Thanks for keeping the site warm for me 🙂
Gotta lot of threads to catch up on, by the looks of things.
Still a bit gobsmacked by the number of Christians on Uncommon Descent who seem to think that William Lane Craig’s apologia for the divine command to genocide has any merit, and it’s left me somewhat sick of heart, but reassuring that Timaeus, and some others also find it abhorrent.
The idea that any action is good if you think that God commanded it seems to me so self-evidently dangerous that I simply cannot imagine how anyone can entertain it for a moment. And that’s only one of the problems with it.
For those out of the loop, the hoohah started here:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
I think Dawkins’ excuse rings hollow, myself, but his link to Craig’s essay on the genocide of the Canaanites made my blood run cold.
Does this mean you’ve deprived UD of your presence for good?
With regard to Dawkins, I agree that his excuse not to debate Craig rings a bit hollow. Personally, I think his strongest reason was in the first paragraph of his refusal: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.”
A much stronger reason why no one with any credibility should debate Craig is that such spectacles serve no purpose other than to whip partisans into a frenzy. If Craig has objective, empirical evidence for the existence of a god or gods, he should publish it in the peer reviewed literature where it can be analyzed and discussed ad nauseam. Craig will never do that, first because he has no such evidence and his arguments have long since been refuted, and second because his goal is to score rhetorical points, not to investigate the truth of his claims.
Welcome back!
I hope you found your foray into the Den of Design illuminating. It went largely as I thought it might although they were a little more tolerant of you than I expected.
I also found Craig’s views on the Canaanite episode offensive although unsurprising. Thoughtful Christians inevitably find themselves in the unenviable position of either having to defend the indefensible or of repudiating significant parts of the Bible with a consequent undermining of its reliability and authority.
Dawkins’s excuse for not debating Craig was a tactical error. There are two perfectly good reasons why it would have been far better to say nothing. First, it frustrates the rather-too-worldly ambitions of someone who is almost pathetically anxious to appear on the same debating platform and, second, it annoys the hell out of his supporters
Most disheartening of all is the line of argumentation that asserts the Canaanites–every last one of ’em–had it coming.
UD doesn’t have any intelligent design to talk about, and so every other ‘article’ is some hysterical piece regarding Dawkins (Boo hiss!) or Darwin (Hitler, racist!).
Therefore the regulars over there will happily defend the butchery of women and children rather than concede Dawkins might have a point.
“The idea that any action is good if you think that God commanded it seems to me so self-evidently dangerous that I simply cannot imagine how anyone can entertain it for a moment.”
Ah…Divine Command Theory; also known as the total abrogation of one’s moral responsibility to a book. Here’s a link to a debate between Dan Barker and Doug Wilson.
[audio src="http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/wilson-barker-debate.mp3" /]
Jump to approximately 48:30 mins to hear Doug Wilson inform us that beating slaves is good and moral.
Unless there’s an objective standard of good, killing off all the canaanites – and burning witches, and gassing Jews – is as moral as those who did it felt it to be at the time. That’s what you get when you base morality on feelings; the gander gets cooked right along with the goose.
How odd that moral subjectivists are aghast at what is from their perspective the subjective morality of Christians; which must by definition be as valid as those held by anyone else, including the subjectivists condemning them. After all, morality is – to them – subjective. It’s like saying that everyone is entitled to enjoy the taste of any fruit they like, but then condemn a group for enjoying the taste of tangerines.
A subjective moralist condemning the morality of christians is about as hypocritical as it gets. Christian morality can only be meaningfully (and non-hypocritically) critiqued if one judges them by some objective standard. Otherwise, you’re employing nothing but subjectivist rhetoric.
