Since John is in the realm of *possibility* then all I need to do to refute it is offer a logically *possible* state of affiars where the negation of his conclusion obtains. I have done this (indeed, John cannot claim that my scenarios are logically *impossible,* therefore they are possible). Now, though I think my modles are more than "just possible," I think something like it is the case. Nevertheless, I don't need to prove something that strong since Loftus chose to frame the debate in the braodly logically possible.
"So let's have done with this crap that you raise every time I back you in a corner by saying I think there is nothing intrinsically good. You have no reasons for what you believe...at all!"
i. We've seen that, per John's own argument, he has "no reasons" for what he believes, including that Steve has no reasons!
ii. Supposing that John did this, it was Pike he "backed into a corner" (though this is false), and not "Steve." More evidence that John can't trust his monkey mind (i.e., a mind evolved from an ape-like ancestor).
iii. That one isn't *absolutely certain* (granting that Steve isn't) does not logically entail "therefore he has no reasons for what he believes... at all!"
"Pardon me if I'm no Michael Martin, BTW. But you're no John Calvin or John Frame, either."
But certainly that's not the proper analogy. Steve is not John Frame is equal to the claim that John Loftus isn't Brian Sapient.
John Loftus is about 100*100 times below a Martin while Hays is 1*5 times below John Frame (btw, that's no insult to Frame, it's a compliment to Steve!).
Anyway, go home John; and take your petty self-refuting arguments with you.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteWhen you say:
Therefore, it is *not* the case that 3 and 4 are *true.* T-stone says that 3 (or 4) is not *really* P (or ~P), just apparently. But, if P (or ~P) were *really* P (or ~P) then they would be true! But he now says Zool says that they are not *really* divine truths, but one of them isn't *true* that it negates the other.
According to the Zoolian Apologist, 3 & 4 *are* true, perfectly and simultaneously. The are each one of the Divine Truths, after all! You're applying what, some hapless man-made form of logic in evaluating the truth of Zool's logic???
HA! You might as well be Loftus, trying to apply his pathetic little notions of "justice" and "love" to the Christian God! Two of a kind you are, thinking you can judge something that transcends you completely!
And as for revelation, The Zoolian Apologist has got that part nailed! That's why he *is* the Zoolian Apologist -- he gets direct revelation from the mind of Zool, regularly. No language barriers, just a direct-to-mind download from the mind of Zool to the mind of the Apologist.
Is Zool a figment of Touchstone's imagination? It's quite possible! How would the Zoolian Apologist respond?
"There are many good evidences for Zool that stand on their own. But ultimately, the existence of Zool, and the truth of his logic, and the beauty of his greens must be *believed*, accepted with a measure of faith."
(The Zoolian Apologist has a better grasp of his epistemic limitations than you do, Paul!)
In any case, it's interesting to watch you appeal to some unidentified, unsubstantiated "neccesary laws of logic", which you attempt to place over Zool as judge. Whence these "necessary laws", Paul? I think that's a key question.
Especially so, since if you can appeal to some innate, uncreated, unsubstantiated logic framework, that exist as some kind of Platonic ideal out there in the ether, then so can Loftus, right? I mean, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after, all. Loftus uses his "bootstrap" notions of love and justice, and here, you're invoking some bootstrapped version of propositional calculus.
I don't think you're aware that you are just like the Zoolian apologist, and this accounts for your discomfort in the analogy. I'm having fun with the analogy and the mercurial character I've made up in the the Zoolian Apologist; I don't suppose you actually rant about "puny mortals!" in such words.
Although you come a lot closer than is warranted, having read this post, and some of your other bits of Manata-wisdom.
The irony here in the last part of your most recent response is that it *so* perfectly exemplifies the "Zoolian Apologist" in you; you deliver a long -- and valid, by my lights -- account of why Loftus' complaints about God being unjust and unloving do not stand according to Christian logic.
And that's the whole point! You assert the supremacy of Christian rationales and explanations over any external criteria, simply because they stem from the transcendant God, and thus trump Loftus' (or Smith, or Dennett's, or ...) complaint. When Loftus says "you have P and ~P in there!" You simply bring the bible verses and theology and say, "not a problem! It's supposed to work that way!".
And it is. But it's purely disingenuous to suggest you aren't trumping any and all external criteria in the very same way the Zoolian Apologist snorts at your puny notions of logical exlusivity (P and ~P simultaneously? Not a problem for Zool! It's *supposed* to work that way!")
When you say:
I said that if man cannot distinguish P and ~P, then communication breaks down. T-stone seems to not be able to understand this:
The Zoolian Apologist says:
"Give up this man-made and vain philosophy of yours, Paul! Believe in Zool, and he will guide you into all truth. Zoolians have no trouble communicating. In fact the communicate on a much higher level, enabled by the power of Zool. Believe and submit and you will see!"
So, according to the Zoolian Apologist, no problem. Why not give it a try?
As for this:
My point didn't have to do with Zool per se, it had to do with the *apologist.* The *apologist* cannot understand Zool, hence the apologist cannot make these claims. Hence, Zool cannot reveal himself *to man* in an intelligible way. So, to say he has revealed himself is to negate other doctrines within Zoolianism.
See above, of course. The Zoolian Apologist is drinking from a firehose when it comes to revelation from Zool. As I said, direct Zool-to-Apologist gnostic truth download. It's a very powerful phenomenon!
So, no problem there either. Zool, all powerful, isn't the least bit challenged by "communication difficulties". That's a perquisite of being all-powerful.
And this:
Furthermore, is Zool an anti-realist about logic, or does it exist? If so, the first divine truth is that Zool desires to make everything green. So, Zool would have to make logic green! LOL.
The Zoolian Apologist responds:
"Petty human! You think "realism" and "ant-realism" can stand in the light of Zool?!?! You think Plato, Comte, Wittgenstein, Hume, Kant, Augustine, Godel an all the rest together amount to a puny little *gnat* crushed under the sole of Zool's foot?!?!
Don't make me laugh."
Clearly, the Zoolian Apologist is intent on transcending and thus obviating your notions of "realism", "anti-realism", and all the other boolean operator stuff you might want to throw against the wall. Zool makes the rules of logic. You don't have any say.
You have exactly the same standing in front of the Zoolian Apologist as Loftus has in front of you.
Exactly.
Lastly, here's the comment you made this is positively chilling:
Now, I admit that Zool can continue to be refined and refined. Unfortunately, if T-stone and I kept going, eventually Zool would end up looking like Christianity.
I think that's right on, and the ramifications should give you pause. I can dress up Zool, via the Zoolian Apologist who takes his cues from you, Paul, to be as perfectly insulated from Loftus, or you as you are from Loftus.
Impervious, unaccountable. Completely authoritative and transcendant with respect to critics.
And yet, Zool would be, by my own admission, a completely imaginary falsehood, no more real than as a mnemonic device in a remote combox of a lame thread in a blog mired in sever cognitive dissonance.
