On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2017, 02:49 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 01:27 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  If god is indeed incomprehensible, then it's ludicrous to say that it is "good".

I think one of my favorite quotes from Sam Harris is appropriate here.

"We're told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good, but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we're told that God is mysterious. Who can understand God's will? And yet this merely human understanding of God's will is precisely what believers use to establish his goodness in the first place. If something good happens to a Christian (he feels some bliss while praying, say, or he sees some positive change in his life), […] we're told that God is good. But when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents' arms and drowned, we're told that God is mysterious. This is how you play tennis without the net."

I swear, Sam Harris' oratory is almost as mesmerizing as Carl Sagan's, with that intellectually delicious cocktail of deliberation, eloquence, and straightforwardness.

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Glossophile's post
15-03-2017, 06:22 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
duplicate post

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 06:23 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(14-03-2017 05:45 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  The problem, of course, is that theists baldly presuppose P1 and use that assumption to guide their interpretation of scripture. I don't think it ever occurs to the typical theist that P1 itself needs justification until and unless they're confronted by a non-believer. So when they are finally challenged to justify it, I don't think they really know any other way to do so besides appealing to how they interpret scripture. In a sense, they have no choice but to be circular.

Theist don't need to justify P1, because Good is subjective, there are no right or wrong answers to what's morally Good, given that morality is subjective, and is matter of one's own personal, and perhaps communities view of it. An atheist may disagree with what a theist thinks is good, but it's more akin to two people disagreeing on what good food, or good music is, than the shape of the earth.

A problem that should be somewhat obvious, when comparing people who operate under two different foundational moral assumptions, such as one that treats morality as a matter of consequences, and a another that treats morality as a matter of perceived intentions.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 06:35 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-03-2017 05:45 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  The problem, of course, is that theists baldly presuppose P1 and use that assumption to guide their interpretation of scripture. I don't think it ever occurs to the typical theist that P1 itself needs justification until and unless they're confronted by a non-believer. So when they are finally challenged to justify it, I don't think they really know any other way to do so besides appealing to how they interpret scripture. In a sense, they have no choice but to be circular.

Theist don't need to justify P1, because Good is subjective, there are no right or wrong answers to what's morally Good, given that morality is subjective, and is matter of one's own personal, and perhaps communities view of it. An atheist may disagree with what a theist thinks is good, but it's more akin to two people disagreeing on what good food, or good music is, than the shape of the earth.

A problem that should be somewhat obvious, when comparing people who operate under two different foundational moral assumptions, such as one that treats morality as a matter of consequences, and a another that treats morality as a matter of perceived intentions.
They should justify it... because to them that's not the case of subjectivity.

Why would what they think is wrong be what they should be leaning on as mattering. That's what's so tiresome of your nihilistic defense of non nihilism.

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
15-03-2017, 06:44 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  They should justify it... because to them that's not the case of subjectivity.

Nope, they don't have to justify it one way or the other, regardless of whether they think it's subjective or not, since in fact it is subjective. Since what they hold as morally good, is not a factual claim, but a subjective one, regardless if they want to believe otherwise.

Secondly if I hold that morality is subjective, no one is required to justify what they perceive as morally good to me, anymore so than they need to justify that the Indian restaurant around the corner is the best in town. Since I am the one they are to be justifying themselves to, and I hold that morality is subjective, they are under no requirement to justify subjective statements. Because to me they are neither right nor wrong.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 07:04 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
The whole of all religions (with the exception of FSM) are much more easily explained if you start from the central concept that this "God" person is an absolute wanker....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
15-03-2017, 07:11 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 06:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  They should justify it... because to them that's not the case of subjectivity.

Nope, they don't have to justify it one way or the other, regardless of whether they think it's subjective or not, since in fact it is subjective. Since what they hold as morally good, is not a factual claim, but a subjective one, regardless if they want to believe otherwise.

Secondly if I hold that morality is subjective, no one is required to justify what they perceive as morally good to me, anymore so than they need to justify that the Indian restaurant around the corner is the best in town. Since I am the one they are to be justifying themselves to, and I hold that morality is subjective, they are under no requirement to justify subjective statements. Because to me they are neither right nor wrong.

> So when God commits genocide, it's not really genocide. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gwaithmir's post
15-03-2017, 07:19 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 07:11 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  > So when God commits genocide, it's not really genocide. Facepalm

It's typical of divine command (DC) theorists (William Lane Craig is one - whatever God does is good, no matter what it is). That way, they can carry out the most terrible and horrific of crimes and misdeeds and put it all down to "God's will."

DC was roundly refuted by an argument known as the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of arbitrariness.

More here (it's long but worth a read): Divine Command Theory
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
15-03-2017, 07:30 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 06:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  They should justify it... because to them that's not the case of subjectivity.

Nope, they don't have to justify it one way or the other, regardless of whether they think it's subjective or not, since in fact it is subjective. Since what they hold as morally good, is not a factual claim, but a subjective one, regardless if they want to believe otherwise.

Secondly if I hold that morality is subjective, no one is required to justify what they perceive as morally good to me, anymore so than they need to justify that the Indian restaurant around the corner is the best in town. Since I am the one they are to be justifying themselves to, and I hold that morality is subjective, they are under no requirement to justify subjective statements. Because to me they are neither right nor wrong.

In that last bit... you say to them to you... it's not you they're trying to justify themselves too

It's not to OTHERS it's to themselves or if they wanted an honest expulsion of the claims and ideas they possess. Other folks is not what they need to hold out towards but if that motivates you, it can be your case.

Just as you aren't here justifying yourself or belief to people here. If you're gonna do it, to some integral notion of doing it to do it makes more impact.

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 08:31 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 07:11 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  > So when God commits genocide, it's not really genocide. Facepalm

No, if a person thinks a particular genocide, was or is good, then they haven't made a factually incorrect statement. You may not agree with them, or their outlook, perhaps even finding it repulsive to your own liberal humanistic sentiments, but they are not wrong. If I think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a morally good thing, there's not much you can say, beyond restating that you personally didn't like it, in a variety of different ways.

My wife thinks runny eggs taste good, I think they're disgusting, she's under no obligation to justify that runny eggs taste good, and the nature of our disagreement isn't a factual one, but one about individual preference. I.E a subjective difference, not an objective one.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: