tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8862353624669467817..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Sleeping with the enemyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31940841090954302032011-05-26T01:41:14.891-04:002011-05-26T01:41:14.891-04:001. On the Christian side, you could start by readi...1. On the Christian side, you could start by reading and interacting with our material. As a technologically savvy person, I trust you'd know how to search for material in our archives. <br /><br />Also Steve has a list of helpful books arranged in various categories <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/05/read-any-good-books-lately-1.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/05/read-any-good-books-lately-2.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/05/read-any-good-books-lately-3.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Check out the ones that interest you.<br /><br />Steve's "<a href="http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ste_hays/PT.Hays.Why.Believe.apologetics.1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Why I Believe: A Positive Apologetic</a>" and "<a href="http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ste_hays/PT.Hays.Why.Believe.apologetics.2.pdf" rel="nofollow">Why I Believe: I'm Glad You Asked!</a>" are insightful.<br /> <br />Several Christian scholars have answered some questions in an e-book Steve and James Anderson put together called <i><a href="http://www.triapologia.com/hays/Love_the_Lord.pdf" rel="nofollow">Love the Lord with Heart and Mind</a></i>. Check out their recommended books too.<br /><br />This should be a good start.<br /><br />2. On the atheist side, a couple of the better proponents are J.L. Mackie and Robin Le Poidevin. See Mackie's <i>The Miracle of Theism</i>. Check out Le Poidevin's <i>Arguing for Atheism</i> as well as his recent <i>Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction</i>.<br /><br />I think Michael Ruse is good on evolutionary ethics. <br /><br />At the same time, you should read Alvin Plantinga's review of Mackie's book, "Is Theism Really a Miracle?" (1986) which was published in <i>Faith and Philosophy</i> 3 (2).Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32672237545469179492011-05-25T19:37:19.963-04:002011-05-25T19:37:19.963-04:00With this latter point in mind, I hope in the futu...<i>With this latter point in mind, I hope in the future you'll spend the time to thoroughly understand not only Christianity on its own terms (even though you no longer believe in it and may think you already know it since you were once a professing Christian), but also atheism on its own terms.</i><br /><br />Okay, not to be insufferably dense, but that's easier read than understood. How would I go about doing that, in general? What recommendations do you have? Thanks.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27446020688583642702011-05-25T18:35:55.600-04:002011-05-25T18:35:55.600-04:001. Thanks, Byron. I appreciate it.
2. Like I said...1. Thanks, Byron. I appreciate it.<br /><br />2. Like I said, I think if we were to ever meet in person, you'd probaby be a pretty nice guy. Warm, friendly, approachable. Good and loving to your family and friends. Someone kids would trust and enjoy playing with and having fun with. A decent person. Maybe you're even nicer and kinder than many Christians I know. Maybe we'd even get along. <br /><br />But (as I'm sure you know) what's at stake is not whether you (or I or anyone else) happen to be a likeable person, etc. Rather what's at stake is the truth and conformity to the truth. The fact that God exists and the Bible alone is his word to humanity. The fact that he calls people to turn away from their sins and to trust in Jesus Christ. The truth is what's of first importance, not whether you (or I or anyone else) happen to be likeable or more importantly happen to like the truth.<br /><br />Hence my strong stance.<br /><br />3. With this latter point in mind, I hope in the future you'll spend the time to thoroughly understand not only Christianity on its own terms (even though you no longer believe in it and may think you already know it since you were once a professing Christian), but also atheism on its own terms. <br /><br />As J. Gresham Machen once said: "Narrowness does not consist in definite devotion to certain convictions or in definite rejection of others. But the narrow man is the man who rejects the other man's convictions without first endeavoring to understand them, the man who makes no effort to look at things from the other man's point of view."<br /><br />Of course, I'd imagine you think you already understand Christianity enough to reject it and that you understand atheism (or agnosticism) enough to embrace it. But from our discussion in this thread and in past threads I, for one, would beg to differ that you do in either case. Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but just calling it like I see it. You're free to disagree, but the proof is in the pudding by which I mean your facts, reasons, argumentation, and so forth.<br /><br />BTW, when I say Christianity, I'm not speaking strictly about Calvinism or Reformed theology, even though that's my biblical and theological perspective. Rather I'm speaking about evangelical Christianity in general. You could reject Calvinism but remain an evangelical Christian in a different tradition (e.g. Arminian, Lutheran).Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76237116214544942722011-05-24T22:27:59.250-04:002011-05-24T22:27:59.250-04:00Patrick,