I don't know about you, but knowing I can construct a Zoolian apologetic that is perfect as secure from critique as your apologetics for Christianity, while at the same time being a completely imaginary being, that's much more corrosive to one's faith than anything Loftus has ever said.
We could follow that thread, and it would be an exercise in building up a fake god, and a bulletproof, impermeable apologetic box around this fake god, based on Paul's defense of the true and living God.
And He is the True and Living God. He doesn't need sham philosophical sophistries that protect Zool the Imaginary as well as the protect the true Lord of the Universe.
That's why I object to apologists like you. Loftus can rail against God all he wants, but the really cynical case against God comes out in your words, Paul.
Given the way you (and Steve) defend the Christian God, you'd be just as successful defending Zool the Imaginary.
We can extend the example to whatever length you like if you doubt it.
Call me crazy, but we can do without those kind of antics on the mission field, to my mind.
-Touchstone
Again T-stone with his unsubstantiated claims with how I argue and how he *says* I argue. Notice he totally failed to interact with barely anything I said.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here's my response (even though he hasn't done what I do. I never act how he does. I never respond how he does. His argument is an argument by hyperbolic mischaracterization.). Zool has been refuted, and T-stone thinks *saying* that it's not a refutation counts as one. Anyway,
"And as for revelation, The Zoolian Apologist has got that part nailed! That's why he *is* the Zoolian Apologist -- he gets direct revelation from the mind of Zool, regularly. No language barriers, just a direct-to-mind download from the mind of Zool to the mind of the Apologist."
Notice this is an assertion. On Zoolianism, this is *impossible.* The human can't understand Zool. To do so is to assume that propositions don't mean the same thing as their negation. T-stone's *assertion* aside...
And I'm a Zoolian apologist also! And, Zool has revealed this he is internally oncoherent. I am the true Zoolian apologist. You're a phoney. So, which Zoolian apologist is correct? T-stone has no way to find out. Hence he can't refute my internal critique: Zool has revealed to me that he is internally inconsistent. Buh-bye Zool.
Further, I have shown that even on his view, he has internal problems. His response is to act like an idiot and then *asser* that he could construct a coherent system.
Okay, Come back when you've done so. Zool must desire to *make* himself Green. Hence, he seems changing, thus not absolute and infinite. Hence he doesn't know everything.
And, it seems that most iof these points have flown over T-stone's head. His mere *assertions* aside. T-stone is a joke.
T-stone said,
"I think that's right on, and the ramifications should give you pause. I can dress up Zool, via the Zoolian Apologist who takes his cues from you, Paul, to be as perfectly insulated from Loftus, or you as you are from Loftus."
T-stone said that it's right that Zoolianism would eventually end up looking like Christianity. He then says that should give me pause. LOL. Why should I be afraid of my *same* worldview, dressed up in a different *name.* T-stone just admitted that the only way to eventaully make Zoolianism internally consistent is to turn it into Christianity.
He also thinks that I think that *just because* a worldview is internally coherent that means it is true. T-stone has no familairity with my position. Also, why does he refuse to answer my questions about why he thinks he can lecture us on "understanding" our opponants when he flagrantly violates his own rules.
For some reason T-stone thinks an internal critique can be defended by saying, "Ha! You puny mortal. It is not an internal critique."
Is that even *remotely* close to how we argue? No. Not at all. We have all gone through great pains to actually show how there is no internal inconsistency.
T-stone's entire argument is predicated upon the *assumption* that he does what we do. He's not substantiated this once.
He's just a smack talker. Big claims, nothing to back it up. All talk. All bark.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteAnswer this, then:
Is your defense of Christianity liable and accountable to Loftus' sense of contradictions?
If not, then why is the Zoolian Apologist liable and accountable to your sense of contradictions?
It sounds as if you have some *a priori* authority on these matters that the Zoolian Apologist, or John Loftus doesn't. So I ask: do you have special a priori authorities here, or can the Zoolian Apologist dismiss your protests with the same flair and abandon that you dismiss Loftus' with?
I'm going to be surprised to hear you say that the God of the Bible is beholden to outside concepts of justice, love, or anything else. Assuming you do *not* subordinate God to Loftus' standards, or any other man's, the Zoolian Apologist has the same right to place Zool out of reach of your complaints.
Right? Or is there some special ontological asymmetry working in your favor that you're party to but others are not?
Thanks in advance for the answers!
-Touchstone
Just in case T-stone is slow, one of my (many) arguments I've offered against his god is this:
ReplyDeleteIt asserts a real contradiction. From a contradiction anything follows e.g.,
A
A v B
~A
:.B
Now, even I would admit that real contradiction in my worldview, consitiute a defeat. So right there we see a disanalogy.
Now, T-stone admits the logically contradictory character of Zoolianism,
"According to the Zoolian Apologist, 3 & 4 *are* true, perfectly and simultaneously. The are each one of the Divine Truths, after all! You're applying what, some hapless man-made form of logic in evaluating the truth of Zool's logic???"
Now, my critique is not that Zool can't use another form of "logic," say, "divine-zool-logic." It's Zoological. Perhaps Jack Hanna is the apologist. I digress.
Anyway, my point *is not* that Zool can't have this special type of reasoning. Though I would argue that since logical laws seem necessary (i.e., the LNC exists in all possible worlds, even Zools world. To say it does *not* is to employ it in that world.), we have a big problem right here. My problem is different.
Humans reason a certain way. For us, we can't have contradictions. If propositions could have the same truth value as their negation, we couldn't understand anything. Human meaning and understanding is out the window.
Now, it is a claim from T-stone that Zool has revealed his doctrines in human language. But, I mantian that this negates other admitted Zoolian tenants.
Furthermore, even granting that the one Zoolian apologist T-stone speaks of was able, in some unexplained way - hence importing arbitrariness into his position - to understand a revelation where propositions can have the same truth value as their negation, he couldn't give this to the rest of us. So, T-stone couldn't understand the apologists teachings to even tell me about it.
Anyway, it is clear given this argument that if Zoolianism is what it says, then it couldn't say what it is. To say it can say what it is, though it says that it can't, is an internal critique.
The only rebuttal is a bunch of childish smack talk like we've seen above.
Clearly T-stone's attempts here have been dimembered. I have proven that internal critques are not "just silly." I have proven that John could have used language to imply every single person. I have shown his attemtp at constructing an internally consistent worldview to be futile. I have had him admit that the only way to make it, in the final analysys, internally rational is to make it like Christianity while just changing the name.
Lastly, if *everything* is made Green, then there is no meaning. In fact, if *everything* was green, then green wouldn't mean anything. In fact, since propositions exist, then the proposition that Zool wants to make everything green would be green, and if, as I said, everything were greeen, there would be no meaning. No disticntions. No distinctions, no meaning. No distinctions, no difference between Zool and ~ Zool.
I can do this all night T-stone. You've been refuted. I'd apreciate an admission.
Hmmm, seeing how hard it is to have an internally consistent worldview just lent a bit more credence to the Christian worldview. Thanks for noticing and illustrating for us what we've been talking about. T-stone is a tool in the hands of T-blog.
"Paul,
ReplyDeleteAnswer this, then:
Is your defense of Christianity liable and accountable to Loftus' sense of contradictions?"
I don't undertsnad what this means. A contradiction says that A cannot be ~A at the same time and the same relationship. Loftus' sense should be the same as mine.
"If not, then why is the Zoolian Apologist liable and accountable to your sense of contradictions?"
I argued for this above. Anyway, the Zoolian, being human, couldn't understand Zool. For Zool to say that he did reveal himself to a human is to have an internal inconsistency.
But, what you seem to not get is that *LOFTUS* is the one who said he was giving internal critiques. Not me. Loftus. So, Loftus must play by his own rules, then. He dropped any external critique since he's an ethical anti-realist.
"So I ask: do you have special a priori authorities here, or can the Zoolian Apologist dismiss your protests with the same flair and abandon that you dismiss Loftus' with?"
I deny I've "dismissed" Loftus in the way you "dismiss" me. Please refer to my discussion on internal critiques above. You'll see that it is nothing like how you're characterizing them to be. Frankly, forr all your talk of honesty, you should be ashamed of yourself. I admit that if we really did what you do, it would be silly. But you've failed to show that what you do has anything in common with what we've done. Again, refer to my above discussion.
"I'm going to be surprised to hear you say that the God of the Bible is beholden to outside concepts of justice, love, or anything else."
First, you must admit that any argument like this confuses the de facto with gthe de jure objection. That is, they're only *true* if Christianity is false. And, remember that it wss *you* who had a problem with critiques that "beg the question." So, it would seem that you should have a problem with these presuppositionally based critiques.
Second, it is *Loftus* who said he's giving an internal critique. So, this is not an analogous question.
Third, as an anti-realist, all Loftus is saying by his concept of "right and wrong" is that he "disagrees" with God. So, his critique boils down to opining. Frankly, that you'd "stand up" for this type of atheology shows just how serious we should take you. Stay out of our way. You hinder apologetics.
Forth, God is not beholden to any outside standard, but (a) that doesn;t mean that someone can't offer an objective external critique. I just don't see them doing it since I don't see them accounting for norms or prescriptiuons or standards, (b) my defense of this claim is not defended like you're doing it. It's abit more robust than you're making it out to be. For example, it's something liek Russ Shafer-Landau argues in the book I cited above. This is perfectly normal and acceptable. That you have a problem with it only tells me about your reading diet, or lack thereof.
"Thanks in advance for the answers!"
It's obvious you don't want answers! But, keep acting like how you say a T-blogger acts. With your attitude, and a change in theology, we might just invite you to come on board. You already got the "failure to understand your opponant" part down pat. Good job!
Paul,
ReplyDeleteNone of that addresses the question of authority. Is the Christian God subject to the adjudication of systems outside of God?
According to the Zoolian Apologist, Zool is *not* accountable to any higher authority. So I'll offer the Zoolian Apologist's answer right up front before you answer, so as to preclude any possibility of him simply trying to parrot what you say.
So which is it, Paul? Is the God you represent liable to external frameworks of logic, or not? You *say* you would yield to a real contradiction, which demands the question: what do you mean by a *real* contradiction?
I'm coming at this from a "Let God be true and every man a liar" perspective, out of Rom 3 -- no man's wisdom or logic system suborns God.
That's precisely the position our friend the Zoolian Apologist takes: no treatise about human language or propositional calculus or contradictions can stand before the truth of Zool, according to the Zoolian Apologist. Zool's ways are higher than your ways, Paul! You do not have the mental facilities -- no man does -- to fully understand the mind and truth of Zool.
So sayeth the Zoolian Apologist.
The Zoolian Apologist claims his god annihilates any logical framework you might want to suject Zool to. He's a "Zoolian Presuppositionalist" of the first order. The truth can be known, but only through the mediating influence of Zool. If you do not know Zool, you are utterly incapable of grasping the truth.
So sayeth the Zoolian Apologist.
So, let's get down to the real issue, then, huh?
The Zoolian Apologist doesn't recognize the authority of *any* external system of authoritative evaluation. Zool is the highest authority, there is nothing higher, according to Zoolianism.
What do you claim for Christianity, Paul? Is God subject to external systems for authoritative evaluation? Is there an extra-Christian framework you subonr Christianity too, upon which its truth rises or falls?
That's what all of this is about -- from Loftus wondering why God didn't take out Herod (!) to the annihilating presuppositionalism of the Zoolian Apologist.
-Touchstone
Paul,
ReplyDeleteShould have added:
I don't think internal critiques are the least bit silly. I think there are important, and fundamentally useful in developing epistemic framworks.
What is silly is to suppose that a internal critique can't simply be batted away -- a priori, without inspection -- by asserting that the one posing the internal critique has no *standing* to judge what is consistent in terms of the critique and what is not.
Or, you say Zoolianism fails on internal consistency. The Zoolian Apologist adamantly asserts there is no inconsistency -- that's how Zool designed it. Loftus, a disinterested third party, looks at this, and is asked to judge. On what basis would Loftus adjudicate this. What is the objective criteria for affirming or denying a n alleged consistency in Zoolianism.
If you just need to beat over the head with it, Paul, it's a perpetual regression into solipsism we're dancing around, here. You aren't any more qualified (in a transcendant sense) than Loftus or the Zoolian Apologist to decide what "consistent" means in terms of internal critiques here.
The existence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity annihilates all surrounding authority, and belief in such is *DE FACTO* annihilation of all "internal critiques" that incorporate outside criteria.
So, internal critiques are valuable, favorite tools in the epistemic toolbox. They are just utterly meaningless when the subject is a transcendant deity.
Zool is impervious to your man-made logic, no matter how clever, classical or solid you think it my be. It's an ontological advantage Zool has over you, not a logical advantage.
So the silliness stems from thinking that you are quite the swordsman becuase you have an *unbeaten* record in fending off internal critiques. It's a non-starter in evaluating Christianity, or Zoolianism. Your sword play is unmatched, but only because you have rigged it so you have the only sword.
-Touchstone
T-stone,
ReplyDeleteFeel free to comment when you actually have a critique. Re-read this thread. Your position has been slowly dismembered. You won't admit it. So what?
A real contradiction is what I said above.
My God is rational. There are no formal logiucal contradictins within his revelation.
If that were the case, how could I understand it?
Therefore, you can't understand Zool's revelation. But, it is claims according to Zool that it is understood. hence, the internal contradiction.
Anyway, feel free to post against when you can actually keep up with the discussion and understand the critiques.