I do find Dawkins amusingly hypocritical, though. Here’s a guy that argues that we’re all basically biological automatons, doing whatever physics demands, our minds essentially illusory effects, without free will … every human being nothing more than what nature has wrought to that point … what’s to find deplorable about Craig, under that scenario? He’s just whatever Nature has generated. Dawkins would extend more intellectual courtesy to those committing genocide than one guy simply debating their actions:
It seems that Dawkins has a more enlightened view and less acrimony towards those who murder children than for a polite gentlemen making a perfectly logical assessment (now that I’ve read the argument) about the destruction of the Canaanites under Biblical morality and context.
I think that if Dawkins can calmly assess those who murder children as nothing more to get indignant or angry about than a malfunctioning toaster-oven, in all likelihood his outrage and disgust towards Craig’s argument is a rhetorical appeal to emotion to lay a smokescreen to excuse him from direct debate.
Do we assume, therefore, that you believe that the massacre of the Canaanites was the moral thing to do? Those who carried out the killings almost certainly did. They subscribed to the Divine Command theory of morality, whatever was ordained by God must be good. You appear to hold that the only escape from a subjectivist moral chaos is some sort of objective morality grounded in the existence of something like the Christian God.
Yet how are the views of a deity anything other than just one more subjective opinion? In what way are God’s moral judgments any better than yours or mine? The only difference that I can see is that an omnipotent God has the power to enforce its views on everyone else. In other words, an objective morality grounded in the existence of an omnipotent deity only offers us the supreme irony of a supreme being as the supreme example of might makes right.
What if the vast majority of subjects agree that there are certain interests that they all have in common, which they would like to have protected? What if they agree that they would prefer to live as long as possible, to have a reliable supply of food and water, to have a secure place to live, raise a family and enjoy the best that life has to offer? In other words, the only morality that can be called objective in any meaningful sense is collective, founded on the common interests of all human beings.
First, of all, William, thank you for your posts here, and for keeping things lively! I do hope some of your co-ID proponents will join you here, as I do plan on spending less time at UD, and certainly on taking a substantial break.
I’m not clear that Dawkins regards us all as “automatons” or what that would mean if he did. I think some “materialists” and many “antimaterialists” mistake the “materialist” view for the view that if something consists of parts, it has no properties that are not the properties of those parts, which is clearly nonsense.
I tend to call myself a “monist” (as opposed to “dualist”) on the principle that at least it doesn’t invite silly arguments regarding the role of energy (i.e. non-matter) or pattern (which is instantiated in material, but not material) in entities like, say, us.
But whatever the label, I agree (as I understand it) with you, that some things are self-evidently wrong, and you don’t need to believe in God to see that.
It follows, therefore, that the attribution of self-evidently wrong acts or commandments to a good God is an oxymoron. This is what Craig appears to me to be doing.
Do you disagree?
But whatever the label, I agree (as I understand it) with you, that some things are self-evidently wrong, and you don’t need to believe in God to see that.
Is this the same Elizabeth who said elsewhere on October 26, 2011 at 10:08 am:
What seems obvious ain’t necessarily so.
Why always this bizarre juxtaposition of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ morality? Morality is a judgement, a consideration, a position held by a person or a group of persons. For something to be objective it has to exist separate and independent from the mind, unaffected by what anyone thinks of it. If morality is defined by the mind of god, why would it suddenly become objective? It would still be a mental concept! Claiming that morality can be objective is as absurd as claiming that beauty can be objective. By their very nature of being mental judgements such abstractions can not be anything else but subjective, regardless if they are god-given or derived by humans and their cultures. The concept of objective morality is an oxymoron.
I know that Elizabeth claims that the Golden Rule is objective. I disagree. I say it is a widely shared subjective moral standard. Shared by so many different people in so many different cultures and over such a spans of time that it carries the weight of the human tradition, and yes, can be said to be of more importance than the whims of this or that individual. So it should a very good starting point for reaching agreement in discussions about morality. I am baffled why some of the Christians in this debate don’t fully embrace this principle, given that Jesus himself is reported to have taught it! And as soon as one embraces thie Golden Rule it becomes obvious that wholesale slaughter of children is a total abomination, never justified by any excuse. Trying to present justification is nothing but contemptuous. Whatever arguments the Christians present, they are not driven by considerations of morality at all, but merely by frantic efforts to try and keep their conflicting religious texts whole and supposedly ‘eternally true’.