If I have behaved in any way uncivilly t...Patrick,<br /><br />If I have behaved in any way uncivilly towards you, Steve Hays, or anyone else, then I sincerely apologize. I am honestly not aware of doing so, at least not intentionally. Instead I opted for honesty and transparency with my feelings (including anger) in the discussion thread.<br /><br />As for attacking Christianity, anything I say as an unbeliever could be construed as an attack or a dismissal simply according to my beliefs. However, I think your chief complaint is the manner in which I have addressed Christianity, which I admit has been unwarranted in its harshness. I was trying to give logical conclusions of theological precepts derived from the Scriptures themselves, though admittedly skewed in my atheistic agenda to illustrate points in the worst possible and unfavorable light. The Scriptures themselves seem evil to me, so also my understanding of them will be less than favorable. However, you pointed out this is an apologetics blog, not a debate blog, so such does not belong here.<br /><br />Lastly, I do appreciate the time and responses you and others have put into discussion with me. It was not my intent to ignore all the material offered to me, but I did refuse to interact with volumes of material just in order to have a discussion on these subjects of interest to me. My conscious purpose has been to attack Christianity wherever possible, a kind of counter-apologetics if you will. However, I do NOT wish to cause any hard feelings or intend any disrespect toward anyone. At best, I have misunderstood your intended communication, and I fear I have vented a good bit of anger (not meant personally, please understand), and fell into emotional argumentation when I should have remained objective. So the fault is mine.<br /><br />I apologize, Patrick Chan, Steven Hays, and anyone else I have communicated with here.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3945667812622758812011-05-24T18:10:35.508-04:002011-05-24T18:10:35.508-04:00Byron,
Look, at the risk of stating the obvious:...Byron, <br /><br />Look, at the risk of stating the obvious:<br /><br />1. While we do post on other things from time to time, this is primarily an apologetics blog. <br /><br />2. Also, we're not writing entirely or even primarily for you. We're writing for lurkers both now and in the future too. Our comments in this thread aren't going to disappear. Well, unless Blogger messes things up like they did recently. But I don't plan to delete anything.<br /><br />3. Furthermore, although I think you're probably a nice guy in real life (and personally speaking I can sympathize with your love for all things geekery since I see myself that way as well), the fact of the matter is that you're saying terrible and even evil things about God. You may not believe in God so you don't think it's any more evil than saying evil things about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. But surely you realize I'm a Christian. So if you look at it from my perspective, you're attacking the God whom I love. The God whom I see as the one, true, very real and living God.<br /><br />4. In addition it's hardly a "dismissal" given that Steve, I, and others here have taken tons of our time to interact with you and then you admit stuff like "it's true I've basically refused to interact with the material on this site currently." Sorry, but if we're "dismissing" you now, by your own words, you've been "dismissing" us this entire time as well. It's a two-way street. After all, how would you like it if you give someone your time and respond to their questions and provide them with material to help clarify things and so forth, but then they basically ignore it all and continue to just say whatever they want to say? Continue with their own ranting and raving or diatribe or whatever? Keep talking past you and past your material and saying stuff like, "Well, that's just not how I see it!" all the while continuing on with their emotional and irrational temper tantrum against you or what you're trying to tell them? And then they even admit that that's precisely what they're doing? Put yourself in our shoes as well.<br /><br />5. Plus, again, by your own admission, it's an irrational and immature attack against Christianity. So I'm just calling it like it is. I'm not saying anything other than what you've already admitted yourself.<br /><br />If you consider these sorts of things, perhaps you can understand why we're not exactly so warm and fluffy toward people like you who for all intents and purposes are attacking Christianity. Sure, you may not think you're "attacking" Christianity. You may be commenting because you're wrestling with your own inner demons or deconversion or whatever. But nevertheless that's what you're doing. <br /><br />To reiterate, your comments are hardly so friendly toward God. There's plenty of evidence of that in this thread and in previous threads. Not to mention, on a far lesser note, toward us. You disrespect the time we spend trying to respond to you. Again, your comments amount to an attack against Christianity. And even among people in civil discourse your comments are themselves hardly civil toward us yet you expect us to behave civilly toward you.<br /><br />So, sorry, but given all these things, unless you change, you're hardly someone anyone should take seriously. You're behaving like a little kid if not worse.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39405866420508381752011-05-24T12:35:13.463-04:002011-05-24T12:35:13.463-04:00Patrick,
It's quite obvious that you have no ...Patrick,<br /><br />It's quite obvious that you have no idea what deconverting from a religion is like. I admit, it's new for me too. The anger at feeling deceived, betrayed, orphaned, and the like begins building as a believer, and carries over into the skeptical life as emotional baggage. Sure, it is not entirely rational, or mature. I can grant that.<br /><br />And it's true I've basically refused to interact with the material on this site currently. I was instead looking for a discussion and interaction, based on concepts I already understand. I feel I should not have to read volumes of reference material just to have a normal discussion on these topics. However, I was on a blog once where the host also felt the same way, but seemed to not require it of every single guest. Odd. Then and now. However, perhaps I will research some of the material in my own free time.<br /><br />"In other words, you've admitted you're behaving utterly irrationally. You've abdicated any semblance of reason. There's no intellectual respectability about your position at all. No one can take you seriously anymore."<br /><br />What I just quoted is perhaps the most enlightening series of comments I have ever read on Triablogue. I have wasted my time here, and apparently yours as well. Sorry for that. But now I cannot escape the feeling that I entered as a player into a game rigged from the very start.<br /><br />I am learning the rules, and I may continue to participate in the future. For now, I simply feel that everything built up quickly and quite nicely to a condescending dismissal. I think the discussion here at the site suffers from the rather cold, demanding, and dismissive interaction offered here.<br /><br />At least now I know what to expect!Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45374923180973237672011-05-24T06:57:46.161-04:002011-05-24T06:57:46.161-04:00Byron said:
