Uncategorized

  • (politics) Conservative Parent Goal Post Moving on Obama's Education Speech

    Intro:

    In formulating my previous post (link), I went looking for some disconfirmation in my conservative news RSS folder in google reader (I even have a packed folder for libertarian news!).  My question to myself was about whether or not Fox News was really selling the conservative overreaction to Obama's upcoming speech to kids on the importance of education exactly as I was afraid they were (or had been led to believe by the likes of MSNBC).  Turns out they weren't, but then again, they were.  Yes, it's complicated and stupid as human psychology often is.  So here are some videos I found and my commentary.

    We'll start with this video and here we see one concerned parent who actually bothered to look up what the actual agenda was.  That's great!  More than I hoped for.  However, apparently the lack of something objectionable didn't change anything surprisingly enough.  It looks like they've moved the goal post back to a civil disobedience issue with the forum itself and only the *suspicion* of future indoctrination.  This maintains the original outrage over sight unseen at a speech they admit there's probably nothing wrong with.  Don't liberals and progressives rightly get to say, WTF?


    In this video, we have a slice of the more "sensible" crazy parents asking for just a hall pass. Well, she's not more sensible, she's just more practical.  She seems to admit that it's purely an a priori trust issue that's been imposed on this speech uncritically.  She claims the President demonizes opponents, name calls Americans, and surrounds himself with criminals and thugs? Somehow me thinks her sources there are just as half-assed as the current issue is (link).  Also, apparently the voluntary nature of the pipeline to school children is dubious? Ugh...  They might have some kind of point if they weren't just making up the liberal fascism wholesale.  I've noticed the "fair and balanced" framework of the interview seems to be at the expense of really taking the people they interview to task for all their bs claims they get away with. 


    Lots of random thoughts here.  Watch the video below and read, plz.

    So, in response to Colmes, they move the goal post again and the issue is now framed with "overexposure" to maintain the "going after kids" non-issue. Surreal! Orwellian! Indoctrination! Obama, you're not allowed to do anything normal/innocent when people disagree with you about unrelated topics!  "Orwellian" must be the new catch phrase for "does anything I disagree with." 

    There will supposedly be something political because he can't help it. O rly? Projection!

    So we see the goal post moved again when she's corrected (by her own team no less) about Obama going after young and impressionable 6th graders.

    I love Colmes here.  His attitude is priceless.  I think I would be laughing my ass off, just because I couldn't believe the interview was really happening.

    Hey, they sung the praise songs to Obama without the brain implant chips, thankyouverymuch.

    Apparently to them, Obama has made it clear that all their base are belong to him, because of all the awkward things he's had to do to keep the economy from going over the edge.  Like his political ambitions really were about owning car companies!

    "All this nonsense" Laura wants to avoid with her 4 year old...she means that pro-education nonsense she admitted the speech was about? And posters! OMFG!  It seems at some level Laura was connecting with Colmes' incredulity and that she knows her side doesn't have much of anything to stand on. 

    So Obama can't do the Ramadan dinner just like Bush because he "apologizes for America." Yes, GASP, he's in touch with the reality America has faults (link) and we just can't tolerate reality's liberal bias. 


    Outro:

    So what I think these three videos clearly show is that A:  Even Republicans know they don't have an actual issue.  B.  Certain conservatives are unwilling to conduct themselves as mature adults and are totally willing to move the goal posts over and over again to maintain their original a-rational sense of outrage.  But we're all human right?  C.  This is completely an a priori trust related issue based on a hundred other misrepresentations of Obama in general that has nothing to do with the contents of the speech to kids on education.  Insert whatever spaghetti accusations that have stuck in their minds that Fox News has thrown against the proverbial wall in the past, and go from there.  Is there even a kernel of a real issue here?  I did find a libertarian article (link) that claimed it was unconstitutional for a President to speak to kids on education.  lol, geez.  Man, I hate defending school! 

    Ben

  • (politics) My Lousy Thought of the Day

    As the crazy reaction to Obama's education speech seems to perfectly illustrate (link), we are in for a very ugly four years if something doesn't drastically change for the better.  I've been following the health care debate and I'm almost compelled to think each new iteration of crazy (link) is something that will just blow over.  But it's not like these people who believe in death panels (link), for instance, are going to suddenly stop recalling their conviction that Obama wants to kill grandma.  They aren't going to go look more deeply into the issue six months from now and refute their belief.  No, they think he is evil because of it and other similar claims, and therefore his every little move will be interpreted in light of all that came before to such amazingly ignorant degrees.  "Oh, no!  They've released him on our children!" 

    In my opinion, the lesson plans were not poorly worded (link) and the White House has nothing to apologize for.  Rather, the opposition is hyper-sensitive and what they think is accurate background knowledge on the President is not accurate background knowledge on the President (link vs link).  It's that freaking simple.  In context, "how can you help President Obama" should obviously be interpreted in "kid talk."  They can help the President by staying in school and getting an education!  Duh.  Oh yeah, and if mom and dad don't support health care reform, please report them to Obama's death squad.  Ugh... 