All T-stone has done to show how 'silly' internla critiques are is to simply mock them, ridicule them, mischaracterize them, etc.
Until you can deal with the refutations in a substantive way (which, you can't, since you can't understand Zool), don't bother commenting again.
I don't care that you *say* the Zoolian presuppositionalist can understand Zool, I've shown that he can't. You've not rebutted this.
Human meaning and understanding presupposes that propositions do not have the same truth value of their negations. You admit Zoolian revelation has this included. Therefore, when Zool says he hates us, for all we know, that means he loves us. When he says he wants to make everything green, for all we know that means he wants everything black. This is all according to Zoolianism! Zoolianism precludes the ability to understand and argue for Zoolianism. Sorry you can't get this.
Furthermore, does Zoolianism say that propositions can be colored? or, that they don't exist? And, you've yet to deal with my internal critique showing that if everything, including propositions, are green, then we can't understand anything. When e know something we also know what it is not. But, this is impossible given the idea that *everything* is green.
Don;t get all hurt that I defeated your little made up religion. Sheesh, the way you're defedning it has me starting to think you are actually starting to believe it.
T-stone,
ReplyDeleteShifting the goal posts,
"I don't think internal critiques are the least bit silly. I think there are important, and fundamentally useful in developing epistemic framworks.
What is silly is to suppose that a internal critique can't simply be batted away -- a priori, without inspection -- by asserting that the one posing the internal critique has no *standing* to judge what is consistent in terms of the critique and what is not."
(1) No, above you said, "As for internal/external critiques, the whole "internal critique" mojo you guys project is just silly."
(2) I don't say what you say above. Rather than wanting to learn, though, I suppose you're just going to be blissful in your ignorance.
(3) I say that if someone wants to "stand on the Bible" - which they have to do in order to give an *INTERNAL* critique - then they must *REPORT THE ENTIRE SHABANG,* and not *PART OF IT,* especially when *OTHER PARTS* render the critique null and void.
(4) Frequently, they atheist has given up a pou sto and capitualated to anti-realism. So, the only times I mention "place to stand" is when talking about their offering an *external critique.* You can;t mount one from a relativistic, anti-realist position and mean the critique to be objective.
Really, that you're this behind in the literature just tells us about you. Your comments here are autobiographical, telling us how much you *don't* know about all these topics.
"Or, you say Zoolianism fails on internal consistency. The Zoolian Apologist adamantly asserts there is no inconsistency -- that's how Zool designed it."
That's not how I defend Christainity internally. The force of your argument is mischaracterization. Really, how do you look at yourself in the mirror? It's not because you're stupid. So, you must be purposefully playing dense.
"What is the objective criteria for affirming or denying a n alleged consistency in Zoolianism."
You've already admitted that Zoolianism can be internally inconsistent. I mean, at this poitn I'd love to hear how a Zoolian defines consistency. You could say, "What ever Zool says." But, to understand this assumes that the negation is false. But, you've already admitted that Zoolianism doesn;t play by these games. hence we could never know Zoolianism. Thus to claim to know what Zool says is to refute what Zool says. So, I'm using what Zool says as the standard to refute Zool. Now, your mere assertions aside, I'm not bothered by what you've said in response to these critiques. If you think you've answered me, well, not much I can do about that. You can lead a horse to water.
"You aren't any more qualified (in a transcendant sense) than Loftus or the Zoolian Apologist to decide what "consistent" means in terms of internal critiques here."
And apparently you're more qualified than us to tell us what consistent can and can;t mean. If you don;t know, then you can;t say that my definition is false. So, keep shoving your foot in your mouth.
"So, internal critiques are valuable, favorite tools in the epistemic toolbox. They are just utterly meaningless when the subject is a transcendant deity."
And we're supposed to just take your word on it. besides, if what you say is true, then how did I just internally smite Zooly?
"Zool is impervious to your man-made logic, no matter how clever, classical or solid you think it my be. It's an ontological advantage Zool has over you, not a logical advantage."
Again with your mischaracterizations. But, try this on for size: Zool is not impervious to man-made logic. Now, don't contradict me and apply "man-made" logic to Zool. :-D Aren't you tired of this?
"So the silliness stems from thinking that you are quite the swordsman becuase you have an *unbeaten* record in fending off internal critiques. It's a non-starter in evaluating Christianity, or Zoolianism. Your sword play is unmatched, but only because you have rigged it so you have the only sword."
(a) then tell all those atheists to stop thinking they can offer internal critiques. What's funny is that most atheists think they can offer internal critiques (e.g., Martin, Monnier, Drange, et al), but apparently while they can do this, I can't meet them on their own turf!
(b) As I clearly demonstrated above, all external critiques are only true *if* Christainity is not true. hence they beg the question. T-stone said that this was not allowed. hence, I've internally critiqued T-stone! :-)
(c) keep the soft balls coming. Forget swordsman, call me Babe Ruth.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou're bordering on intransigent, now. The Zoolian Apologist is a device to show the efficacy of presuppositional annihilation.
You say you Zool is refuted because he doesn't fit *your* requirements for logical consistency. But your God doesn't fit Loftus' requirements for logical consistency.
You and Loftus are the same -- you both advance complaints of inconsistency. So, who is the authority in arbitrating such a dispute, Paul? Is it just "Let Paul be true and every other man a liar"?? If Paul says it's not consistent, then that settles it? Why isn't Loftus similarly authoritative.
I'm the first to admit that Zool is a fake, a sham, a contrivation. I've not a bit of a problem seeing Zool exposed as the non-entity that he is. And his Apologist as the con-artist he is.
The trouble is, Zoolianism avails itself of the same philosophical defenses and sophistries you do, demonstrating that your apologetic is just as effective at promoting a fake god as a real one.
When you say:
Human meaning and understanding presupposes that propositions do not have the same truth value of their negations.
The Zoolian Apologist jumps up, and objects, with good cause I think:
"Such presuppositions mean *nothing* to Zool. Zool is master of all. Whence these *presuppositions*? They are nothing in light of the mind of Zool!"
But, but, but... you complain. "You can't do that!" Which puts you in Loftus' shoes for a change when you assert that God's Justice isn't at all subject to review by human notions of justice. Zoolian logic is no more subject to your notions of logic and "human reason" than your God is to "human reason" about justice or compassion, or...
This really gets down to the core if you could summon the werewithal to look the authority issue, Paul. Who judges what is "rational" or "consistent" in evaluating internal critiques. Is Paul the final authority here? If not, who is?
Thanks for the answers, should you find your way to supply them!
-Touchstone
Actually, the truth is I did mount what I considered a formidable internal critique, but my argument was rejected, then I offered another, and it too was rejected. I did this enough times with similar rejections that I decided to ask Triabloguers to show me how one was even possible, and they all denied one was even possible.
ReplyDeleteSo on the one hand they demanded I offer one, then on the other hand they say one cannot be done.
