Patrickatheism

If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.

Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.

This is the world of Patrickatheism.

762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism

  1. petrushka: Has nothing to do with god.

    Has to do with my experience with people who attempt to control or manipulate me with silly threats or silly promises.

    So you prejudge God’s motives based on your experience with people.
    I think I see your problem 😉

    peace

  2. fifthmonarchyman: Yet you seem to be obsessed with the characteristics of the “anthropomorphic sky daddy” of your imagination .

    I know, right?

    Perhaps Patrick can share his knowledge of ancient Hebrew and how the language included the terms needed to speak of God in the abstract.

  3. Mung: Patrick: Here are the criteria:

    I’m interested in a definition of “god” that:

    a) is internally consistent.
    b) is not contradicted by real world observations.
    c) is roughly in the same ballpark as what other theists would generally agree is what they worship.

    Mung: This is good. This is what you mean by a rigorous definition, so we don’t have to ask what you mean by rigorous?

    Do these conditions satisfy your criteria for a rigorous definition?

  4. Mung: Perhaps Patrick can share his knowledge of ancient Hebrew and how the language included the terms needed to speak of God in the abstract.

    This is one of my favorite OT passages. It’s the Locus classicus of God’s self revelation.

    quote:

    Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”
    (Exo 3:13-14)

    end quote:

    That is some deep stuff. I don’t care who you are.

    “I AM” is pretty much the opposite of an “anthropomorphic sky daddy”

    check it out

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman:

    You say your god “cannot be comprehended of any but himself”, which makes it impossible to determine internal consistency by definition.

    1) You are still confusing a concept with the thing itself, God can be internally inconsistent and my definition be perfectly consistent.

    It could be, but it isn’t. You’ve essentially defined your god as undefinable by anything other than a god.

    2) You don’t have to fully comprehend a thing to know that it is internally consistent. I don’t fully comprehend the universe but I know it’s internally consistent.

    No, you don’t know that if you don’t fully comprehend what you claim to know about.

    You also use words like “spirit” without defining those.

    There are lots of words in the definition and I did not define any of them. If you like I can define all if them one at a time. Just say the word.

    “Spirit” is a good one to start with, along with some evidence that any such thing exists (once you define it, of course).

    Is the entity you describe contradicted by real world observations? You claim it “gives being . . . to all other things” and is “infinite in . . . justice, goodness . . . .” Since we observe injustice and evil in the real world your description fails that criteria.

    1) You have not demonstrated that there is injustice and evil in the world. I’m not sure how you would do so. How would you objectively measure it?

    Most people can see it. Only those so blinded by their faith as to trivialize slavery as “temporary and local” seem to lack the moral capability to do so.

    2) injustice and evil don’t have any being. They are simply the negation of justice and good. A lack of being if you will

    When an entity causes infants to be born with diseases that result in short lives full of only suffering, I’d call that deliberate evil.

    The argument from evil is old and stands the test of time demonstrating the impossibility of your omni-everything god:

    In the pews, though, they demonstrate that they actually believe in an anthropomorphic sky daddy.

    1) My definition and ones similar to it are recited in the pews most Sundays. It’s studied in Sunday schools and expounded on from pulpits.
    2) You are constantly telling me that I should accept what you claim to believe about God. It’s beyond hypocritical to now ignore what people claim publicly and make judgements about what you think they secretly believe.

    You’re the one claiming that your bible is inerrant. That god described in that bible is clearly an anthropomorphic sky daddy (and also a petulant child, but that’s a separate discussion).

    Your non-definition is not sufficiently coherent to be useful for distinguishing between a god and a non-god.

    Claiming something does not make it so. You need to provide evidence and arguments.
    What about the definition is incoherent?

    Already answered. If you want to prove it to yourself, provide some objective, empirical evidence that supports your claim that your god exists. You’ll quickly find how difficult that is both because your definition is not coherent and because there is no such evidence.

    Let’s see what you’ve got.

  6. fifthmonarchyman:
    You have repeatedly said that the only God you are interested discussing is the “anthropomorphic sky daddy”.

    Wrong. I’m interested in any god that can be defined coherently and rationally.

    It happens that the god described in the bible you claim is inerrant is an anthropomorphic sky daddy. Other definitions are, of course, possible.

