Pages

Monday, March 24, 2008

Moral regress

john w. loftus said...

“One last illustration. Karl Popper argues that scientific knowledge progresses by conjectures (or guesses) which are in turn refuted for better conjectures (or guesses). He claims science progresses because we learn from our mistakes. In fact he claims all knowledge progresses in the same way, and I agree. We have learned from our mistakes. That's why our morals have developed into that which makes for a safer, more productive, and less barbaric people than in ancient times, which is reflected in the Bible.”

I’ve already pointed out several problems with this appeal. But let’s consider it from one more angle.

As I’ve said on several occasions, there’s more to human rights than moral absolutes. Even if, for the sake of argument, the unbeliever could ground moral absolutes, that, of itself, does nothing to show that human beings are entitled to certain rights or immunities. For a human being might not be the sort of entity which it is possible to wrong.

It would be an easy matter to turn Loftus’ argument on its head. For a philosophically stringent atheist could argue thusly:

Traditionally, we used to believe that human beings had certain inalienable rights because they were made in God’s image. But enlightened unbelievers now know that that conclusion is predicated on a false premise.

For one thing, the notion of the imago Dei is a relic of Bronze Age superstition. And if there is no God, then no one is made in God’s image.

Moreover, modern science has shown us that a human being is just a robotic survival machine, blindly programmed to preserve its selfish genes. Not only that, but Dawkins has also said that a human being is just a bacterial colony.

Furthermore, as Paul and Patricia Churchland have pointed out, pain and suffering are illusory. That’s a relic of folk psychology.

Hence, moral regress is the logical corollary of scientific progress. For the stately progress of scientific knowledge has taught us that the whole notion of human rights is founded on an antiquated and superstitious view of human nature. How can you wrong a robot? How can you abuse a bacterium? How can you mistreat a biochemical organism which is incapable of pain and suffering?

True, we have moral intuitions. But as Michael Ruse and Edward Wilson have explained to us, natural selection has conditioned us to entertain these delusive scruples because altruism confers a survival advantage.

All things considered, it’s high time for us to set aside these adolescent and obsolescent notions of human dignity so that we may embrace the logical conclusion that man has no more rights than a broomstick.

16 comments:

  1. Surely if non-believers have no logical reason for upholding ultimate objective morals then we should see billions of non-believing people acting logically by murdering, raping, cheating, and stealing at will with no regard for any consequences. There should be great mayhem in this world, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum. But if we do just fine without these supposed ultimate objective moral standards then why do we need them at all? And if there is no evidence supporting this claim of yours then I think the claim is false no matter how long the philosophers take to decide the issue (and I personally like participating in the philosophical debate as well).

    You would no doubt argue that the reason why nonbelievers don’t act consistently is because we really do have an ultimate standard for morality after all. But it does no good to say that there is such a standard when you cannot state what it is and how it should be applied to the specific ethical issues of our day, especially since Christians themselves cannot agree about such things, and especially when we see atrocities being commanded by God in the Old Testament, like child sacrifice and genocide. To assert there is such an ultimate ethical standard is a mere assertion not backed by the evidence. The fact is that our moral standards have changed down through the generations in each culture and from culture to culture.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As far as child sacrifice in the Bible goes, we're going to be posting more about it at DC, but here is a sampling of what we're finding. Harry McCall will be posting more about it soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The fact is that our moral standards have changed down through the generations in each culture and from culture to culture.

    Well,in that case, what's moral today might not be moral tomorrow. So why should we accept your criticisms of OT morality? Who's to say that a century from now, the Dystopian future will have arrived complete with Tina Turner running the Thunderdome and with them looking back on your own statements and calling them quaint, antiquated, etc., while they all rob, pillage, rape, and murder their neighbors because that's their moral standard?

    As far as child sacrifice in the Bible goes, we're going to be posting more about it at DC, but here is a sampling of what we're finding. Harry McCall will be posting more about it soon.

    Oh no! Whatever shall we do, another team member has come through the Revolving Door at your blog with insoluble questions?!

