So let me get this right... Haught thinks that all atheists ought to follow a certain intellectual mold. If we don't follow it then we are being inconsistent with our atheism, and if we do follow it then we forsake the moral high ground.
Even granting that there is some kind of "inconsistency," then what does it matter? As an atheist who tries to practice altruism and to be moral, I do not feel obligated to be philosophically "consistent" in this matter because I do not worry about going to hell if I get it wrong (unlike some Christians with their theology). Who is going to enforce the doctrine that all atheists should only serve themselves? Is an atheist violating some absolute moral code when he acts morally? No.
Quite frankly, living a selfish life is quite emotionally tolling in the long run, an altruism carries its own rewards. That should be the basis of our good acts, not a hypothetical omnipotent being.
I have a question, and if you don't mind i'll post it here. I'm still somewhat a newbie when it comes to many aspects of Christianity but am always open to learn more. The last question that I have been unable to answer: If God is the source of all our morals, conscience and such, does that mean he is in a position where he needs to have such things? Also, why is it right to have one wife, to not kill and etc. I understand it's because it is God's will for us not to do such things, but.. yeah.
I have a question too and I hope you won't mind if I post it here too.
I understand that God cannot give us free will while at the same time, not allowing us to do bad things from time to time. So the Argument from Evil in this case is refuted by the necessity of free will.
My questions now are:
1. It is also possible that God allows us to do bad things but intervene if a person for instance is suffering a great deal? For example, a girl being raped. Why can't God intervene? I mean, he doesn't have to show himself, he can devise ways wherein he can save the girl without showing himself. Also, why didn't God prevent the Holocaust? He seemed to have intervened in the OT when the Jews were enslaved.
2. In heaven, we won't be able to do bad things. Then wouldn't that amount to having no free will? Are we going to be automatons in heaven?
Thanks! BTW, why don't you create a separate page for those who want to ask questions? I know there is a plug-in or something which can do that. :)
Why do you “try to be moral” if you don’t feel “obligated” to be “philosophically consistent”? Why “should” rewards be the basis of “good” deeds if you deny moral absolutes. How do you distinguish between “good” deeds and “bad” deeds absent moral norms?
Are you equating *good* deeds with *altruistic* deeds? But how can altruism be good if you deny moral absolutes?
If you’re doing good deeds for the fringe benefits, then you’re selfish rather than altruistic.
Altruism has its own rewards on those occasions when altruistic behavior happens to dovetail with your self-interest. But what do you do in all those situations when there’s a conflict between altruism and self-interest? What if cheating helps you get ahead?
If you don’t think you’re obligated to be philosophically consistent, then why be an atheist? Are you an atheist because you think that atheism is true? But if atheism entails amorality, as you yourself admit, then there’s no philosophical obligation to be true to your atheistic beliefs, even if atheism were true. So why be an atheist?
“If God is the source of all our morals, conscience and such, does that mean he is in a position where he needs to have such things?”
God has no needs.
“Also, why is it right to have one wife.”
Because God designed human beings to pair off.
“To not kill.”
Murder wrongs the victim, as well as his loved ones. And it’s a form of vandalism against the divine image.
“And etc.”
Just because etc.
eyva eiram said...
“Why can't God intervene?”
He can.
“I mean, he doesn't have to show himself, he can devise ways wherein he can save the girl without showing himself.”
If God intervened to preempt every sin, you and I would not exist. Other people would exist in our place, but not you and me.
Do you think that God wronged you by not intervening to preempt every sin, as a result of which you were born? I notice that you haven’t committed suicide, so you value your own life.
“Also, why didn't God prevent the Holocaust?”
God is under no obligation to save sinners from dying at the hands of other sinners.
“He seemed to have intervened in the OT when the Jews were enslaved.”
That’s a very selective appeal to OT history. God also exacted judgment on the stiff-necked Exodus generation in the wilderness. God punished the national apostasy of Israel with the Assyrian deportation, followed by the Babylonian exile.
“In heaven, we won't be able to do bad things. Then wouldn't that amount to having no free will? Are we going to be automatons in heaven?”
lyosha07 said: --- As an atheist who tries to practice altruism and to be moral, I do not feel obligated to be philosophically "consistent" in this matter because I do not worry about going to hell if I get it wrong (unlike some Christians with their theology). ---
I take this as aknowledgment that your position is philosophically inconsistent, as I've claimed many times in the past.
But I notice that you cannot escape from moral language, for you ask:
--- Is an atheist violating some absolute moral code when he acts morally? ---
Since there is no "moral code" in atheism, then no atheist acts "morally." This would be like saying: "Do I violate some unicorn aspect when I act unicornlike?" Since unicorns don't exist, such a question is meaningless. I cannot act "unicornlike" unless unicorns exist.
Nor can an atheist act morally unless morals exist. And if moral exist, then the atheist must justify their existence to be consistent with their philosophy.
But since you're not interested in consistency, I'm sure you'll be inconsistently upset when I point out you're inconsistent....
"Quite frankly, living a selfish life is quite emotionally tolling in the long run, an altruism carries its own rewards. That should be the basis of our good acts, not a hypothetical omnipotent being."
And how would you know that? Have you "lived a selfish life" in order to see how "tolling" it was "in the long run?" Is it some kind of necessary deduction from premises? Seems to me Sinatra's song resonates with many people:
========
And now, the end is near, and so I face, the final curtain. My friend, I'll say it clear, I'll state my case, of which I'm certain. I've lived, a life that's full, I've traveled each and every highway. And more, much more than this, I did it my way.
Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention. I did, what I had to do, and saw it through, without exemption. I planned, each charted course, each careful step, along the byway, and more, much more than this, I did it my way.
The record shows, I took the blows --- And did it my way!
I did it my way
========
I gues you could appeal to some kind of virtue ethics. What it is to be a properly functioning moral agent. There's a certain purpose, or telos to your life, but then if this is *real* and not an "inconsistency," seems to me a short ride to theism from their. Kind of like a moral design argument, if you will.
Hello. If you are interested in the problem of evil then I'd refer you to see David Wood's blog at problemofevil.blogspot.com. He's a grad student in philosophy studying the problem of evil, and if you are still wondering about a question after perusing the site a little (there's a debate up right now), then leave a comment and I'm sure he'd be glad to answer it. He hasn't posted in a while, but as far as I know he's still around and checks it for comments. If not, you could probably email him too (I have a few times myself).
Your first question probably doesn't have a direct answer, but may be answered through a gradual understanding of lots of issues surrounding the question. However, as for your second question, I think it is non-sequitur. That is, if we can't do bad things then of course our free will be restricted to that extent, but the most that would imply is that the range of options we can choose to freely do is reduced to whatever is good.
Stephen,
Your question asks 'Why are the things tell us to do good and the things he tells us to not do bad?' This seems to say that there is an idea of 'good' and 'bad' that exists apart from God. But I don't think that's true; the Bible says 'God is good.' I don't think that's saying God can be described by this other idea out there called 'good', but rather that God literally is good. It's his nature to be kind, loving, compassionate, and all the things that we consider to be good as well. So I think it's somewhat a misguided quest to look for the reason why certain things are good or bad outside of their defining point.
In heaven, we won't be able to do bad things. Then wouldn't that amount to having no free will? Are we going to be automatons in heaven?
Are you an automaton because you won't throw yourself in front of a bus or because you can't force yourself to believe 2+2=5? Christianity has so many real problems, we don't need to go around inventing fake problems to discredit it. :)
"If God intervened to preempt every sin, you and I would not exist. Other people would exist in our place, but not you and me.
Do you think that God wronged you by not intervening to preempt every sin, as a result of which you were born? I notice that you haven’t committed suicide, so you value your own life."
I don't understand this. Why wouldn't we exist if God intervenes? Seems non-sequitur. E.g. If I intervene when I saw a crime, it wouldn't negate the existence of the crime-doer and the victim. Can you please explain this argument?
"Only if you equate freedom with freedom to sin."
Freedom for me is to be able to reject/accept God or be able to do good/do bad things. If in heaven, we cannot do bad things, then there must be some sort of manipulation. The idea of heaven, where people only do good things, and free will seems contradictory to me. That's actually the argument of Christians for justifying the existence of evil. The "free-will" argument.
Also, if God can actually allow free will but at the same time, pose some restrictions so that we can only choose good things, why didn't he make it the rule here on Earth?
Free will + not being able to do bad things is better than free will + being able to do bad things.
"Are you an automaton because you won't throw yourself in front of a bus or because you can't force yourself to believe 2+2=5? Christianity has so many real problems, we don't need to go around inventing fake problems to discredit it. :)"
Doing simple bad things is not as crazy as throwing yourself in front of a bus. I can steal or lie but that doesn't mean I can also throw myself in front of a bus. 2+2 = 5 is also a logical impossibility. Sinning is not. You're comparing apples and oranges.
“I don't understand this. Why wouldn't we exist if God intervenes? Seems non-sequitur.”
Because every mere human being, going back to Adam and Eve, was a sinner. Adam and Eve became sinners. The rest of us are sinners. And that will remain the case, here below, until the end of the church age.
If God were to systematically intervene to prevent sin, he would thereby prevent the existence of sinners.
In addition, sin affects who lives and who dies, where people live, &c., and therefore affects who mates with whom. As a result, mans’ family tree in an unfallen world would branch off in a completely different direction than in a fallen world.
“E.g. If I intervene when I saw a crime, it wouldn't negate the existence of the crime-doer and the victim. Can you please explain this argument?”
If God selectively intervenes to preempt sin, then that doesn’t preempt the existence of every sinner.
However, you’re a sinner. And you don’t seem to rue the day you were born.
Hence, you don’t have a problem with the idea that God intervenes some of the time, but not all of the time, to prevent sin. So what’s your objection?
Suppose a horse thief, by his thievery, forced one of your forebears to change his plans. He was planning to settle down in Missouri, but because his horse was stolen, he was stuck in Kentucky. As a result, he met his wife in Kentucky, and had some kids by her, which, several more begats down the line, terminate in your birth. Is that a good result or a bad result?
If, however, God had intervened to prevent the horse thief from stealing your ancestor’s steed, he would have gone on to Missouri, met his wife there, and had some kids by her. You would never exist under that scenario.
Do you think that God should intervene to prevent the crime if the effect of that intervention is to preempt your own existence?
“Freedom for me is to be able to reject/accept God or be able to do good/do bad things.”
Do you feel free to lust for little children?
“If in heaven, we cannot do bad things, then there must be some sort of manipulation.”
No, sin is like mental illness or addiction. When God regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies a sinner, he is restoring that individual to his proper mental state. God is removing a mental impediment, not creating one.
“The idea of heaven, where people only do good things, and free will seems contradictory to me.”
It’s contradictory if you define freewill in libertarian terms.
“That's actually the argument of Christians for justifying the existence of evil. The "free-will" argument.”
That’s the argument which Arminians and other suchlike use. But that’s not the only theodicy available to Christians.
“Also, if God can actually allow free will but at the same time, pose some restrictions so that we can only choose good things, why didn't he make it the rule here on Earth?”
i) I reject the libertarian definition of freewill.
ii) It’s better to be a redeemed creature than to be an unfallen creature.
That was an interesting article. I grew up as an atheist, and in my 20s was struggling to come to terms with a God Whom I didn't really believe in. (Talk about textbook monergism.)
During that time in my life, I had also reached the point of realizing that non-belief in a supreme deity leaves one in a moral vacuum where there is no moral standard and no moral choices to be made.
"Live and let live" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may be the default ethic of most atheists, but if another atheist comes along, says, "That may be true for you but it's not true for me; I will do whatsoever I will" and then does whatever he will in contravention to the first person's wishes, on what moral standing can the first non-believer contest that? A non-believing community may enact laws to enforce a collective ethic that embraces the Golden Rule, but what is the absolute moral authority for those laws? If another non-believing community enacts laws that reject the Golden Rule and exult survival of the fittest, who has any moral standing to contest that?
And so it goes, on and on. This article's author was very prescient in pointing out the yawning moral chasm that stands before the person who's walked the wrong way through the gate of faith in God—the chasm of faithless life that is "nasty, brutish, and short," with no hope beyond the misery and transitory joys of this fallen world.
“Also, if God can actually allow free will but at the same time, pose some restrictions so that we can only choose good things, why didn't he make it the rule here on Earth?”
i) I reject the libertarian definition of freewill.
ii) It’s better to be a redeemed creature than to be an unfallen creature.
**********
Piggy backing on Steve's last point
iia) Good ends are so much sweeter after going through trials or "seeing the other side." I know a Russian girl that is much more appreciative of living in America than most Americans. She's expereinced what it's like to live in a hellish civilization.
Steve said: --- It’s better to be a redeemed creature than to be an unfallen creature. ---
Not to mention: "For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:7-8).
Indeed, Christ Himself states: "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matthew 5:46).
So not only is it better for us to be redeemed, but it more expressly magnifies God's love. God could have kept Adam from sinning, but then His love would be demonstrated as something no better than that which even sinful people have toward other sinful people. In other words, if God wanted to show the depths of His love, He had to love sinners--those who hated Him enough to put Him to death. Anyone can love nice people who "deserve" to be loved; but what kind of character does it take for God to love those who are depraved?
This comment is a post on my blog answering the type of questions posed by eyva eiram. --- Inevitably, talk about atheism gives rise to questions about God and evil, specifically "If God exists, why does evil exist?"
First, a correction: If God exists, then why does He allow evil to exist? This is the real question that we want to ask, not "why does evil exist?" Implicitly, we are accusing God of allowing unjust suffering and victimization. We question His motives for such allowance. We question his benevolence. We question whether he has the ability to intervene. Some of us even surmise that evil exists because God is evil Himself. For those of you who have gone beyond implicit to explict accusations, congrats for moving onto what I call ignorant pontificating.
Why didn't God stop the Holocaust? Why doesn't he stop rape? Why doesn't he stop murder? We also might as well ask why God doesn't stop gangsta rap, corporate theft, cheating on tests.
While we're asking, why doesn't God stop abortion and human cloning? (If you think that's different, I want to know why. Will you defend those things, pulling out pragmatic rationalizations and preach about rights and Moreauean cures?)
What about the husband who just needs a little action on the side? Why didn't God turn him off? In the end, some if not all of us will at some point identify and sympathize with a perpetrator and even defend his/her act of evil. There goes our credibility.
Bottom line, arbitrary human indignation cannot demand that God do something to right what we particularly think is a wrong, precisely because we are endemically fickle. Humans are walking contradictions, spreading our ignorant pontificating about ultimate justice but wanting to exempt ourselves from it. We have lost all credibility to rage against evil or to accuse God of anything. Remember, in this world, one man's racism is another man's right to free speech.
In the Christian perspective, we will see God's intervention but at His appointed time and on His terms, not ours. I could say that it all began with Jesus on a cross, but then you might not tolerate an "unjust" raking of your conscience over the coals to think about the evil in your own life, and wonder why God doesn't stop me.
I have one: Why doesn't God strike all atheists dead? That would certainly remove all doubt and doubters concerning His existence.
I have one: Why doesn't God strike all atheists dead? That would certainly remove all doubt and doubters concerning His existence.
That shows another Bible contradiction, Lk 9:54-56 vs imprecatory Psalms, which Letitia seems to be trying her hand at writing.
She's also overlooking the fact that although Joe Atheist might be a hypocrite in his standards, he can still point out that it's internally nonsensical for the God of the Bible to express his hatred of evil, and then ordain that those acts of evil be committed.
I also see you're oriental. Doesn't it bother you that the reason Indians and Asians didn't invent Christianity is probably because they have a genetically different temperament? You and Ravi Zacharias are anomalies. If Luther could only have taken some prozac, he wouldn't have been obsessing over his justification. Why continue to be manipulated by your chemistry? Take control and say NO to religion.
Your last paragraph is odd and not a little upsetting. I could mention the millions of "global South" Christians who are often more passionate and devout in their faith than Euro-American Christians.
Or I could mention that as a half-Jewish, half-Anglo-Scottish Canadian, one of the milestones in my own path to salvation was through a Bible study group of Chinese-Canadian born again Christians, who worked with me through the book of Hebrews over the course of a year.
God promised through the Old Testament prophets that He would call Gentile believers from all nations, and he makes us all—Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Romans, Indians, First Nations, and Chinese—one family, adopted as His sons and daughters.
Not only did thnuhthnuh use an incredibly insensitive appellation - "oriental" but he made a very racist comment. Doing your argument a lot of good there, buddy.
While the race-baiting diverted attention from the fallacy Thuhuhunununuh employed (probably the reason for it in the first place), I will point out the flaw.
Thunhuuhfdsjhuih said: --- She's also overlooking the fact that although Joe Atheist might be a hypocrite in his standards, he can still point out that it's internally nonsensical for the God of the Bible to express his hatred of evil, and then ordain that those acts of evil be committed. ---
How is that "internally nonsensical"? Why can't God hate X but love Y, which is a result of X, and therefore ordain X to pass so that Y can occur? How is that "internally nonsensical"?
It would only be a problem if God ordained evil for the sake of evil while still saying He hated evil. But no theist believes God ordains evil for the sake of evil.
BTW, to give an example of the "internally nonsensical" notion that one can ordain X for the sake of Y while simultaneously hating X....
I hate having my teeth ripped out. That didn't stop me from ordaining (scheduling an appointment, and then seeing it through no less) that my wisdom teeth be removed. I hated going through wisdom tooth extraction...but I'm glad I don't have to worry about dental problems.
rhology- how on earth is "oriental" racist? I've never heard of such a thing. And there's nothing racist about pointing out differences between races, since they exist. I'm not advocating discrimination.
If we want to talk racism, what about your good buddies Doug "SSAIW" Wilson and littlegeneva?
"Suppose a horse thief, by his thievery, forced one of your forebears to change his plans. He was planning to settle down in Missouri, but because his horse was stolen, he was stuck in Kentucky. As a result, he met his wife in Kentucky, and had some kids by her, which, several more begats down the line, terminate in your birth. Is that a good result or a bad result?
If, however, God had intervened to prevent the horse thief from stealing your ancestor’s steed, he would have gone on to Missouri, met his wife there, and had some kids by her. You would never exist under that scenario.
Do you think that God should intervene to prevent the crime if the effect of that intervention is to preempt your own existence?"
First, I believe that the body is merely a body, made up of matter. The parents do not create the child, they just create the body where God will infuse a soul. That means that it doesn't matter if that theif married another woman or not. If it's my turn to live then it's my turn to live no matter who gave birth to me.
“Freedom for me is to be able to reject/accept God or be able to do good/do bad things.”
No. But that's the point. Some people can definitely lust over children (child molestation). Of course, it is not allowed by our moral standards but it is "doable." This kind of thing, child molestation, is of course not doable in heaven or not even thinkable in heaven.
"No, sin is like mental illness or addiction. When God regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies a sinner, he is restoring that individual to his proper mental state. God is removing a mental impediment, not creating one."
If it is a mental illness, then why would sinners go to hell? Why are they to be blamed for the capability to do evil then go to hell because of it? Okay, you are going to say, Jesus died for our sins and asking forgiveness is very simple. But what if that sinner failed to do this in his life? What if being unrelentless is a part of this "mental illness" or retardation? Why will he go to hell for having a "mental illness"?
“The idea of heaven, where people only do good things, and free will seems contradictory to me.”
“First, I believe that the body is merely a body, made up of matter. The parents do not create the child, they just create the body where God will infuse a soul. That means that it doesn't matter if that theif married another woman or not. If it's my turn to live then it's my turn to live no matter who gave birth to me.”
i) No one has a “turn” to live, as if it’s inevitable that he will pop into existence sooner or later.
ii) You have such a loose view of the parent/child relation that you might as well believe in reincarnation—where the same soul can cycle through one body after another—like buying a new car. Surely you’ve noticed that kids share some of the character traits of their parents. Not to mention the bond between siblings, or twins.
Children are not discrete units. To some extent, the personality of the parents is reproduced in the child. Family resemblance isn’t limited to appearances. It runs much deeper.
That’s why many adopted children still feel a profound yearning to meet their natural parents. That’s a key feature of their self-identity.
Your view fails to do justice to the organic character of human nature in Scripture and experience.
iii) And even if we accepted your monadic view of human nature, it also overlooks the impact of social conditioning. An orphan raised by an evil stepmother in 13C Wales isn’t the same person as a child raised by John Piper and his wife—even if we posit your view of the soul.
“Some people can definitely lust over children (child molestation).”
If we go with your definition of freewill, then everyone would be capable of lusting for little children? Can you will yourself to lust for little children?
“This kind of thing, child molestation, is of course not doable in heaven or not even thinkable in heaven.”
But according to your definition of freewill, that inability would make the saints in heaven “automatons.”
“If it is a mental illness, then why would sinners go to hell.”
It would profit you to pay attention to the actual wording which people use before you go off on a tangent. I didn’t say it “is” a mental illness, now did I?
I said it’s “like” a mental illness or addiction. That’s called an analogy.
And I was also clear on the precise point of comparison: namely, that if someone is not in his right state of mind, then restoring him to mental health isn’t the same thing as “manipulation.”
No you’re changing the subject. Your original question had nothing to do with hell.
