As I mused on this question I returned to another. If Pat was in fact satirizing me, they why would he call me an ethical subjectivist? After all, as I noted in my article:
Obviously Pat knows I am a hard-nosed ethical objectivist if ever there was one. Consider, for instance, my rather uncompromising critique of traditional notions of biblical genocide based on our intuitions of absolute moral axioms.
i) For the record, I think I’m the one, not Patrick Chan, who was first to slap the “ethical subjectivst” label onto Rauser. So if you want to blame someone, blame me.
ii) How funny that he claims to be a “hardnosed ethical objectivist,” then defends that self-classification by appealing to his moral “intuitions.” And he does so to repudiate objective Biblical norms.
Oh, sure, he can talk about “absolute moral axioms,” but that’s grounded in his subjective intuitions. So it’s no more “absolute” than how he personally feels about anything. That’s about as solid as bubblegum on hot pavement.
"objective Biblical norms"?!
ReplyDeleteIs genocide moral, or not?
How about human sacrifice?
Polytheism?
Slavery?
How about presenting something that resembles an actual argument rather than tendentious questions?
ReplyDeleteAre infidels capable of exercising independent thought. Or do they just regurgitate the talking points they've memorized from other infidels?
"...it’s striking how so many of his axiomatic moral intuitions just happen to coincide with the politically correct orthodoxies of the liberal establishment. The sort of folks who sit on Human Rights Commissions or Human Rights Tribunals, persecuting evildoers like Mark Steyn."
ReplyDeleteWell said. Great post!
Randy's self perception is obviously very skewed. He sees himself in a carnival mirror.
ReplyDeleteIn Christ,
cD
Steve, if you have compelling reasons why I should reject the conclusions re: these questions that I've reached after much blood, sweat, and tears, then I'm certainly willing to listen.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd rather hide behind ad hominems, then I'll be on my way.
Don't make the Bible into an idol.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteSince you haven't given me any reasons for your conclusions, what's asserted without argument can be dismissed without argument (to paraphrase Hitchens).
Moreover, it's not as if I haven't addressed these stock objections before.
Steve, I'm new to Triablogue, so if you or anyone else has offered a thorough and compelling rebuttal of Thom Stark (Human Faces of God, Is God a Moral Compromiser?), and more importantly, of the solid consensus scholarship that his work summarizes, then I'd be happy if you'd point me in that direction.
ReplyDeleteIt's disappointing enough that you and the Triablogue crew would cheaply mock and disparage Randal Rauser. What's even more surprising to me is that you would do so when it is your own position (inerrancy, objective biblical morality) that has been discredited.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, I'm new to Triablogue, so if you or anyone else has offered a thorough and compelling rebuttal of Thom Stark (Human Faces of God, Is God a Moral Compromiser?)."
Since Stark doesn't even bother to justify his moral framework, there's nothing to rebut. He simply takes his moral assumptions for granted. What's asserted without argument can be dismissed without argument.
"...and more importantly, of the solid consensus scholarship that his work summarizes, then I'd be happy if you'd point me in that direction."
There is no scholarly "consensus" on the Bible. Rather, you have liberals, moderates, and conservatives.
"It's disappointing enough that you and the Triablogue crew would cheaply mock and disparage Randal Rauser."
I've offered a mix of satirical and serious criticisms of Rauser.
"What's even more surprising to me is that you would do so when it is your own position (inerrancy, objective biblical morality) that has been discredited."
Another assertion bereft of argument.
Here are two examples of my interaction with Stark:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/fanaticism.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/youthful-student-syndrome.html
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete"It's disappointing enough that you and the Triablogue crew would cheaply mock and disparage Randal Rauser."
Are you equally disappointed that Thom Stark cheaply mocks and disparages his opponents?
Rise above, Steve, rise above! So because the tone of Stark's review of Copan was unfortunate (I feel no need to defend Stark on that account), you're justified in slandering Randal Rauser and anyone else you brand an "infidel"?
ReplyDeleteAs for Stark's actual arguments, his personal moral framework is irrelevant. He has argued that some of the biblical writers affirm human sacrifice, polytheism, etc. So unless you take the position that human sacrifice and polytheism are morally acceptable, you might do well to offer more of a rebuttal of Stark than two scant and beside-the-point blog entries [the 2 Kings 3 episode does not speak to the issue of whether Yahweh is a moral monster, but it does speak to the issue of inerrancy, which is Stark's primary overarching interest].
I'll sign off...
Not sure if you've seen this yet:
ReplyDeletehttp://randalrauser.com/2011/09/the-moral-confusion-of-steve-hays/
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Rise above, Steve, rise above! So because the tone of Stark's review of Copan was unfortunate (I feel no need to defend Stark on that account)..."
You're the one who originally objected on tonal grounds. When I answer you on your own terms, you suddenly shift ground.
"As for Stark's actual arguments, his personal moral framework is irrelevant."
It's completely relevant when he presumes to moralize about OT ethics.
"So unless you take the position that human sacrifice and polytheism are morally acceptable..."
This is not the first time I've addressed those objections. Try something new for a change.