i) For 300+ pages, Stark waxes indignant over Copan and the OT. Yet Stark never bothers to lay the necessary framework for his knee-jerk moralizing. What is the metaphysical basis for Stark’s value-judgments?
ii) Stark automatically appeals to source criticism and redaction criticism to discount evidence that’s inconvenient for his thesis. So he indulges in special pleading. Contrary evidence is outsourced or redacted out of existence. The remaining evidence just so happens to agree with him.
"For 300+ pages, Stark waxes indignant over Copan and the OT. Yet Stark never bothers to lay the necessary framework for his knee-jerk moralizing. What is the metaphysical basis for Stark’s value-judgments?"
ReplyDeleteNot only that, they need to give us a detailed picture of the god they believes exists, his power, his knowledge, etc.
For we know this:
[BB] Some babies have been bludgeoned.
and we know this
[RSG] If Rauser or Stark were God, and Rauser or Stark infallibly believed that a baby was going to be bludgeoned, and Rauser or Stark had the ability to prevent it, then deities Rauser and Stark would stop it, for it would be immoral of them to do so.
and we know this
[MSG] Rauser and Stark don't believe that they are morally superior to the God that actually exists.
and we posit classical Christianity
[CC] God infallibly believes whatsoever comes to pass or will come to pass
I say the conjunction of [BB] and [RSG] and [MSG] is inconsistent with [CC].
One escape might be open theism, but of course it is true that if Rauser or Stark believed with a high degree of probability that a baby might be bludgeoned, Rauser and Stark would do whatever it took to make sure it didn't happen, which means they think they are morally superior to even the Open Theist god.
Paul, I suspect they'd say that there's a difference between allowing violations of morality to take place and God's decreeing that babies be bludgeoned.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteReally? So would Rasuer consider himself upright and morally decent in this scenario:
Suppose Rauser lives next door Thom. Due to a tumor in his brain, Rauser has infallible beliefs about all of his neighbors future actions (it also has the nasty consequence of producing horribly poorly-reasoned theological beliefs, but let's leave that aide). On one particularly rainy day Rauser's tumor produces in him an infallible belief that Thom is going to bludgeon his baby at 3:00 p.m. Rauser looks at his clock, it's 2:50 p.m. There's plenty of time to do something about it. For starters, Rauser is also a roid-raging weightlifter and could easily beat down the scrawny leftist Thom, who also happens to be a vegan (not to mention, he drives a Smart car). However, as it happens, Judge Judy (Rauser's favorite show) is in the process of concluding one particularly interesting case, and so Rauser just sits in his lazy boy and does absolutely nothing (but of course he laments what happened and tells his neighbors that baby bludgeoning is a horrible thing and that it is just obviously wrong). On your view, Rauser's not a moral monster undeserving of positive reactive attitudes directed his way. Gottcha.
Sheesh, it's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
Geez, dude. Who's bitter?
ReplyDeleteI understand exactly what you wrote, and have thought along similar lines myself. And I certainly do not intend to imply that my statement was actually TS and RR approved -- it was a mere supposition on my part as to one way of avoiding your criticism. Now that I think about it a little more, the free will and/or greater good defenses are rather more common among apologists than critics of apologists.
So please don't read the rest of what I say as Randal or Thom speaking. I have a feeling at least Thom will disagree with me.
One way to respond to your scenario is to say that God may have purposes that transcend and overwhelm our objections from pain. The kind of divine command theory implicit in your remarks, in which God sets the standard as whatever the "hell" he likes, which is different from the standard to which he holds us (we're held responsible for raising hell, especially bludgeoning babies) is far more problematic than supposing that God counts bludgeoning babies as evil but allows evil to be done because he (unlike Rauser in your scenario) is in a position to reverse/correct it.
Allowing your child to experience the consequence of ignoring your instructions, resulting in a reversible (non-permanent) injury so that something better may come of it (e.g. learning her lesson) is hardly along the same lines as giving her instructions for the purpose of causing her irreversible injury for your own benefit and no benefit of her own.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI understand exactly what you wrote, and have thought along similar lines myself. And I certainly do not intend to imply that my statement was actually TS and RR approved -- it was a mere supposition on my part as to one way of avoiding your criticism.