    All of the people who seem to think this crap can be avoided (link) and that the President is somehow responsible for preemptively countering absolutely every bat sh*t crazy overreaction to the most docile of moves need to remember:  There is no shortage of new and exciting ways to be wrong and only so many ways to be right.  It is absolutely impossible to plan for the millions of crazy directions people can go in order to disagree with an intelligent President.

    This is some serious well poisoning and it seems virtually every news broadcast on the topic has to dignify (and unendingly *sustain*) some rather ridiculous claims with air time not given to a host of other such conspiracy theories.  There might be a special on 9-11 truther claims (link), but it won't be half the newscast every night.  The liberal stereotype was that they thought Bush was stupid.  The republican stereotype is that they think Obama is evil.  There's a big difference.  [Granted, we now know Cheney is actually evil (link), but that's another issue, hehe]  I've run into people who offhandedly drop references to how they think Obama is literally the anti-Christ (link) in casual conversation. 

    To keep this in perspective of just how far away we are from sane discourse in this country, even a basic pro-choice stance in this country sets you apart with an almost insurmountable gulf on the value-scape.  We should be thankful we are not at civil war just because half of us think the other half endorses murder on a mass scale.  It seems Barack Hussein Obama is accumulating a long list of additional over-the-top demerits on one side of the political fence that he in no way earned and that's what allows all the character assassination to thrive.  And this list isn't being hosted by fringe crazy people.  It's on the lips of mainstream spokespersons for a major political party and routinely finds its way into the House and Senate. 

    The bottom line is that they honestly believe these things are true (I can only assume) and that they honestly aren't going to listen or want to negotiate about any important issue that follows.  The accusations and the rhetoric are so jacked up, it makes it impossible to plausibly do so.  "Hey, I think Mr. Anti-Christ/Hitler/Terrorist might have a point about issue x."  How is that going to happen?  The human ego doesn't back down so easily and it seems these political knots Right wing-dingers have tied the conversations in are only getting tighter and more numerous.  It even seems that their saner counterparts dabble in too much of the spaghetti that's been thrown up against the proverbial wall. 

    So if the intellectually challenged folk can sabotage massively important issues like health care (and then have the balls to claim the Left is stamping out debate), it seems the rest of Obama's presidency is f*cked with the promise of an unending parade of fact deficient, value centric, conspiracy-mongering in broad daylight that even Al Franken (link) won't be able to stop.  Anyone can squash one cell of a larger organism under the right conditions.  Now, what about the rest of them!?!?

    That was my lousy thought for the day the other day.  So, liberals, republicans, libertarians, and independents, please stop over and show me how I'm exaggerating so as to cheer me up.  :D   I'd really appreciate it.  Save me from my conclusions!  Moderate voices who disagree are quite welcome!

    Ben

  • C. S. Lewis, Steve Lowell, and Zoroastrianism on "Hotly Criticizing Divine Justice" (part 6)

     
    Intro:

    On Victor Reppert's (VR) Dangerous Idea blog, he quotes some C. S. Lewis to show that atheists can't call the universe evil unless it is a moral agent.  In addition, those hot headed atheist critics of God  should be commended for validating the theistic basis for morality and that their fervor is equal to how validated divine morality is. 

    VR never responded (link), but an anonymous Catholic Christian defended God's good name by saying (link) we don't know enough about him to know if he is evil or not.  And he apparently thinks that all that atheist talk about morality for some reason always sounds theistic.  He tried to deny that we have any idea what hell will be like.  He's clueless about how to tell the creation we have from a perfect creation.  Anon also complained that all the imperfect people he cares about wouldn't exist in a perfect world.  He never got back to me on my responses.

    Steve Lowell stepped up (link) to actually engage the arguments where they were without Anon's implausible denial.  He wants to see C. S. Lewis' original argument through to show that the hot criticism does validate Christian theistic morality if morality doesn't stand up apart from theism.  For some reason, he maintains that the subjective passions of Christianity's critics proves that morality is embedded in the fabric of reality.  Now, if this were poetry, I'd be pleased, but this apparently passes for epistemology.  :S  In a previous comment archive (link) we went back and forth on what I would consider a sober evaluation of what morality is versus the magical conceptions of it.  Then Steve tried to pull things back to the original argument from atheist hotness (link) and I explained some of my reasons for not taking Lewis' superfluous moral framework seriously.  I think we are about on the verge of simply repeating ourselves, but at least there has been some healthy exchange of ideas. 

    It also looks like VR has redated the post as Steve desired (link). 

    Steve responded:

    Ben,

    The problem with Zoroastrianism in this context is that we were assuming that something like the moral argument is correct, but it seems obvious that if it is correct then it's an argument that the ultimate source of our existence is a perfectly good personal being ... and this is something that Zoroastrians are going to deny.