In truth, this is not a discussion about morality, it is a thinly veiled discussion about the silly fringe idea of biblical inerrancy. Trying to tun this into a moral debate is perverse and grants the issue far more importance than it deserves. To hell with biblical inerrancy. Apologising for the wholesale slaughter of children – really, our Christian brethren should know better than that. It places them in the same camp as the 9/11 perpetrators.
fG
That seems to be the only argument. I’ve seen it before. It’s not new,
And we have yet another moral relativist who directly implicates that genocide is objectively wrong, when by their own petard (“I say it is a widely shared subjective moral standard.”) they are hoisted on the widely shared subjective moral standard of the Israelites that committed the genocide, or the 9/11 terrorists that believed their attacks to be moral (begging the questions: how widely? and if it is “widely shared”, by what authority can an individual within that community disagree?).
Apparently, as long as the view is “widely shared” (slavery, subjugation of women and children, witch-burning, canaanite-eradicating) it is by definition moral, which belies the hypocritical condemnation of what were definitionally moral activities (by their own slippery standard, anyway)
IOW, by your own standards and definitions (widely-held subjective moral standards) the genocide of the canaanites by the israelites was perfectly moral from the perspective of the israelites ( and, “from the perspective of” a group is the only kind of morality that exists to a subjectivist), but here you are “righteously” condemning it, and anyone defending it, and expecting everyone to agree with that condemnation as if it were objectively immoral.
Furthermore, by your own standard, if it was the general consensus of whatever nation you live in that the destruction of the canaanites by the israelites was a morally good event, then your disagreement with that constitutes an immoral position, and your condemnation of those that argue for and agree with the consensus moral position would be an immoral act.
And even further, if you engage in any activities or hold any views that are not in line with the consensus morality, then you are holding immoral views and engaging in immoral activities. Since morality is a description of how people ought to behave, then how do you justify any immoral views or activities you might engage in unless you are actively attempting to bring them into coordination with the consensus view?
If you are not attempting to bring your morals into line with the consensus, how can you justify that? If you don’t have to justify it, then why bother calling anything moral in the first place?
This is the self-refuting nonsense of subjectivist morality. You see, to an objectivist, morality means something, and has necessary ramifications, and so it is important to understand it for one’s own sake; to a subjectivist, morality is just an ill-considered rhetorical club they use to try and make other people feel bad because they have no rational argument whatsoever to contribute.
Good catch 🙂
Back shortly….
“It follows, therefore, that the attribution of self-evidently wrong acts or commandments to a good God is an oxymoron. This is what Craig appears to me to be doing.”
The problem lies in the justification (basis, grounds) one uses for supporting their contention that self-evidently true moral statements exist. How do they exist? Why? These are questions one cannot leave begged – they must be addressed.
One cannot simply refer to consensus, feeling, aribtrary commandment or other such things, because those things are essentially subjective in nature, therefore any act can be viewed as moral given the proper subjective conditions.
No, in order for there to be meaningful self-evidently true moral statements, there must be an objective “good” that is valid regardless of conditions. Self-evidently true moral statements must be accepted as unconditionally true (there are no conditions where torturing infants for personal pleasure is moral), so they must refer to an objective good (purpose, final cause), and cannot be altered, even by god. What is good must be a fundamental aspect of existence, because if it is just the arbitrary, subjective whim of any entity – even god – then it becomes nothing more than might makes right.
You cannot get an ought from an is. My collecting oil, sand, rocks and frogs, blending them up and baking them is just what it is, not right or wrong, until there is a purpose or final cause by which to understand the rightness or wrongness of my actions. If I am trying to bake a chocolate cake, them my actions are wrong. Right and wrong only exist in terms of a final cause; if self-evidently, unconditionally true moral statements exist that apply regardless of culture, time, etc., that means that humans must have a final cause – a purpose, that their actions either help fulfill, are neutral with respects to, or contribute against.
How can humans have an objective final cause (the good) without being intentionally made for a purpose? If we are not intentionally made for a purpose, all we can have are subjective purposes, and thus no moral statement is unconditionally, self-evidently true.
Of course, this is just a condensed and incomplete part of a much larger argument, but in order for there to be meaningful morality that is more than just appeals to emotion to manipulate people, humans must have a final purpose, and that final purpose reflects “the good” which a part of the very grounding of existence, which is taken as the sentient entity that generated humans (and all creation) for the purpose of serving the good, and was incapable of creating anything that was not for the purpose of serving the good.
Whether or not the actions of the Biblical god can be rationally justified is irrelevant to this fundamental point. However, one must realize that Craigs argument about the Canaanites vs the Israelites is perfectly logical, and the subjectivist has no grounds by which to rationally rebut – which is why there is so much appeal to outrage and feeling.
Of course, justifying genocide will evoke righteous outrage; but righteous by what standard? Subjectivists flail upon their own petard; the logic of Craig is perfect, even if what he argues feels abhorrent. It’s like Hitler arguing from Darwinistic principles that we should eliminate inferior races; given the premise, the argument is pretty sound, and subjectivists have nothing they can offer to rebut.
Only a moral objectivist has the grounds by which to significantly challenge any particular moral view, whether that view is offered by a religious institution, claimed to be by god, or is a consensus view of a culture. Without it, one is left flailing at windmills.
William J Murray,
Of course I expected exactly this kind of reply. For you and the likes of you, armchair philosophising and fundamentalist drivel trump common human decency. Fine, but don’t complain when the rest of us consider you beyond the pale by refusing to condemn the wholesale slaughter of children. I couldn’t care less if you think I have no rational basis for my condemnation of what happened in that biblical story (if it ever happened). Objective, subjective, rubbishective. P
Here’s a suggestion: put down that bible, stop arguing like a sophomore and look inside yourself to see if you can find some compassion, some shred of a conscience, some simple human empathy – if not, please seek professional help and in the meantime stay away from my children.
fG
William J Murray,
Umm, this isn’t about them, this is about you. And you still haven’t answered the question: Do we assume, therefore, that you believe that the massacre of the Canaanites was the moral thing to do?
Come on William, since you possess the objective moral standard, why do you refuse to answer?
Speaking for myself, the genocide of the canaanites by the israelites is immoral. Perhaps the israelites themselves believed it was moral, but I can still condemn it and I would expect others to condemn it also. It doesn’t have to be objectively immoral. It would be nice, however, if we could agree that genocide is something to be opposed.
Toss around “objective” and “subjective” all you want. At the end of the day, you are not opposed to genocide when it’s conducted by folks you like and against folks you don’t care about.
William J Murray,
This is quite true, however if there is no moral standard than other folk are free to feel subjectively morally outraged at such actions because they base their own subject moral standing on empathy. See how that works? Then, in such a scenario, the people with the majority moral standing will fight to uphold that worldview and…oh wait…that’s actually what happens in the real world.
William J Murray,
The problem with this retort to Dawkins et al’s explanation of the physicality of human nature is that it displays not only a misunderstanding of what the explanation is, but also a gross ignorance of physiology and neurology. For instance, it automatically assumes organism biology (to say nothing of physics and chemistry in general) consists of nothing but linear reactions. No feedback loops, no emergent properties, no actions that themselves becomes stimuli for other processes, etc.
So what’s deplorable about Craig if his brain is just doing what physics, chemistry and natural laws are just doing their things? Simple? Physics, chemistry, and natural laws (among other things) have still given Craig’s behavior stimuli from memory and emotional analysis from prior experience. That Craig refuses to reference those simple structures and thus can’t figure out the atrocity that his mythical god engineered via simple empathy removes any credibility from his claims of Christianity, to say nothing of demonstrating that his basis or morality excludes compassion.