I'll grant points 1,3, and 5. Poi...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>I'll grant points 1,3, and 5. Point 2, I simply don't understand, as I'm simply interacting with the logical conclusions of Calvinism from the point of an outsider (non-elect). Point 4 is simply wishful thinking. Choosing to believe or disbelieve something is not a product of the will alone. There are times when it is impossible to believe something. However, since none of this is on-topic any more, I'll give it a rest.</b><br /><br />So:<br /><br />* You've said you don't believe God exists.<br /><br />* You've conceded there is no basis for objective morality given your beliefs.<br /><br />* You've said you hate God whom you don't believe exists.<br /><br />* You've agreed hating God whom you don't believe exists makes about as much sense as hating Santa Claus after finding out he's not real.<br /><br />* You've agreed you don't interact with Steve and others' arguments on Christianity and Calvinism but just keep repeating the same old tired lines that you've always used.<br /><br />* You've agreed you haven't so much as attempted to acquaint yourself with the material on Christianity and Calvinism that Steve and others have provided you in the past.<br /><br />* You've agreed you're behaving like a little kid and emoting.<br /><br />In other words, you've admitted you're behaving utterly irrationally. You've abdicated any semblance of reason. There's no intellectual respectability about your position at all. No one can take you seriously anymore.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72045224997107160212011-05-24T01:55:32.696-04:002011-05-24T01:55:32.696-04:00I'll grant points 1,3, and 5. Point 2, I simpl...I'll grant points 1,3, and 5. Point 2, I simply don't understand, as I'm simply interacting with the logical conclusions of Calvinism from the point of an outsider (non-elect). Point 4 is simply wishful thinking. Choosing to believe or disbelieve something is not a product of the will alone. There are times when it is impossible to believe something. However, since none of this is on-topic any more, I'll give it a rest.<br /><br />Thanks for the discussion.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77141791734245324722011-05-24T01:23:33.877-04:002011-05-24T01:23:33.877-04:00Byron said:
Then God has graciously made it impos...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>Then God has graciously made it impossible for me to believe in the Gospel He inspired in the Scriptures, and I suppose I should be grateful because His glory will be increased as a result of my damnation. Nice! Sometimes I think I should flip such a deity the bird, if I actually believed He could see it.</b><br /><br />1. Given your atheism, this makes about as much sense as getting angry at Santa Claus when you find out he's not real.<br /><br />2. Also, what you say about Calvinism above, even if you disagree with it, isn't fair to Calvinism. You're not trying to understand Calvinism on its own terms. You're framing Calvinism tendentiously.<br /><br />3. You haven't changed the substance of your critique (such as it is) since your first few comments on Triablogue. This is despite the fact that Steve and others have responded to you. This is despite the fact that there's plenty of resources you could read in our archives. Not to mention elsewhere. But you don't so much as attempt to acquaint yourself with the material. Rather you just keep repeating the same old tired lines. "God predestined that I should not believe! God predestined that I should be damned! I hate God!" And so on and so forth.<br /><br />4. BTW, no one is stopping you from believing except yourself. At this very moment, you have the choice to believe or continue to disbelieve. It's on you, Byron. Your call.<br /><br />5. Your rhetoric is highly emotive. Despite the fact that you're an adult, you're behaving like a little kid. Were you always like this or is this what atheism has reduced you to?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65199720575218323732011-05-24T00:58:16.895-04:002011-05-24T00:58:16.895-04:00Then God has graciously made it impossible for me ...Then God has graciously made it impossible for me to believe in the Gospel He inspired in the Scriptures, and I suppose I should be grateful because His glory will be increased as a result of my damnation. Nice! Sometimes I think I should flip such a deity the bird, if I actually believed He could see it.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60815781223920029462011-05-23T23:35:30.696-04:002011-05-23T23:35:30.696-04:00Byron said:
In fact, being a freethinker is actua...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>In fact, being a freethinker is actually freeing, and I'm finding some long-needed purpose in my life. So it's quite the opposite of what you predict here.</b><br /><br />Well, I never said you couldn't find some sense of purpose and have positive feelings about it. Some people find some sense of purpose in molesting children and have positive feelings about it too.<br /><br /><b>That's a good question, actually. I think I am angry because if the Calvinist God that I used to believe in actually DOES exist, then I'm probably not elect, because I can no longer believe in any of these doctrines. But I get angry because I feel forsaken by God (lacking answered prayers) and betrayed and duped (I believed God was actually good, but I can no longer believe that based on the Scriptures themselves). So that is part of my anger, a sense of divine rejection and hopelessness if such a God exists, faced with the monstrosity of Hell, eternal torment, and an absolutely sovereign God who apparently ordained it to be this way (even if I grant He has a right to do as He pleases).</b><br /><br />Of course, the same God and Scriptures in which you disbelieve also freely offers the gospel.