Saturday, 12 May 2007
-
Is Moral Accountability to a Creator Obvious?
It is? O rly?
Intro:
Hearing Kirk Cameron and his buddy on Nightline present their creation/creator tautology as irrefutable scientific proof of God’s existence…was insane. And it inspired this brief word on the difference between what is actually obvious…and what the Bible would like you to believe is obvious for the sake of coherent soteriology:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.Obvious statement: Every human that can walk on their feet ought to make use of their feet…if they want to get around.
Even people in wheel chairs and amputees who don’t have feet…agree with this statement. It is obvious. There isn’t a debate about it. We don’t live in a world where a third of the population rolls around on their side or walks on their hands…even to get to their car. We live in a world where every intelligent person knows and takes for granted that if you have feet…you should walk on them. We don’t have conversations about what I mean by “intelligent person” and no one puts up a fuss about any “is-ought” problem. No one has an excuse for not knowing what the hell feet are for…even if they think feet are ugly, and stink, and don’t want to use them.
Can we say the same thing about our world in relation to knowing that God exists and that we are morally accountable to him? Does the obviousness of the utility of feet require any contrived conspiracy theories about the sinful nature and the work of demons to maintain its status with the term "obvious?" Do we notice any pathological connection between belief in the utility of feet and foot fetishes?
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.Do you suppose any angels are Zoroastrians? Buddhists? Scientologists? What do you suppose the primary reason for that is? Perhaps being in the direct presence of God 24-7? That might do it…maybe. Even demons who merely wish God didn’t exist…would they call themselves atheists? Or mal-adjusted theists? lol
The best Satan could do is let his pride blind him to the fact that an omnipotent God can’t be beaten. That is rather impressive…incoherently impressive in fact, but God’s existence and the fact Satan is going to burn in hell for all eternity probably aren’t up for debate in the demonic world.
Outro:
We are with excuse. A LOT of them. We could be wrong…but not for any good reason. Of course if you take what Paul and a lot of Christians say seriously…we have a simple disproof of their entire worldview. Moral accountability to a creator god is not obvious to everyone given the diversity of belief on this planet. On the other hand, the utility of feet is obvious and requires no ad-hoc explanations or convoluted definitions of straight forward terms.
Ben
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to WAR_ON_ERROR's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in WAR_ON_ERROR's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (15)
First, you're comparing a tangible (feet) with an intangible (God) to state an obviousness of function. Neither Paul or James are referencing God as tangible -- merely that which is tangible is evidence of God's existence and design. I realize that where you're going with this is to say the tangible makes for a more obvious statement than an intangible. But can't that which is intangible still be obvious (like friendship or love)? And can't that which is tangible still be doubted or denied (like man never setting foot on the moon)?
Secondly, one is caused (feet) and the other causes (God). You are grouping both feet and God by means of Aristotelianism: material cause (the object), efficient cause (something to act upon it), formal cause (a form taken by the movement or development), and a final cause (a goal or purpose). God as either an existent being or an idea for supreme deity does not fit any of these definitions, but your argument for feet does. You are arguing God and feet objectively, but God was not an object in the first place. As before with tangibles vs. intangibles, you are saying objects external to the mind are obvious while internal subjective thought is not. I would argue that internal thought is in and of itself an obviousness of its own existence. You don't have to hand me a thought I can hold to prove to me that you think.
Thirdly, one operates under optimum conditions (feet) and the other operates unconditionally (God). As you said, people in wheel chairs and amputees cannot use their feet. Just because they agree on the function of feet doesn't make it an argument for the function of feet. Some people are born with feet and have never been able to use them, so how they adapt to existence and are able to move around doesn't include feet. If they were to agree that the function of feet is to walk around, they are making that argument based on observation only because it's something they've never experienced or understood. The function of feet doesn't have the same obviousness for someone who has never used them. At the same time, the existence of God doesn't have the same obviousness for someone who has never accessed God or doesn't do so regularly as opposed to the person who seeks Him daily. This does not change God's existence or function value. God does not operate by our will, but feet do under optimum conditions.
There's a song by Relient K called "Deathbed". One of the last lines of the song features John Foreman of Switchfoot singing as the voice of Christ, and He says, "Embrace me and you'll understand." I've always loved that line. I find obviousness in the existence of God, and some of the ways I see that obviousness I'd never be able to explain to you. But He's definitely there.
Tony
It is obvious to everyone what the utility of feet is. In comparison, being morally accountable to a creator god based on “natural revelation” is no where near as compelling as it needs to be as the Christian salvation paradigm requires all people to be in the know and without excuse on Judgment Day. It doesn't matter whether god is invisible and feet aren't...the point is God needs to be as obvious as feet (in whatever way) to fulfill this requirement.
It is interesting to note that the message of this post is obvious to a 15 year old girl that has never been on my site before...but that it’s completely incomprehensible to grown Christians...some of which have read a lot of what I've had to say before? Interesting... Would you say that you have some kind of legit excuse for not getting the message? Could you be a better example of a refutation of your own position? "God's mystical obviousness...no one without excuse! ARU's well articulated post (in native English, I might add)...the message a complete mystery!" I would be tempted to say that the message of my post is obvious to everyone that reads it...but of course you two are prime examples of that not being true...of course I could say that you are subverting your common sense for the sake of your Christian belief system...but I shouldn't have to go that far. It is obvious that people coming from different backgrounds and with different perspectives might not think something is as obvious as it is to me. You even said so. Surely you could extend the same interpretive latitude to the billions of people that have ever lived. “They don’t know where God is coming from…perhaps he could explain it to their simple minds….” Therefore no matter how clear I was in my post I can say that, "Well, I can't expect everyone to get it just by reading it. I might have to go make sure on a case by case basis..."
Gabe,
I don't doubt that an invisible force can be as obvious as a visible object (like say, gravity), but the point is regardless of whether you *can* recognize it...it is obvious people don't. I don’t have to insert my own personal unbelief in some kind of defensive way for my argument to hold up. Making a direct connection between the teleological inference and the "moral law giver" inference is something only certain cultural mindsets can't not see. Saying, "well I get it" isn't an argument on your behalf...it’s a subset of the full sample range that dovetails into the overall validity of my argument. And the best Christians can do is redefine other people's innate non-belief as some kind of subversion of the obvious instead of recognizing that moral accountability to a creator god is not innately obvious and that people do have plenty of excuses. Even ancient people that may never have even called attention to the force of gravity per se, I'm sure weren't in the dark about what happens when you step off a cliff.
How many people who were born without the use of their legs are really in the dark about what people use them for in general? Do you really think that they'll insist their innate disabled status is default and that all these "crazy" folks walking around are misusing their natural paper weight status? You might be able to find a handful all around the world in various asylums...but that in no way compares to the demographical discrepancies of what god thinks is obvious to everyone and what isn't.
ARU
You are welcome to make it simple for me, by stating you point as you would like me to understand it. Again, I am a simple people, but I thank you for any assumed intelligence that you credit me.
If you do want me to interact with it, please let me know that you wrote something on your site for me.
So, what points would you like me to interact with?
I can't help but note how much your xanga name reminds me of Pokemon...
but anyway...I actually directed you via a link to the post just before this which addresses the post that I originally commented on with the link. Its kinda hard to see it given your color scheme...oops. "Is Atheism Self Refuting?" is the title you ought look for.
ARU
Howdy, ARU. First of all, I'm surprised you actually chose to watch the Dateline debate. I opted to spare my brain the defilement. (That, and I believe I had a medical appointment around that time, as well.)
Hey JB, which one of the writers of "The Empty Tomb" converted?
That'd be Peter Kirby. Of course, reading his statements on the matter, I'd still say that it's difficult for me to regard him as... quite an orthodox Christian. Though I'm not sure that he's laid everything out on the table. Still, considering that one review I read of The Empty Tomb referred to him as the rising star, it's kinda ironic.
I need three things from you, if you would (book recommendations)
Ha, I can try, but I assure you that I'll disappoint.
The best case for OT Prophetic fullfillment
In what sense? That's kinda vague. If you're talking about NT use of the OT and messianic prophecy, Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period is a must. If you're thinking more Daniel and Ezekiel, primarily non-messianic stuff, I don't have anything on it, unfortunately.
the best case for the resurrection (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?)
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is definitely a must-get, but not so much for the resurrection as for the Gospels, though one could certainly use it to help with a resurrection case. I think Habermas' Case for the Resurrection of Jesus is decent, but I'm not sure whether it's the best. I think that Craig has a book out called The Son Rises, and judging from it's title, I presume that it has something to do with that topic. Holding just released The Impossible Faith, which might make a bid in that category. Perhaps better yet, I know that N. T. Wright wrote (say that five times fast...) a book called The Resurrection of the Son of God. I plan to get it eventually, but I hear that it's extraordinarily long, though a top-notch work on the subject.
You know, if you'd get an Amazon account and set up a wishlist, this'd all be a heck of a lot easier... *prod*
the best background coverage of all things ANE (which seems to be listed above?)
Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts is definitely something that everyone needs (and it just arrived in the mail today, along with The Empty Tomb). For background of ANE thought, I don't know if I have anything that specializes in that, but I'm looking into eventually getting a book by John Walton called Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible that might do the trick.
and whatever replaced Bruce Metzger's work, "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance" (if there even is one...people said its outdated).
Hmm, on that one, I'm going to have to confess ignorance. I haven't yet gotten my hands on any of the books about the canon, Metzger's included. You can always browse my Amazon wishlist and see if anything jumps out at you, of course, but other than that, I'm at a loss.
And any other major work that you would consider someone to have had to read in order to understand fully from a layperson's perspective the best of Christian apologetics would be much appreciated.
Works written for the "layperson" aren't exactly my specialty, but if I had to cite some books that I consider some of the most important for apologetics (though probably not always for the layperson), my list might look something like this (keeping in mind that many of them, I've yet to read):
- The Kalam Cosmological Argument by Craig, or Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology by Craig with Quentin Smith
- I'm not sure about a good book for the teleological argument (one who already knows enough could probably make use of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, though on account of length, I haven't cracked my copy open yet)
- maybe The Ontological Argument and God and Other Minds, both by Plantinga (though I'm personally more interested in getting the first one)
- Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Bauckham
- The Resurrection of the Son of God by Wright (along with perhaps some of the other resurrection-related books I mentioned)
- Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity by deSilva
- Toward Old Testament Ethics by Walter Kaiser and/or Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals by William Webb
- something rebutting the Jesus Seminar, these days - perhaps Jesus Under Fire by Wilkins and Moreland, or Boyd's Cynic Sage or Son of God?
- I recommend a good anthology of relevant ancient literature - ANET for those who can afford it, Old Testament Parallels by Matthews and Benjamin for those who can't
- other than all that, access to the Internet can suffice for some other issues
- you can also check the list that Holding put together here
As far as extremely lay versions go, that just sacrifices usefulness to the point that it'd no longer be of much interest to you.
Two questions in response:
1) Have you read Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology? If so, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
2) What do you regard as some of the essential books for unapologetics?
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go smash the television. There's a televangelist on.