 mr_jargon
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Mister Jargon
Birthday: 1/20/1989
Gender: Male
Interests: Augustinianism, Ecclesiastical History, Eastern Christian Theology, Indian Philosophy
Occupation: Student
Message: message meEmail: email me
Member Since:
3/8/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Two Transcendental Arguments from Evil
1) If God exists, then God has sufficient power to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil.
2) If God exists, then God has sufficient motive to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil.
3) Non-disciplinary evil exists.
4) If non-disciplinary evil exists and God exists, then either God must lack either sufficient power or sufficient motive to prevent non-disciplinary evil.
5) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
1) If NNT (naturalistic non-theism) is true, then objective moral values do not exist.
2) If NNT is true, then intrinsic goods do not exist.
2) If objective moral values & intrinsic goods do not exist, then evil (loss in relation to objective value or intrinsic good) does not exist.
3) Evil exists.
4) If evil exists, then objective moral values & intrinsic goods must exist.
5) Therefore, NNT is false.
My position is that both arguments are cogent.
| | |
| The Super Problem of EvilConsider the following dilemma:
1) If God exists, then God has sufficient power to eliminate all evil.
2) If God exists, then God has sufficient motive to eliminate all evil.
3) Evil exists.
4) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the
power to eliminate all evil or lacks the desire to eliminate all evil.
5) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
The relevant terms (God, evil, power, motive, existence, etc.) can be qualified in different ways, but however one goes about it, the Christian must concede at least the following:
P1: There is some possible/actual of affairs where created agents possess freedom and fixity in virtue. (Heaven)
(P1) seems to undercut each and every possible free will defense available to the Christian, for the traditional Free Will Defense making the possibility of evil a necessary condition of human freedom, but that cannot be if (P1) is true. The problems do not stop here; it gets worse. Augustinians who subscribe to Scholastic, Reformed &/or Evangelical theology must make one more concession:
P2: It is the case that God could have created a world with free and perfectly virtuous human persons from the beginning.
It certainly seems that the Christian who believes that P1 & P2 are true must come to terms with a much more powerful POE.
| | |
| Response to H_Loves_C
Among the blogs I read on occasion is H_Loves_C. Why? Because it's healthy to expose oneself to alternative views, and although I think the polemic and insults to Christianity found there are pretty extreme, I can identify with some of the legitimate ethical-emotional concerns which underly them. Under each post it states:
Before you leave any feedback, please refer to my entries on evidence, and the FAQ at least. If you have questions specifically regarding atheism as such, please refer to the entry on atheism. (Items in red are links) I do not
respond to all comments. Are you wondering why I have a whole xanga
dedicated to religion, when I don't believe in any of it? Click here. Can I prove to you that your god does NOT exist? Click here *** Now I plan on doing better than reading each of these referenced pages; I plan on offering (hopefully substantive) commentary on each one, starting with the last page on proof:
Do not ask an atheist to prove that God does not exist. EVER. Here's why:
Atheism is divided into the "weak" and "strong" positions. Both reject
theism. The strong one would affirm that there is no god. In that
regard, you could potentially say that it contains an affirmation, a
claim, even if it is a negative one. Atheism is the rejection of
theism. It's so simple! As such, though, atheism in itself (especially
the weak position) makes no claims of any sort, it has no actual
content, so there is really nothing to defend, nor nothing to prove. It
is merely a position that says "I am not a theist."
Many of the claims made above are demonstrably false. Weak atheism is simply the absence of belief in (rather than the ''rejection'' of) theism; it involves no knowledge-truth claim. Strong atheism, as opposed to weak atheism, not only involves a knowledge-truth claim, it carries with it a burden of proof. According to Austin Cline:
"Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an
initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time
a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they
obligate themselves to support their claims. ...A strong atheist, ..., may be a weak atheist by
definition, but by adopting that label the person is in effect
communicating a willingness and interest to take a much more proactive
role in theological debates. They are more likely to assert right up
front that a particular god does not or cannot exist and then make a
case for that, even if the theist doesn’t do much to defend the
position of belief."
The above is sufficient to falsify the claim that this page sets out to prove. Moving on:
Our default position is always disbelief in
things/creatures UNTIL evidence of their existence is provided. The
evidence for the existence of a being or creature has to be sufficient
if we are to accept it, BEFORE we accept it. Asking for evidence of
the NON-existence of a being is epistemologically absurd.
This is actually false also. Disbelief is defined as the "mental rejection of something as untrue" rather than the simple absence of assent. It is also not (as was already established) 'epistemologically absurd' to ask for the evidence in support of a positive claim.
Think about it, and think about it without any special bias favoring your
particular creature or deity. Even Christians themselves do not
believe in a myriad of creatures and deities, yet I'm SURE that they
cannot provide sufficient evidence that those creatures/deities do not
exist. Do you believe in magic elves? Unicorns? Zeus? I will guess
that your answer would be an emphatic "no." Can you PROVE to me or show
me convincing evidence that those creatures or deities do not exist? I doubt it.
Generally speaking, Christians (both Augustinian and non-Augustinian) would deny that God belongs in the category of contingently existing material objects (magic elves, unicorns, Zeus), and influential non-theistic epistemologists like David Hume, Betrand Russell and Quine have denied that there is conclusive sensory evidence to logically necessitate belief in the existence of mind-independent material objects and other minds.