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12981588012654277842011-05-23T23:21:05.019-04:002011-05-23T23:21:05.019-04:00Patrick, you are telling me that, "You may no...Patrick, you are telling me that, "You may not like the consequences. You may not like that there's no objective morality. You may not like that your life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose." It does not particularly bother me, actually. Because I don't live my life in a realm of philosophical ultimatums. In fact, being a freethinker is actually freeing, and I'm finding some long-needed purpose in my life. So it's quite the opposite of what you predict here.<br /><br />You say, "You're obviously very angry with God to say the least."<br /><br />I would probably have to plead guilty to that, but more on that in a moment.<br /><br />Then you say, "But if you don't believe God exists, Byron, then why are you angry at him? There's no one to be angry with. No one that can hear your anger let alone respond to it. Your anger toward God makes no sense. It's illogical. It's irrational. It's unreasonable. Isn't it?"<br /><br />That's a good question, actually. I think I am angry because if the Calvinist God that I used to believe in actually DOES exist, then I'm probably not elect, because I can no longer believe in any of these doctrines. But I get angry because I feel forsaken by God (lacking answered prayers) and betrayed and duped (I believed God was actually good, but I can no longer believe that based on the Scriptures themselves). So that is part of my anger, a sense of divine rejection and hopelessness if such a God exists, faced with the monstrosity of Hell, eternal torment, and an absolutely sovereign God who apparently ordained it to be this way (even if I grant He has a right to do as He pleases).Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51040979855231328562011-05-23T22:49:24.973-04:002011-05-23T22:49:24.973-04:00Byron said:
The Calvinist God ordained child mole...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>The Calvinist God ordained child molesters, serial rapists, serial killers, murderers, drunk driving deaths, plagues, natural disasters, and so on, before the beginning of time. Somehow this is not a problem for most Calvinists. They rationalize God's actions as being part of God's mystical plan where He will eventually make everything right that He ordained to be wrong in the first place. And because God is the ultimate source for all morality, righteousness, and all events and outcomes (including sin and evil if you take these doctrines to their logical conclusions), then it becomes the ultimate appeal to authority, with "might makes right." God is the ultimate cosmic bully sadist (and soul rapist, in terms of monergistic salvation), without any mercy for all the non-elect.<br /><br />Why would I ever wish to worship such a being? I'll grant for the sake of argument that God, if He exists, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I'll grant that God is the source for all morality, authority, and power. I'll even grant that God has the right as Creator to do as He pleases, according to Paul's argument in Romans 9. So my rebellion is doomed. If the two-wills theory of God is correct, then God's preceptive will forbids what His decretive will ordains, including my own rebellion and its certain failure and the doom of my own soul. Even if such a God existed and Christianity is actually true, I could not worship such a God. I would extend my rebellion, blasphemy, mocking, ridiculing, and scorn for as long as God grants my soul the power to do so, even eternally if that is possible.<br /><br />Why would ANYONE want to bow the knee and worship such a monster as God?</b><br /><br />1. You're shifting gears, Byron. This has nothing to do with whether or not Calvinism is true. Or whether or not the God of the Bible exists. Or whether or not Christianity is true. <br /><br />In fact, I'm granting your belief that God does not exist. I'm granting your belief that atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true. I'm saying if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then the consequences I've outlined above would follow. <br /><br />You may not like the consequences. You may not like that there's no objective morality. You may not like that your life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose. <br /><br />You may not like that some people end up like Hugh Hefner with all the women he could have, or like George Clooney or Matt Damon with fame, fortune, women, and class, or like Will Ferrell with a happy and fun life, while others end up bitter and alone without any friends or family or significant others to love and to hold or anything else really in life. <br /><br />It's just the luck of the draw, I guess. Some have fantastic and happy lives, while others have sad and lonely and bitter and terrible lives. But in the end everyone ends up dead and buried. That's all there is to it. There's no justice. No one to say what's right or wrong, good or bad. Life's unfair. Oh well. Too bad. That's just the way it is. <br /><br />But just because you don't like the consequences of your beliefs doesn't mean they're not true, does it?<br /><br />2. You're obviously very angry with God to say the least. <br /><br />You exemplify what C.S. Lewis once said about himself when he was an atheist: "I was at this time of living, like so many atheists or anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world."<br /><br />But if you don't believe God exists, Byron, then why are you angry at him? There's no one to be angry with. No one that can hear your anger let alone respond to it. Your anger toward God makes no sense. It's illogical. It's irrational. It's unreasonable. Isn't it?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28336383589925533092011-05-23T22:23:55.567-04:002011-05-23T22:23:55.567-04:00Why is the first part of my comment not posting? I...Why is the first part of my comment not posting? I've tried to post it twice. Weird.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23979956963728321482011-05-23T21:51:03.862-04:002011-05-23T21:51:03.862-04:00Patrick,
