There
are different secular value theories. One is social contract theory. That
imposes a uniform code of conduct. However, it’s arbitrary. It varies in time
and place. Different societies with different social mores, or even the same
society with different social mores at different times.
Another is evolutionary ethics. A problem with that is the
even if natural selection could confer moral instincts, this wouldn’t make our
instinctive predilections objectively right or wrong. Moreover, moral instincts
would vary according to the species. Different species with different moral
instincts.
Let’s consider both these positions from another vantage
point. Alien invasion is a common theme in the SF genre. In one variation,
earth has a rare natural resource which the aliens need to survive or flourish.
In another variation, aliens use humans as experimental test-subjects.
From a secular standpoint, there’d be nothing wrong with a technologically
superior alien civilization exploiting us. The alien race has its own social
contract, based on alien cultural values. Likewise, the alien race has its own species-variable
moral instincts.
There’d be nothing wrong with aliens using humans for
involuntary medical research, just as we use animals. We experiment on humans
rather than animals because we value humans more highly than animals. Why experiment
on humans if an animal will suffice? Better to sacrifice an animal for our
benefit.
Likewise, there’d be nothing wrong with aliens exterminating
the human race to monopolize our natural resources. They have a different
social contract: a social contract by and for aliens.
From a secular standpoint, there’d be nothing wrong with a technologically superior alien civilization exploiting us.
ReplyDeleteI've encountered some atheists who bite the bullet and admit that, assuming atheism, an extra-terrestrial species that's superior to us 1. intellectually and 2. in technological might would be morally consistent to treat humans like animals, just as humans treat lower animals beneath them (like how we make hamburgers out of cows).
Yet, they inconsistently grumble and complain when we talk about God, who is even more supremely intelligent and powerful than advanced ETs (God being omniscient/omnisapient and omnipotent) and His exercise of Sovereignty in election and predestination.
Maybe to become consistent with their principles all anti-Calvinists should stop eating meat and become Vegans.
Anyway, there are other difference between ETs and the Calvinist God.
1. God created us from nothing (ex nihilo), whereas ETs (at the most) could have only "made" us by genetic experimentation/manipulation. God as THE Creator has the right to deal with His creation in a greater way because of His ontological and metaphysical superiority.
2. God is the standard of goodness, whereas ETs are not and could not be. ET morality (assuming atheism) cannot overcome the Euthyphro Dilemma like Divine Essentialism or Divine Command Essentialism can.
3. Even if Divine Essentialism were not an option and we had only Divine Voluntarism, the source of creaturely morality would be singular and not be arbitrary (even if people might complain the content of the morality as being arbitrary) since it's transcendent. Whereas ET morality would admittedly be relative (a cacophony of competing moral voices). For example, some in their society might belong to PETH ([extra-terrestrial] People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans) who oppose those who enjoy eating manburgers with frenchman fries and a diet soft drunk. *g*
4. ETs would not be the greatest conceivable being and therefore wouldn't possess (individually or collectively) the great-making properties God does.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess said:
Delete"Let's not! How about we focus on things of more substance and cast this foolishness into the ash heap of aburd speculations which is where is belongs. What are a profund waste of time."
Actually, Ed, your comment is itself a bit unsubstantial. For starters, you don't even bother to explain why you think this post is "foolishness," "a profound waste of time," etc. Is it a waste of time because it's speculative? What's wrong with speculation? Is it foolishness because it's fiction? What about Jesus' parables? And so forth. It seems to me you're just ranting and raving here.
By the way, based on your comment here and previous comments, you might want to consider whether you're holding a grudge against Steve. It comes across that way at times.
Ed, we're not here to please you. Apologetics uses thought-experiments.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Paul was very adaptive. A master of cross-cultural evangelism.
DeleteMany people enjoy science fiction. So we can use science fiction scenarios in apologetics and bioethics.
Ed Dingess said:
ReplyDelete"I wonder what Paul would have said if he heard such a defense of Christianity."