Therefore, epistemologically, the default position is to reject the
existence of creatures/things/deities, unless sufficient evidence can
be shored up to substantiate the claim that they exist. Your demand
for evidence of the non-existence of your god is unwarranted,
illogical, and unfair. In fact, it is one of the classic theistic
maneuvers, and it's getting old. Do some research into philosophy,
epistemology, and the burden of proof. I hope this clarifies the
"strong" atheist position.
I have done *some* research into philosophy, epistemology and the burden of proof, and I have yet to see how the active rejection of theism is "standard issue epistemology," if there even is such a thing. I actually have no idea what epistemology the author(s) of this blog subscribe to, be it rationalism, empiricism, coherentism, constructivism, contextualism, foundationalism, etc. The merits of consistent empiricism are quite disputable, and I think serious study of the history of philosophy will render this clear. Appeals to 'common sense' will not get the job done either.
Since the evidence for the existence of the Christian God (and all
gods) has been found to be insufficient, God can be said to not exist
in the same breath that we can say that Zeus or magic elves do not
exist. Also, when you speak of the characteristics of the
Christian God, and realize that many of them cancel each other out, or
are simply nonsense, we can rightfully deny the existence of such a
being. Much like we can certainly affirm that a married bachelor, or a
square circle cannot exist. Omnipotence and omniscience contradict each
other (I will not get into this - too involved. Research it on your
own).
I agree that there is no conclusive neutral evidence for Christianity, but then again there is no 'evidence' for anything apart from some accepted epistemological context and ontological framework. I also agree that the moment I came to realize that the Christian God cannot exist, I would be able to rightfully deny his existence, but that's a fairly trivial truth.
The quality of "perfection" also is out of place in the Christian God,
when you consider some of his other qualities. On top of that, saying
that God loves us, or worse yet, that he IS love, is patently
incompatible with his behavior in the Bible, especially the OT. No
amount of apologetic verbal acrobatics can excuse it, nor is context
("you're taking it out of context") a sufficient excuse for a being
that is allegedly eternal and perfect.
This is indeed a critical issue in Jewish-Christian exegetical history. Allow me to quote from the Abstract of the linked dissertation, for it articulates my own position on the matter.:
"The problem of theodicy pales in comparison with a literal reading
of texts where God commands Israel to massacre infants, women and
children. Whether it happened in reality or only in the text is not as
significant as one might at first suppose. In either case, God is
portrayed as standing behind the practice. This God is either beyond
morality, or, as many modern scholars believe, Israel misunderstood
what God had revealed. In the former case, one's view of God's
character suffers. In the latter, one's trust in Israel as a faithful
witness to God's words and deeds is severely eroded. I believe
that the herem is best understood as hyperbole. When read against its
ancient Near Eastern background and in its biblical context, it becomes
clear that the original writers and readers would have understood it as
such. My approach is consciously interdisciplinary and takes seriously
the contributions of archaeology, historical criticism, systematic
theology, and the history of exegesis. Augustine's belief in a
literal herem was a repudiation of four centuries of non-literal
exegesis of the ban. The literal view of the herem which has reigned
since Augustine led Christians to conclude that God is capable of
commanding genocide. The Crusades were only the most visible example of
the deleterious effect of a literal view of the herem. The damage done
to humanity's view of God's character has been even more far-reaching.
In sharp contrast, most modern scholars have refused to accept a
literal herem as coming from God; they assume that Israel simply
misunderstood God. But this view has exacerbated a crisis of confidence
in the Old Testament as revelation. I believe that the herem, when read in its ancient Near Eastern and biblical context, was intended as hyperbole." The post concludes:
There you go. I hope that's enough to make it clear. If it is not, then
it is hopeless to argue. Anyone which is entirely unable to grasp the
foregoing, is not someone I will spend one second of my time responding
to. Perhaps, perhaps not. I would probably concur just so long as 'understanding' is not equated with agreement.
| | |
| Kickless CarrierI recently purchased and have been carefully reading through Richard Carrier's Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism.
Needless to say, I have been largely disappointed by the depth, clarity
and cogency of the arguments contained therein. I mean, it did raise
many interesting questions, but my Eastern Christian worldview was
neither shocked nor shaken in the manner that I had hoped/expected it
to be. This series of posts will address some of the points raised and
arguments presented in this book.
Carrier claims to be a fan of
Betrand Russell, but I would never suspect such a thing from reading
this book. Betrand Russell was an extremely anti-metaphysical
empiricist and ethical non-cognitivist. Carrier is a self-confessed
"foundationalist," (eliminative?) "materialist," and ethical realist,
but he's really just a selective empiricist who just *assumes* a whole
bunch of things he can't know by his own standards in order to reach
desired conclusions. Let's look at what they have to say on the meaning
of life.
Russell: ...even
more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science
presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals
henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which
had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his
growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the
outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism,
no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life
beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion,
all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are
destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that
the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath
the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite
beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which
rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these
truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the
soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. (A Free Man's Worship)
Powerful
prose, indeed. From this vantage point, one can see the clear
connection between consistent empiricism, the suppression of ultimate
questions, and the emergence of modern existentialism. Now let's see
what Carrier has to say:
Carrier: Neither existing by accident nor existing only a short while change ANYTHING about the value of existing, the value of getting to be and to know the universe, to create something. (p. 161, emphasis added)
His
own ultra-scientific epistemology and materialist paradigm permits only
one possible categorization for this careless raising of an individual
subjective impression to the level of objective fact against grain of
human history and common experience: complete bullshit. More to come. | | |
|