  7. Mung:

    Here are the criteria:

    I’m interested in a definition of “god” that:

    a) is internally consistent.
    b) is not contradicted by real world observations.
    c) is roughly in the same ballpark as what other theists would generally agree is what they worship.

    Mung: This is good. This is what you mean by a rigorous definition, so we don’t have to ask what you mean by rigorous?

    Do these conditions satisfy your criteria for a rigorous definition?

    No, they are my criteria for a definition of a god, arrived at because, in my experience, theists who can discuss other topics rationally get wildly pedantic and cagey when it comes to their gods.

    A rigorous definition would enable one to distinguish between a god and a not-god. I’m using it as a close synonym of operational definition.

  8. fifthmonarchyman:
    quote:

    Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
    (Exo 3:13-14)

    end quote:

    That is some deep stuff.

    It appears you are standing on your head in a puddle again.

  9. fifthmonarchyman: So you prejudge God’s motives based on your experience with people.
    I think I see your problem

    peace

    This is bizarre statement. Of course people are going to judge some character – particularly a non-obvious one – by the behavior and statements those who claim to a) believe in said character and b) claim to represent said character’s teachings and guidance. If those people end up behaving in offensive, abusive, obnoxious, or stupid ways, what does that say about the character? Either said character has all those characteristics or those people are demonstrating there’s no reason to actually behave like said character. Either way, the character can rightly be dismissed as either fictional or evil.

  10. fifthmonarchyman:

    1) You have not demonstrated that there is injustice and evil in the world. I’m not sure how you would do so. How would you objectively measure it?

    Injustice and evil can only be objective qualities if there is some objective morality and a moral arbitrator. See the Epicurus quote. If there actually is some objective/absolute morality that people are going to be judged by and there is some arbiter, but said arbiter has not made said objective/absolute criteria explicit and has not made the consequences absolute and explicit as well, that constitutes evil. Further, if such an arbiter has the ability to remove even the slightest plight/obstacle to people’s living full, happy lives (the Empty Toilet Paper Principle), said arbiter is either evil or ineffectual (thus not an arbiter at all).

    OTOH, if there is no arbiter or absolute morality, then your question above is valid: there can be no absolute concepts of “evil” or “injustice” in a closed, self-contained system. In such a system, “evil” and “injustice” would be relativistic concepts used by various societies and individuals to evaluate social dynamics only. And funny enough…that’s kinda what we actually have in this world.

  11. Atheists who are also materialists cannot explain our existence which proves they are hypocrites. They don’t accept there is a God due to, they say, a lack of evidence and yet they accept atheism and they don’t have any evidence to explain our existence.

  12. Frankie:
    Atheists who are also materialists cannot explain our existence which proves they are hypocrites. They don’t accept there is a God due to, they say, a lack of evidence and yet they accept atheism and they don’t have any evidence to explain our existence.

    Your god is not the default.

  13. Patrick: Your god is not the default.

    Even beyond that, Joe’s statement is simply begging the question; there’s no particular reason to consider why do humans exist a particularly reasonable question and further, no particular reason to presume there’s a valid or rational answer. There is nothing to invalidate the notion, for instance, that human existence (or really, all existence) has no, and requires no, explanation. That may not satisfy some people, but so what?

    And Joe’s inference on some equivalence between requiring evidence for some claimed object (some god) vs some assumed reason for existence is thus just absurd.

  14. Frankie: They don’t accept there is a God due to, they say, a lack of evidence and yet they accept atheism and they don’t have any evidence to explain our existence.

    There’s a difference between evidence for, say, humans, and evidence that explains their existence.

    Try to figure it out.

    Glen Davidson

  15. Patrick: You’ve essentially defined your god as undefinable by anything other than a god.

    no, again

    Uncomprehendable is not the same as thing undefinable. There are lots of thing I don’t comprehend like some people’s fondness for Justin Bieber . That does not mean that I can’t define the concept of Bieber fever.

    Patrick: Most people can see it [evil].

    Most people claim to experience God, does that mean that God’s existence is confirmed by real world observations?

    Patrick: No, you don’t know that if you don’t fully comprehend what you claim to know about.

    Sure I do, All science is contingent on the universe being internally consistent. In fact all knowledge is contingent on this.

    If the universe is not consistent we can no nothing at all about anything.