I see the post more as a critique of secular ethics. But maybe I'm mistaken.
"Because the argument is pure speculation, and because it creates as many, if not more problems for Christianity than it solves, I find it utterly absurd and entirely useless."
1. I don't see how invading aliens would necessarily be so problematic for Christianity. It could be God created these aliens. It could God chose not to redeem these aliens.
2. Sometimes what was science fiction yesterday is science today, and it's possible what's science fiction today could be science tomorrow. Take marine exploration. Or people landing on the moon. Or robots. Or geosynchronous satellites. Or bioengineering. So there could be a fine line between speculation and reality. (Of course, sometimes the speculative is indeed simply absurd.)
3. You might not believe aliens exist, but many secularists do. So there's at least some sort of common ground to enter into dialogue with some secularists by posing these sorts of scenarios.
Comment has been blocked.
The thought-experiment isn't based on the actual or probable existence of E.T.s. Ethicists often use hypothetical situations which may not be realistic, precisely because an artificial illustration can precisely focus the issue, without extraneous considerations.
DeleteEd Dingess said:
Delete"I suppose I may tend to focus on the utter irrationality of believing that aliens exist but God does not."
Speaking for myself, I don't see good evidence for the existence of aliens. At the same time I don't think it's necessarily utterly irrational, a waste of time, or sinful to speculate about their possible existence in the context of apologetics. Sure, it can be. But I don't see how it necessarily is so.
Anyway, you obviously disapprove (loudly!) of this sort of speculation. But for all your derision I still don't see any reasons for why you think so. I just see a lot of huffing and puffing.
In any case, I do apologize for getting us off topic. What I've said is at best secondary to Steve's post.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess said:
Delete"I would argue that it crosses the line when it ventures into areas that have been clearly marked off-limits by God's intentionally NOT choosing to reveal them to us. Some things we can never know! Now, as shocking as that may sound, it is the truth. God has a right to keep some things to Himself. I would suggest that speculation about the existence of aliens somewhere in the universe and their potential invasion of humankind is baseless speculation...In other words, stay away from those things which the Lord had not revealed."
So Steve's thought-experiment is "clearly marked off-limits" simply because God hasn't revealed it to us in his word? Well, God hasn't revealed a number of things to us in his word. For example, he hasn't revealed how to build a car in his word. He hasn't revealed computers or the internet in his word. He hasn't revealed the intricacies of mathematics and physics in his word. He hasn't revealed the art of calligraphy in his word. He hasn't revealed the details of how to perform surgery in his word. He hasn't revealed American history and politics in his word. He hasn't revealed Christian literature like the Pilgrim's Progress or Narnia in his word. Is it therefore utterly irrational, a waste of time, and sinful to speculate about these subjects?
Steve said...
ReplyDeleteEd, we're not here to please you. Apologetics uses thought-experiments.
As Steve and others have pointed out in the past, the Apostle Paul used a thought experiment in the sorites argument he uses when he spoke hypothetically of the consequences that would result if Jesus didn't rise from the dead (1 Cor. 15:12ff.)
Ed Dingess said...
For indeed, if aliens invade earth and torture humans, having their own social contract, it would be clear that Christian truth would have more explaining to do than the atheist.
Christian truth would have more explaining to do, but an alien invasion wouldn't disprove that the Christian God exists. Since, it's logically and theologically possible that both are true.
Ed Dingess said...
Because the argument is pure speculation, and because it creates as many, if not more problems for Christianity than it solves, I find it utterly absurd and entirely useless.
By that reasoning Paul's hypothetical thought experiment does worse. Paul's hypothetical assumes for the sake of argument that Christ didn't rise from the dead. Which would mean either that the messiah didn't live sinlessly, or that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, or that the Christian God doesn't exist, or that no God/gods exists at all.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Once again, Ed Dingess, you sure are taking a lot of umbrage over something you assume without argument is wrong, i.e., that it's wrong to speculate about certain things. After all, if a case can be made to support your heated denouncements of speculation, thought-experiments, and the like from Scripture, then why not make it? For example, how does Deut 29:29 forbid speculation of the sort that Steve's post is about? Otherwise, if you keep pronouncing these sorts of judgments and woes upon people absent argumentation, you're behaving irrationally (to say the least).