    You asked me to elaborate on my comment that your argument to Zoroastrianism from Lewis' premises requires the success of the logical argument from evil. To be honest I can't exactly remember why I said that now, and it certainly seems an odd claim on the face of it, so I currently share your puzzlement. I guess I was thinking that if morality requires the existence of a good God (or god) then while Zoroastrianism might suffice (though for reasons stated above I think it doesn't) there will be no reason to go there rather than to theism unless you think that the argument from evil succeeds.

    Steve

    I responded:

    Steve,

    As I said, the argument from morality takes us no where coherent as is, and imo, is based on a number of flawed premises as I pointed out. If we have to conclude this supreme source of goodness exists, then we have no way of accounting for anything short of a moral perfection in any creation we are aware of. It's like saying there is a perfect universal health care system in the U. S. and yet 48 million people are uninsured. As I understand it, there are countries where you just can't help but be insured, even if you are not a resident, so the bar is appropriately "high" as far as the analogy goes. Zoroastrianism is the closest thing that allows for approximately what the Christian moral argument is shooting for, but also plausibly accounts for why we find a creation that is less than morally perfect. I'm not saying the argument works, because I don't think any of this works, but it does account for more of the facts *better* (as in only relatively) than the Christian theistic hypothesis. Anything really is a stretch.

    I suppose we could say that this supreme source of good does not necessarily have to be "all knowing" since that does not appear to be included anywhere in the structure of the argument (although I'm not familiar enough with Lewis' writings to know for sure). So an all powerful good god, who is a bit too incompetent to pull off a sustainable morally perfect creation might be another option. But again, we've popped ourselves out of Lewis' religion to make it work.

    Ben

    Outro:

    I wonder if VR will ever get around to giving some feedback. 

    Ben

  • C. S. Lewis, Zoroastrianism, and Steve Lowell on "Hotly Criticizing Divine Justice" (part 5)

    Intro:

    On Victor Reppert's (VR) Dangerous Idea blog, he quotes some C. S. Lewis to show that atheists can't call the universe evil unless it is a moral agent.  In addition, those hot headed atheist critics of God should be commended for validating the theistic basis for morality and that their fervor is equal to how validated divine morality is. 

    VR never responded (link), but an anonymous Catholic Christian defended God's good name by saying (link) we don't know enough about him to know if he is evil or not.  And he apparently thinks that all that atheist talk about morality for some reason always sounds theistic.  He tried to deny that we have any idea what hell will be like.  He's clueless about how to tell the creation we have from a perfect creation.  Anon also complained that all the imperfect people he cares about wouldn't exist in a perfect world.  He never got back to me.

    Steve Lowell stepped up (link) to actually engage the arguments where they were without Anon's implausible denial.  He wants to see C. S. Lewis' original argument through to show that the hot criticism does validate Christian theistic morality if morality doesn't stand up apart from theism.  Somehow the subjective passions of Christianity's critics proves that morality is embedded in the fabric of reality.  Now, if this were poetry, I'd be pleased, but this apparently passes for epistemology.  :S  In the previous comment archive (link) we went back and forth on what I would consider a sober evaluation of what morality is versus the magical conceptions of it.  And here, Steve tries to pull things back to the original argument from atheist hotness.  

    Steve responded:

    Ben,

    Okay. It seems to me that you did start off by granting "for the sake of argument" that morality can't be grounded outside of God. All I've been saying is that if you grant that, then Lewis's argument about "hotly criticizing divine justice" will go through.

    If you think that your moral judgments aren't to be taken seriously then obviously your moral judgments about God are included in that. Alternatively if you think that the only way you could take your moral judgments seriously is if moral truths are grounded in God, and that that would make God out to be immoral (on a some variation of the problem of evil) then your criticisms are of a form that cannot be called "hot" because after making the criticism you jettison the only ground (namely God) which allows you to take those criticisms seriously.

    In short, I've defended Lewis's argument using the tools which you were granting "for the sake of argument". Now come clean ... do you now think Lewis's argument in the initial post stands or falls with the claim that morality cannot be grounded outside God? If so, then my work is done. If not, then why not?

    Now one may still say that the argument fails because it's false that morality cannot be grounded in God. You seem to be saying that ... but I just want to make sure we agree about the dialectic before we begin to think about that.

    On Plantinga on the problem of evil I'd particularly recommend his earlier stuff: Part II of God and Other Minds and Part I of God, Freedom, and Evil.

    Steve Lovell

    I responded:

    Hey Steve,

    "Okay. It seems to me that you did start off by granting "for the sake of argument" that morality can't be grounded outside of God. All I've been saying is that if you grant that, then Lewis's argument about "hotly criticising divine justice" will go through."