I’d add, though, that some, but not all, forms of mental illness are culpable. Both Bobby Fischer and Ted Kaczynski are (were) certifiable, and yet there’s nothing that obviously made them crazy, like brain cancer. Instead, they nursed their slights and resentments to the point where they made themselves crazy.
And, to take my other illustration, most folks are responsible for getting hooked on some addictive substance or addictive behavior. As such, they are also responsible for the consequences thereof.
“So in what kind of ‘free will’ do you believe in?”
Peter: the burden of proof is on you. You must go to the dentist because you are not omnipotent. Burden is on you to show why God is compelled to use means repugnant to him when he's omnipotent (I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying the burden is on you).
Separately it's a bit weird to see Steve quoting Gordon Clark, whom he loathes so much: "There are thus three stages in the total human drama; before the fall, posse non peccare; and in the world to come, non posse peccare; but in this present world, non posse non peccare."
tnuh said: --- Peter: the burden of proof is on you. You must go to the dentist because you are not omnipotent. Burden is on you to show why God is compelled to use means repugnant to him when he's omnipotent (I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying the burden is on you). ---
Apparently you have problems grasping the flow of conversation. I've already provided a reason why God ordained evil in the 3/04/2008 12:04 PM comment.
You could interact with that comment if you were actually interested in discussion. Or you could instead pretend it was never made and say: "You have the burden of proof" as if that's a response.
BTW, even if I did not know of any compelling reason for God to allow evil to occur, that would not make it problematic for God to allow evil to occur. It is sufficent for me to say that God thinks He has a good reason. In your nihilistic universe, it isn't problematic if you disagree with God's value judgements. It's all relative and "might makes right" and God's bigger than you, so deal with it.
Even if I never understand God's reasons for doing action X, that in no way implies He has no reasons for doing action X. I don't understand why you claim to be a nihilist and then spend so much time disagreeing with people in a manner that you yourself has claimed is meaningless, yet that does not mean you have no reason for responding here.
The basis of your argument is itself flawed. The reasoning you employed was a fallacy. There's no aspect of your "argument" at all that is in any way coherent to rationality. But don't worry because my rejection of your "argument" is just as meaningless as the argument you put forth, if you're actually right and all.
But that brings up an interesting factoid. The burden of proof is actually on you to demonstrate how your personal concept of what is good or evil is relevant to anyone else. Why should anyone care whether you think God has sufficently moral reasons for ordaining evil? If I say that I don't care whether you think God's reasons are sufficient, how can you respond without abandoning your nihilism? What difference does it make whether you agree or disagree with God?
You want to have your cake and eat it too. Again this is because you're not really a nihilist at heart, you just use it to escape when your philosophy is exposed.
---------- I take this as aknowledgment that your position is philosophically inconsistent, as I've claimed many times in the past.
But I notice that you cannot escape from moral language, for you ask:
--- Is an atheist violating some absolute moral code when he acts morally? ---
Since there is no "moral code" in atheism, then no atheist acts "morally." This would be like saying: "Do I violate some unicorn aspect when I act unicornlike?" Since unicorns don't exist, such a question is meaningless. I cannot act "unicornlike" unless unicorns exist.
Nor can an atheist act morally unless morals exist. And if moral exist, then the atheist must justify their existence to be consistent with their philosophy.
But since you're not interested in consistency, I'm sure you'll be inconsistently upset when I point out you're inconsistent.... ------------
This argument is fallacious. Just because I can use "the language of morality" does not mean that I believe that morality has an existence independent of humanity. For example, I can talk about "silly things" or "silliness", and I can also talk about "things that aren't silly." Silliness is objective for individual humans, but that doesn't mean that we have to extrapolate that silliness must be caused by some external being to humanity.
"Separately it's a bit weird to see Steve quoting Gordon Clark."
I wasn't. The fourfold state of man is a tradition Reformed schema, going back to Augustine.
"Whom he loathes so much."
A silly overstatement. I disagree with Clark's epistemology. And I think his response to the problem of evil and the coherence of the Trinity is shallow.
lyosha07 said: --- This argument is fallacious. Just because I can use "the language of morality" does not mean that I believe that morality has an existence independent of humanity. For example, I can talk about "silly things" or "silliness", and I can also talk about "things that aren't silly." Silliness is objective for individual humans, but that doesn't mean that we have to extrapolate that silliness must be caused by some external being to humanity. ---
Except that you don't treat moral issues as if they're as meaningless as what you think is silly. If I said your sweater was silly looking you wouldn't take nearly as much offense as you would if I walked up to you and tried to murder you. Indeed, if you thought something was silly and I disagreed with your interpretation you wouldn't spend much time at all trying to change my mind on it; but if I decided I could help myself to your money any time I chose, you'd certainly get worked up and emphatic as you tried to convince me to let you keep your own belongings!
Moral issues are not relative and you know it. You don't behave at all as if morality is a personal choice; you behave as if it is objectively true.
Furthermore, if morality truly is subjective then you cannot ever use a moral argument against the existence of God (who's to say that your relative notion of morality is more important than God's?).
And finally, you yourself already confessed that you're inconsistent on this point. Why the fuss?
1) It is easy to see why moral issues are given much more weight than deciding whether something is "silly." Moral issues often involve questions of life or property of human beings. Moreover, both of the examples you gave were instances where self-interest would play a huge role. The purpose of my argument was to show that there are categories that are objective of individual humans but are nevertheless given form by humanity as a whole (morality being one of them).
"Moral issues are not relative and you know it. You don't behave at all as if morality is a personal choice; you behave as if it is objectively true."
And your point is? That is how biology, genes, and social conditioning made me. All of your arguments from God for morality ultimately boil down to one thing: the fact that the human species is predisposed to exhibit a certain kind of behavior (what we would recognize as morality). The answer as to why this is the case is ultimately within the realm of evolutionary biology.
"Furthermore, if morality truly is subjective then you cannot ever use a moral argument against the existence of God (who's to say that your relative notion of morality is more important than God's?)."
1) I do not believe that morality is subjective for individuals, but nevertheless does not enjoy an independent existence beyond humanity as a whole.
2) Even if I was an utter relativist with respect to morality, I could make a moral argument against the existence of evil because Christianity posits an objective morality. It would thus be a matter of pointing out an internal inconsistency.
"And finally, you yourself already confessed that you're inconsistent on this point. Why the fuss?"
Notice that I put "inconsistent" in quotation marks. Note that I also do not believe that I am inconsistent at all with my atheism because there is very little for me to be inconsistent with. I have not posited that morality exists indepedently of humanity. Moreover, I do not see why Christians such as yourselves should be the arbiter of what is "consistent" with atheism and what isn't.
So let me get this right... Haught thinks that all atheists ought to follow a certain intellectual mold. If we don't follow it then we are being inconsistent with our atheism, and if we do follow it then we forsake the moral high ground.
ReplyDeleteEven granting that there is some kind of "inconsistency," then what does it matter? As an atheist who tries to practice altruism and to be moral, I do not feel obligated to be philosophically "consistent" in this matter because I do not worry about going to hell if I get it wrong (unlike some Christians with their theology). Who is going to enforce the doctrine that all atheists should only serve themselves? Is an atheist violating some absolute moral code when he acts morally? No.
Quite frankly, living a selfish life is quite emotionally tolling in the long run, an altruism carries its own rewards. That should be the basis of our good acts, not a hypothetical omnipotent being.
Great article.
ReplyDeleteI have a question, and if you don't mind i'll post it here.
I'm still somewhat a newbie when it comes to many aspects of Christianity but am always open to learn more. The last question that I have been unable to answer: If God is the source of all our morals, conscience and such, does that mean he is in a position where he needs to have such things? Also, why is it right to have one wife, to not kill and etc. I understand it's because it is God's will for us not to do such things, but.. yeah.
God bless, and any response would be appreciated.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI have a question too and I hope you won't mind if I post it here too.
I understand that God cannot give us free will while at the same time, not allowing us to do bad things from time to time. So the Argument from Evil in this case is refuted by the necessity of free will.
My questions now are:
1. It is also possible that God allows us to do bad things but intervene if a person for instance is suffering a great deal? For example, a girl being raped. Why can't God intervene? I mean, he doesn't have to show himself, he can devise ways wherein he can save the girl without showing himself. Also, why didn't God prevent the Holocaust? He seemed to have intervened in the OT when the Jews were enslaved.
2. In heaven, we won't be able to do bad things. Then wouldn't that amount to having no free will? Are we going to be automatons in heaven?
Thanks! BTW, why don't you create a separate page for those who want to ask questions? I know there is a plug-in or something which can do that. :)
Why do you “try to be moral” if you don’t feel “obligated” to be “philosophically consistent”? Why “should” rewards be the basis of “good” deeds if you deny moral absolutes. How do you distinguish between “good” deeds and “bad” deeds absent moral norms?
ReplyDeleteAre you equating *good* deeds with *altruistic* deeds? But how can altruism be good if you deny moral absolutes?
If you’re doing good deeds for the fringe benefits, then you’re selfish rather than altruistic.
Altruism has its own rewards on those occasions when altruistic behavior happens to dovetail with your self-interest. But what do you do in all those situations when there’s a conflict between altruism and self-interest? What if cheating helps you get ahead?
If you don’t think you’re obligated to be philosophically consistent, then why be an atheist? Are you an atheist because you think that atheism is true? But if atheism entails amorality, as you yourself admit, then there’s no philosophical obligation to be true to your atheistic beliefs, even if atheism were true. So why be an atheist?
stephen said...
ReplyDelete“If God is the source of all our morals, conscience and such, does that mean he is in a position where he needs to have such things?”
God has no needs.
“Also, why is it right to have one wife.”
Because God designed human beings to pair off.
“To not kill.”
Murder wrongs the victim, as well as his loved ones. And it’s a form of vandalism against the divine image.
“And etc.”
Just because etc.
eyva eiram said...
“Why can't God intervene?”
He can.
“I mean, he doesn't have to show himself, he can devise ways wherein he can save the girl without showing himself.”
If God intervened to preempt every sin, you and I would not exist. Other people would exist in our place, but not you and me.
Do you think that God wronged you by not intervening to preempt every sin, as a result of which you were born? I notice that you haven’t committed suicide, so you value your own life.
“Also, why didn't God prevent the Holocaust?”
God is under no obligation to save sinners from dying at the hands of other sinners.
“He seemed to have intervened in the OT when the Jews were enslaved.”
That’s a very selective appeal to OT history. God also exacted judgment on the stiff-necked Exodus generation in the wilderness. God punished the national apostasy of Israel with the Assyrian deportation, followed by the Babylonian exile.
“In heaven, we won't be able to do bad things. Then wouldn't that amount to having no free will? Are we going to be automatons in heaven?”
Only if you equate freedom with freedom to sin.
lyosha07 said:
ReplyDelete---
As an atheist who tries to practice altruism and to be moral, I do not feel obligated to be philosophically "consistent" in this matter because I do not worry about going to hell if I get it wrong (unlike some Christians with their theology).
---
I take this as aknowledgment that your position is philosophically inconsistent, as I've claimed many times in the past.
But I notice that you cannot escape from moral language, for you ask:
---
Is an atheist violating some absolute moral code when he acts morally?
---
Since there is no "moral code" in atheism, then no atheist acts "morally." This would be like saying: "Do I violate some unicorn aspect when I act unicornlike?" Since unicorns don't exist, such a question is meaningless. I cannot act "unicornlike" unless unicorns exist.
Nor can an atheist act morally unless morals exist. And if moral exist, then the atheist must justify their existence to be consistent with their philosophy.
But since you're not interested in consistency, I'm sure you'll be inconsistently upset when I point out you're inconsistent....
"Quite frankly, living a selfish life is quite emotionally tolling in the long run, an altruism carries its own rewards. That should be the basis of our good acts, not a hypothetical omnipotent being."
ReplyDeleteAnd how would you know that? Have you "lived a selfish life" in order to see how "tolling" it was "in the long run?" Is it some kind of necessary deduction from premises? Seems to me Sinatra's song resonates with many people:
========
And now, the end is near, and so I face, the final curtain.
My friend, I'll say it clear,
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.
I've lived, a life that's full, I've traveled each and every highway.
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.
Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention.
I did, what I had to do, and saw it through, without exemption.
I planned, each charted course, each careful step, along the byway,
and more, much more than this,
I did it my way.
The record shows, I took the blows ---
And did it my way!
I did it my way
========
I gues you could appeal to some kind of virtue ethics. What it is to be a properly functioning moral agent. There's a certain purpose, or telos to your life, but then if this is *real* and not an "inconsistency," seems to me a short ride to theism from their. Kind of like a moral design argument, if you will.
Eyva eiram,
ReplyDeleteHello. If you are interested in the problem of evil then I'd refer you to see David Wood's blog at problemofevil.blogspot.com. He's a grad student in philosophy studying the problem of evil, and if you are still wondering about a question after perusing the site a little (there's a debate up right now), then leave a comment and I'm sure he'd be glad to answer it. He hasn't posted in a while, but as far as I know he's still around and checks it for comments. If not, you could probably email him too (I have a few times myself).
Your first question probably doesn't have a direct answer, but may be answered through a gradual understanding of lots of issues surrounding the question. However, as for your second question, I think it is non-sequitur. That is, if we can't do bad things then of course our free will be restricted to that extent, but the most that would imply is that the range of options we can choose to freely do is reduced to whatever is good.
Stephen,
Your question asks 'Why are the things tell us to do good and the things he tells us to not do bad?' This seems to say that there is an idea of 'good' and 'bad' that exists apart from God. But I don't think that's true; the Bible says 'God is good.' I don't think that's saying God can be described by this other idea out there called 'good', but rather that God literally is good. It's his nature to be kind, loving, compassionate, and all the things that we consider to be good as well. So I think it's somewhat a misguided quest to look for the reason why certain things are good or bad outside of their defining point.
Does that make sense?
In heaven, we won't be able to do bad things. Then wouldn't that amount to having no free will? Are we going to be automatons in heaven?
ReplyDeleteAre you an automaton because you won't throw yourself in front of a bus or because you can't force yourself to believe 2+2=5?
Christianity has so many real problems, we don't need to go around inventing fake problems to discredit it. :)
"If God intervened to preempt every sin, you and I would not exist. Other people would exist in our place, but not you and me.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that God wronged you by not intervening to preempt every sin, as a result of which you were born? I notice that you haven’t committed suicide, so you value your own life."