DeleteEd, my point was that there's nothing in the Bible that would make the existence of extra-terrestrials impossible (even though it's highly unlikely given what **is** revealed in Scripture). In which case, if they did exist, then there's the logical possibility of their invasion. In which case, humanity would have to defend themselves just as we have when attacked by newly discovered and spreading infectious diseases.
DeletePaul never assumed for the sake of argument that Christ did not raise from the dead.
Paul explicitly states, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor. 15:17). This clearly seems to be a case where Paul used a thought experiment to show the logical consequences of what would happen of Christ didn't actually rise from the dead.
Ah, the world of theory, where we can speculate about whatever we want, where our thoughts are absolutely free to wander wherever they please.
Paul says we are to cast down arguments and "speculations" (2 Cor. 10:5 NASB) and make them captive to the obedience of Christ. If Christian scholars didn't study the speculations of the unregenerate, then they wouldn't be able to cast them down and refute them. For example, if Christian scholars and apologists refused to study the Documentary Hypothesis, then Christians at large would be vulnerable to its errors. For Christians to hide their heads in the sand, thinking that ignoring the challenges will make them go away, would be to capitulate to unbelievers. Yet, Paul was familiar enough with Pagan sources that he quotes Menander, Epimenides and Aratus (and possibly Cleanthes).
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess said:
Delete"First of all, there are numerous episodes in Scripture where woes are pronounced without a single solitary argument."
I recall our Lord himself doing so. But I'm quite sure you're not the Lord!
"Second, I am far more concerned with being ethical than I am with some logician's assessment that I am being irrational."
First off, I'm hardly asking you to become some high falutin' "logician" or scholar or what not. (Although this is ironic considering your Blogger profile indicates you hold "BTh ThM ThD" degrees and are a "Member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.") I'm simply asking you why you think thought-experiments like the one in Steve's post are so wrong. So far all you've done is huff and puff, and then cite Deut 29:29 as if citing a proof-text ipso facto answers the question.
Also, you're the one who originally said speculation of the kind in Steve's post is "irrational." Not to mention "absurd," "entirely useless," "foolishness," deserving of being "cast...into the ash heap," "a profound waste of time," and "sinful." So you're free to call speculation and thought-experiments like the one in this post "irrational," but you retreat into a sort of holier-than-thou attitude or mock piety and say you're "far more concerned with being ethical" when I challenge you to make sense of what you've said?
Earlier you said: "Just make sure you disclose this fact to any church that is thinking of hiring you or to any board that is thinking about ordaining you. Let the chips fall where they may." Perhaps you should show your fellow elders or parishioners your comments in this thread. Is the attitude and behavior you're exhibiting here becoming of a Christian?
"Third, I am actually not being irrational if I am announcing what is true."
But the most obvious problem is you're not actually "announcing what is true." Again, you're merely proof-texting.
"Exegete Deut. 29:29 and then 2 Tim. 2 and let me know if you find any basis whatsoever that directs beleivers to be careful about speculation, not to mention the constant entanglement of intellectual joisting."
DeleteActually, you didn't exegete Deut 29:29. But that's besides the point because I accepted your interpretation for the sake of argument. You took Deut 29:29 to indicate we should "stay away from those things which the Lord had not revealed." But that's problematic for the reasons I point out above.
"As attractive as it is, it can lead to spiritual ruin the same as any other autonomous behavior."
Sure, I suppose it's possible speculation and thought-experiments might "lead to spiritual ruin" for some. Just like many other things in life including otherwise licit things (e.g. there's nothing wrong with browsing the internet but perhaps for some it could "lead to spiritual ruin"). But the problem is you're assuming speculation and thought-experiments like this one necessarily "lead to spiritual ruin" for everyone.