    1. I can't help but notice he didn't interact with any of the standard commentaries. That might just help.

    2. He asks, or is it you, since your name is attached to it: "Christian, how do you reconcile the God of reason, the God of perfect love, with the ways he dealt with people who worship other gods? This is some very nasty stuff here. He will make them eat the flesh of their children and neighbors! "

    Hmmm, let's see:

    a. God's love is not His only attribute. That objection might work against a doctrinally inept Southern Baptist or neo-Arminian Southern Baptist, but it won't work against us Calvinists, particularly Supralapsarians like Steve and me.

    b. God punishes the sins of His people by permitting them to fall into greater sin and with atrocities befitting reprobated pagans to fall upon them. So,what's the problem, exactly? Oh, I see, the idea that God "decrees" evil...well, golly, John, I don't know how us little old Calvinists can possibly overcome that objection?

    ReplyDelete
  4. JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:

    “Surely if non-believers have no logical reason for upholding ultimate objective morals then we should see billions of non-believing people acting logically by murdering, raping, cheating, and stealing at will with no regard for any consequences. There should be great mayhem in this world, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum. But if we do just fine without these supposed ultimate objective moral standards then why do we need them at all? And if there is no evidence supporting this claim of yours then I think the claim is false no matter how long the philosophers take to decide the issue (and I personally like participating in the philosophical debate as well).”

    This is practically a verbatim summary of your original post, which completely sidesteps my counterargument:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/loftus-on-skids.html

    And I’d add that, beyond my own counterargument, other Christian commenters have also taken issue with your post. You’ve been left in the dust.

    “You would no doubt argue that the reason why nonbelievers don’t act consistently is because we really do have an ultimate standard for morality after all.”

    That’s one reason. Another reason is that it isn’t always in their self-interest to commit evil.

    “But it does no good to say that there is such a standard when you cannot state what it is and how it should be applied to the specific ethical issues of our day.”

    That’s so vague and unsubstantiated that it merits no response.

    “Especially since Christians themselves cannot agree about such things.”

    If that’s your contention, then it equally falsifies any secular standard of morality since secular philosophers cannot agree on such things either. Yet you were originally defending secular morality. Are you now admitting that you lost that argument?

    The fact that two or more people disagree over the identity of a standard hardly means there is no standard. To the contrary, their very disagreement means that someone is mistaken (since contradictories can’t both be right)—which presupposes a standard.

    “And especially when we see atrocities being commanded by God in the Old Testament.”

    You have you to explain how you are in any position to render a value judgment about OT ethics.

    “To assert there is such an ultimate ethical standard is a mere assertion not backed by the evidence.”

    What kind of evidence? Moral norms are not empirical properties. What do you think would count as evidence for a moral norm? The color yellow?

    “The fact is that our moral standards have changed down through the generations in each culture and from culture to culture.”

    You keep shifting grounds. You originally appealed to the alleged existence of cultural universals like laws against rape, robbery, and murder. Now, however, you switch to moral relativism.

    “And especially when we see atrocities being commanded by God in the Old Testament, like child sacrifice and genocide…As far as child sacrifice in the Bible goes, we're going to be posting more about it at DC, but here is a sampling of what we're finding. Harry McCall will be posting more about it soon.”

    Such as:

    “What Micah was doing is trying to find the very best ways to please God, so he mentioned what he considered the best things. And it says he considered sacrificing a child along with the other sacrifices God demanded in order to please him.”

    That’s a ridiculous misinterpretation. Read Waltke’s standard commentary.

    Moreover, even if we took this literally, it wouldn’t be a divine command to commit child sacrifice.

    “Nor does it undercut that God demanded child sacrifices (Exodus 22:29”

    Patently false. God redeemed the firstborn. He didn’t command their sacrifice.

    “Ezekiel 20: 25-26).”

    Another blatant misinterpretation. Read the standard commentaries (Allen, Block, Duguid).

    “God certainly didn’t condemn Jepthah.”

    That’s not a divine command. Rather, Jephtha made an unlawful vow.

    This also disregards the point of Judges, which is to document Israel’s moral decline. It is hardly intended to be a textbook of exemplary ethics. Read the standard commentaries (Block, Younger).

    “And he even requested it of Abraham with no condemnation against the practice.”

    Deceptive. God prevented Abraham from sacrificing his son. It was a counterfactual command. A hypothetical test of faith. God knew it, but Abraham didn’t–since that would nullify the psychological dynamics of the test.