Note the appeal to ad hominem and emotion – as I said.
Where did I refuse to condemn it? I said Craig’s argument is perfectly logical given his premises. I condemn the wholesale slaughter of children, and I also condemn anyone who claims it is made moral simply by command of god.
The difference, however, between condemnation by moral relativists and my condemnation is that I’m not being a hypocrite; I have a standard (sufficient warrant) and a logical framework that serves to provide me the necessary grounding and reason to be able to rationally condemn such views, whereas the moral relativist can only appeal to “feelings” and employ logical fallacy and rhetoric, and even while doing so destroy their own “subjectivist” argument and imply that some things are objectively immoral – as you just did.
You might read my posts more carefully in the future.
That’s about the level of debate I expected.
I never picked it up. I haven’t read the bible, and don’t argue from the bible. Check your assumptions.
More ad hominem.
Over and over again,…many of us have told you, …we have “subjective” opinions of what is moral.
Over and over , ..we have said, ..”Golden Rule”, …..**not** objective morality.
Look at the two sentences above, and apply what you just said to faded_Gory, about, “You might read my posts more carefully in the future”.
From Craig’s perspective, and from the framework of moral subjectivism, it seems to me the slaughter of the canaanites was entirely moral (the only logical answer given the frameworks involved).
From my personal point of view on “what is moral”, the slaughter of an entire enthic group wholesale could only have been an immoral act. The problem with Craig’s argument is not in his logic going forth from his premises, but rather in his characteristic structure of what god is – his premise about what god is, is – IMO – necessarily erroneous.
He considers “what is moral” a “command” that god issues in conditional situations as god sees fit. In that sense, “what is moral” is nothing but “might makes right”, and god – being the mightiest – can make any act “right” simply by commanding it.
Craig writes:
Good either exists as a fundamental aspect of what god AND existence itself is, or there is no reason other than god’s threats to fall in line with whatever god commands. People are right to be morally outraged by such a line of reasoning – but only if they are judging such a position from one that has sufficient warrant to judge it accordingly. Subjectivism provides no such warrant.
Subjectivism endorses might makes right as as good a moral rule as any other, and so has no means to condemn such a god, or belief in such a god, or Craig’s morals, or the morals of the Israelites.
I’m against genocide regardless of who or what advocates it.
Some people don’t base their moralities on empathetic feelings, because they know feelings can be used to justify or condemn any behavior whatsoever. Feelings might be a part of the equation, but there must be a superior evaluating metric that judges which feelings are in line with correct morality and which are not.
Whether or not they are linear reactions is irrelevant; without the premise of a supervening, acausal free will, Craig and Dawkins are still just biological machines doing what physics programs them to do, and Dawkins – by his own writing – affords those who murder children a more charitable interpretation than he affords Craig.
But, being a self-defined biological automaton, Dawkins cannot help it. He just does whatever physics commands.
Says the guy who has admitted his “arguments” are appeals to emotion.
Lol! Ok, let’s hear it then, this ‘sufficient warrant and logical framework’, so we can all marvel at how fantastically objective it is, and how at no point ever it relies on your or anyone else’s subjective choices, decisions and preferences.
In the meantime, we remain thoroughly unimpressed by your efforts to defend the abhorrent ‘logic’ of Craig, and your insistence to discredit those who reject sophistry and refuse to be sidetracked into a wholly disgusting debate on the ”question” if wholesale slaughter of childern is ”really” wrong, or is merely ”thought to be” wrong. That is not the real issue at all, sir – no, the point that Craig and the likes of him are frantically trying to disguise and deflect from is if one can get away with murder of children when one really, really believes that ‘God told me to do it’.
And the answer is quite simple – no, we won’t let that happen.
fG
William J Murray,
Whether or not this…….,
……is right, has nothing to do with whether your statement here…………..
…is wrong, which it is.