I don't understand this. Why wouldn't we exist if God intervenes? Seems non-sequitur. E.g. If I intervene when I saw a crime, it wouldn't negate the existence of the crime-doer and the victim. Can you please explain this argument?
"Only if you equate freedom with freedom to sin."
Freedom for me is to be able to reject/accept God or be able to do good/do bad things. If in heaven, we cannot do bad things, then there must be some sort of manipulation. The idea of heaven, where people only do good things, and free will seems contradictory to me. That's actually the argument of Christians for justifying the existence of evil. The "free-will" argument.
Also, if God can actually allow free will but at the same time, pose some restrictions so that we can only choose good things, why didn't he make it the rule here on Earth?
Free will + not being able to do bad things is better than free will + being able to do bad things.
"Are you an automaton because you won't throw yourself in front of a bus or because you can't force yourself to believe 2+2=5?
ReplyDeleteChristianity has so many real problems, we don't need to go around inventing fake problems to discredit it. :)"
Doing simple bad things is not as crazy as throwing yourself in front of a bus. I can steal or lie but that doesn't mean I can also throw myself in front of a bus. 2+2 = 5 is also a logical impossibility. Sinning is not. You're comparing apples and oranges.
eyva eiram said...
ReplyDelete“I don't understand this. Why wouldn't we exist if God intervenes? Seems non-sequitur.”
Because every mere human being, going back to Adam and Eve, was a sinner. Adam and Eve became sinners. The rest of us are sinners. And that will remain the case, here below, until the end of the church age.
If God were to systematically intervene to prevent sin, he would thereby prevent the existence of sinners.
In addition, sin affects who lives and who dies, where people live, &c., and therefore affects who mates with whom. As a result, mans’ family tree in an unfallen world would branch off in a completely different direction than in a fallen world.
“E.g. If I intervene when I saw a crime, it wouldn't negate the existence of the crime-doer and the victim. Can you please explain this argument?”
If God selectively intervenes to preempt sin, then that doesn’t preempt the existence of every sinner.
However, you’re a sinner. And you don’t seem to rue the day you were born.
Hence, you don’t have a problem with the idea that God intervenes some of the time, but not all of the time, to prevent sin. So what’s your objection?
Suppose a horse thief, by his thievery, forced one of your forebears to change his plans. He was planning to settle down in Missouri, but because his horse was stolen, he was stuck in Kentucky. As a result, he met his wife in Kentucky, and had some kids by her, which, several more begats down the line, terminate in your birth. Is that a good result or a bad result?
If, however, God had intervened to prevent the horse thief from stealing your ancestor’s steed, he would have gone on to Missouri, met his wife there, and had some kids by her. You would never exist under that scenario.
Do you think that God should intervene to prevent the crime if the effect of that intervention is to preempt your own existence?
“Freedom for me is to be able to reject/accept God or be able to do good/do bad things.”
Do you feel free to lust for little children?
“If in heaven, we cannot do bad things, then there must be some sort of manipulation.”
No, sin is like mental illness or addiction. When God regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies a sinner, he is restoring that individual to his proper mental state. God is removing a mental impediment, not creating one.
“The idea of heaven, where people only do good things, and free will seems contradictory to me.”
It’s contradictory if you define freewill in libertarian terms.
“That's actually the argument of Christians for justifying the existence of evil. The "free-will" argument.”
That’s the argument which Arminians and other suchlike use. But that’s not the only theodicy available to Christians.
“Also, if God can actually allow free will but at the same time, pose some restrictions so that we can only choose good things, why didn't he make it the rule here on Earth?”
i) I reject the libertarian definition of freewill.
ii) It’s better to be a redeemed creature than to be an unfallen creature.
That was an interesting article. I grew up as an atheist, and in my 20s was struggling to come to terms with a God Whom I didn't really believe in. (Talk about textbook monergism.)
ReplyDeleteDuring that time in my life, I had also reached the point of realizing that non-belief in a supreme deity leaves one in a moral vacuum where there is no moral standard and no moral choices to be made.
"Live and let live" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may be the default ethic of most atheists, but if another atheist comes along, says, "That may be true for you but it's not true for me; I will do whatsoever I will" and then does whatever he will in contravention to the first person's wishes, on what moral standing can the first non-believer contest that? A non-believing community may enact laws to enforce a collective ethic that embraces the Golden Rule, but what is the absolute moral authority for those laws? If another non-believing community enacts laws that reject the Golden Rule and exult survival of the fittest, who has any moral standing to contest that?
And so it goes, on and on. This article's author was very prescient in pointing out the yawning moral chasm that stands before the person who's walked the wrong way through the gate of faith in God—the chasm of faithless life that is "nasty, brutish, and short," with no hope beyond the misery and transitory joys of this fallen world.
“Also, if God can actually allow free will but at the same time, pose some restrictions so that we can only choose good things, why didn't he make it the rule here on Earth?”
ReplyDeletei) I reject the libertarian definition of freewill.
ii) It’s better to be a redeemed creature than to be an unfallen creature.
**********
Piggy backing on Steve's last point
iia) Good ends are so much sweeter after going through trials or "seeing the other side." I know a Russian girl that is much more appreciative of living in America than most Americans. She's expereinced what it's like to live in a hellish civilization.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete---
It’s better to be a redeemed creature than to be an unfallen creature.
---
Not to mention: "For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:7-8).
Indeed, Christ Himself states: "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matthew 5:46).
So not only is it better for us to be redeemed, but it more expressly magnifies God's love. God could have kept Adam from sinning, but then His love would be demonstrated as something no better than that which even sinful people have toward other sinful people. In other words, if God wanted to show the depths of His love, He had to love sinners--those who hated Him enough to put Him to death. Anyone can love nice people who "deserve" to be loved; but what kind of character does it take for God to love those who are depraved?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is a post on my blog answering the type of questions posed by eyva eiram.
ReplyDelete---
Inevitably, talk about atheism gives rise to questions about God and evil, specifically "If God exists, why does evil exist?"
First, a correction: If God exists, then why does He allow evil to exist? This is the real question that we want to ask, not "why does evil exist?" Implicitly, we are accusing God of allowing unjust suffering and victimization. We question His motives for such allowance. We question his benevolence. We question whether he has the ability to intervene. Some of us even surmise that evil exists because God is evil Himself. For those of you who have gone beyond implicit to explict accusations, congrats for moving onto what I call ignorant pontificating.
Why didn't God stop the Holocaust? Why doesn't he stop rape? Why doesn't he stop murder? We also might as well ask why God doesn't stop gangsta rap, corporate theft, cheating on tests.
While we're asking, why doesn't God stop abortion and human cloning? (If you think that's different, I want to know why. Will you defend those things, pulling out pragmatic rationalizations and preach about rights and Moreauean cures?)
What about the husband who just needs a little action on the side? Why didn't God turn him off? In the end, some if not all of us will at some point identify and sympathize with a perpetrator and even defend his/her act of evil. There goes our credibility.