    “As a result of God’s actions many more children will die and/or be fatherless, and/or be eaten.”

    That’s not a divine command to commit child sacrifice. Rather, it’s an act of divine judgment on immoral parents. And the cannibalism is one of the heinous sins which merits the severity of divine judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Oh, I see, the idea that God "decrees" evil... well, golly, John, I don't know how us little old Calvinists can possibly overcome that objection?"

    You essentially can't. In the previous post I quoted Steve as saying that the only reason why common grace is distributed to unbelievers is so that the elect will be able to have a decent time on Earth. I only wish that Christians would talk about the elect and the reprobate more often. It would really cut out our work for us atheists, with us having to deal with annoying arguments that evil is caused by humanity's "free will" (I, like you, do not believe in free will, although I believe our actions are determined by wholly material causes). I would LOVE for preachers to quote Paul in Romans on the potter and his creation more often.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lyosha said:
    ---
    (I, like you, do not believe in free will, although I believe our actions are determined by wholly material causes).
    ---

    So what's the point? Why bother to interact with anyone? Que serra serra, etc.

    You do not understand the Calvinist position. Calvinists do believe in free will. It's a libertarian free will that we disagree with.

    The "lack" of free will of the Calvinist is in no way similar to the actual lack of free will that the naturalist has. There is a reason provided within the Calvinistic framework for why Calvinists do things such as evangelize, etc. God ordains means as well as ends. Hence, we have compatiblism.

    I do agree that, as an atheist, you are left with complete determinism. You can only do what your brain has encoded that you can do, and that's based off of the random reactions of quantum particles that form chemical bonds.

    Which brings up the fundamental question: if you cannot know anything (because everything you "know" is simply a chemical reaction that may or may not have any bearing with reality), why do you bother trying to convince others that you are correct?

    Oh, that's right. Your chemical reactions force you to do that. And my chemical reactions force me to mock your chemical reactions. That causes a chemical reaction in your mind that makes you feel "mad" at me. And that causes a chemical reaction that forces me to mock you all the more.

    But it's okay. When you blow up and go on a rampage through downtown screaming at the imaginary soldiers guarding the 7-Eleven, we won't blame you.

    It's Bush's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  7. By the way, Lyosha, I do hope you realize that you're criticizing Christians who simply believe in God because of a chemical reaction they had no control over. I mean, if what you say is true then the last thing in the world you can do is actually condemn Christians who believe that God really did command the death of the Canaanites, etc.

    What's one chemical reaction compared to another chemical reaction? How can you reasonably make an argument that Christianity is "a moral monstrosity" as you so recently claimed, if in fact the only reason anyone believes it is because they are forced to by chemical reactions beyond their control.

    It's apparent you haven't thought any of this through at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You essentially can't.

    Why would we desire to do so? That's the point. What's wrong with God decreeing the existence of evil?

    1. You can try to mount an internal critique, but if Calvinism is true, there's nothing wrong with this concept.

    2. You can try to mount an external critique,but if you do, you'll need to provide a non-arbitrary moral standard, which atheism denies.

    QED

    In the previous post I quoted Steve as saying that the only reason why common grace is distributed to unbelievers is so that the elect will be able to have a decent time on Earth.

    I'm also a Supralapsarian. I don't have a problem with this, so your objection is vacuous to me.

    By the way, Steve didn't say this, but he's argued this elsewhere, as have I, common grace is also given to the reprobate in order to inculpate them. The only reason common grace doesn't lead men to repent of their sins is because men love their evil, and evil came into the world by our own actions.

    Don't confuse a decree with causality. Decrees only make a thing certain. They are executed by Providence, and that includes "free will," though not LFW.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gene said...What's wrong with God decreeing the existence of evil?

    What's wrong with this? Your God is a despicable thug, a degenerative dictator, who can never be trusted, and who is unworthy of any kind of worship. Why you cannot see this is because you are blind. Why you’re so willing to bite this bullet in order to solve the problem of evil baffles me to no end. You believe the weight of evidence of historically conditioned documents as idiosyncratically interpreted by you, over the weight of the empirical evidence of horrible evils themselves. You must be very sure you are right about these historical documents in order to dismiss so easily the presence of the evil that surrounds you. It makes me think of pantheists with maya, who also deny what they experience on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Loftus, you're amazingly dull. Are you unable to understand that if you're going to call something a "horrible evil," that you need to either mount an internal critique or an external one? So far you're content with simply asserting that God is a "degenerative thug" without actually providing an ethical rationale for such a value judgment.