Apparently I was wrong in my understandi...Patrick,<br /><br />Apparently I was wrong in my understanding of what "objective" means, as I was also corrected by a friend of mine. I would have to concede that there might be no "objective" basis to morality if objective means "absolute and universal." If someone had to have an objective basis for morality, then perhaps science will discover enough in the future to be able to say definitively that man's morality evolved along with his genome, and its nature is ultimately rooted in the deterministic nature of the universe. But I'll concede for the sake of argument there is no objective basis for morality, and again I ask, "so what?"<br /><br />You say, "But the problem is that you don't seem willing to face the cold, harsh reality of your own position." The problem is, I have actually described such events using stronger terms than you have in this discussion, and I do face what my position entails. Then you say, "Your head tells you there's no God, etc., no meaning, value, or purpose in life, but your heart wants otherwise." How do you know what is in my heart? And why must all of these concepts be lumped together and taken as an indivisible whole? And why must meaning, value, and purpose be extracted only from your position that there must exist universal absolutes from which to derive them?<br /><br />Anyways, I think I did miss your point, and I do concede to being wrong on the objective basis of morality.<br /><br />I also do not understand why theists seem to insist that without a universal absolute set of morals given by an omnipotent, omniscient God, that the only alternative is to live in such a selfish extreme that borders (and exceeds) destructiveness to society in general. This is just not the picture with atheists in general. Why is that? I would hate to think that unless I have an absolute, universal god ruling over me and suppressing my bad behavior (or at least the belief of such) that I must then live like an absolute devil. Perhaps this is true for some theists, but it is not universally true.<br /><br />Now let's talk about some problems with the position of Calvinism (what I am familiar with). I do not know what your theological position is, but if you hold to God's omniscience then you still suffer from some of these problems to an extent. And the Calvinist God in control of all things is actually a worse picture than that of stark, Godless atheism.<br />(cont)Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45048479677962156332011-05-23T21:49:40.170-04:002011-05-23T21:49:40.170-04:00The Calvinist God ordained child molesters, serial...The Calvinist God ordained child molesters, serial rapists, serial killers, murderers, drunk driving deaths, plagues, natural disasters, and so on, before the beginning of time. Somehow this is not a problem for most Calvinists. They rationalize God's actions as being part of God's mystical plan where He will eventually make everything right that He ordained to be wrong in the first place. And because God is the ultimate source for all morality, righteousness, and all events and outcomes (including sin and evil if you take these doctrines to their logical conclusions), then it becomes the ultimate appeal to authority, with "might makes right." God is the ultimate cosmic bully sadist (and soul rapist, in terms of monergistic salvation), without any mercy for all the non-elect.<br /><br />Why would I ever wish to worship such a being? I'll grant for the sake of argument that God, if He exists, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I'll grant that God is the source for all morality, authority, and power. I'll even grant that God has the right as Creator to do as He pleases, according to Paul's argument in Romans 9. So my rebellion is doomed. If the two-wills theory of God is correct, then God's preceptive will forbids what His decretive will ordains, including my own rebellion and its certain failure and the doom of my own soul. Even if such a God existed and Christianity is actually true, I could not worship such a God. I would extend my rebellion, blasphemy, mocking, ridiculing, and scorn for as long as God grants my soul the power to do so, even eternally if that is possible.<br /><br />Why would ANYONE want to bow the knee and worship such a monster as God?Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85982034104049308902011-05-23T09:28:15.426-04:002011-05-23T09:28:15.426-04:00Perhaps it's even always selfish, but I don...<b>Perhaps it's even always selfish, but I don't think so, as I believe there exists genuine compassion and benevolence at times in the human heart.</b><br /><br />There also exists genuine selfishness in the human heart. The human heart doesn't provide an objective basis for morality.<br /><br /><b>If there is such a thing as natural curiosity and desire to obtain truth by study and analysis then that alone is "obligation" for finding atheism, if such is indeed the truth.</b><br /><br />The point is, if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then there's no duty to believe the truth unless it's beneficial or advantageous to you in some way. There's no duty to prioritize the truth over and above other things like health, wealth, power, status, or strength. If you want to prioritize the truth, fine. But no one and nothing is compelling you other than yourself. It might be useful to believe the truth in certain situations. But there's no burden or onus to believe the truth in all cases or situations. So your atheism undercuts the value of truth. <br /><br /><b>But I don't see how atheism requires this, without subtracting knowledge, scientific endeavor, and even common sense from consideration. . . . But that does not make it so, and I have the rational ability to deduce that fact using reason and scientific processes. I'm not sure I could say you arrive at objective truth using such, but certainly you arrive at a successful pragmatism which is beneficial for your survival and ultimate goal of passing on genes.</b><br /><br />Given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, that's not necessarily the case. You'd have to deal with Plantinga's EAAN for one thing. <br /><br />At this point, your atheism would lead you with moral relativism, with no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose in life, with a diminished value for truth, with an impoverished reason and rationality, with a higher probability of unreliable cognitive faculties, etc. What's left? Not a whole lot! So much for all that talk about atheists being reasonable and rational and so forth!<br /><br /><b>But, if religion is not true, then the underlying cause of such benefit should be determined, isolated, and maximized. But just because it naturally follows from your presuppositions does not make religion more probable (or healthier) by itself, right?</b><br /><br />At least as I understand the article, the benefit would be that people believe religion is true, even if it's not true. It's a matter of perception, not necessarily reality.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39939090551233971962011-05-23T09:28:05.216-04:002011-05-23T09:28:05.216-04:00Byron said:
If I am correct that this universe is...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>If I am correct that this universe is deterministic, then there are no accidents, even for such horrors as you mentioned (which I do believe you). They could not always be "expected" however in the sense of being foreseen or predicted. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the fact these situations arise rarely is some cause for hope for the human race, at least in the relative short term.</b><br /><br />1. You keep trying to foist some semblance of meaning onto your beliefs. But unfortunately your beliefs won't allow it. Given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, life <i>is</i> an accident. Life is meaningless. Life is absurd. You keep missing this basic point.<br /><br />2. You keep talking about the human species as a whole while brushing aside individuals. Too bad for the individuals who died such gruesome deaths in one of the Nazi or Unit 731 experiments! That's just part of the evolutionary process. Of course, atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism does leave us with this callousness. But the problem is that you don't seem willing to face the cold, harsh reality of your own position. Your head tells you there's no God, etc., no meaning, value, or purpose in life, but your heart wants otherwise.<br /><br /><b>Then you ask, "why bother helping" anyone? Well, why not? Why would a person be restricted from helping others simply for lacking the context for motivation that you seem to require? Perhaps it makes us feel better to do so. Perhaps we have ulterior motives.</b><br /><br />Again, you completely miss the point. Sorry that I have to be so blunt but it's taxing to have to repeat myself to you multiple times. The point is since you deny objective morality, then you have no objective basis for moral behavior.<br /><br />All you've said so far is either morality is based in socio-cultural norms or morality is based in genetic determinism. But these are about as objective as the shifting sands. These can change, progress or regress, evolve or devolve. We could've evolved with different moral sentiments. We could evolve to think it's moral to hate our neighbor rather than love him.<br /><br />Of course, I'm not denying it doesn't make you feel better to help people or that you can't have ulterior motives in helping people. I'm not denying your emotions or psychology could trick you to believe there are objective morals even though there really aren't. I'm not denying you don't think what you're doing to help people is meaningful to you in some way.<br /><br />Although for some people like Jeffrey Dahmer it makes them feel good to kill people. It gives their life meaning. If people like Dahmer become the majority of the human population, then perhaps their morals will become normative.<br /><br />Rather I'm denying that you have an objective moral basis for your moral behavior. <br /><br />As a consequence, why not live selfishly? If you're on a boat adrift in the middle of the ocean with one other person, and there's only enough food and water for one person, then, if you can overcome the other person, is there anything objectively wrong with killing the other person so that you'll have a better chance of survival? Not that I can see, given your beliefs.<br /><br />If we're all buried six feet under in the end, if how we live in life doesn't have any sort of a bearing on our destiny since there's no heaven or hell, no judgment, no God, no nothing except nothingness, then it doesn't matter whether we lived like Mother Theresa or like Hitler. So why not just live however you like so long as you can get away with it? Why not live selfishly?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20265801837736658412011-05-23T02:19:56.836-04:002011-05-23T02:19:56.836-04:00Patrick, I am not sure in what sense you see the w...Patrick, I am not sure in what sense you see the word "expected" when you used it. If I am correct that this universe is deterministic, then there are no accidents, even for such horrors as you mentioned (which I do believe you). They could not always be "expected" however in the sense of being foreseen or predicted. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the fact these situations arise rarely is some cause for hope for the human race, at least in the relative short term.<br /><br />Then you ask, "why bother helping" anyone? Well, why not? Why would a person be restricted from helping others simply for lacking the context for motivation that you seem to require? Perhaps it makes us feel better to do so. Perhaps we have ulterior motives. Perhaps it's even always selfish, but I don't think so, as I believe there exists genuine compassion and benevolence at times in the human heart. The underlying motivation for such need not be "god" and his desires for such action.<br /><br />Then you say, "BTW, if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then not only is there no objective morality, but it'd seem there's also no obligation to believe atheism is true." I am not sure what you intend by "obligation" here. If there is such a thing as natural curiosity and desire to obtain truth by study and analysis then that alone is "obligation" for finding atheism, if such is indeed the truth. Again, it comes back to our DNA and the results of our evolutionary process, and behind that is the deterministic factor of the universe, I believe.<br /><br />Then you say, "Rather you can believe whatever you want to believe as long as it's beneficial to you in whatever way you want to define beneficial." But I don't see how atheism requires this, without subtracting knowledge, scientific endeavor, and even common sense from consideration. I can sincerely believe that sticking my hands in fire is beneficial for me because it meets my definitions. But that does not make it so, and I have the rational ability to deduce that fact using reason and scientific processes. I'm not sure I could say you arrive at objective truth using such, but certainly you arrive at a successful pragmatism which is beneficial for your survival and ultimate goal of passing on genes.<br /><br />You said: "For example, if you define beneficial in terms of health, and if studies are correct that religious people tend to live healthier lives, then you might as well be religious since religious people apparently have healthier lives."<br /><br />But, if religion is not true, then the underlying cause of such benefit should be determined, isolated, and maximized. If religion is indeed true, and your definition is true, then of course I must agree. But just because it naturally follows from your presuppositions does not make religion more probable (or healthier) by itself, right?Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82039379666193357032011-05-23T01:59:12.807-04:002011-05-23T01:59:12.807-04:00BTW, if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism ar...BTW, if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then not only is there no objective morality, but it'd seem there's also no obligation to believe atheism is true. Rather you can believe whatever you want to believe as long as it's beneficial to you in whatever way you want to define beneficial.<br /><br />For example, if you define beneficial in terms of health, and if studies are correct that religious people tend to live <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx" rel="nofollow">healthier</a> lives, then you might as well be religious since religious people apparently have healthier lives.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44320273184456482152011-05-23T01:38:42.274-04:002011-05-23T01:38:42.274-04:00Byron said:
Why does there have to be an objectiv...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>Why does there have to be an objective source for morality? Just because there might not be one does not automatically imply that all the horrors you give as examples must occur.</b><br /><br />Well, we happen to live in a universe where all these horrors did in fact occur. The Nazi and Unit 731 human experiments aren't hypotheticals, Byron. They actually took place. Just Google if you don't believe me.<br /><br /><b>Perhaps they're expected as part of the evolutionary process.</b><br /><br />In what sense can anything be "expected" in the evolutionary process? On atheism, the evolutionary process is a blind process. There's nothing guiding it.<br /><br /><b>Perhaps they are (hopefully) anomalies in what I believe to be a deterministic universe</b><br /><br />Indeed, given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, we have no free will. Free will is an illusion. A "deterministic universe" would be quite apt. <br /><br /><b>Perhaps we are simply on our own as a species, with no God and no need for one, and we must simply help ourselves?</b><br /><br />It seems like what you're really asking is why can't there be no God and no objective morality. Yes, theoretically, it's possible. It's possible there is no God and no objective morality. Perhaps like it's theoretically possible the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some parallel universe.<br /><br />But if it's the case that atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then why bother "helping" anyone? Why not live selfishly instead? If your response is something like "for the good of our species," then why should we care what happens to our species? We only have finite lives. In fact, so does our species. At some point in time, our species will either become extinct or evolve into a different species. And someday all species on earth will die either when the sun itself dies or when the universe itself ends. So why should we care for the good of our species unless it happens to benefit us personally?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58815557972524607082011-05-23T00:26:18.870-04:002011-05-23T00:26:18.870-04:00Patrick, right, so?
Why does there have to be an ...Patrick, right, so?<br /><br />Why does there have to be an objective source for morality? Just because there might not be one does not automatically imply that all the horrors you give as examples must occur. Perhaps they're expected as part of the evolutionary process. Perhaps they are (hopefully) anomalies in what I believe to be a deterministic universe (without necessarily a God, and certainly without the Christian one, in my own personal view).<br /><br />Perhaps we are simply on our own as a species, with no God and no need for one, and we must simply help ourselves?Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8613901621412928722011-05-23T00:18:35.910-04:002011-05-23T00:18:35.910-04:00Bryon said:
why is an objective standard for mora...Bryon said:<br /><br /><b>why is an objective standard for morality necessary?</b><br /><br />You're asking this question? Seriously? After everything I said above? Come on, man. Please re-read what I've written above, Byron.<br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />Well, to offer another example, Byron, if there is no objective morality, then you can't say Dr. Josef Mengele's human experiments were objectively wrong. Nor can you say what Unit 731 did on humans was objectively wrong.<br /><br />You can't say their vivisection without anesthesia on pregnant women was objectively wrong. You can't say removing the organs of a living human being without anesthesia to test how they'd function without these organs was objectively wrong. You can't say freezing the limbs of an otherwise healthy human being and then amputating the limbs was objectively wrong. You can't say testing flame throwers or biochemical weapons or grenades on living human beings was objectively wrong. And so on and so forth.<br /><br />At best you might say it's wrong given our society's morals. But you can't say it's wrong given Nazi Germany's or Imperial Japan's morals. <br /><br />Or you might say it's wrong given the whole of humanity's morals. But humanity's morals could vary depending on time. Maybe in the future we'll all think it's perfectly moral to conduct these sorts of human experiments.<br /><br />Like you said above, maybe what the Nazis and Unit 731 did were "simply experiments in Nature's evolution, parts of a collective whole called the human race." Since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lost the war, then what's moral is what we have in place today. But if they had won the war and took over the world, then maybe it'd be perfectly moral to conduct all these human experiments.