What scares me is that you would require any sort of outside “necessary grounding” for your condemnation, while we don’t.
Larry Tanner,
Apparently the animals were sinners too:
6:21
KJV
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Joshua 6:21
English Standard Version (ESV)
21Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.
God must have needed treasure to pay for a new throne and a beard trim:
KJV
6:24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
I came across this comment by a woman (in reference to the Canaanite slaughter) on a Catholic forum:
“I trust the Lord judged each of the slain individuals according to his perfect justice and mercy.”
Think about all of the times that kairosfocus has raged against the idea or belief that “might makes right”, read Eph 6:10, and look at what’s stated here:
http://www.brandonweb.com/sermons/sermonpages/joshua16.htm
I’d say that the wrong asses were destroyed.
William J Murray said: “But, being a self-defined biological automaton, Dawkins cannot help it. He just does whatever physics commands.”
Actually, being self-defined religious automatons, you Christians cannot think for yourselves. You just support and do whatever your God commands.
Look, William, you’re either for genocide or against it. You say you’re against it, sort of, but you go on and on making excuses for it when it’s commanded by your God. You and the other genocide supporters are the ones who needs a morality check. Grounding your fake, so-called morality in a fake God is a poor substitute for being a moral person.
All you genocide supporters are doing is showing your true colors, which is that anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, is okay with you if you believe that your God is behind it.
But that’s what we have been telling you for weeks, that your premises need to be valid for your logical conclusion to be valid.
You argued against all of us.
We are now agreed though, that if your premises aren’t valid, then your conclusions are not valid.
William J Murray,
William, there is absolutely nothing objective about your beliefs or morality. You’re just subjectively using your belief in a fake God as a placeholder or label for your so-called morality. I could say that I “ground” my morality in a bowl of tomato soup and it would be more valid than what you claim. At least tomato soup actually exiists.
What really matters though is whether I act as a moral person, regardless of whatever subjective placeholder or label I may choose as a grounding. Frankly, when I interact with other people I don’t care one iota what placeholder or label they apply to their morals. I only care that they actually are moral. Where they get it from is irrelevant. In other words, if they’re a dishonest asshole it doesn’t matter if they say that their morals are grounded in some so-called God, because they’re still a dishonest asshole, and if they’re an honest, caring person it doesn’t matter if they say that their morals are grounded in a bowl of tomato soup or nothing at all, because they’re still an honest caring person.
You, and a lot of other religious people, should be a lot more concerned with actually being moral than with what you subjectively believe morality should be grounded in.
Without any grounding for your condemnation, it is worthless. Anyone can condemn anything – such as, witchcraft, being black, being a Jew, being a Canaanite – as being abhorrent.
I’ve never made any excuses for genocide. My god has never commanded genocide. My god has never commanded anything. My god doesn’t make commands.
You need to check your assumptions.
No, we are not agreed.
How would you know?
You might want to actually read my posts. I’m not a Christian. I’ve never read the bible.
I was raised a Methodist (but never cracked open a Bible – my family was at best comprised of half-hearted Christians). I abandoned Christianity when I was 18 (spouting much of the same anti-christian rhetoric I read here and on other sites), sampling many views and beliefs, including some Eastern spiritualities. I became a materialist atheist when I was about 31or 32. That lasted for about 10 years, when I decided to become a theist, and began working on developing a functional, rational theism.
I’ve been working on that theism no for about 10 years. It is by far the most functionally successful belief system I’ve ever had.
I’m so glad you asked.
I know because I’m intelligent, sane, aware, observant, educated, streetwise, and most of all because I can think for myself and am not dependent on some made up, subjective, religious crutch that makes me think that there is some all-powerful sky fairy somewhere that is the only “objective” creator and arbiter of morals. In other words, I’m a grown man who has learned and been taught what is right and wrong and I don’t need an imaginary, abusive, genocidal father figure to scare or reward me into being a good boy.