    You're unable to mount an honest, internal critique. That means that you're unable to demonstrate an inconsistency within the supralapsarian theodicy.

    You're also unable to successfully mount an external critique because you stop short of the most important step: a basis for the critique! What informs your understanding of God and of morality so as to enable you to use "despicable" to describe him? You can say that you don't like him, and relegate your wonderful opinion to your own private feelings, but when you start making value judgments it's dishonest of you to not provide your rationale.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If I'm "amazingly dull" I'm not the only one. The basis for my calling something "horribly evil" is based upon my acceptance of holistic happiness, which I argue we all share. That's all any of us can do, and so it's not a "private" ethic at all.

    I do find it amazing that you have a theology that commits you to love worship and obey a God you simply cannot trust to be loving, kind, or generous. As far as you know God will condemn people who believe and reward people like me who don't. Based upon what YOU believe about such a God you cannot say this will not be the case. But you continue to call me dull when it is you who might find yourself in hell.

    That IS amazing to me. Why not just trust your own instincts on this and rebel against such a despicable thug? After all, he may enjoy this. He would have decreed it if you did anyway.

    You live in a house of cards not built on solid ground. Your theology is consistent with itself but it flies in the face of everything else you experience. you are deluded like the paranoid schizophrenic who believes the CIA is after him. Given his assumptions he can fit everything into place, except that his assumptions just don't make sense.

    YOUR just do not make any sense. They are built upon a historically conditioned document written in a pre-scientific era AND a historically conditioned interpretation of that document.

    Go with your evolved sense of right and wrong on this. Go with the logical conclusion of what your theology commits you to. You cannot trust such a God based upon what you believe about him. Again, you cannot trust your God to do what you consider right by saving you, for you cannot trust what he revealed in the Bible. Then make the needed adjustments. If nothing else, reject Calvinism. It's a theology for angry people. It's a theology for justifying all suffering. It's a theology that makes atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Loftus,

    Your comments are starting to lead me to believe that some humans really did evolve from primordial goo.

    "The basis for my calling something "horribly evil" is based upon my acceptance of holistic happiness, which I argue we all share."

    Stalin would agree with you, especially when he's adding names to the Gulag list.

    "I do find it amazing that you have a theology that commits you to love worship and obey a God you simply cannot trust to be loving, kind, or generous."

    Loving, kind, and generous by what standard? Worshipping YHWH makes me feel holistically happy. :)

    Again, for the tenth time John, God is not another human being. He is the Creator and Sustainer of everything. We live and move and breath in Him. The only reason that we have any happiness at all is because of His sovereign grace. Because of this, it follows logically that He ALONE is worthy of worship.

    So, do you have a REAL internal or external critique?

    "Given his assumptions he can fit everything into place, except that his assumptions just don't make sense."

    Care to give any examples that haven't already been debunked by the members of this blog?

    "They are built upon a historically conditioned document written in a pre-scientific era AND a historically conditioned interpretation of that document."

    Another begging-the-question of worldviews statement. Modern Scientism is just as superstitious as pre-Enlightenment thinking. They just exchanged supernatural superstitions for naturalistic superstitions.

    "You cannot trust such a God based upon what you believe about him."

    Another ignorant statement. God is immutable.

    "It's a theology that makes atheists."

    Yes, infidels hate the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sinner said...Stalin would agree with you, especially when he's adding names to the Gulag list.

    What does that have to do with holistic happiness? I argue he wasn't. And I could equally ask why you couldn’t convince him he was wrong. The fact that we couldn't convince him he was wrong means nothing to either side. He was. And I could also ask you where your God was and why he didn't do something about him. Any decent moral person would be, but your God isn't a decent moral person and yet you love him. This God of yours is worse than Stalin yet you love your pain.

    SS Said...Loving, kind, and generous by what standard? Worshipping YHWH makes me feel holistically happy. :)

    I disagree, but the fact that I can't convince you of this means nothing at all.