Bottom line, arbitrary human indignation cannot demand that God do something to right what we particularly think is a wrong, precisely because we are endemically fickle. Humans are walking contradictions, spreading our ignorant pontificating about ultimate justice but wanting to exempt ourselves from it. We have lost all credibility to rage against evil or to accuse God of anything. Remember, in this world, one man's racism is another man's right to free speech.
In the Christian perspective, we will see God's intervention but at His appointed time and on His terms, not ours. I could say that it all began with Jesus on a cross, but then you might not tolerate an "unjust" raking of your conscience over the coals to think about the evil in your own life, and wonder why God doesn't stop me.
I have one: Why doesn't God strike all atheists dead? That would certainly remove all doubt and doubters concerning His existence.
I have one: Why doesn't God strike all atheists dead? That would certainly remove all doubt and doubters concerning His existence.
ReplyDeleteThat shows another Bible contradiction, Lk 9:54-56 vs imprecatory Psalms, which Letitia seems to be trying her hand at writing.
She's also overlooking the fact that although Joe Atheist might be a hypocrite in his standards, he can still point out that it's internally nonsensical for the God of the Bible to express his hatred of evil, and then ordain that those acts of evil be committed.
I also see you're oriental. Doesn't it bother you that the reason Indians and Asians didn't invent Christianity is probably because they have a genetically different temperament? You and Ravi Zacharias are anomalies. If Luther could only have taken some prozac, he wouldn't have been obsessing over his justification. Why continue to be manipulated by your chemistry? Take control and say NO to religion.
Thnuhthnuh:
ReplyDeleteYour last paragraph is odd and not a little upsetting. I could mention the millions of "global South" Christians who are often more passionate and devout in their faith than Euro-American Christians.
Or I could mention that as a half-Jewish, half-Anglo-Scottish Canadian, one of the milestones in my own path to salvation was through a Bible study group of Chinese-Canadian born again Christians, who worked with me through the book of Hebrews over the course of a year.
God promised through the Old Testament prophets that He would call Gentile believers from all nations, and he makes us all—Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Romans, Indians, First Nations, and Chinese—one family, adopted as His sons and daughters.
Not only did thnuhthnuh use an incredibly insensitive appellation - "oriental" but he made a very racist comment. Doing your argument a lot of good there, buddy.
ReplyDeleteWhile the race-baiting diverted attention from the fallacy Thuhuhunununuh employed (probably the reason for it in the first place), I will point out the flaw.
ReplyDeleteThunhuuhfdsjhuih said:
---
She's also overlooking the fact that although Joe Atheist might be a hypocrite in his standards, he can still point out that it's internally nonsensical for the God of the Bible to express his hatred of evil, and then ordain that those acts of evil be committed.
---
How is that "internally nonsensical"? Why can't God hate X but love Y, which is a result of X, and therefore ordain X to pass so that Y can occur? How is that "internally nonsensical"?
It would only be a problem if God ordained evil for the sake of evil while still saying He hated evil. But no theist believes God ordains evil for the sake of evil.
BTW, to give an example of the "internally nonsensical" notion that one can ordain X for the sake of Y while simultaneously hating X....
ReplyDeleteI hate having my teeth ripped out. That didn't stop me from ordaining (scheduling an appointment, and then seeing it through no less) that my wisdom teeth be removed. I hated going through wisdom tooth extraction...but I'm glad I don't have to worry about dental problems.
If only I weren't so "internally nonsensical."
Thanks guys for your responses!
ReplyDeleterhology- how on earth is "oriental" racist? I've never heard of such a thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's nothing racist about pointing out differences between races, since they exist. I'm not advocating discrimination.
If we want to talk racism, what about your good buddies Doug "SSAIW" Wilson and littlegeneva?
"Suppose a horse thief, by his thievery, forced one of your forebears to change his plans. He was planning to settle down in Missouri, but because his horse was stolen, he was stuck in Kentucky. As a result, he met his wife in Kentucky, and had some kids by her, which, several more begats down the line, terminate in your birth. Is that a good result or a bad result?
ReplyDeleteIf, however, God had intervened to prevent the horse thief from stealing your ancestor’s steed, he would have gone on to Missouri, met his wife there, and had some kids by her. You would never exist under that scenario.
Do you think that God should intervene to prevent the crime if the effect of that intervention is to preempt your own existence?"
First, I believe that the body is merely a body, made up of matter. The parents do not create the child, they just create the body where God will infuse a soul. That means that it doesn't matter if that theif married another woman or not. If it's my turn to live then it's my turn to live no matter who gave birth to me.
“Freedom for me is to be able to reject/accept God or be able to do good/do bad things.”
No. But that's the point. Some people can definitely lust over children (child molestation). Of course, it is not allowed by our moral standards but it is "doable." This kind of thing, child molestation, is of course not doable in heaven or not even thinkable in heaven.
"No, sin is like mental illness or addiction. When God regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies a sinner, he is restoring that individual to his proper mental state. God is removing a mental impediment, not creating one."
If it is a mental illness, then why would sinners go to hell? Why are they to be blamed for the capability to do evil then go to hell because of it? Okay, you are going to say, Jesus died for our sins and asking forgiveness is very simple. But what if that sinner failed to do this in his life? What if being unrelentless is a part of this "mental illness" or retardation? Why will he go to hell for having a "mental illness"?
“The idea of heaven, where people only do good things, and free will seems contradictory to me.”
So in what kind of "free will" do you believe in?
EYVA EIRAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“First, I believe that the body is merely a body, made up of matter. The parents do not create the child, they just create the body where God will infuse a soul. That means that it doesn't matter if that theif married another woman or not. If it's my turn to live then it's my turn to live no matter who gave birth to me.”
i) No one has a “turn” to live, as if it’s inevitable that he will pop into existence sooner or later.
ii) You have such a loose view of the parent/child relation that you might as well believe in reincarnation—where the same soul can cycle through one body after another—like buying a new car. Surely you’ve noticed that kids share some of the character traits of their parents. Not to mention the bond between siblings, or twins.
Children are not discrete units. To some extent, the personality of the parents is reproduced in the child. Family resemblance isn’t limited to appearances. It runs much deeper.
That’s why many adopted children still feel a profound yearning to meet their natural parents. That’s a key feature of their self-identity.
Your view fails to do justice to the organic character of human nature in Scripture and experience.
iii) And even if we accepted your monadic view of human nature, it also overlooks the impact of social conditioning. An orphan raised by an evil stepmother in 13C Wales isn’t the same person as a child raised by John Piper and his wife—even if we posit your view of the soul.
“Some people can definitely lust over children (child molestation).”
If we go with your definition of freewill, then everyone would be capable of lusting for little children? Can you will yourself to lust for little children?
“This kind of thing, child molestation, is of course not doable in heaven or not even thinkable in heaven.”
But according to your definition of freewill, that inability would make the saints in heaven “automatons.”
“If it is a mental illness, then why would sinners go to hell.”
It would profit you to pay attention to the actual wording which people use before you go off on a tangent. I didn’t say it “is” a mental illness, now did I?
I said it’s “like” a mental illness or addiction. That’s called an analogy.
And I was also clear on the precise point of comparison: namely, that if someone is not in his right state of mind, then restoring him to mental health isn’t the same thing as “manipulation.”
No you’re changing the subject. Your original question had nothing to do with hell.
I’d add, though, that some, but not all, forms of mental illness are culpable. Both Bobby Fischer and Ted Kaczynski are (were) certifiable, and yet there’s nothing that obviously made them crazy, like brain cancer. Instead, they nursed their slights and resentments to the point where they made themselves crazy.
And, to take my other illustration, most folks are responsible for getting hooked on some addictive substance or addictive behavior. As such, they are also responsible for the consequences thereof.
“So in what kind of ‘free will’ do you believe in?”
Unfallen man:
Able to sin
Able to not sin
Unregenerate man:
Able to sin
Unable not to sin
Regenerate man:
Able to sin
Able to not sin
Glorified man:
Able not to sin
Unable to sin.
Peter: the burden of proof is on you. You must go to the dentist because you are not omnipotent. Burden is on you to show why God is compelled to use means repugnant to him when he's omnipotent (I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying the burden is on you).
ReplyDeleteSeparately it's a bit weird to see Steve quoting Gordon Clark, whom he loathes so much:
"There are thus three stages in the total human drama; before the fall, posse non peccare; and in the world to come, non posse peccare; but in this present world, non posse non peccare."
tnuh said:
ReplyDelete---
Peter: the burden of proof is on you. You must go to the dentist because you are not omnipotent. Burden is on you to show why God is compelled to use means repugnant to him when he's omnipotent (I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying the burden is on you).
---
Apparently you have problems grasping the flow of conversation. I've already provided a reason why God ordained evil in the 3/04/2008 12:04 PM comment.
You could interact with that comment if you were actually interested in discussion. Or you could instead pretend it was never made and say: "You have the burden of proof" as if that's a response.
BTW, even if I did not know of any compelling reason for God to allow evil to occur, that would not make it problematic for God to allow evil to occur. It is sufficent for me to say that God thinks He has a good reason. In your nihilistic universe, it isn't problematic if you disagree with God's value judgements. It's all relative and "might makes right" and God's bigger than you, so deal with it.
Even if I never understand God's reasons for doing action X, that in no way implies He has no reasons for doing action X. I don't understand why you claim to be a nihilist and then spend so much time disagreeing with people in a manner that you yourself has claimed is meaningless, yet that does not mean you have no reason for responding here.
The basis of your argument is itself flawed. The reasoning you employed was a fallacy. There's no aspect of your "argument" at all that is in any way coherent to rationality. But don't worry because my rejection of your "argument" is just as meaningless as the argument you put forth, if you're actually right and all.
But that brings up an interesting factoid. The burden of proof is actually on you to demonstrate how your personal concept of what is good or evil is relevant to anyone else. Why should anyone care whether you think God has sufficently moral reasons for ordaining evil? If I say that I don't care whether you think God's reasons are sufficient, how can you respond without abandoning your nihilism? What difference does it make whether you agree or disagree with God?
You want to have your cake and eat it too. Again this is because you're not really a nihilist at heart, you just use it to escape when your philosophy is exposed.
Separately it's a bit weird to see tnuh quoting Steve, whom he loathes so much....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeter Pike said:
ReplyDelete----------
I take this as aknowledgment that your position is philosophically inconsistent, as I've claimed many times in the past.
But I notice that you cannot escape from moral language, for you ask:
---
Is an atheist violating some absolute moral code when he acts morally?
---
Since there is no "moral code" in atheism, then no atheist acts "morally." This would be like saying: "Do I violate some unicorn aspect when I act unicornlike?" Since unicorns don't exist, such a question is meaningless. I cannot act "unicornlike" unless unicorns exist.
Nor can an atheist act morally unless morals exist. And if moral exist, then the atheist must justify their existence to be consistent with their philosophy.
But since you're not interested in consistency, I'm sure you'll be inconsistently upset when I point out you're inconsistent....
------------
This argument is fallacious. Just because I can use "the language of morality" does not mean that I believe that morality has an existence independent of humanity. For example, I can talk about "silly things" or "silliness", and I can also talk about "things that aren't silly." Silliness is objective for individual humans, but that doesn't mean that we have to extrapolate that silliness must be caused by some external being to humanity.
THNUHTHNUH SAID:
ReplyDelete"Separately it's a bit weird to see Steve quoting Gordon Clark."
I wasn't. The fourfold state of man is a tradition Reformed schema, going back to Augustine.
"Whom he loathes so much."
A silly overstatement. I disagree with Clark's epistemology. And I think his response to the problem of evil and the coherence of the Trinity is shallow.
Beyond that, Clark has many useful things to say.
lyosha07 said:
ReplyDelete---
This argument is fallacious. Just because I can use "the language of morality" does not mean that I believe that morality has an existence independent of humanity. For example, I can talk about "silly things" or "silliness", and I can also talk about "things that aren't silly." Silliness is objective for individual humans, but that doesn't mean that we have to extrapolate that silliness must be caused by some external being to humanity.
---
Except that you don't treat moral issues as if they're as meaningless as what you think is silly. If I said your sweater was silly looking you wouldn't take nearly as much offense as you would if I walked up to you and tried to murder you. Indeed, if you thought something was silly and I disagreed with your interpretation you wouldn't spend much time at all trying to change my mind on it; but if I decided I could help myself to your money any time I chose, you'd certainly get worked up and emphatic as you tried to convince me to let you keep your own belongings!
Moral issues are not relative and you know it. You don't behave at all as if morality is a personal choice; you behave as if it is objectively true.
Furthermore, if morality truly is subjective then you cannot ever use a moral argument against the existence of God (who's to say that your relative notion of morality is more important than God's?).
And finally, you yourself already confessed that you're inconsistent on this point. Why the fuss?
1) It is easy to see why moral issues are given much more weight than
ReplyDeletedeciding whether something is "silly." Moral issues often involve
questions of life or property of human beings. Moreover, both of the
examples you gave were instances where self-interest would play a huge role.
The purpose of my argument was to show that there are categories that
are objective of individual humans but are nevertheless given form
by humanity as a whole (morality being one of them).
"Moral issues are not relative and you know it. You don't behave at all as if
morality is a personal choice; you behave as if it is objectively true."
And your point is? That is how biology, genes, and social conditioning made me.
All of your arguments from God for morality ultimately boil down to one thing:
the fact that the human species is predisposed to exhibit a certain kind of
behavior (what we would recognize as morality). The answer as to why this is the
case is ultimately within the realm of evolutionary biology.
"Furthermore, if morality truly is subjective then you cannot ever use a moral argument
against the existence of God (who's to say that your relative notion of morality
is more important than God's?)."
1) I do not believe that morality is subjective for
individuals, but nevertheless does not enjoy an independent existence beyond
humanity as a whole.
2) Even if I was an utter relativist with respect to morality, I could make a moral
argument against the existence of evil because Christianity posits an objective morality.
It would thus be a matter of pointing out an internal inconsistency.
"And finally, you yourself already confessed that you're inconsistent on
this point. Why the fuss?"
Notice that I put "inconsistent" in quotation marks. Note that I also do not
believe that I am inconsistent at all with my atheism because there is very
little for me to be inconsistent with. I have not posited that morality exists
indepedently of humanity. Moreover, I do not see why Christians such as yourselves should be the arbiter of what is "consistent" with atheism and what isn't.