    Right, and as I've mentioned, it "goes through" to Zoroastrianism. In other words, we accept that morality can only be grounded in theism, we come across a vast landscape of theistic claims, we compare them  to the justice ratio in the universe with the obvious expectation that a supremely good and powerful deity would make something that can't break down, rightly reject the Christian hypothesis for being incoherent and implausible and note that a religion like Zoroastrianism better explains the injustice and apathy of the universe. In which case we would be grounding our morality on that Zoroastrian ominipotent good god who is held at bay by the omnipotent evil god in order to "hotly criticize" the hypothetical Christian god who has no such legitimate excuse for his omnipotent hands being willfully tied around his immaterial back.  Continue reading →

  • C. S. Lewis, Victor Reppert, and Steve Lowell on "Hotly Criticizing Divine Justice" (part 4)


    Intro:

    On Victor Reppert's (VR) Dangerous Idea blog, he quotes some C. S. Lewis to show that atheists can't call the universe evil unless it is a moral agent.  In addition, those hot headed atheist critics of God should be commended for validating the theistic basis for morality and that their fervor is equal to how validated divine morality is. 

    VR never responded (link), but an anonymous Catholic Christian defended God's good name by saying (link) we don't know enough about him to know if he is evil or not.  And he apparently thinks that all that atheist talk about morality for some reason always sounds theistic.  He tried to deny that we have any idea what hell will be like.  He's clueless about how to tell the creation we have from a perfect creation.  Anon also complained that all the imperfect people he cares about wouldn't exist in a perfect world.  I think I did a fairly good job of showing him his errors, but he never got back to me.

    Steve Lowell stepped up (link) to actually engage the arguments where they were without Anon's implausible denial.  He wants to see C. S. Lewis' original argument through to show that the hot criticism does validate Christian theistic morality if morality doesn't stand up apart from theism.  Somehow the subjective passions of Christianity's critics proves that morality is embedded in the fabric of reality.  Now, if this were poetry, I'd be pleased, but this apparently passes for epistemology.  :S  What we find here is the back and forth on what I would consider a sober evaluation of what morality is versus the magical conceptions of it. 


    Steve responded:

    Ben,

    I completely agree that there will always be people that we cannot persuade to behave "correctly" and that that is so regardless of what moral theory we adopt. The question is whether despite that your theory still allows you to say that the person does wrong. I don't think yours does.

    The point that people with "broken brains" don't see moral truths does nothing to show that moral truths aren't "out there". People with broken brains might not be capable of seeing that 2+2=4 or apprehending basic empirical truths, but that doesn't make them any less objective.

    You still seem to be pushing the argument from evil. I agree with you, and with Lewis by the way, that if "good" doesn't mean pretty much the same thing when applied to God as when applied to us, then we don't have a God worth calling "good". But the argument from evil against God isn't able to show that we don't ... at least not so far as I can see. I assume you've read your Plantinga?

    Anyway, if the argument from evil doesn't decisively disprove the Christian God, but evil - being a moral category - gives us reason to think there is some higher source of the moral code then Lewis's argument, and his religion, remain very much intact. Your problem here seems to be that you think the argument from evil is successful - and that the moral argument for God is not. I disagree on both counts.

    Now I haven't said much to convince you here but allow me to restate the dialectic. You were beginning by granting that atheism cannot ground a moral code and criticizing the Christian God for not living up to "His own" moral code. I merely pointed out that if you grant that atheism cannot ground a moral code then since the argument from evil isn't "a knock down argument" all you've really done is to decrease the psychological force of the problem of evil by making it hypothetical ... so you are no longer "hotly" criticizing divine justice. Therefore Lewis's argument as in VR's original post still stands.

    Now this doesn't mean Lewis argument is right. Are you now conceding that IF morality cannot be grounded outside of God then Lewis is right? If so, the dialectic has shifted and the next question is whether that we can show that morality cannot be grounded outside of God. We evidently disagree about that, and there is plenty of discussion to be had along those lines ... but I'd just like to point out that it's a different discussion than the one we started with.

    Steve

    I responded:

    Steve,

    "You were beginning by granting that atheism cannot ground a moral code and criticizing the Christian God for not living up to "His own" moral code."

    For the sake of argument I was setting aside trying to ground morality outside of theism. I'm assuming that's what you were saying, but I'm not sure.

    I would consider that even if the human race simply has pulled its moral compass out of the infinite grab bag of all possible moral compasses, that we still have enough common ground as is, practically speaking, as a species to talk objectively about how that plays out consistently. If we don't then the use of common conscience even across cultures can't be used by Lewis to prove any kind of external law. We're just not that different from each other even if we have subjective cultural and memetic layers on top. Maybe evolution cobbles together a race of brains that all have a random affinity for Star Wars. Well, that is *a* grounding outside of theism. It's not as deep and wide as you might like, but it is a basis nonetheless to the extent there actually *are* factual commonalities.