    SS Said...Again, for the tenth time John, God is not another human being. The only reason that we have any happiness at all is because of His sovereign grace. Because of this, it follows logically that He ALONE is worthy of worship.

    So, the rules of morality he sets down don't apply to him, eh? Grow a brain! If you were in a cult and the cult leader said the same thing you would know to rebel because you are brainwashed. You are brainwashed.

    SS said, So, do you have a REAL internal or external critique?

    I'm appealing to that which you instinctively know. If that doesn't work then it doesn't.

    SS said...Modern Scientism is just as superstitious as pre-Enlightenment thinking. They just exchanged supernatural superstitions for naturalistic superstitions.

    You cannot possibly be that dull. Besides, I'm not talking about scientism, whatever you think this to be. I'm stressing that one should apply methodological naturalism to Biblical studies. Since it works everywhere else, why not here?

    SS said...Another ignorant statement. God is immutable.

    Then what is he actually like in the first place such that he won't change. This, you do not know.

    SS said...Yes, infidels hate the truth.

    Pure assertion without any evidence for it except a historically conditioned interpretation of a historically conditioned document written in a pre-scientific era. In no other area of disagreement would you make such an idiotic statement. Which diet is best? Which basketball team is the best? Which form of government is the best? Etc etc. We just have differing ways of seeing things and I find it incredibly stupid to say that someone does not what to know the truth about such matters. Listen, I do not want to go to hell. Can you understand that? Did you hear me? Again, I do not want to go to hell. Now why would I refuse to believe if I knew I would go to hell by my refusal? I just sincerely do not believe in a hell. That too is a superstitious doctrine that arose in the inter-testamental time.

    This is going nowhere fast...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "What does that have to do with holistic happiness? I argue he wasn't. And I could equally ask why you couldn’t convince him he was wrong."

    That begs the question: WHY was he actually wrong? Because YOUR sense of right and wrong said so? It made him happy to send people to the Gulags. The only way that he will ever face justice is if there is a hell. Otherwise, he got away with it. Duh.

    "And I could also ask you where your God was and why he didn't do something about him."

    You really are that ignorant, John. The Calvinists on this blog have given you a reason for why God doesn't have to act against evil. Why? Because man is evil and deserves eternal, conscious punishment, people don't merit God's protection. In fact, if we were to get what we deserve, God would take all of our lives and send us straight to hell. You've been told this over and over again. This is more of your modern, Western, denial of self-responsibility, entitlement-thinking occurring, John.

    You are justly a child of wrath. Repent.

    "I disagree, but the fact that I can't convince you of this means nothing at all."

    Again, by what standard? I don't except your standard of holistic happiness. I have my own standard, and it's totally against yours.

    "I'm appealing to that which you instinctively know. If that doesn't work then it doesn't."

    Instict. An evolved instinct? Like what my genes tell me to think? By your standard, if our genes are what we dance to (Dawkins), then my instinct is different than yours.

    "So, the rules of morality he sets down don't apply to him, eh?"

    The rules come from His Being. You still haven't shown us via internal critique that anything God did in the Bible went against His own laws. Sheesh!

    "If you were in a cult and the cult leader said the same thing you would know to rebel because you are brainwashed. You are brainwashed."

    Can anyone say "Category Error"?!

    God is not a cult leader. He is not a finite being. If the God of the Bible really does exist, then by logical default, He alone deserves worship. Care to beg any more questions today?

    "I'm stressing that one should apply methodological naturalism to Biblical studies. Since it works everywhere else, why not here?"

    No, it doesn't. I don't believe that it works as to the beginning of the universe or the existence of all of life. Again, more question-begging.

    Secondly, I don't accept your high empiricist epistemology. So again, your begging the question.

    "Then what is he actually like in the first place such that he won't change. This, you do not know."

    The Bible tells what He is in the first place. Did you learn anything while in seminary?

    "Pure assertion without any evidence for it except a historically conditioned interpretation of a historically conditioned document written in a pre-scientific era."

    More begging the question. I don't accept your so-called "post-Enlightenment" worldview. People didn't become any less superstitious after the Enlightenment.

    "We just have differing ways of seeing things and I find it incredibly stupid to say that someone does not what to know the truth about such matters."

    The statement that you made was that Calvinism causes people to be atheists.

