Pages

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Is this a warning signal to inerrantists?


The fundamental problem with books like this is that they fly in the face of what seems obvious to everyone else who doesn’t already hold the a priori belief that everything the Bible says must be true, just because the Bible says it. To paraphrase something Nick Trakakis wrote in another context, “Defenses of genocidal behavior by the OT god turn a blind eye to what seem clear and obvious to everyone else — that such behavior makes a mockery out of what any person would consider morally justifiable behavior.”[1] 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/09/26/books-like-this-should-be-a-warning-signal-to-inerrantists/

i) I'm happy to concede that we defend things we think are true which we wouldn't defend if we didn't think they were true. I don't regard that as a damning admission.

ii) Since Bible writers clearly viewed this behavior as morally justifiable, to say it "makes a mockery out of what any person would consider morally justifiable behavior" preemptively excludes anyone who disagrees with Jeff. Nice circular logic. "Obvious to everyone else" is code language for "anyone who happens to share Jeff's sentiments." 

iii) As I've explained elsewhere, the commands aren't "genocidal." Jeff is simply parroting what others say rather than thinking for himself.

iv) Then there's the standing irony of atheists who ride around on their moral high horse. But Jeff doesn't attempt to show how atheism can justify moral realism. 

And even if atheism could justify moral realism, that falls went short of showing how ephemeral, fortuitous organizations of matter (i.e. humans) have rights. 

10 comments:

  1. Why have you considered it remotely helpful (or civil) to classify this under "Village Atheist?" Are you trying to be a smartass? Frankly it makes you sound rather classless.

    Stephen J Graham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I consider the classification to be accurate and instructive. Next question?

      Delete
  2. @Stephen J Graham

    "Why have you considered it remotely helpful (or civil) to classify this under 'Village Atheist?' Are you trying to be a smartass? Frankly it makes you sound rather classless."

    I noticed several of your posts over on your own blog aren't exactly "civil" or "classy". In fact, you have some downright harsh words for certain people which I won't repeat here. People can check out your blog if they care enough to see for themselves.

    I'd also note you seem to be kinder to atheists than you do to Christians, despite the fact you profess to be a Christian. I guess you're still sore over what you perceive to have been unfair treatment by other professing Christians.

    Anyway, all in all, your posts seem to reflect a cranky, cantankerous sort of a person far more than they do, say, a "civil" or "classy" person.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Harsh words which you won't repeat? I'm not aware of a single line of a single article that could justifiably be labelled "unrepeatable" - no examples?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Stephen J Graham

      "Harsh words which you won't repeat? I'm not aware of a single line of a single article that could justifiably be labelled 'unrepeatable' - no examples?"

      You're equivocating. I didn't say your words were "unrepeatable". I didn't even say I found your words "unrepeatable". There's a not so insignificant distinction between "I won't repeat" and "unrepeatable".

      If you must know, the main reason I won't repeat your words isn't because I find them "unrepeatable," but simply because it's easier and fairer for someone to read your blog and decide for themselves whether or not my assessment that your words are quite harsh as well as fall short of "civil" and "classy" is accurate.

      Delete
    2. Keith Parsons has posted lots of "uncivil" stuff at The Secular Outpost. If you're so offended by perceived incivility, that's a good place to start.

      Delete
    3. I'm not offended. What Parsons says and does is irrelevant here, unless you're saying that if Parsons behaves like a douche it's OK for you to do so?????

      Delete
    4. Of course it's relevant. The question is whether you have a double standard. Do you hold the Secular Outpost to a lower standard of civility (as you define it) than my blog? Since my post was in reference to a post at the Secular Outpost, the comparison is directly germane.

      Delete
  4. Yes, I think that's probably the fairest thing, but I'd be interested in what you specifically thought was "downright harsh."

    ReplyDelete
  5. How does a douche behave?

    ReplyDelete