    But I don't think we're even in that random a situation. If as omnipotent mad scientists we set up an infinite number of worlds with intelligent, conscious life forms similar to ourselves, and give each species a different moral compass from that infinite grab bag of all possible moral compasses, it seems pretty easy to infer what the results over time will likely be. Not everything is going to work. The moral compasses that point to concern for the well being of individuals and group members are likely going to persist, while the ones obsessed with circular squares and clown shoes probably won't do as well. Warlike species will wipe each other and themselves out eventually. Excessive individualism won't out compete group cooperation. And the general trend of what ultimately succeeds over time is likely going to look a lot like what we got or something very similar.

    So when it comes to the toss up between a random divine moral essence that has not been field tested at all and only exists as is for no reason whatsoever, I have to scratch my head and wonder why something like the golden rule has something to do with the fabric of reality and not more to do with the evolution of mirror neurons. But when I think of its utility in the persistence of a self aware species, all of the sudden its apparent arbitrariness starts making a lot of sense. Reciprocation works.  Continue reading →

  • C. S. Lewis and Steve Lowell on "Hotly Criticizing Divine Justice" (part 3)


    Intro:

    On Victor Reppert's (VR) Dangerous Idea blog, he quotes some C. S. Lewis to show that atheists can't call the universe evil unless it is a moral agent.  In addition, those hot headed atheist critics of God should be commended for validating the theistic basis for morality and that their fervor is equal to how validated divine morality is. 

    VR never responded (link), but an anonymous Catholic Christian defended God's good name by saying we don't know enough about him to know if he is evil or not.  And he apparently thinks that all that atheist talk about morality for some reason always sounds theistic.  He tried to deny that we have any idea what hell will be like.  He's clueless about how to tell the creation we have from a perfect creation.  Anon also complained that all the imperfect people he cares about wouldn't exist in a perfect world.  Oh dear, there'd be better versions of them.  Gasp! 

    Steve Lowell stepped up (link) to actually engage the arguments where they were without Anon's implausible denial.  He wants to see C. S. Lewis' original argument through to show that the hot criticism does validate Christian theistic morality if morality doesn't stand up apart from theism.  We'll see how that goes.

    Steve responded (link):

    Hi Ben (aka War),

    I'm not sure that you do "escape his [Lewis's] religion". You seem to be saying this because you think the moral standards which we endorse are not ones which God seems to follow ... and that if Christianity were true the moral standards we are endorsing are exactly the ones which He gave us.

    Now this is simply a slightly different formulation of the problem of evil, and stands or falls with the arguments from evil generally. Now I'm not convinced by those arguments ... though perhaps they do offer some sort of non-conclusive evidence for atheism or for the falsehood of Christianity. But in a context where we take those evils seriously they also provide evidence for the real existence of a moral code which is deeply rooted in reality ... and if that means in God then we haven't really got anywhere at all with the problem of evil.

    Your other comments are I assume an attempt to ground morality outside of God. There are several ways of going about this, but I haven't been convinced by any that I've seen. In your version of atheistic morality people will only have reason to act morally if the act in question will indeed contribute to their long-term happiness. But suppose the agent has only a few hours to live? There isn't a long term ... and the short-term pleasures are all that your account can say matters. (Unless, of course, we think there is life after death, but then you've not really succeeded in providing a genuinely atheistic morality.) But then it looks like you'd have no basis for condemning whatever a person on their deathbed might decide to do. Ultimately your account doesn't move us beyond subjectivism, it's just a rather more sophisticated subjectivism than one tends to see labeled as such in the textbooks.

    Steve Lovell

    I responded:

    Steve,

    You can just call me Ben, that's fine.

    I'm not sure that you do "escape his [Lewis's] religion". You seem to be saying this because you think the moral standards which we endorse are not ones which God seems to follow ... and that if Christianity were true the moral standards we are endorsing are exactly the ones which He gave us.

    I would have used the word "basically" instead of "exactly," but yes that's what I mean. If we give so much slack that the term "good" is robbed of all coherent moral content in the final result, I think we are being taken advantage of. How can we "be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect" if all that means is not being bound by any rules? That completely backfires if there's not some reasonable correspondence.

    But in a context where we take those evils seriously they also provide evidence for the real existence of a moral code which is deeply rooted in reality ... and if that means in God then we haven't really got anywhere at all with the problem of evil.

    True, ultimately if we followed that internal coherency disproof of Christianity to its logical conclusion, we'd still end up with a problem of evil for just about any other theism we could possibly imagine. Although the one exception that I know of which might work would be that if there is an omnipotent evil deity in addition to the omnipotent good deity. In which case, the bottom line might be an apparently apathetic universe because neither deity can triumph over the other. I think Zoroastrianism is in that ballpark, but that's not what Christianity advocates at all. Jesus arbitrarily decides to allow and not to take care of a less powerful evil being for the scope of human history with apparently disastrous results. Is that really what happens when I level up to moral god-hood? I sure hope not.