How do you figure? My "criticism" had *nothing* to do with God *decreeing* anything, it had to do with him *knowing about* and having the *ability to stop* baby bludgeoning. Your supposition did *nothing* to get around my criticism.
"One way to respond to your scenario is to say that God may have purposes that transcend and overwhelm our objections from pain."
Right, and if you or I *decreed* some evil, that would (or likely would be) wrong. However, *God* may have a "purposes that transcend our objections from pain" when *he* decrees some evil. So if they make this move I get to too.
"The kind of divine command theory implicit in your remarks"
There is no "divine command theory" that is "implicit in my remarks," but if you think you can draw out the implication from premises I endorse, using valid rules of inference, be my guest.
"is far more problematic than supposing that God counts bludgeoning babies as evil but allows evil to be done because he (unlike Rauser in your scenario) is in a position to reverse/correct it."
Really? How so?
"Allowing your child to experience the consequence of ignoring your instructions"
How did a baby ignore God's consequences? How can it experience "consequences?' Doesn't bludgeoning rather put an end to "experience?"
"resulting in a reversible (non-permanent) injury so that something better may come of it (e.g. learning her lesson) is hardly along the same lines as giving her instructions for the purpose of causing her irreversible injury for your own benefit and no benefit of her own."
Doesn't work, bubba. Note well that Rauser thinks bludgeoning babies is *intrinsically wrong.* It's just "wrong." Period. There's no justification for it. None. Likewise, his sitting in the chair and watching Judge Judy while Thom the baby bludgeoner does his bludgeoning, even though he knew it would happen if he did nothing, and even though he had the power to stop it, is just wrong. Period. There's no excuse for it. None.
But you want to go down the road that baby bludgeoning, or failing to stop said bludgeoning when you can, may be justified, permissible, non-culpable, etc., if you have some good reason to allow it. But the Calvinist can *easily* make these moves. The defender of the traditional reading of these texts can *easily* make these moves. At best you can only whine and say, "But *I* don't happen to think those ends justify it." Well, I can likewise retort similarly about the ends you feel justify it. Furthermore, it's a helluva argument to make that you know which ends are not allowed to justify it, or that God has no possible justification you are not aware of.
So, neither Rauser, Stark, or yourself have anything to say to my challenge unless you put that pink dress on god and put a ribbon in his hair and teach him how to curtsey. But why think being forced to worship Shirley Temple is an appropriate price to pay for denying the traditional reading of these texts?
So, Paul, what you are saying is that unless God is described as being the big ass-kicker that *you* interpret him to be, then it there is some moral knee-jerking going on?
ReplyDeleteIf God is revealed to us, in full, in the person of Christ then what Christ said and did is NOT consistent with what you claim is presented in "traditional reading" of the OT. That would make for a schizophrenic God and a very confused people. Or, worse, it makes for a God who acts VERY human and is hardly worthy of worship (which, I think, is part of the point made by Stark and Rauser).
At best you're making an appeal to ignorance and hoping it sticks.
If I know it's wrong, Steve knows it's wrong, YOU know it's wrong and Stark knows it's wrong, then how does it magically become "right" for God to commit wanton murder "for His glory??" You make God no different than Megatron or Cobra Commander (both of whom I chose to demonstrate how even a child can discern the morality that you claim Stark should provide evidence for).
You can't call and evil act "good" just because you want to attribute it to God. If so, then you have effectively made the words "good" and "evil" meaningless.
I realize that your "UFC Jesus of Justice" will make Driscoll smile. However, it really betrays your poor understanding of literature in general and myth in particular. You're guilty of leaning on those interpretations that cater to your male ego while accusing others of doing the same. How weak is that??
So, Paul, what you are saying is that unless God is described as being the big ass-kicker that *you* interpret him to be, then it there is some moral knee-jerking going on?