This reminded me of the inability to internally critique eastern pantheism and caused me to write the "Consider the Obvious" post I did at DC.
John,
ReplyDeleteWould you say, then, that you are familiar and aware with the "annihilating presuppositionalism" that I've clad our friend the Zoolian Apologist in? Do Paul and cohorts here where the very same outfits in defense of Christianity when dealing with you, in your view?
-Touchstone
"You're bordering on intransigent, now. The Zoolian Apologist is a device to show the efficacy of presuppositional annihilation."
ReplyDeleteT-stone, You're the one who is intransigent. First, you're trying to critique *my* style of internal defense and internal critiques, but when you do it, you're not doing anything *I* recognize.
You are so dense that you don't even know that you've decapitated yourself. You admitted that there was an *inconsistent* set of claim in Zoolianism. I have never admitted this for my system. Your defend it by saying, "Zool doesn't use your rules of consistency." I do not do this either. I apply rules of logic and rules of consietncy to my claims.
I know you *want* the Zoolian apologist to be a device to annihiate presuppositionalism, but reality doesn't always conform to your wishes.
So, you can't use Zoolianism as an argument by analogy to defeat me precisely because I disagree with all the moves you're pulling. So, it's not a relevant analogy to my situation, at all. You can's show that Football has bad rules by comparing it to Baseball.
"You say you Zool is refuted because he doesn't fit *your* requirements for logical consistency. But your God doesn't fit Loftus' requirements for logical consistency."
Well, if you read my critiques you'll note that that's not what I did, in the slightest!
Second, the problem with Loftus isn't that he using logical consistency, it's that his argument isn't pointing out inconsistencies in the first place! How many times do I need to say this? You've totally dropped the ball. I took my time to explain, tech, and help you understand internal inconsistencies and how they are shown and/or resolved. You would do well to read the relevant portion again, or, for the first time if you haven't already.
I don't know what "Loftus' rules for consistency are." I don't even understand the claim. Rules of logic are not person variable. There are no such things, if you're a realist, as different laws of logic for different people. They are not subjective, but objective.
Anyway, my claim is that Christianity is not logically inconsistent. My claim is that there are no propositions Loftus has brought up which, when other doctrine is added, amount to an inconsistent set of propositions. Now, it may contradict a fact *as understood* by Loftus. But, then, that's not an *internal* critique, and so it does you no good to bring that up. This is not some parlar trick. I'm just stating agreed upon rules for showing internal inconsistency.
"The trouble is, Zoolianism avails itself of the same philosophical defenses and sophistries you do, demonstrating that your apologetic is just as effective at promoting a fake god as a real one."
And I've asked 50 times for T-stone to actually *make good* on his accusations. he's a wimp. A talker. He threatens me. Tries to assert that I do all these naughty things. Lies about how I defend the faith just so he can make his point. It's sad to see, really. I've denied, and showed to the contrary, that my conception and defense of internal critiques is *not* the *same* as what he's doing.
"When you say:
Human meaning and understanding presupposes that propositions do not have the same truth value of their negations.
The Zoolian Apologist jumps up, and objects, with good cause I think:
"Such presuppositions mean *nothing* to Zool. Zool is master of all. Whence these *presuppositions*? They are nothing in light of the mind of Zool!"
T-stone is too stupid to get it! First, I don't argue in the way he's doing. Second, my critique had to do with the Zoolian *apologist!* The *apologist* could not, per my argument, understand what Zool reveals. Now, Zool wants to say that these presuppositions are false? So, he wants to say that man is the mind of being that can ascribe meaning to statements that have the same truth value as their negation. Fine, and if so, Zoolianism can't be talked about, described, or believed. If T-stone thinks it can, then do what I did above in reconcliling an internal contradiction. Zool speaks of "truth." But, we find out this is a shame. What does "truth" mean, according to Zoolianism? In fact, we've found that according to Zoolianism, there is no meaning and all is irrational.
So, let me add this caviat. When I defend Christian theism, internally, I save rationality. T-stone has capitulated to allowing irrationalism into his system to maintain that he is "consistent." Really, he's a liar. He started off pretending that Zoolianism could be *consistent.* But then he plays a trick, and throws any notion of "consistency" and "rationality" out the window.
He's cut off his nose to spite his face.
"This really gets down to the core if you could summon the werewithal to look the authority issue, Paul. Who judges what is "rational" or "consistent" in evaluating internal critiques. "
Yes, so you can "save" your system by making it irrational according to Laws of logic. You can "save" it by smoke and mirrors. Every critique is answered by "You puny mortal, you don't understand." But, *understand what?* To say I do *not* understand is to import traditional conceptions of the law of non-contradiction. But, then when it suits him, T-stone throws out these rules. On the one hand T-stone says Zoolianism doesn;t follow human logic, but while saying that, he uses a negator, i.e., does *not* to imply that, well, it does *not.* But, if the LNC is chucked out the window, perhaps it *does* follow laws of logic like the LNC. If so, then his inclusion of P and ~P cuts his neck. He then says, "who are you to judge Zool." But, maybe *I* am Zool! There's no distinctions, according to Zoolianism, recall that *everything is green* So, I *and* Zool are both green. And that's it. And, without laws of logic like the LNC, Zool cannot say that I am *not* Zool. Wouldn;t want him/her/greeny importing nast human logic, would we?
Hence, Zoolianism has been *internally* refuted. T-stone doesn;t want to accept this. He's to arrogant to admit defeat, especially to a dumb fundy like me. So, he'll respond with the same ridiculous assertions, not addressing my critiques. Indeed, I don't even think he's wrapped is little mind that Zool gave him around these problems.
It's clear that any one can see that I've refuted Zoolianism. It could not be defended internally. But, Christianity can be. Thanks for allowing us to use you as fodder. You always make a nice target.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteThanks/ This is a humble morsel, but it does push things in a productive direction:
So, let me add this caviat. When I defend Christian theism, internally, I save rationality.
So, before I go off to where I think this leads, let me nail this down a bit more, so I don't start with a misunderstanding of what you are saying.
Are you saying when you "save rationality", that you subject God to "rationality"? "Save" doesn't mean anything to me here, in terms of authority. Does save, in your usage mean "God is subject to rationality, and can be disproven by human reasoning -- at least in principle"?
I'm quite interested to hear more along these lines, thanks. That *would* separate you from Zool, if you're allowing that the Christian God, say in evaluating "justice" along Loftus' lines is liable to be denied by you as a result of application of human reason.
The follow up to that, is of course, "who decides what rationality holds?", if you were to depart from the Zoolian APologist model who declares, exhaustively, that man is totally depraved and can understand *nothing* outside of the countenance and providence of Zool.
At last, some progress, perhaps!
-Touchstone
I'm glad I stopped by!
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting exchange, on both sides of the coin. (although somewhat odd that its two Christians going at it like this!)