    Patrick: That god described in that bible is clearly an anthropomorphic sky daddy

    There you go again claiming that the Bible is clear while also claiming that it contradicts itself.

    I read the Bible a lot and never thought he was remotely like you imagine him.

    Patrick: If you want to prove it to yourself, provide some objective, empirical evidence that supports your claim that your god exists.

    You already know God exists. No need to belabor the obvious

    peace

  16. Patrick: Your god is not the default.

    No metaphysics-cum-epistemology is the default. Everything is open to contestation and evaluation. Neither theism nor naturalism, and correspondingly, neither rationalism nor empiricism, nor any of their later avatars (such as presuppositionalism and evidentialism) has any definitive priority, either in metaphysics or in epistemology, over the other. (Nor is there any definitive priority of metaphysics over epistemology, or conversely.)

    Moreover, any attempt to clam such a priority is invariably undertaken from within the conceptions that are being taken for granted by the persons making that attempt, which leads to precisely the constant game of burden-tennis that is enacted at TSZ every day, as well as throughout the entire world.

    .

  17. Patrick: It happens that the god described in the bible you claim is inerrant is an anthropomorphic sky daddy. Other definitions are, of course, possible.

    Agreed, but only in the sense that the God of the philosophers — rigorously and precisely defined as one might like by Augustine, Maimonides, Ibn-Rushd, Aquinas, etc. — often strikes one as altogether too thin, bloodless, and abstract to be worshiped, even if a certain measure of intellectual satisfaction is gained from believing that His existence can be rationally demonstrated. The Unmoved Mover has never inspired any wars, atrocities, acts of terrorism, genocides, acts of extraordinary compassion, movements for social justice, or self-sacrificing heroism.

  18. Frankie: They don’t accept there is a God due to, they say, a lack of evidence and yet they accept atheism and they don’t have any evidence to explain our existence.

    If it makes you intellectually satisfied to say “God explains our existence” and leave it at that, then good for you Joe.

  19. newton: What justifies that knowledge?

    The same thing that justifies all knowledge. The only thing that can ultimately justify knowledge……………..

    wait for it ………………

    revelation

    peace

  20. OMagain: Calling people liars is against the rules.

    Yet in this very thread a moderator has accused Christians of secretively believing that God is an “anthropomorphic sky daddy” despite all public claims to the contrary.

    And not one profane word was uttered about it from the atheists.

    peace

  21. Kantian Naturalist: only in the sense that the God of the philosophers — rigorously and precisely defined as one might like by Augustine, Maimonides, Ibn-Rushd, Aquinas, etc. — often strikes one as altogether too thin, bloodless, and abstract to be worshiped, even if a certain measure of intellectual satisfaction is gained from believing that His existence can be rationally demonstrated.

    In Christianity we have the best of both worlds we have the “God of the philosophers” who for our sakes became flesh and dwelt among us.

    It’s called the incarnation and it’s sort of a big deal “in the pews”.

    I’m amazed that you all would miss it

    peace

  22. fifthmonarchyman: Yet in this very thread a moderator has accused Christians of secretively believing that God is an “anthropomorphic sky daddy” despite all public claims to the contrary.

    So you know what you are doing is wrong, yet you persist in doing it.


    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

  23. fifthmonarchyman: Sure I do, All science is contingent on the universe being internally consistent. In fact all knowledge is contingent on this.

    It has not been demonstrated that requires a deity.

  24. fifthmonarchyman: In Christianity we have the best of both worlds we have the “God of the philosophers” who for our sakes became flesh and dwelt among us.

    It’s called the incarnation and it’s sort of a big deal “in the pews”.

    I’m amazed that you all would miss it

    In that case, you seem to not be aware of the history of Christian theology and philosophy. The tension between “the God of the philosophers” and “the God of the Bible” can’t be dismissed by fiat, even if one thinks that reason and faith can be reconciled.

    Also, if you really want to avoid being insulted, you can try saying “I believe that you know that God exists” — which is consistent with the rules, since it simply expresses your personal conviction — rather than saying “you already know that God exists” — which suggests that the party to whom this is addressed is either lying or self-deceived.

    The fact of the matter is this: your belief that everyone here knows that God exists is itself just an implication of the presuppositionalism you have adopted. But since no one else here accepts presuppositionalism (for reasons we have already been over many, many times), no one here is going to endorse the implication. And since you’ve been unable to convince anyone here that “revelation” (as you call it) has any justificatory or evidentiary status, I suggest giving it a rest before you find yourself completely ignored by everyone here.

  25. fifthmonarchyman:

    You’ve essentially defined your god as undefinable by anything other than a god.

    no, again

    Uncomprehendable is not the same as thing undefinable. There are lots of thing I don’t comprehend like some people’s fondness for Justin Bieber . That does not mean that I can’t define the concept of Bieber fever.

    That’s an equivocation. You’ve actually included incomprehensibility as part of your (non-)definition of god. That makes it internally incoherent.

    No, you don’t know that if you don’t fully comprehend what you claim to know about.

    Sure I do, All science is contingent on the universe being internally consistent. In fact all knowledge is contingent on this.

    If the universe is not consistent we can no nothing at all about anything.

    Science is a process of modeling regularities. It does not require that the universe be internally consistent, whatever that might mean. Perhaps the universe is not understandable, but parts of it are. Understanding those parts does not justify a claim that the whole is consistent.

    If you want to prove it to yourself, provide some objective, empirical evidence that supports your claim that your god exists.

    You already know God exists.

    No, I do not. Under the rules of this site you must accept that, at least for the sake of discussion.

    So, what evidence do you have supporting your claim that this as yet undefined entity exists?

  26. Kantian Naturalist: Agreed, but only in the sense that the God of the philosophers — rigorously and precisely defined as one might like by Augustine, Maimonides, Ibn-Rushd, Aquinas, etc. — often strikes one as altogether too thin, bloodless, and abstract to be worshiped, even if a certain measure of intellectual satisfaction is gained from believing that His existence can be rationally demonstrated. The Unmoved Mover has never inspired any wars, atrocities, acts of terrorism, genocides, acts of extraordinary compassion, movements for social justice, or self-sacrificing heroism.

    Sounds like a good candidate for weaning believers away from the more virulent and dangerous forms of theism. Instead of writing philosophy perhaps you should be writing scripture.

    The sales pitch needs a bit of work — it’s hard to compete with promises of eternal life. Plus, unfortunately, some people do seem to crave that feeling of Righteous Hatred.

  27. Moved one comment to Guano. Bluntly insulting other commenters is against the rules. We encourage more sophisticated insults.

  28. Patrick:
    Moved one comment to Guano.Bluntly insulting other commenters is against the rules.We encourage more sophisticated insults.

    Telling other people what they believe is an implicit claim that the other person is posting in bad faith.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: Yet in this very thread a moderator has accused Christians of secretively believing that God is an “anthropomorphic sky daddy” despite all public claims to the contrary.

    That was a post by a member. Since it was not related to a moderation action, it is misleading to say that it was a post by a moderator.

    And no, I don’t see that as an accusation. Rather, I see it as a characterization of Christian belief. Personally, I don’t see any value in such characterizations. But it does not seem to me to be against the rules.

  30. Clearly there are some persons of all Abrahamic faiths who worship an anthropomorphic patriarchal deity not too different from the storm/wind god of the ancient Israelites. There are also many persons of those faith traditions whose conception of God has been deeply affected by Neoplatonic, Stoic, and Aristotelian views.

  31. petrushka: Telling other people what they believe is an implicit claim that the other person is posting in bad faith.

    I agree. The last time I raised it, Lizzie did not. I’ll dig up the history and post it in Moderation Issues.

  32. fifthmonarchyman: The same thing that justifies all knowledge. The only thing that can ultimately justify knowledge……………..

    wait for it ………………

    revelation

    peace

    That is what justifies your knowledge. Your statements concerns what other people know, the unregenerate for instance. What justifies their knowledge? Revelation ,if I understand you, requires belief in a particular God.So revelation can justify a belief, but lacking the belief there is nothing to justify.

    walto: Can I hear an “AMEN”!

    Amen , witness me

  33. petrushka: Telling other people what they believe is an implicit claim that the other person is posting in bad faith.

    For fifth , to say otherwise would mean he was posting in bad faith.