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77212309295428323782011-05-22T22:57:00.020-04:002011-05-22T22:57:00.020-04:00Patrick, a friend corrected me on my understanding...Patrick, a friend corrected me on my understanding of objective morality, that it is a universal absolute which would apply in some sense at all times. It seems that my position would not allow for an objective morality to exist, then, without some outside agent (i.e., God) or cause (God again, probably). I suppose my question becomes, why is an objective standard for morality necessary? If such a thing exists, where is the evidence for its existence, since we all can point to exceptions (Papua New Guinea, etc) to what some believe is the objective moral standard?<br /><br />Also, I do believe that morality exists in the animal kingdom, and is tied to intelligence and the ability to form social behaviors. I don't remember the link, but I came across an example of "morality" in a gorilla or a chimpanzee (don't remember which) acting to save another of its own kind from drowning at the risk of its own life. I would consider that a very primitive form of morality, though I am no expert on animal psychology.<br /><br />Individuals most often act as individuals based on their desires and motivations. Society enforces its cultural rules (of the majority) upon the minority (punishing crime and so forth) as needed. And I have to take an exception to where you said, "For one thing, society is comprised of individuals and individuals don't necessarily think in terms of whether their actions will benefit or harm society let alone whether it'll improve human survival on an evolutionary scale. (In fact, the latter wasn't possible prior to Darwin and Mendel.)" Yes, according to a context of evolutionary understanding, this was not possible, but it is possible to act in a context of good for "human survival" itself even if knowledge of evolutionary descent is not possessed. I suppose I could not call it objective in any absolute, universal sense, but I could say that evolution produced behaviors for the propagation of the species as a whole. Unless of course, as you say, if the whole human race suddenly believed that destructive actions were morally right, I could not argue that the morality is necessarily wrong perhaps, but it would serve as an evolutionary dead end to the extent it was followed. But I believe our evolved intelligence is also involved in our formation and enforcement of morality as well.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26090266146473904772011-05-22T22:21:58.369-04:002011-05-22T22:21:58.369-04:00Byron said:
Basically that answer for the non-the...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>Basically that answer for the non-theist is a fundamental appeal to the process of evolution and its product of the human genome and resulting behaviors and predispositions.</b><br /><br />1. Well, appealing to our genetic makeup doesn't resolve the question of objective morality on atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism. It only pushes the question back a step. Now morality is tied to DNA. Morality is subject to our genetic evolution. It's possible we could have evolved a different set of morals. Or it's possible we could evolve a different set of morals in the future. Perhaps we could evolve to think rape and murder are perfectly moral actions. So morality is still subjective, not objective. In other words, morality is an illusion tied to our genes to make us get along with one another socially and thus allow for improved odds of survival. But that's all it is.<br /><br />2. It'd seem you've just provided a possible grounds for morality in the animal kindgom. If morality is tied to DNA in humans, then morality could presumably be tied to DNA in other species too. It's possible that some species will evolve a sense of morality in the future. After all, humans did, so why not other species? In that case, it could be possible that sharks evolve and become intelligent, conscious creatures that think it's perfectly moral to eat other sharks not to mention humans. But shark morality would be different to human morality because humans don't think it's moral to eat other humans while sharks do think it's moral to eat other sharks as well as humans. This likewise illustrates the lack of an objective foundation for morality.<br /><br /><b>The movie wrongly focuses on the individuality of behavior in justifying morality, when morality is admittedly individualistic in action, but morality is and has always been a social construct, not necessarily for the benefit of the human race as a whole, or for individuals, but for the society's benefit and purposes as encoded in its dominant culture.</b><br /><br />1. Sorry, Byron, but that's doubletalk. For one thing, society is comprised of individuals and individuals don't necessarily think in terms of whether their actions will benefit or harm society let alone whether it'll improve human survival on an evolutionary scale. (In fact, the latter wasn't possible prior to Darwin and Mendel.) For example, let's say a person murders another person and then feels guilt. He may feel guilt for a variety of reasons. But it'd be quite a stretch to say he feels guilt because he realizes murder undermines the chances of his survival and society's survival. Actually, since killing a competitor would make it more likely that he'd survive and that his genes would be passed on, this would seem to be one of the least likely reasons he'd feel guilt for murdering another person.<br /><br />2. If morality is just a social construct, then morality is just a set of rules invented by society. But a society can change its rules. Or a different society might well have different morals. I already pointed this out above. Let's say the entire human race suddenly thought things like murder, rape, and cannibalism were perfectly legitimate moral options. Or let's say the Nazis won WWII and brainwashed everyone into believing it was fine to murder undesirables like Jews, gypsies, the mentally deficient, the handicapped, etc. According to your position, murder would then be morally licit.<br /><br />3. Let's say you're right that "morality is and has always been a social construct." What happens when someone realizes this is the case? Is there anything objectively wrong with someone murdering another person so long as he can get away with it without being caught?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.com