ReplyDeleteWhere did I describe God? Where did I say anything about my position? Where did I do anything other than point out that Rauser and Stark needed to give us a God compatible with their moanings and groanings?
If God is revealed to us, in full, in the person of Christ then what Christ said and did is NOT consistent with what you claim is presented in "traditional reading" of the OT.
Derive the inconsistency. Moreover, Christ did plenty of things Rauser and Stark wouldn't do. Jesus had the power to raise every little sick child who died young and give them back to their parents, but he didn't. He just raised his bro and then kicked back with him and knocked back a few beers as they watched gladiator games. If you had the power to raise the dead, would you be selfish with it? Would you say to mourning parents, "Guys, just chill. I'm gonna raise my homies, but it's all good, you're going to see your loved ones again at the resurrection."
Make sure that after you've placed Jesus and the Bible on your Procustean bed in order to make them nice to modern itching ears, we can still recognize them.
Or, worse, it makes for a God who acts VERY human and is hardly worthy of worship (which, I think, is part of the point made by Stark and Rauser).
How so? I thought Rauser and Stark said that it's just basic to human beings that they believe bludgeoning babies is wrong, such that one could barely be human without said moral intuition. So either Rauser and Stark are saying God is so human that he must fit into all of our human intuitions (don't know 'bout 'cha, but the trinity and the incarnation aren't very "intuitive" to me, but never mind), or they're saying they're godlike as compared to us puny mortals.
If I know it's wrong, Steve knows it's wrong, YOU know it's wrong and Stark knows it's wrong, then how does it magically become "right" for God to commit wanton murder "for His glory??"
I see we have another dullard who just can't get it. What view of God do you have? If I know it's wrong, Steve knows it's wrong, Stark and Rasuer know it's wrong, then YOU know it's wrong to sit by and watch a baby bludgeoning when you had an infallible belief that it would happen and you had the power to stop it. What makes it right for God to do what you would be a moral monster for doing? Is it "for His glory??"
You can't call and evil act "good" just because you want to attribute it to God."
I don't.
I realize that your "UFC Jesus of Justice" will make Driscoll smile. However, it really betrays your poor understanding of literature in general and myth in particular.
I realize your inability to grasp arguments and mount a compelling counter argument would make Thom Stark and Randal Rauser proud, but it betrays your inability to think through these things with the relevant mental ability required.
"You're guilty of leaning on those interpretations that cater to your male ego while accusing others of doing the same. How weak is that??
I have no clue what you're talking about. Sheesh, given your view, I wonder why when I look around me the oceans aren't made of chocolate milk and the clouds aren't made of marshmallows and my neighbor down the street not taken to heaven early so that he couldn't get arrested for his third incident of child molestation. Some god you serve. He must like salty oceans and child rapists, and you call me insensitive! Wait, are you really Mark Driscoll?
Steve, You wrote: "i) For 300+ pages, Stark waxes indignant"
ReplyDeleteHave you compared that number with the number of pages on your blog and your own self-published works? Especially the most indignant of your pages?
________________
Steve, you also wrote: "What is the metaphysical basis for Stark’s value-judgments?"
When have "metaphysics" provided the basis for anything? You wanna commit mass slaughter, have multiple wives, own slaves? Theological metaphysics says, Go right ahead if you think (in typical ancient Near Eastern fashion) that it makes your "god" happy. Today of course you think those same things no longer make your "god" happy. Call it "theological relativism" rather than "cultural relativism." But theological folks don't want to call it "theological relativism," hence all the apologetics to try and prove it's not.
See also these expositions of ancient Near Eastern (including Hebrew) theological world views: http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2010/10/rise-of-monotheism-israels-theological.html
_______________
Steve, you wrote, "Contrary evidence is outsourced or redacted out of existence. The remaining evidence just so happens to agree with him."
An apt description of Copan's lop-sided methodology. See no good in other ANE eastern laws, and see no evil in ancient Hebrew ones.