Spook

Joined

• started 27 topics
• posted 746 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Spook

• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  I appreciate the intent of the OP. I'm going to level my usual criticism here and then give a terse reply to some specifics.

  1. There is a bounty of literature on this subject, innumerable assumptions about "naturalism" in the OP are not accurate. This literature is easy to obtain so there seems to me little reason to have braod opinions about it without consulting it.

  2. When naturalist philosophers talk about these things, in print they are very careful with their language. Even in debate it is regarded as a "cheap shot" to criticize these fairly obvious linguistic concerns. To phrase these things "correctly" is linguistically cumbersome. For example:

  "God, were he to exist..." or

  "The concept of evil, when understood in theistic terms..."

  This is language foreign to common speach which usually gets dropped in conversation. To jump at linguistic loopholes is not charitible.

  Now, as a quick overview of these moral arguments (they are generally regarded as poor and not often used). You have both logical and evidential arguments. A logical argument would concluded with either god "does" or "does not" exist. An evidential argument would concluded with "probably" before either of those conclusions.

  It seems to me we first have to answer the question "Do we actually have absolute moral values?" There is a great deal of equivocation on terms which goes on here. Here's another question:

  If absolute moral values were to exist, how would this state of affairs be distinguished from one in which absolute moral values did not exist?

  My personal argument here is lengthy and probably not productive to share. I maintain the following propositions:

  1. Based off of any common definition of the phrase "absolute moral values," and were the theistic God to exist, we would not have a state of affairs in which absolute moral values obtained.

  2. Given that we do not have absolute moral values under either theism or naturalism, moral values can only be absolute relative to some referance.

  3. If the relative reference point is established rationally under naturlism, it could be the case that natural moral values are superior with respect to humans than theistic ones, were God to exist.

  So, the naturalists contention is that the common theistic concept of absolute moral values is actual relative moral values with respect to God, were he to exist.

  Several other metaphysical arguments are out there which claim that either under theism or naturalism, absolute moral values are actually platonic sort of entities in themselves which "exist" apart from either God or minds. I don't buy these, but they are out there. In short, while these arguments are rhetorically strong, there is no productive result down this path on the question of God's existance.
• 
  22

  "Only theologians can be true atheists." (J. Lacan)

  by Narkissos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  discuss.

  :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Haha. Yes, yes. You darned theologians with your eastern concept of words!

  If I'm ever pressed by an opponent who is quick to play a language shell game with me I will be very specific:

  I believe specifically that most of the common gods as people understand them are fictional characters (perhaps one way of saying it.)

  I usually consider god's as "forces" of one kind or another to be Deism, whether the believer admits it or not.

  Personally, I've never liked the "shell games" or attempts to nail spurious "telling comissions" in language. These things are not productive, nor are they taken seriously in philosophy. In debate, you will generally win "points" by interpreting your opponents case to be as strong as possible, rather than attacking your own version of it.

  My real complaint against some of the theistic philosophers is that the arguments they use to defend their nebulous deity are later used in an improper derivative form to defend the "common man's" God by people who have now thought themselves into a box no man can hope to reach. It does no good to tell them the person who crafted that argument accepted evolution as part of his argument, etc.
• 
  25

  Will Obama

  by John Doe in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  be a one-termer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Yikes.

  I'd bet a cool $1000 on a 50% return that he'd go a second. Most presidents go for a 2nd even if they become relatively unpopular.
• 
  48

  What % of WT Society Higher Ups Really Believe what the WT Teaches ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as opposed to how many gb members, wt legal, wt corporate attorneys and the powers of the wt society know it's a big scam to exert power and control over it's members ?

  as always i look forward to your opinions and observations .

  peace out to all, mr. flipper.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  I think it's probably similar to the theologians of other faiths, according to Ehrman, Avalos and others. Their contention is that many of the Phd's in theology know that most of their respective systems articles of faith are on poor footing, but justify it in this way:

  We have faith, there isn't any better idea, and it would be too distrubing to reveal the whole truth.

  So the JW higher ups probably believe they have the truth, but aren't going to admit they aren't sure about things since to them "it doesn't matter anyway."
• 
  55

  Article: Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  red meat.

  now don't get mad at me, i don't believe in atheists, i've never met one.. .

  --bts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  I think the heart of this article is here:

  The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering.

  This is where the article ceases becoming an "op-ed" and makes a real claim.

  Problems:

  1. What would a metaphysical argument against the existance of god look like? What of those who have a naturalism defesne? A composit view? This author has skirted a DIRTH of contemporary academic philosophical literature. That the general public is neither interested nor capable of understanding this literature does not equate to its non-existance.

  2. An epistemological argument is a little skewed, too. The theists have in general been the ones advancing new epistemologies for the last 100 years or so - in order to maintain a philosophical justification for their positions. In my understanding of the literature, epistemological debates are at more of a standstill than just about anything else. You have a limited selection of non-falsifiable theories to choose when contrasted with the older over-turned logical empiricism and verification theory.

  3. That atheists don't take theists' arguments seriously is sometimes (in the case of well read atheists) the fault of the theist. I have yet to see a theological argument that can use the common meaning of words to even convey the terms of the debate. I consider these arguments hogwash, yet am open to a new one or a better one if it can be delivered. Now who's whining? That an argument doesn't deserve to be taken seriously may mean that it isn't a serious argument. I don't take most of the arguments re-posted on this board seriously, not as an out of hand dismissal, but because they have been shown to be without any merit decades ago and have been abandoned by the philosophical theists still working in the field.

  4. Most importantly to me, when one fully chases the philosophical rabbit hole, I have found that the God theistic philosophers are defending is one who almost nobody believes in. And is certainly one who almost nobody believed in throughout the past.

  I never liked the incindiary "atheists are the biggest believers" kind of arguments, or BTS drop that atheists don't exist. I don't have a metaphysics and am a strict, but very complicated naturalist.

  Both sides can be a bit babyish. The truth seems to me to be that both sides are competing for control and pretending like they are not. I have no pretenses here. I want my world view to be better represented in the world I live in, and I will fight to achieve that.

  There is so much more to comment on here - I don't like the shell game going on in the article in general. Sometimes "anger" is justified, sometimes it's just natural...etc, etc.

  I'll conclude on this: Being taken seriously is not a right, it's the natural result of being persuasive. Not all the means of persuasion are patient, rational or fair.

  This is a typically bad op-ed, by which I mean it performs many of the same problems it is criticising.
• 
  22

  "Only theologians can be true atheists." (J. Lacan)

  by Narkissos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  discuss.

  :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  I've found some theists to make the best atheists because they have gone "further down the rabbit hole." Ehrman and Avalos are good examples of this type...those who go to Harvard Divinity School, for example.

  These former theists have the additional advantage of knowing very deeply that most traditional Christian doctrines are inventions, not supported by the texts or believed by many at the the purported time of Christ. They are also best equipped for the truly esoteric arguments unique to some of the theistic apologists such as Craig.

  Most "generically" theistic philosophers are much closer to, say, Plantinga or William James than they are to stricter "apologists" like Craig. Craig has "sophisticated" arguments very popular with laymen but not very popular with the theistic philosophers (when compared to strict theologians).

  I'm a less common atheist because I do believe I can prove that a number of gods don't exist. The merit of these arguments depends on the definition of words and the assumption that nothin with a logically impossible set of characteristics can be said to exist.
• 
  14

  Atheist Reconsiders

  by Outaservice in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  wilson, a pal of best-selling atheists richard.

  dawkins and christopher hitchens, made the stunning announcement last month.

  that he has now returned to faith by becoming a follower of jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Hitchens is not a philosopher and probably shouldn't have debated one. Craig has been thorougly trounced himself plenty of times. Hitchens best debate IMO was against Disouza, an excellent and evenly matched style of rhetoric. Never heard of A.N. Wilson.

  Craig is a theistic populist "philosopher" and is not taken very seriously by the theistic philosophers who actually publish new academic papers. In general, most of his arguments are unsound and what he is really proving as I said earlier is that someone who has personal reasons to be a theist can be rational in rejecting naturalistic arguments. To which an atheist need only say, "piss off then, I have the personal experience of god NOT existing."