How do you “know” that you’re right and I’m wrong? What makes your subjective beliefs objectively correct, besides your subjective belief that they are objectively correct?
So, you decided to abandoned Christianity, then chose to sample many views and beliefs, then chose to be a “material atheist”, and then decided to become a theist, and made up your own belief system, which you’re still working on. What could be more subjective?
Do you have any idea of how many people make up their religious or *spiritual* belief system and claim that it is singularly objective and correct?
Dear Liz,
Just thought I’d stop by and say hi.
During the years of my youth when I was lost in the dark, depressing depths of atheistic materialism, the piano and classical music were my refuge. From the age of seven my piano teacher was Ruby Bailey, who died tragically in a single-car auto accident. She was like a second mother to me.
Ruby gave me a gift that still blesses me to this day.
You can download some of my piano recordings at:
http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com
and I would be happy to mail you a set of CDs if you like.
Hi Elizabeth and everyone.
I thought I’d stop by and say hello as well.
bugman,
In my understanding, Gil stopped by in response to the news that Elizabeth was taking a break from UD, and still wishes to have correspondence with her in her absence. He left a similar message to her at UD, and I suppose he left this one here so that if she didn’t see the other one, she would see this one here.
Anyway, I noticed and am delighted that William J. Murray is participating here. I might drop by from time to time, but I will probably be more of a lurker than a participant. I would like to thank Elizabeth for the invite.
I can’t really get into the issue at hand, as I believe I’ve pretty much exhausted my ability to address them at UD. I’ll leave you with the confirmation that I’m one of those reprehensible Christians who believe that the Canaanite slaughter was an act of justice and protection for the Israelites. Of course there’s more to this than I think has been covered on either blog, but I encourage everyone here to try to come to terms with as much as can be known about the alleged event before making judgments regarding Christians who accept it as I do. That approach, I propose would certainly be more agreeable to most of us who desire to know truth.
BTW, at UD I’m CannuckianYankee. Since I’ve now begun (yet another) blog of my own I decided to be a lot less anonymous, since I want my blog on Christian apologetics and arguments for the existence of God to have a more personal feel. And since I came up with that name several years ago, the spelling is wrong, and it’s rather long, I hope to some day disown it.
I don’t claim my belief system is singularly correct or objective. It seems to me that in your repeated attempt to find some quick way to marginalize me and dismiss my ideas, you keep making completely erroneous assumptions and jump to unwarranted conclusions.
You might try reading my posts with a less defensive (or less aggressive) attitude and with a more open mind.
Hello, Brandon and welcome to both you and Gil. I’ve promised to be on my best behavior because I respect Lizzie’s ambition to create a forum for civilized discussion rather than confrontation.
I prefer to call myself agnostic although, in practice, I’m also what you would probably call a materialist atheist. I was raised as a Protestant and I still have a great deal of time for Christians who follow what I believe are the best traditions of the faith. What I find offensive are the more aggressive, self-righteous and intolerant forms of evangelical Christianity, seen in its more extreme form in groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, which are centered in – although by no means unique to – North America. They are not what I was brought up to believe Christianity was all about.
That said, I still believe it is possible to have rational and fruitful discussions with people of different beliefs and good will so, as far as I’m concerned, join in whenever you feel like it.
I don’t know that I’m right and you’re wrong; I’ve never claimed to know. My arguments are not attempts to discern or prove factual truths about the world, but are rather examinations of the logic used in these arguments about fundamental beliefs. I don’t believe in god because I know it is a fact that god exists, or because I was indoctrinated to; I believe in god because I choose to. I can choose not to any time I want.
It’s completely possible that there is no god whatsoever, or some god completely unlike the one I have chosen to believe in. It’s completely possible that your views are objectively true and mine are complete fantasy; which is why I asked you how you know that none of my views are objectively true – especially since you don’t even know what 99%of my views are.
It seems to me your claim about my views can’t be based on knowledge (since you don’t even know what most of them are), but rather must be based on assumption and a rather negative and dismissive perspective about theism in general (as evidenced by the large amount of disparaging terminology you use in your posts when addressing theistic ideas).