I think (and I could be wrong, I freely admit) that the point touchstone is driving at is this:
Paul Manata (or anyone!) is judging their God/non-God by their own thinking. Period. People make mistakes. Therefore, Paul Manata "could" be wrong.
That doesn't mean Paul is wrong.
However, Paul doesn't seem to want to admit that ultimately he's judging his version/belief of God on his own mental understanding, which is limited.
I freely admit that I could be wrong about my own personal beliefs in God. So what? I've read in the past where Steve Hayes, Calvindude, and others have also admitted that they don't "know" they are right about God.
But Paul Manata has a hard time with this. I'm not sure why this "knowing" is so important to him. His limited understanding of the world around him does not grant him the ability to "know" the things he thinks he does. And ultimately, we all are judging what we "know" on our own understanding.
No big deal admitting that one isn't omniscient. Not for me anyway.
Jazabo said:
ReplyDelete"No big deal admitting that one isn't omniscient. Not for me anyway."
It hasn't been a "big deal" for Paul Manata either. See, for example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-on-tag-and-certainity_05.html
If Touchstone was intending to say what you've said, then he didn't communicate it well, and he was mistaken in his judgment of what Paul believes.
Touchstone's analogy of a 'Zoolian apologist' doesn't work because Paul is defending God's existence using a *universal standard* of logic, whereas Touchstone thinks that God operates on a *different* plane of logic to man.
ReplyDeleteBecause God is sooooo powerful, that he can just 'do that'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylogism
'Polylogism is a fallacy often associated with social philosophy according to which persons of different races, social classes or time periods use different kinds of logic. Marxism, Nazism, and some other political and social philosophies allegedly make this mistake. For example, Marxists have contrasted "proletarian logic" with "bourgeois logic", and Nazis have contrasted "Aryan logic" with "Jewish logic", etc.
Since any two of these "logics" can conflict they can not be part of the same logical system. However, since people holding these various "logics" live in the same reality all of these "logics" must be compatible with this reality and therefore with each other. Since these "logics" would then have to be compatible with each other but also possibly incompatible they would self-contradictory, and thus could not be considered valid. By contrast the fallacy of polylogism considers them to be equally valid'
Touchstone has commited the fallacy of polylogism....
He has also aligned himself with the Nazis.
If you notice your windows getting smashed and can hear the sound of approaching jackboots... it's Touchstone!
If you are out in the town and see someone across the street goose stepping along ... it's Touchstone!
If you notice a gas shortage in your area.... it's Touchstone's fault!
"Anonymous" said above:
ReplyDelete"Touchstone's analogy of a 'Zoolian apologist' doesn't work because Paul is defending God's existence using a *universal standard* of logic, whereas Touchstone thinks that God operates on a *different* plane of logic to man."
Please explain where this *universal standard* of logic is defined, and by whom. Thanks!
Or...is it simply man assuming there is a universal standard, because its useful to do so?
Is God bound by this *universal standard* of logic? That question keeps getting avoided.
T-stone,
ReplyDelete"Are you saying when you "save rationality", that you subject God to "rationality"? "Save" doesn't mean anything to me here, in terms of authority. Does save, in your usage mean "God is subject to rationality, and can be disproven by human reasoning -- at least in principle"?"
1. You're not nailing this down, you're slowly shifting the tide. The question is about how *I* do internal critiques. You've been (trying) to argue that what *I* do is *the same* as what *you* do with Zool. So, even if you disagree with what I'm now saying, the point of the *debate we've been having" is that I *don't do what you do.* You can dislike what I do. You can find "problems" with it. But, what you can't do, or shouldn't, is shift gears. We can move on to bigger and better things, just admit for us you're *wrong* about how *I* go about understanding and resolving internal critiques.
2. Rationality is referring to our human rationality. I do believe ours mirrors God's, but that's another discussion. Anyway, the point of apologetics, T-stone, or at least one of them, is to show that it is rational (but this word is subject to debate, we'll just grant a sort of understood understanding) to believe in God. That it is consistent to believe in God. Unfortunately, you've had to throw (what you call) human rationality out the window. You've had to throw (human logic) out the window. *YOU* have had to become irrational. Maybe "Zool" is "rational" according to his own understanding of rational. Maybe he is consistent according to his own understanding of consistency. Fine. The main concern is that it is not rational for a *person* to believe in that kind of being. To just *say* that he is "rational" because he judges himsefl to be, isn't helpful. I have no clue what that kind of "rationality" is. I have no clue what that kind of "consistency" is. Heck, a crazy person on the street may, due to schitzophrenia, construct an entire where where he is "king" and "rational" and "consistent" with reality. And so I thought were were talking about apologetics here. When someone charges me with an internal inconsistency, I am assuming that they are using universal (universal because as I argued above the LNC for example, exists in all possible worlds) rules of logic to show this inconsistency. Above I explained how the procedure works, on both ends.
"I'm quite interested to hear more along these lines, thanks. That *would* separate you from Zool, if you're allowing that the Christian God, say in evaluating "justice" along Loftus' lines is liable to be denied by you as a result of application of human reason."
That's not what I say at all. Unfortuanately, I don't knwo what you eman by "human" reason. The laws of logic themselves didn't change in the fall, just the way we 8apply* or *use* them.
If Loftus was giving an *internal* critique then he would have to use the *internal* concept of justice.
Where you're off with Zool isn't this notion. It's in regards to how you adefend Zool. I have offered some devistating criticims, and you haven't countered them, you've simply *asserted* that I don't know what I'm talking about. But that doesn't save the project. You have not deal with my internal refutations in a meaningful way.
The difference is that when John makes a charge of internal inconsistency, I actually *show* him that it is not an internal inconsistency. We have donme this so well that Loftus had to write a post saying that one had to mix external arguments with internal arguments. But, as I showed, this notion is entirely foreign to philosophy, and looses on just definitional grounds of what an *in*ternal inconsistency is.
"The follow up to that, is of course, "who decides what rationality holds?", if you were to depart from the Zoolian APologist model who declares, exhaustively, that man is totally depraved and can understand *nothing* outside of the countenance and providence of Zool."
Perhaps you missed my reductio. If Zoolianism is true, *no one* can understand Zool. Even the Zoolian apologist has a defeater for his beliefs. If you don't get this, that's not my fault. In fact, according to Zoolianism, I am Zool. And, according to Zoolianism, you cannot say that "Zool does *not* follow human logic" because that assumes *human logic!* Get rid of the LNC, then humans couldn't understand *any* of Zool's revelation. We couldn't know *anything* about Zool.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI agree, on the one hand, Paul definitely comes across as committed, philosophically, to a "universal standard" of logic. That's a problematic concept in several different ways, but the salient fact is that this is something Paul will appeal to in critiquing Zoolianism, but something he would eschew from John Loftus in Loftus' critiques of Christianity.