  My notre dame phd theists tell me, in no uncertain terms, he's a philosophical douchebag. I don't disagree. Avalos and Ehrman both ripped him a new one. I will credit he is a good speaker and has excellent rhetoric. His arguments are just unoriginal and long overturned.
• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Middleman - You are well within your right to assert whatever you want about subjects I have a degree of expertise in and not provide any substantiation. It seems we are also talking past each other since none of my clarifications appear to have clarified anything. I don't think you're crazy or dishonest, just mistaken - and perhaps wired up to have different belief processes.

  If anyone else on this thread wants a detailed discussion of any one the half dozen or so arguments presented in the OP, we may want a new thread.
• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Middleman -

  I won't take your not substantiating your claim as proof that it is false. But please don't be so hasty as to deny things which you know are at least a consensus position without at least a modicum of backup.

  Your criticism of my first point seems to miss my intent. It was not a scientific claim. Science does not really have arguments, it has experiements (usually). It is a claim about logic and arguments which derives from a general modern theistic philosophy on the characteristics of God, and it holds. It is also false that science is "silent" on the matter of god. There are certainly mainly claimed lines of religious evidence which have been investigated and falsified by science. Thus the god-of-the-gaps situation. Some prime examples are:

  1. Prayer.

  2. Miraculous healing.

  3. Channeling the dead.

  4. Demon posession.

  5. Religious relics.

  6. Statistical claims that being a member of religion X makes you a better person or promotes successful marriages compared to non-believers.

  7. Claims that corporal punishment of children causes them to be better adjusted adults than do their non-physically punished peers.

  8. The claim that complexity can only be the result of teleology - or even that it is more probably so.

  9. The claim that emotions and personality are completely metaphysical properties of an immortal soul.

  10. The claim that humans have existed on earth for a short period of time. (Your objections not-withstanding)

  11. The claim that "religious" experiences are supernatural (At least some have full natural explanations)

  Your claim that science is "silent" on the matter is clearly false. At the least science has shown that a vast array of religious beliefs are poorly supported by the evidence and have simple natural explanations. Whether a modern reinvented god for which there is no evidence exists is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical one. I didn't even mention evolution because it will further detract. Though I would add to the list above "The claim that humans are not animals" and also "The claim that animals were created in fixed kinds."

  Your second criticism, as I understand it, seems to again miss a distinction between a scientific argument and a logical one. In other words, one based on natural evidence and one based on words and symbols.

  It is technically possible that a god exists depending on one's definitions. This does not mean it is rational to conclude that such a being exists. It is equally possible for almost any of the available gods to exist. These are vastly different points. My concessions to theists, and the current state in the philosophy circles, is close to as follows:

  While there is no argument that should rationally convince one to accept theism from a neutral state, there are successful arguments which justify a theist maintaining her belief in a god for other reasons.

  The scientific arguments would be very different than the philosophical ones. And since the OP was about philosophy primarily, my comments about the arguments are largely philosophical. I raised the dating issue in response to your denial of dating methods.
• 
  123

  Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

  * there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

  " the son willingly obeys the father.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Narkissos said

  In spite of the cultural distance, I think your zen analogy does illustrate to an extent how a positive connection between paradoxical or aporetic theological formulations (especially in liturgical, i.e. poetical form) with contemplative mysticism works in Eastern Christianity, while in the West the same formulations are rather a subject for discussion. Ironically when the West gets tired of arguing it rather looks for "spirituality" in exotic traditions rather than changing its attitude toward its own...

  I won't derail or nitpick this thread further - I'll leave theology to the theists. Any time spent on theism these days by me is spent on Islam and trying to get how that culture uses the texts. I just wanted to say that if I "had" to pick a theism it may well be eastern orthodoxy of some kind. I don't think you can get around the need for some form of direct connection to the early church in a remotely consistant theism. I think the eastern heritage has more going for it than the western papal line...besides the numbers.

  My two respected theist friends are Russian Orthodox by conversion (post Phd) and a william-james-esque neutral christian theist by conversion (mid-Phd). Both converted from western modern fundy brands.