  34. Patrick,

    Lizzie has made it clear she expects her admins to be pro-active. Hari Seldon couldn’t keep all the bases covered (not that I’m comparing anyone to the Mule). Anything that encourages communication and understanding should be encouraged. If something’s not working, try something else. Yep, off topic – I’ll join in in “moderation issues”.

  35. petrushka: Telling other people what they believe is an implicit claim that the other person is posting in bad faith.

    I don’t think that’s true. At all. It assumes that no one is self-deceived (which we know is not true of human minds) and that no one is confused about their philosophical commitments (which we know is not true) and that everyone has infallible access to the contents of their own minds (which we also know is not true).

    Given that those assumptions are false, it’s not always the case that one is accusing someone else of insincerity by asserting that they have commitments that they don’t endorse themselves.

  36. Kantian Naturalist,

    Self-deception and confusion are common faults. On the other hand merely saying, “you say A but what you really mean is B” is an accusation of lying.

  37. Alan Fox: Self-deception and confusion are common faults. On the other hand merely saying, “you say A but what you really mean is B” is an accusation of lying.

    I’m not even sure of that. I think that “you say ~A but you mean A” can be fine under some conditions.

    It’s just that the burden of argument will fall squarely on the shoulders of the person claiming that his or her interlocutor is logically committed to the opposite of her avowed beliefs.

    The problem here is that FMM has never been able to muster an acceptable argument to support his contention that everyone is committed to A, even when they assert ~A.

    The same point holds for WJM in all our quarrels about “objective morality”. At no point has WJM ever succeeded in demonstrating what he claims to have demonstrated — that anyone who is not a sociopath experiences moral values as if they were authorized by a transcendent, eternal, good, and necessary Being of some sort of other.

    Likewise, at no point has FMM demonstrated what he claims to have demonstrated — that a personal, private encounter with divine grace is both necessary and sufficient for establishing the justificatory or evidentiary status of any other claim that one could make.

    In other words, the problem with WJM and FMM isn’t that they aren’t entitled to present the challenge that other people have commitments that conflict with their avowals, but that they never discharge the argumentative burden necessary for establishing that challenge in any subsequent dialogue.

  38. Never mind the rules, or accusations of bad faith (then you’re off arguing what “bad faith” means, yada yada), the actual point is that telling others that they “believe in God” when they know better is extremely rude and is impossible to discuss.

    People can be wrong about what they think they believe, of course, and that is an issue that could be discussed–with evidence and reasoning. Declaring that everyone believes in God and “supporting that claim” by quoting a text that no one being accused believes–nor has been given any good reason to believe (his revelation won’t cut it)–is insulting and a discussion killer. Ranting in the streets is as meaningful as FMM’s manner of “discussion.”

    I sort of thought that the “ignore” button was the last resort for the rather defective rules* here–apparent “bad faith” (never mind if it fits a certain definition) by FMM can be met with “ignore,” meaning that eventually he might have to come up with a meaningful argument for once if he wants any attention. One may still ignore, of course, but it’s less easy without the “ignore” feature.

    Glen Davidson

    *To be fair, while I have problems with the rules, no set of rules is likely to be “just right” or any such thing. The people who disagree who stay, at least for a while, tend not to be interested in a completely fair give and take exchange on these issues–or they’d likely not be holding to their positions.

  39. GlenDavidson: …the actual point is that telling others that they “believe in God” when they know better is extremely rude and is impossible to discuss.

    I think that applies whether it is “believe in God” or “believe in X”. It is indeed rude and a barrier to communication.

  40. GlenDavidson: Never mind the rules, or accusations of bad faith (then you’re off arguing what “bad faith” means, yada yada), the actual point is that telling others that they “believe in God” when they know better is extremely rude and is impossible to discuss.

    Not just believe but know his version of God exists. And it is obvious

  41. Kantian Naturalist: In other words, the problem with WJM and FMM isn’t that they aren’t entitled to present the challenge that other people have commitments that conflict with their avowals, but that they never discharge the argumentative burden necessary for establishing that challenge in any subsequent dialogue.

    Whilst I’m fine with meeting people halfway, I don’t get any sense any reciprocity with WJM, especially. He seems to be a propagandist, though what exactly for I’m not sure. It occurs to me, maybe he isn’t either but then that would be me committing the same sin, I guess. 🙂

  42. newton:

    petrushka: Telling other people what they believe is an implicit claim that the other person is posting in bad faith.