That might be your general debate technique – utilizing an Alinsky-ish, critical-theory style of rhetoric to browbeat others and attempt to make them feel inferior, unintelligent, or excluded from the “in” group here to persuade them, but I don’t see how that is any different from the religious zealot types that seem to fill you with such righteous condemnation. Do you really want to act like them in your arguments against them and their beliefs?
I’m not interested in flinging rhetorical feces around the room; I’m more interested in rational debate about ideas.
Thank, Gil! Downloading those now. And welcome to TSZ. You will be very welcome any time you want to drop by.
Yes, music is powerful stuff. My passions are for earlier music, but I’m not immune to Rachmaninov!
And now I’m home, doing a little tidying up 🙂
If you can’t find your post, it’s probably in Guano. I am extremely unlikely actually to delete any posts.
Welcome, Brandon! I always enjoy your posts at UD, and look forward to reading your blog.
I mostly disagree with you profoundly, as you know, but you always leave me with something interesting to think about, nonetheless!
I hope you will drop by from time to time, although I know discussion sites can be time-consuming!
Whether you’ve ever specifically claimed that you are right or that I or anyone else are wrong, you certainly do come across as believing that you are 110% right and that anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong, but is completely lost in the depths of amoral evil.
“I don’t believe in god because I know it is a fact that god exists, or because I was indoctrinated to; I believe in god because I choose to.I can choose not to any time I want.”
In other words, you and other religious people do exactly what I and others have said. You subjectively “choose” who, what, why, and how you want to label and style your belief system, and it is subject to change, in any direction, at your subjective whim.
My “views” are subjective too (I choose them) but at least when it comes to nature and science they are based on objective, reliable, verifiable evidence. I’m skeptical of science too and don’t automatically accept everything that any scientist may claim. I scrutinize the claim and the proposed evidence carefully and I realize that many things about nature are still unknown and may never be known. However, just because many things about nature are unknown and may never be known doesn’t mean that I’m going to try to fill the gaps with subjective, made-up, non-evidential religious beliefs, and I definitely would never choose or accept any religious dogma that hypocritically justifies genocide while also claiming that the God that ordered it is a loving, merciful, forgiving, moral God and the only correct “grounding” for morality.
Of course I don’t know all of your views on absolutely everything but I’ve seen more than enough from you and the other genocide supporters and moral superiority claimants on UD or here to know that what I’ve said is accurate and justified.
Yes, my perspective of and terminology about theism or any other religion are negative, dismissive, and disparaging because I feel that way about any dangerous, threatening, hypocritical, controlling, dishonest, self righteous agenda.
You obviously think that you’re not one of the religious zealot types, who are actually the ones utilizing an Alinsky-ish, critical-theory style of rhetoric to browbeat others and attempt to make them feel inferior, unintelligent, or excluded from the Godly “in” group. If you’re not one of “them”, why do you sound just like “them” and why aren’t you standing up against “them” on UD and wherever else they are? You know what they say about birds of a feather, don’t you? What you don’t grasp about me and other people like me is that we are responding to and standing up against the aggression of religious zealots who want to force their dogma upon us, and at least we aren’t advocating the genocide of our aggressors.
“I’m not interested in flinging rhetorical feces around the room; I’m more interested in rational debate about ideas.”
I don’t believe you, because the beliefs and views and other comments you have posted here, and especially the ones you have posted on UD during your history there, and the fact that you flock together with and don’t stand up against WL Craig, genocide, and the copious wrongs of other religious zealots on UD, says otherwise.
GilDodgen,
Brandon Ward,
It would be great if you guys could try and persuade UD to allow commenting by those of us who’s only crime was disagreeing with ID.
In my case and many others, there was never …any… incivility shown to the commenters on UD but we got booted for simply disagreeing.
If ID really has a defensible position, why wouldn’t you want it tested?