By the way, you've described how "attractive" this sort of speculation is for you. How "irresistibly seductive" it is for you. How these "tease" you so. But that's not necessarily the case for everyone. For instance, I sometimes find thought-experiments interesting. But I wouldn't say speculation and thought-experiments are "irresistibly seductive" or "tease" me or that I "revel" in them.
Yet you "encourage" people to "examine our heart motives for why we revel so in such unanswerable complexities." As such, it seems to me you're tempted by something many people aren't tempted by, which is fine. But it seems to me the problem is you want to forbid speculation and thought-experiments in others too.
It's as if you're a guy who is tempted by sports. So you denounce watching sports or participating in sports. You say watching sports is irrational, a profound waste of time, and sinful. You say it can lead to spiritual ruin. But that's hardly the case for many if not most people.
Comment has been blocked.
AP is right. Paul does assume the non-Resurrection for the sake of argument. He poses a hypothetical he doesn't believe in to illustrate the consequences if you carry that hypothetical to its logical conclusion.
DeleteEd Dingess said:
Delete"Contextually, we are discussin the idea that it is ok to continue to engage atheists who are so determined to reject God that they would accept life on other planets but not the existence of God."
No, contextually we're discussing Steve's post. (Besides I've already apologized for taking us off the point of Steve's post.)
"Secondly, to posit that it is theoretically possible and theolgoically congruent that aliens do exist is foolish. Why? We have no reason whatever to even allow our imaginations to wonder about such nonsense."
Your vehement disapproval isn't equivalent to an argument let alone a reasonable argument.
"Your approach seems to deny that ethics apply to the practice of speculation at all. Your language indicates that you might even think the area ethically neutral."
That may be your interpolation, but that's not my position.
"If not, then by what objective means do you determine when speculation or intellectual investigation turns sinful? By what standard? By what authority?"
Obviously Biblical ethics is my ultimate ethical standard. But why are you attempting to turn this around to me? You're the one who originally lambasted Steve's post.
"By the way, my elders would have no problem with me attacking a view like I have. While I have used direct adjectives to describe my position on this proctice, I think my view soundly biblical, according to Paul's instructions and I used the very same language he used to describe it. I have disparaged no person's character or their intelligence. That would be immoral."
On the contrary, you have disparaged a "person's character or their intelligence" in this very thread. Implicitly. For instance, you say it's "irrational," "a waste of time," and "sinful" to engage in speculations like this. Well, then, the implication is those who engage in these sorts of speculation are irrational, time-wasters, and sinful.
Ed Dingess said...
ReplyDeleteI suppose the answer is that I see a need to discipline the intellect, not just in the area of pride and lust. Those are obvious as far as it goes.
Agreed. Calvin wrote:
“Almost all men are infected with the disease of desiring useless knowledge. It is of great importance that we should be told what is necessary for us to know, and what the Lord desires us to contemplate, above and below, on the right hand and on the left, before and behind.
The love of Christ is held out to us as the subject which ought to occupy our daily and nightly meditations, and in which we ought to be wholly immersed. He who holds in possession of this alone, has enough.
Beyond it there is nothing solid, nothing useful– nothing, in short, that is right or sound. Go abroad in heaven and earth and sea, you will never go beyond this without overstepping the lawful bounds of wisdom.”
–John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 169. Calvin is commenting on Ephesians 3: 18-19.
Another translation:
"Almost all men are infected with the disease of desiring to obtain useless knowledge. It is of great importance that we should be told what is necessary for us to know, and what the Lord desires us to contemplate, above and below, on the right hand and on the left, before and behind. The love of Christ is held out to us as the subject which ought to occupy our daily and nightly meditations, and in which we ought to be wholly plunged. He who is in possession of this alone has enough. Beyond it there is nothing solid, nothing useful, — nothing, in short, that is proper or sound. Though you survey the heaven and earth and sea, you will never go beyond this without overstepping the lawful boundary of wisdom."