    For fifth , to say otherwise would mean he was posting in bad faith.

    Or it could mean he was finally following the site guidelines and parking his priors at the door.

    If he can’t do that then “I believe that everyone knows, deep down, that a god exists.” would be somewhat less rude. “I don’t understand how anyone could not believe in a god.” would be most accurate.

  43. Kantian Naturalist: I’m not even sure of that. I think that “you say ~A but you mean A” can be fine under some conditions.

    It’s just that the burden of argument will fall squarely on the shoulders of the person claiming that his or her interlocutor is logically committed to the opposite of her avowed beliefs.

    The problem here is that FMM has never been able to muster an acceptable argument to support his contention that everyone is committed to A, even when they assert ~A.

    FMM’s guiding book (err…rather…the “direct words” of his God) tell him this is the case. So…uh…QED…

    The same point holds for WJM in all our quarrels about “objective morality”. At no point has WJM ever succeeded in demonstrating what he claims to have demonstrated — that anyone who is not a sociopath experiences moral values as if they were authorized by a transcendent, eternal, good, and necessary Being of some sort of other.

    This isn’t an accurate assessment of WJM’s argument. I hate defending the nuances of William’s claims given some of the continuity snarls (and the fact that I disagree with most of his claims, which he has no qualms dismissing by fiat, but I digress…), but I think that understanding the points made is somewhat important.

    I don’t think William is insisting that non-sociopaths experience moral values as if they were authorized by anything necessarily. His only point, as far as I can tell, is that non-sociopaths behave as if morals are objective. I don’t think he’s ever insisted what those behaving as such think “objective” constitutes or even implies anything specific, just that they behave as though their moral values are something they should obviously act on and that such a person’s morals clearly trump other people’s “wrong” morals. To William, this reflects a belief (even if unconscious) in objective authorization or standardization of one’s morals. I disagree with his inference; I think he’s begging the question for one and I think he’s ignoring that people can feel strongly (and thus act on) about subjective feelings. But that’s neither here nor there…

    Likewise, at no point has FMM demonstrated what he claims to have demonstrated — that a personal, private encounter with divine grace is both necessary and sufficient for establishing the justificatory or evidentiary status of any other claim that one could make.

    In other words, the problem with WJM and FMM isn’t that they aren’t entitled to present the challenge that other people have commitments that conflict with their avowals, but that they never discharge the argumentative burden necessary for establishing that challenge in any subsequent dialogue.

    Yep. On this I agree.

  44. Kantian Naturalist: I don’t think that’s true. At all. It assumes that no one is self-deceived

    I happen to know that you have sex with your mother every day, even if you don’t realize it.

    How about we talk about the topic and stop the comments on each other’s faults?

    It’s one thing to talk about the occurrence of self deception. It’s quite another to accuse a specific person of being deluded.

    It happens all the time here, and both “sides” do it.

    It’s a counterproductive tactic. Even when I do it.

  45. Patrick: If he can’t do that then “I believe that everyone knows, deep down, that a god exists.” would be somewhat less rude. “I don’t understand how anyone could not believe in a god.” would be most accurate.

    This.

  46. Robin (quoting KN): Likewise, at no point has FMM demonstrated what he claims to have demonstrated — that a personal, private encounter with divine grace is both necessary and sufficient for establishing the justificatory or evidentiary status of any other claim that one could make.

    But you know that already.

    Which would make sense, except for everything we know about the usefulness of claims through “revelation” as well as how we have learned that people actually get to know things. Plus, we’re pretty sure that he’d be complaining about the unfairness of being convicted and sentenced according to the “revelation” of some self-appointed God botherer (like himself, but from a different set of beliefs), and against the actual evidence (“but that you even can use evidence is due to revelation”–ad nauseam).

    There is a case to be made about self-consistency, then. But that case isn’t Murray’s certainty that everyone thinks according to an absolute moral code given by transcendence–which has yet to be demonstrated. That he seems to be consistent in his (apparently) mistaken view doesn’t change that fact, of course, because it isn’t an issue of his consistent belief, rather of others’ beliefs being consistent with his own. Murray seems oblivious to the fact that others may indeed think (and act) differently from himself. How dare they!

    Glen Davidson

Leave a Reply