    BTW, I'm not really sure how you jump to the "moral code deeply rooted in reality." What does that even mean to have morality as part of the fabric of reality? We only confront it in our mental experience of ourselves and other persons. And we see that people with broken brains can be sociopaths who cannot be argued into moral positions. I don't really get why anyone infers some bizarre metaphysics to moral patterns since they are all very contingent on all the arbitrary psychological affairs humans are used to. This doesn't even have to be an argument per se as much as a, "I just don't understand why you go there."   Continue reading →

  • C. S. Lewis, Anon, and Steve Lowell on "Hotly Criticizing Divine Justice" (part 2)

    Intro:

    On Victor Reppert's (VR) Dangerous Idea blog, he quotes some C. S. Lewis to show that atheists can't call the universe evil unless it is a moral agent.  In addition, those hot headed atheist critics of God should be commended for validating the theistic basis for morality and that their fervor is equal to how validated divine morality is.  VR never responded, but an anonymous Catholic Christian did (link).  When I point to some of the more significant moral issues that the Bible presents like eternal damnation for any reason, "anon" seems to think he can get away with denying we know enough about it to pass judgment.  Also,  he can't imagine what a perfect creation would be like and he cannot bear to part existential company with the idea of all his imperfect friends and loved ones who wouldn't ever exist in a perfect world.  Steve Lowell however is a bit more sensible and takes the conversation into more engaging territory in an attempt to defend Lewis' initial argument.  

    Anon responded (link):

    WAR,

    Except I haven't the foggiest idea of what eternal damnation is like, whether anyone is actually eternally damned (as a Catholic, I can't even say if Judas is damned), the scope of those crimes, etc. Now, I'm sure you'll find other people who believe they can tell you exactly who is and is not going to hell (they may even be certain I'm on the list!) and precisely what hell is like. And they may even have some very good replies to your objections - I'd try to find some for the sake of sport if I were in another mood. But for now, I'll just defend my view - and for me, the particularities of hell are unknown. As a Catholic some dogma is made regarding generalities, but that only gets you so far.

    And of course it cuts both ways! What, you think the Christian claims to have total and complete knowledge about God? That's ridiculous. At most they may have some personal or philosophical reasons (powerful ones, in my view) to believe in God's existence, His goodness, etc. But even if you can be utterly certain that God is literally omnibenevolent, that still leaves you in the dark on His purposes and justifications. And since we're dealing with God, I'd argue no amount of raw information is going to be enough (how much finite information is necessary before you can comfortably judge an infinite being?) It ends up becoming an awful lot like some human relationships - in other words, trust is a major factor.

    Okay, fine, perfect creation. What the heck is a perfect creation? Why in the world would I want to be in something always-perfect, when perfection to the point of exclusivity would doom to non-existence everyone I love (all very imperfect beings, I assure you) and myself (trust me - imperfect as I am, I'm pretty damn spiffy.) Will no one argue for improving the imperfect? Hell, will no one argue for us mere imperfect people? So no, it doesn't seem clear to me that much of an argument can be made for this universe being amoral, or even that "this isn't the sort of world a benevolent God would make". And I'd object to your God who doesn't allow the existence of anything less than perfect as not quite meeting my own moral expectations. Whatever value that charge has, though skeptics seem to think it's a frightful charge.

    Finally, you're saying that objective morality via theism isn't very persuasive unless theism is true? I think even the most die-hard theists of saintly faith will admit to that. Though I'd dispute that the objective morality is "invisible" (except perhaps in the way "math" is invisible), and how much value it has. Either way, all I said on this point was that naturalism won't be providing "objective morality", and that those non-theistic options that do personally tend to strike me as very theistic-sounding.

    I responded:

    Anon,

    "Except I haven't the foggiest idea of what eternal damnation is like"

    As long as there is anyone suffering eternally in some way, shape, or form without possibility of "parole" I personally would never be able to condone the actions of the Biblical deity as "good." Why does it matter what kind of punishment it is or who exactly goes there? It's entirely petty to worry about how many prongs Satan's pitchfork has, when the outline of what we do have is clearly way off the charts as unacceptable. The basics presented in the Bible are pretty straight forward even if things are described metaphorically and the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to be on the same page.

    And of course it cuts both ways! What, you think the Christian claims to have total and complete knowledge about God? That's ridiculous.

    The claim would be that if there are serious issues to be brought up in the "problem of evil" category, and the theist claims we don't have enough information to determine whether God is guilty, then it seems also true that we don't have enough information to determine that he is good either. If you are content to re-write certain hymns with lyrics that go like, "God may or may not be good, I wouldn't know," so be it. I still think this is implausible denial. We don't have to know everything to know there can't possibly be some huge misunderstanding to explain all of it away.

    And since we're dealing with God, I'd argue no amount of raw information is going to be enough (how much finite information is necessary before you can comfortably judge an infinite being?)