-http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.iv.iii.html
Comment has been blocked.
1. As a quick note, you didn't solely call the speculative thought-experiment "sinful" but also "irrational" as well as a number of other things.
Delete2. I don't see the relevance of every verse or passage you've cited to the topic at hand. For example, I don't see how 1 Tim 6:4-5 or 2 Tim 2:14 are relevant to this post. I don't see a quarrelsome or contentious spirit marking Steve's post at all.
3. I don't agree with every interpretation you've made. For example, I don't see how 1 Tim 1:4's myths refers to "supernatural beings." Plus, it's not as if aliens are necessarily supernatural beings. Let alone fictitious aliens from a scifi scenario which was what was posited in this post. But let's leave that aside for the moment.
4. More to the point, I could easily agree with your conclusion that useless speculation should be avoided. However, even if I do, this doesn't necessarily mean Steve's thought-experiment is an instance of "useless speculation." You still haven't made the connection. You still haven't "identif[ied]" his post as "useless speculation."
What makes this post "useless speculation"? Simply because it's a thought-experiment involving aliens? Is the thought of aliens or alien invasion itself verboten? How does considering the point of Steve's post "create strife" or "engage in constant friction"? How does it "set the human intellect up as an idol"? Why isn't criticizing secular ethics like Steve's post does part of "the advancement of the administration of God"?
Comment has been blocked.
You're pretty quarrelsome yourself, Ed. You're an ankle-biter. You don't do apologetics, but you savage those who do. You've made no constructive contribution to this debate. You try to sabotage what others are doing. You're becoming a tool of the devil. Don't come back.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess said:
Delete"I am not saying this post in and of itself is contentious. I am saying that the constant practice of engaging men like these atheists who come up with a plethora of objections to Christianity is a bad practice. We have to end the conversation eventually. We are not permitted to continually bicker back and forth with them."
As you say, Steve's post is not "bicker[ing] back and forth" with atheists here. So I don't see why you brought it up in the first place.
"If it applies to those kind of myths, surely it is not illegitimate for me to apply it to aliens."
Paul in 1 Tim 1:4a says, "nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies."
Check out Philip Towner and George Knight III's commentaries on the pastoral epistles for starters. Knight briefly notes: "Furthermore, the context of 'myths and geneaologies' in the PE suggests not gnostic aeons but matters relating to Jewish speculations and given an erroneous religious significance."
If this is correct, it's not as if Steve's thought-experiment about aliens here is susceptible to being given "an erroneous religious significance."
"Useless speculation is speculation that seeks to exceed the limits of revelation and that does nothing to advance the adminstration of God. I think it is possible Steve's does both, but at a minimum I think it does the former."
Once again, your say-so doesn't make it so. You can keep saying Steve's post "exceeds the limits of revelation" or whatever till the cows come home. But it doesn't prove anything without further elaboration.
"Jesus forbad His disciples from this constant back and forth. Once it was determined that a city or a house wasn't going to listen, they were to leave, shake the dust off their feet and go."
Speaking of which, I'm sorry to say but I've been foolish enough to keep engaging you on this. There are more important things to do.
How Jason and I spend our time is none of your business, Ed. Yes, you're becoming a tool of the devil. You don't offer a better version of apologetics–since you don't have one to offer. You just cut down Christians who do apologetics. Cut down Christians who are doing the work you shirk. You're a fifth column for the cause of infidelity.
DeleteYou are wasting Jason's time and mine on your hobbyhorse. You can ride your hobbyhorse in your attic all day long. But don't continue to siphon off time we could be putting to better use. Every comment we waste on you is time we could have spent on something else, something better. And we'll never get that time back.
I don't share your obsession. I have my own priorities. Further comments from you will be deleted. Go back to your own blog, where you belong.