If an atheist says "Logically inconsistent!" in reviewing claims of God's justice or love, then looking at Biblical accounts which seem to suggest a conflict, Paul says "No problem, you just gotta accept the Christian rationale on justice and love."
The red herring here is the idea of this "universal standard" of logic. Plato would be proud, I suppose to see such devotion to pure abstractions.
The Christian God trumps any supposed 'universal standard' of logic. If there is something you could fairly call a "universal standard" of logic, it would be God himself. But no such thing exists, or has been shown to exist, independent of God, and to which God is subordinate.
Paul appeals to man's "presupposed" logic in launching critiques, yet denies Loftus the same in defending the Christian God. I heartily agree that the Christian God is transcendally above any notion of "universal logic", and any such concept simply withers in the face of the Almighty God, save for that logic which *He* provides. But that presumes the brute fact of God's existence. And there in lies the rub.
-Touchstone
JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
ReplyDeleteSteve: Even if, for the sake of argument, we deem Peter to be delusional, what difference does that make to Loftus? He doesn't believe that it's intrinsically wrong to be delusional.
“You make this too easy Steve.”
He *says* I make it to easy, but he doesn’t *show* that I make it too easy.
Steve: Even if, for the sake of argument, you deem me to be delusional, what difference does that make to Steve? He doesn't have any grounds for believing he is not delusional, or that it's intrinsically wrong to be delusional.
“Continuing... Steve merely believes what God sovereignly decrees him to believe, and he has no basis at all to think what he believes is true and based on the evidence, or that he will be rewarded after he dies because of what he believes. NONE. All he can say is that he believes what his God decrees him to believe, period. Moreover, the God doing the decreeing of Steve's beliefs could be so much different than the God he believes in. There may be no atonement, no creation, no incarnation, no resurrection, and no afterlife at all. The God he believes in could very well be Descartes' demon; evil in every way. Steve's God may be playing a cruel joke on him and his compatriots, laughing at them all the way, and in the end reward people like me, the ones he derides. How in the world could you possibly argue this is not possible? Everything you say to argue against this is something your God decrees for you to believe and to say. YOU CAN'T! So let's have done with this crap that you raise every time I back you in a corner by saying I think there is nothing intrinsically good. You have no reasons for what you believe...at all! There is nothing that you know to be intrinsically and objectively true...nothing.”
Several problems:
1.This is just warmed over brain-in-vatism. I’ve discussed the Cartesian demon on several occasions now. What’s your problem, John? Do your antidepressants interfere with your short-term memory? You keep repeating yourself, even though I’ve responded to this objection before.
2.Atheism and Christian theism are hardly on an epistemic par. As Plantinga, Del Ratzsch and others have argued, evolutionary psychology entails radical fallibilism.
By contrast, Christian theism does not entail radical fallibilism. To the contrary, Loftus can only float this sceptical fantasy in spite of Christian theism.
So his attempt at constructing a parallel argument falls apart since the respective positions are disanalogous at the critical point of comparison.
3.But let’s assume, ex hypothesi, that Loftus is successful in creating an epistemic equivalence between the two. If so, what has he accomplished?
Loftus keeps acting as if atheism is preferable to Christianity. But it’s just a form of moral nihilism. So what would he gain by disproving moral absolutes?
Loftus is a standard issue apostate. He has simply transferred his one-time Christian idealism to atheism. But there’s nothing idealistic about his atheistic alternative. It’s nihilistic, both ethically and alethically.
Loftus is a man who’s joined a suicide cult, and now he’s recruiting new members. For some unreasonable reason, he thinks it’s terribly important to convert everyone else to his suicide cult. He acts as if it’s our solemn duty to commit mass suicide. We owe it to him.
For Loftus, the only meaningful thing in life is proving that life is meaningless. That’s what gives his existence meaning—to show it’s meaningless. That’s what gets him up in the morning. That’s the carrot that keeps him debating and writing and blogging. Life may be meaningless, but he can create his own meaning by showing that life is meaningless.
This is the vocation of universal loathing: self-hatred and misanthropy. I don’t believe in anything, and you shouldn’t believe in anything either! And it’s my high calling in life to make you believe that nothing is worth believing in.
“Pardon me if I'm no Michael Martin, BTW. But you're no John Calvin or John Frame, either.”
Gee, you hurt my feelings, John. I’ll have to stop, now, because I can’t see through my tears.
Notouchie,
ReplyDelete"Please explain where this *universal standard* of logic is defined, and by whom. Thanks!"
Without getting into a defense of Christian theism, since you're applying this question in a different context, it's not *defined* by humans, but dicovered. It is understood to be universal given an anlysis of what's involved. For example, the law of non-contradiction exists in all possible worlds, hence, it's universal.
"Or...is it simply man assuming there is a universal standard, because its useful to do so?"
No.
"Is God bound by this *universal standard* of logic? That question keeps getting avoided."
From a Christian perspective, yes God is bound. He binds himself. It is his nature to be rational.
More of T-stone's lies,
ReplyDelete"but the salient fact is that this is something Paul will appeal to in critiquing Zoolianism, but something he would eschew from John Loftus in Loftus' critiques of Christianity."
I wouldn't eschew Loftus using laws of logic to show the inconsistencies.
T-stone is weak. he has no game. Like those guys who are losers and have to lie at the night clubs just to get with girls. That's T-stone. He can't win a fair fight. If the bank statements were out, shirts were off (no sucking in that gut!), and rent-a-car taken back, he'd never get the girl.
"If an atheist says "Logically inconsistent!" in reviewing claims of God's justice or love, then looking at Biblical accounts which seem to suggest a conflict, Paul says "No problem, you just gotta accept the Christian rationale on justice and love."
Of course I've answered this above, and so T-stone is just showing his inability to interact with anything I've posted. He just ignores my comments so he can remain ignorant. Ignorance is bliss. Anyway, I'll repost what I said already to answer this:
T-stone had said,
"Atheist: Killing infants and toddlers along with every one else in the group, at God's behest, this is justice? I see P (God is just) and ~P (God commands slaughter of innocents) here in tension."
I replied:
But we see that this is not an *internal* critique, it is, rather, *said* to be internal based on the *atheists assumption* of what the Bible says. If the assumption is false, then there's no *in*ternal critique. This simple point shows just how much T-stone is in over his head.
Furthermore, notice that the question, to be *internal* must use the Bibl's definition of justice. So, I'm not saying that P and ~P even exist, even apparently. This is disanalogous to T-stone's claims, then.
So, the quickest way to refute the notion is to point out that the critique isn't *internal.* An *internal* critique must take two doctrines, D* and D**, showing that D* and D** are in conflict with *each other* and that when they are considered, there is also not *another internal* doctrine, D***, that renders the apparent inconsistency between D* and D** null and void. This works conversely as well.
Say that I make two claims:
1. Bill has a pet names Rusty.
2. Bill does not have a dog.
Those are *consistent.*
But, add this third claim
3. Bill's pet Rusty is a dog.
So, 1 and 2 taken by themselves do not form an inconsistency, given 3, they do.
Conversely, say that we have some claims that appear inconsistent with each other:
1* We are justified by faith.
2* We are justified by works.
Those appear inconsistent with themselves, prima facie. Say I add a third claim:
3* The faith is ours and the work is Christ's.
Hence, given 3*, what was thought to be internally inconsistent is seen to disappear when *other* relevant internal evidence is brought forth.
Therefore, the atheist must study and refuse to be lazy. When he makes a charge of internal inconsistency, he should be sure that no D*** or D**** exists in the system, thus rendering what he *claims* is inconsistent with D* and D**, null and void.
With that ground work we can proceed to show that T-stone's "internal" inconsistency is not a true internal inconsistency since other *internal* evidence is brought to bear, thus negating the inconsistencies (as seen in 1*-3* above).
Let's draw out the supposed inconsistency, though it is poorly stated:
1.** God is just.
2.** God kills "innocent" infants and children.
Technically speaking, these two statements are not inconsistent, let's add the enthymeme presupposed by it:
3.** Killing "innocent" infants and children is unjust.
Now, there's many problems here.
i. As Peter said, where is the atheist getting the *internal* evidence that "infants" are "innocent?" This may be an *external* assumption, but, recall that it is *T-stone* who is trying to show how *internal* critiques are "just silly." So, it is *he* who chose to play this game. he must not, therefore, avoid playing by the rules. Hence, if the idea that "infants" are "innocent" is *not* "internal* to the Bible, he has failed to show an *internal* critique.
ii. Since the *internal* evidence does not claim that infants are "innocent" then we must, according to T-stone's rules, change 3**.
3**' Killing infants and children is unjust.
Of course, this idea is, again, *brought* to the text. It's not *internal* and T-stone said he was going to show how *internal* arguments are "silly." And, he was going to show that the atheists see P and ~P *within* the Bible. But, of course, if ~P *is not* within the Bible, then he's not showing that atheists see P and ~P.
iii. Let's add another doctrine:
4.* All mankind are criminals, thus their death by God is just since, as even the atheist admits, it is just to give criminals what they deserve.
Hence, we can see an instantiation of the case I brought out above. I showed that given *other* doctrines, the supposed inconsistency between 1* - 3* (even though there was no formal inconsistency, I just granted a lot) has been rendered null and void. Therefore, T-stone has *failed* to show anything even remotely resembling his *granted* existence of P and ~P in Zoolianism.
Therefore we can see that T-stone is jst playing games. Either than or he's way in over his head. Unable to interact with my arguments and understand them, thereby enabling him to characterize them properly.
"The red herring here is the idea of this "universal standard" of logic. Plato would be proud, I suppose to see such devotion to pure abstractions."
Right now, I'm just sticking with the LNC. Aristotle would be rpud to. Anyway, you've shown the difference. My worldview does not violate the LNC, Zool's does. You just admitted it. It has internal inconsistencies according to these laws of logic. So, you've been defeated. Anyway supposed similarity between my apologetic and yours as a Zoolian, has been defeated. So, yes, Christainity doesn't have formal contradictions between its doctrines.
"Paul appeals to man's "presupposed" logic in launching critiques, yet denies Loftus the same in defending the Christian God."
No I haven't. I have assumed it in man's *understanding* Zoolianism. My critique (one of them) has been that man could not understand Zoolianism. SO, there's nothing for me to defeat!
No one can understand Zoolianism. So, to say you understand it is to show you do not. To say it has been communiccated to humans, shows it has not.
As Michael Butler has argued,
"Davidson contends that the notion of a completely foreign conceptual scheme that philosophers such as Quine and Kuhn advance is incoherent. Although his arguments are subtle and tied in with his extensional semantics, the gist of his contention is not difficult to understand. In order to recognize something as an alternative conceptual scheme, we must be able to map it onto our own conceptual scheme. If a conceptual scheme is so different from ours that we are not able to accomplish such mappings, we would not even recognize it as a competing conceptual scheme. This is because the only why for us to recognize something as a competing conceptual scheme is that we compare it to our own. When no such comparison is possible (where two "paradigms" are "incommensurable," to borrow from Kuhn), there would be no way for us to recognize it as a conceptual scheme at all. In other words, the notion of an inconceivable (i.e. unrecognizable) conceptual scheme is thus incoherent." - Michael R. Butler, The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence, The Standard Bearer.
Furthermore, the Zoolian has a defeater for all his beliefs. Why should the Zoolanist, according to Zoolianism, believe that his beliefs are reliable? What is the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given the doctrine that Zool hates us? I'd say low, or at best, inscrutible. So, as this above argument has been fleshed out elsewhere, the Zoolian has a defeater for all our beliefs, even beliefs about Zool. hence, if Zoolianism were true, we'd have no reason to believe it, or that our cognitive faculties were reliable.
Zool has been sliced and diced. Demolished five ways from Sunday. There's been no rebuttal other than, "No, you are wronga nd Zool is right."
Zool and T-stone have been, as atheists are fond of saying, PWNED.
Jazabo,
ReplyDelete"Paul Manata (or anyone!) is judging their God/non-God by their own thinking. Period. People make mistakes. Therefore, Paul Manata "could" be wrong."
That's not what I'm doing. But, though I use God's standards of who he is, that does not mean that I don't use the reasoning ability he's given me to understand his revelation.
"However, Paul doesn't seem to want to admit that ultimately he's judging his version/belief of God on his own mental understanding, which is limited."
Well, I admit I must watch out for this. But, I try not to. A proof of thios is that when I defend God's justice, everyone from T-stone to Loftus agrees that this isn't a *human* concept of justice, i.e., a humanistic one. So, I think the proof to the contrary is that no one likes my God. Why would i create a God like the one I believe in? At any rate, you have a pretty big burden to say that the God I talk about is a god of my own understanding.
"I freely admit that I could be wrong about my own personal beliefs in God. So what? I've read in the past where Steve Hayes, Calvindude, and others have also admitted that they don't "know" they are right about God."
Steve and Calvindude have not admitted this.
"But Paul Manata has a hard time with this. I'm not sure why this "knowing" is so important to him. His limited understanding of the world around him does not grant him the ability to "know" the things he thinks he does. And ultimately, we all are judging what we "know" on our own understanding."
1. Your infallibilism negates you knowing anything you've said above.
2. I do know things in the "world around me."
"No big deal admitting that one isn't omniscient. Not for me anyway."
No big deal admitting you're barking up the wrong tree:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-on-tag-and-certainity_05.html
Listen Steve, I'm sorry I made you cry. Could you please forgive me? Or do I have to be insulted too for there to be justice? You know, just forget it...
ReplyDelete