    We may not know where all of this is going (with the exception that Jesus tells us most people will be damned to eternal suffering), but we do know how it is getting there. If the full range of happenings in this world are what you honestly think could possibly be the methodology of a supremely perfect being, I would try to be shocked if I wasn't so used to Christians defending the indefensible.  Continue reading →

  • C. S. Lewis, Victor Reppert, and Anon on "Hotly Criticizing Divine Justice" (part 1)

    Intro:

    On Victor Reppert's (VR) Dangerous Idea blog, he quotes some C. S. Lewis to show that atheists can't call the universe evil unless it is a moral agent.  In addition, those hot headed atheist critics of God should be commended for validating the theistic basis for morality and that their fervor is equal to how validated divine morality is.  VR never responded, but an anonymous Catholic Christian did.  There are several rather straight forward ways this backfires for theism, but at least here there is more recognition that there ought to be a connection between our definition of good and God's definition of good.  That makes for a more engaging conversation.

    Victor Reppert blogged (link):

    How eager ought we to be to set our standard of justice aside so that we can accept the ways of God. What Lewis is presupposing here is that our moral sense is rational, and that in a theistic universe, it should be thought to derive from God.

    There is, to be sure, one glaringly obvious ground for denying that any moral purpose at all is operative in the universe: namely, the actual course of events in all its wasteful cruelty and apparent indifference, or hostility, to life. But then, as I maintain, that is precisely the ground which we cannot use. Unless we judge this waste and cruelty to be real evils we cannot of course condemn the universe for exhibiting them. Unless we take our own standard of goodness to be valid in principle (however fallible our particular applications of it) we cannot mean anything by calling waste and cruelty evils. And unless we take our own standard to be something more than ours, to be in fact an objective principle to which we are responding, we cannot regard that standard as valid. In a word, unless we allow ultimate reality to be moral, we cannot morally condemn it. The more seriously we take our own charge of futility the more we are committed to the implication that reality in the last resort is not futile at all. The defiance of the good atheist hurled at an apparently ruthless and idiotic cosmos is really an unconscious homage to something in or behind that cosmos which he recognizes as infinitely valuable and authoritative: for if mercy and justice were really only private whims of his own with no objective and impersonal roots, and if he realized this, he could not go on being indignant. The fact that he arraigns heaven itself for disregarding them means that at some level of his mind he knows they are enthroned in a higher heaven still. I cannot and never could persuade myself that such defiance is displeasing to the supreme mind. There is something holier about the atheism of a Shelley than about the theism of a Paley. That is the lesson of the Book of Job. No explanation of the problem of unjust suffering is there given: that is not the point of the poem. The point is that the man who accepts our ordinary standard of good and by it hotly criticizes divine justice receives the divine approval: the orthodox, pious people who palter with that standard in the attempt to justify God are condemned. Apparently the way to advance from our imperfect apprehension of justice to the absolute justice is not to throw our imperfect apprehensions aside but boldly to go on applying them. Just as the pupil advances to more perfect arithmetic not by throwing his multiplication table away but by working it for all it is worth.
    From "De Futilitate," in Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), pp.69-70.

    I responded:

    I do often argue as a matter of internal coherency that if our moral compass is supposed to reflect God's essence, then naturally we should be able to evaluate any given theism by it that proposes such a relationship is valid. This point often falls on deaf ears, for the Christian folk who are used to arguing that non-theism has no place to hotly criticize the divine. I would like to think that if there was a good god out there, it would expect such a criticism and rejection of false religion. I don't see how a belief system can ask us to set our standards of justice aside so far as Christianity does to accommodate itself and ever hope in addition to that to pull off some kind of argument *from* morality.   Continue reading →

  • Spacebunny on "Sam Harris and Christian Arrogance"


    Intro:

    Fletch_F_Fletch (FFF) came up with a list of ten arguments from the New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris (SH) that seemed the most worthy of further consideration amongst fellow Christian thinkers.  FFF said he was focusing on objection six at the time I got started, so I thought I would give my input on just that one to keep things simpler.  So far, four more Christians got involved in the conversation (in addition to Travis, who is FFF) and so I'll be going at it with all of them. 

    Basically, SH notes that Christians claim to know more than scientists do about the what the universe is for based on faith all the while criticizing the science establishment for being arrogant about its own claims.  The main exchange with Vox Day can be found elsewhere (link). 

    VD tried to divert attention to other verses advocating humility in order to cancel out the prerequisite epistemic overconfidence.  Zeno tried directly to deny that the Bible has anything to say about what the universe is for (link).  Since VD attempted to undermine SH's ability to "ground" the concept of arrogance (which of course means it is impossible for Christians to be arrogant...er sumfing), the issue of the objectivity of naturalistic morality versus theistic morality came up.  P-dawg picked at one small tangent point concerning whether it is fair to expect theologians to develop a research program to objectively understand God's moral essence (link).  Picking up where VD and p-dawg left off, Spacebunny (SB) decides that I have no clue what I'm talking about when it comes to natural morality. 


    Spacebunny responded:
    WAR_ON_ERROR: 8/26/09 4:25 AM:

    Just about everyone has personal moral experience to pull from and in the broadest strokes we have a reasonable place to start.

    Yes, and in the western world you are pulling it from the Judeo Christian culture in which you were raised. To pretend that this is natural morality in the sense that Harris et al use is nonsensical at best.

    I responded:
    Spacebunny: 8/26/09 4:33 AM:

    Yes, and in the western world you are pulling it from the Judeo Christian culture in which you were raised. To pretend that this is natural morality in the sense that Harris et al use is nonsensical at best.

    To pretend like there is no common moral ground with other cultures is nonsensical at best.  Continue reading →

  • p-dawg on "Sam Harris and Christian Arrogance"


    Intro:

    Fletch_F_Fletch (FFF) came up with a list of ten arguments from the New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris (SH) that seemed the most worthy of further consideration amongst fellow Christian thinkers.  FFF said he was focusing on objection six at the time I got started, so I thought I would give my input on just that one to keep things simpler.  So far, four more Christians got involved in the conversation (in addition to Travis, who is FFF) and so I'll be going at it with all of them. 

    Basically, SH notes that Christians claim to know more than scientists do about the what the universe is for based on faith all the while criticizing the science establishment for being arrogant about its own claims.  The main exchange with Vox Day (VD) can be found elsewhere (link).  VD tried to divert attention to other verses advocating humility in order to cancel out the prerequisite epistemic overconfidence.  Zeno tried directly to deny that the Bible has anything to say about what the universe is for (link).  Since VD attempted to undermine SH's ability to "ground" the concept of arrogance (which of course means it is impossible for Christians to be arrogant...er sumfing), the issue of the objectivity of naturalistic morality versus theistic morality came up.  P-dawg picks at one small tangent point concerning whether it is fair to expect theologians to develop a research program to objectively understand God's moral essence.


    p-dawg responded:
    WAR_ON_ERROR: 8/26/09 4:25 AM:
    I doubt SH's theistic competitors will be doing something similar in order to get at a science of God's moral essence.

    I don't mean to bit nitpicky here, but why would they? If you believe that the Creator of the universe wrote some laws, and told you to follow them, why would you need to understand the science underpinning them? (and that's assuming there *is* any)

    If you want me to follow your system of morality, you need to make a compelling case as to why I should. For any "natural morality", that means explaining the scientific underpinning. But if you're "Dad", so to speak, you can say "Because I said so," and that's the end of it. It might be *nice* to know why, but it isn't *necessary*.

    I responded:
    p-dawg: 8/26/09 4:39 AM:

    I don't mean to bit nitpicky here, but why would they? If you believe that the Creator of the universe wrote some laws, and told you to follow them, why would you need to understand the science underpinning them? (and that's assuming there *is* any)

    I wouldn't actually think there would be any. Theistic morality is irreducible invisible magic by definition that exists as is for absolutely no reason whatsoever and there's nothing to investigate even in principle. That's beside the point. The ironic contrast is about how ridiculous it is to trust the random moral brain farts of ancient folk who only claim their divine laws are divine rather than what a serious modern scientific effort could tell us about human nature and how it best plays out in moral terms.

    p-dawg: 8/26/09 4:39 AM:

    If you want me to follow your system of morality, you need to make a compelling case as to why I should. For any "natural morality", that means explaining the scientific underpinning.

    Well, science is going to tell you all about how the human brain actually works. If you are at all interested in long term stable well rounded happiness, there are objective strategies for going about that which can best be discerned with modern collaborative techniques. Granted, if you aren't interested in that dividend, by all means. Ignore it. Seems pretty foolish to me. There are many difficult complicated moral issues that one comes across and having good research (or even some moral calculating computer that can deal with more variables than our brains can) would be incredibly helpful. I don't know why anyone in their right mind would reject such information. It's like saying, "Nothing we've ever learned about mental health from the field of psychology in the past 100 years means anything to me, because I think morality is magic." You might as well be Tom Cruise.

    p-dawg: 8/26/09 4:39 AM:
    But if you're "Dad", so to speak, you can say "Because I said so," and that's the end of it. It might be *nice* to know why, but it isn't *necessary*.

    A: Establishing that you are *actually* dealing with a moral authoritative figure seems relevant. If you don't know God exists or the supposed infallible advise seems a bit fallible, that seems a little damning. B: It *is* necessary to understand how the moral cogs are supposed to work, because the static text of the Bible a: isn't always self explanatory and b: doesn't cover every dynamic moral issue we come across. And C: Christians can't pretend like they don't understand how a great deal of their moral knowledge works based on their own intimate experience with it. Smart Christians do not blindly apply random infallible moral statements. They have at least some idea of what they are doing and supplement those statements with acquired moral wisdom.

    Ben

    Outro:

    There may be more to come, so stay tuned!

    Ben