    But in Christianity, Original Sin was the desire to be as sovereign as God. Thus, Calvinism strikes at the very heart of sinful man's desires. Sinful man hates the truth that God is sovereign and will exchange this truth for a lie.

    "Listen, I do not want to go to hell. Can you understand that? Did you hear me?"

    Of course you don't want to go to hell. You want to be your own god sovereign over yourself and anything you have or can acquire. Thus, you shun the very God who gives you life and were MADE to serve. Thus, if the Bible is true, then by logical default, this is the first and most heinous evil in the universe.

    "That too is a superstitious doctrine that arose in the inter-testamental time."

    More question begging from a naturalistic worldview which sees all past people as stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sinner said...Duh.

    You really are that ignorant, John.

    You are justly a child of wrath. Repent.

    Sheesh!

    Can anyone say "Category Error"?!

    Again, more question-begging.

    So again, your begging the question.

    Did you learn anything while in seminary?

    More begging the question.

    You want to be your own god sovereign over yourself and anything you have or can acquire.

    More question begging from a naturalistic worldview which sees all past people as stupid.


    It's such a joy visiting here. What a beautiful faith you have. It makes me want to believe what you do and treat people who disagree as you do....NOT!

    What an ugly, ugly faith you have. You're drinking from a fountain of filth. Enjoy it if you want to, but I'll have no part of it. I'd rather be, well, humane.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What's wrong with this? Your God is a despicable thug, a degenerative dictator, who can never be trusted, and who is unworthy of any kind of worship. Why you cannot see this is because you are blind. Why you’re so willing to bite this bullet in order to solve the problem of evil baffles me to no end..

    What's wrong with this? It's a load of emotionalism without any substance. You cannot see this because you're blind - no, stupid - no, incompetent. Hmmm, it's difficult to find the right description here; there are just soooo many.

    You asked a question in your "article" to us about an "all loving God." The problem is, of course, that, as Calvinists, we deny that God is "all loving." So, you're complaint would only work against some Arminians. You're like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.

    To even raise this objection, you need to establish that God is "all loving" if God exists. To do that, you'll need to do something like prove Arminianism over and against Calvinism.

    It's only "biting the bullet" with respect to theodicy, John, if it would thereby mean that there is such a thing as *gratuitous* evil - but as Calvinists, we deny this, and our theology does so quite consistently.

    It's only those who embrace the Free Will Defense as you did when you were an Arminian, that would be led into having to admit that such evils existed if God decrees evil. Why? Because their theology is calculated as an objection to ours. We've been over this with them before. If God did not "decree" evil, then its unplanned, and unplanned evil is, in fact, gratuitous.

    So, I'm willing to "bite this bullet" because "biting this bullet" doesn't lead to where you think it does, unless you're an Arminian. That's what I keep trying to tell you, John. You write this sophomoric objections to Christianity that don't begin to touch our theology. I guess that's what you get for studying with Craig, good Arminian that he is. It makes the job much easier for us though.

    You believe the weight of evidence of historically conditioned documents as idiosyncratically interpreted by you, over the weight of the empirical evidence of horrible evils themselves.

    Grammatical-historical exegesis of the texts you used in your "paper" to which you linked doesn't select for a particular interpretation. The "idiosyncratic" intepretation is the one that acontextually interprets the texts.

    There is no "empirical evidence" for "evil." "Evil" is a moral evaluation of events.

    I do find it amazing that you have a theology that commits you to love worship and obey a God you simply cannot trust to be loving, kind, or generous.

    On the contrary, the God of the Bible reveals Himself to be very predictable with respect to His covenants. As long as I meet the obligations I have in the covenant, He is very loving,kind, and generous. If I apostatize, He is not loving, kind, and generous. All that is needed for me to trust God is this consistency.

    As far as you know God will condemn people who believe and reward people like me who don't. Based upon what YOU believe about such a God you cannot say this will not be the case.

    Your Arminian upbringing is speaking here - again. This is the old "the Calvnist version of God makes God 'arbitrary'" straw man rearing its ugly head. Oh my, we've never heard that before. How, oh how, will we ever respond?!

    I'm appealing to that which you instinctively know. If that doesn't work then it doesn't.

    The answer, then, I take, it John, is that you can't mount a viable internal critique or external critique. That's a real timesaver. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete