tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6222413124742852503..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Amputees and the Argument from EvilVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4721859579655379692009-03-21T22:03:00.000-07:002009-03-21T22:03:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Truth Be Toldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84031812006147732262009-03-14T09:19:00.000-07:002009-03-14T09:19:00.000-07:00No doubt theologians have been asking whether or n...No doubt theologians have been asking whether or not God could change the past. Is backward causation possible? Does time flow in one direction? These are different times we live in where such things are not only possible but probable so what Aquinas said is antiquated. I merely introduced the element of prayer into this subject, and if that's new then that's new. If God has foreknowledge then he can do something differently in the past based upon prayers he foreknows in the future, and if that's so let's test it. What are you really afraid of here...that your faith will fail the test? Sure it is, otherwise you'd embrace the test.<BR/><BR/>Figures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83777272311650446122009-03-14T09:06:00.000-07:002009-03-14T09:06:00.000-07:00"Actually Vic, I do mention his test for prayer in..."Actually Vic, I do mention his test for prayer in my chapter on prayer, but I also offer a very new and unique one on top of it. I argue that a great test for prayer is for believers to pray to change a tragic event in the past!"<BR/><BR/>It's <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm" REL="nofollow">neither new nor unique -- nor effective -- in any important sense</A><BR/>(see article four).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72691847299635238762009-03-04T23:20:00.000-07:002009-03-04T23:20:00.000-07:00Sorry again John, I had no intention of goading yo...Sorry again John, I had no intention of goading you, I simply responded to what Vic and you each wrote.<BR/><BR/>You may recall you complained at the start that I didn't take you seriously enough with my light-hearted hypothetical, so I have been trying to please you since by being more serious.<BR/><BR/>And my objections may be "lame" but you still haven't answered them or offered an alternative scenario.<BR/><BR/>But I've tried to be friendly though critical, I've criticised the ideas and not the person and I've agreed that some criticise you unfairly. I'm just an ordinary person trying to live in the religious landscape you are seeking to destroy, and thinking you don't really know what you are doing.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes to you, but not to your quest. : )unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80441459729680701952009-03-04T19:34:00.000-07:002009-03-04T19:34:00.000-07:00unkle said...Hence I say the argument is unfortuna...unkle said...<I>Hence I say the argument is unfortunate nonsense...</I><BR/><BR/>Now why would I take you seriously and expend the effort to to answer your lame objections which I already covered in both of my books? <BR/><BR/>You goad me just like Reppert did, something I won't forget. Reppert, no more of this until you read my book for yourself. It is uncharitable of you if you wish to be friends. If not, then not. I have not criticized you book because I have not read it, and so I cannot say whether your book is characteristic of how you write on your blog because sometimes these are two different venues and reflect two different ways to communication. You really fail to understand that scholars only talk to scholars using math and symbolic logic to impress each other. I can understand what they write for the most part. I understand the scholars. <B>But my goal is to change the religious landscape and one cannot achieve that goal unless s/he writes so people can understand.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87697973824199445802009-03-04T17:38:00.000-07:002009-03-04T17:38:00.000-07:00JohnI guess that means you don't wish to discuss f...John<BR/><BR/>I guess that means you don't wish to discuss further, so I will try to wrap up.<BR/><BR/>It is easy to dismiss an argument by suggesting I just don't understand, but that remains an unsupported assertion until you actually answer the questions I and Rob have asked several times now.<BR/><BR/>I have re-read your statement, and I believe I do understand it. And I still believe it is unfortunate nonsense. You suggest we take a tragic event in the past and pray for God to change it. I'd like to look at that scenario a little more closely, since you seem unwilling to.<BR/><BR/>Let's take the Indian Ocean tsunami which occurred a few years ago. We all have memories of that tragic event, we have seen TV coverage, there are newspaper reports and accounts on the web. Now suppose we all pray as you suggest that God avert the tsunami, and suppose he does.<BR/><BR/>What then happens to our memories? If God hears our prayers now and acts back then, the tsunami wouldn't have occurred, there would have been no TV coverage, newspaper stories and web information, and no memories. Which contradicts the assumption we started with.<BR/><BR/>So your argument has an enormous contradiction built into it. If God acts, we cannot know. <I>The only way we can know is if we retain <B>both</B> memories, which is ludicrous.</I><BR/><BR/>Hence I say the argument is unfortunate nonsense, and so far you have refused to explain how the scenario could work to establish your case. But I am still open to see that explanation.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57504613411315611792009-03-04T17:27:00.000-07:002009-03-04T17:27:00.000-07:00Hi Perezoso,"if you think Mackie, or Hume, Russell...Hi Perezoso,<BR/><BR/><I>"if you think Mackie, or Hume, Russell have no arguments, I suspect you haven't read them"</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't actually say that, so unfortunately you are addressing something I don't think. For the record, I have read very little of those three, but then, I never claimed to have read every philosopher in the world. But what I have read of Russell tells me he was a clever and humane man, but his arguments were unimpressive.<BR/><BR/>For example, in his debate with Copleston, Russell tries to defend a materialistic view of ethics, and says that he just <B>knows</B> some things are right and wrong like he knows yellow is yellow. I think Copleston could have demolished Russell here, and I was always disappointed that he didn't get/take the opportunity. But then I discovered Russell already understood the weaknesses of his position, when he wrote in his letters (re the Nuremburg war crimes trials, in which he was a juror):<BR/><BR/><I>"I do not myself think very well of what I have said on ethics. I have suffered a violent conflict between what I felt and what I found myself compelled to believe .... I could not bring myself to think that Auschwitz was wicked only because Hitler was defeated, but the ghosts of [other philosophers] seemed to jeer at me and say I was soft."</I><BR/><BR/>Please note also that I do not think there are no good arguments <I>against</I> the existence of God, only that (1) they mostly depend on aspects of reality which materialism struggles to explain, as I've already suggested, and (2) they are outweighed by stronger arguments the other way.<BR/><BR/>So I guess we go our separate ways with our separate conclusions. Thanks for the discussion.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69037502913743702652009-03-04T11:27:00.000-07:002009-03-04T11:27:00.000-07:00"unkle, apparently you cannot even understand my a..."unkle, apparently you cannot even understand my argument much less offer a critique of it."<BR/><BR/>No, we understand that it doesn't qualify as a test or an experiment since, as unkle states, the result would be neither verifiable nor falsifiable.<BR/><BR/>"But to claim that God didn't say we should pray for the past means nothing at all and is merely an ad hoc attempt to escape the test itself."<BR/><BR/>Uh, no. If one is a Christian one is duty-bound to obey the dictates of the faith, not to make things up as one goes along, no matter how "good" the outcome might appear to be (i.e., the conversion of Loftus).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1341343326418358502009-03-04T05:40:00.000-07:002009-03-04T05:40:00.000-07:00unkle, apparently you cannot even understand my ar...unkle, apparently you cannot even understand my argument much less offer a critique of it.<BR/><BR/>C'ya round.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66493959538858438692009-03-04T05:18:00.000-07:002009-03-04T05:18:00.000-07:00For example, how can the argument from evil be a p...<I>For example, how can the argument from evil be a problem if there's no evil?</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe because theists set it up like that. Problem of suffering, or suffering of innocent, etc. ala Mackie better phrasing. And if you think Mackie, or Hume, Russell have no arguments, I suspect you haven't read them. <BR/><BR/>Yes religious thinking plays an important part in human lives. That's one reason I object to the rather unsubtle approach of the Dawkins crew (who are doing their part to bring back TH Huxley). Russell's anti-religious discussions were a bit more tactful (though not always, and Bertie's not my guru). <BR/><BR/>That many people attend church and take it all seriously (even very seriously) does not establish the core doctrine. I am not sure how to address that. Marx, while not on the top 10 of religious thinkers, said some interesting things about religion from a standpoint of non-belief. Marx grants the power of religion and its importance, the comforts provided by religion (opium like) and the usefulness of the churches to some extent, while holding to the materialist standpoint and to non-belief (though dialectical is not the same as Darwin). Though at other times, he suggests religious faith is part of the bourgeois ideology more or less. Sort of depends on the address of the cathedral/chapel/tempel/mosque eh. <BR/><BR/>A Church IS a social institution, of course, and in a pragmatic sense might have value for some people (especially poor). Churches have worked towards certain social and economic justice (not always of course), and they provide a safety net, safe haven, choir practice, etc. That might be somewhat obvious, but a more pragmatic approach has advantages over the endless Aquinas wrangling. Yet I contend (against Marx as well) that any goods are outweighed by many bads (like Rev. Hagees ranting from Book of Revelation, creationism in general, mormons, priest-pervs, jihadists, jewish mobsters, etc etc)Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61300815885781006452009-03-03T19:41:00.000-07:002009-03-03T19:41:00.000-07:00No, I'm actually saying something far less complex...No, I'm actually saying something far less complex, I think.<BR/><BR/>I recognise that we can't <I>prove</I> objective ethics, freewill, etc, but I note that most people live as if these things are true, and couldn't do otherwise. So in judging which metaphysic is true, one important consideration is whether we can live it consistently, because that is a real world test. You haven't offered me anything to change my mind there.<BR/><BR/>Another important consideration is that most of the argument <I>against</I> the existence of God require that these things be true. For example, how can the argument from evil be a problem if there's no evil? How can any argument and any conviction be valid if our rationality is based on survival value rather than truth, and we choose because of our brain chemistry rather than truth?<BR/><BR/>As JBS Haldane said: <I>"If materialism is true, it seems to me that we cannot know that it is true."</I><BR/><BR/>So, faced with a confusing world, I'll choose the viewpoint that explains how the universe got here and its apparent fine-tuning, explains why people are what we all naturally believe we are until our materialism gets in the way, and allows me to live a consistent life rather than have to treat important facts with <I>"carelessness and inattention"</I>.<BR/><BR/>I have yet to see a truly logical argument that suggests I should do anything else.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10550313220103357762009-03-03T17:30:00.000-07:002009-03-03T17:30:00.000-07:00I actually agree to ethical objectivity (most of t...I actually agree to ethical objectivity (most of the time anyway). Alas, God (assuming for a few seconds He exists for sake of something) apparently doesn't, nor do the great majority of his worshippers. <BR/><BR/>(joke). <BR/><BR/>Hume follows his argument where it leads him. When he sees a word like "morality" or a sentence "you ought to do _____" he asks what the word "morality," or "ought" points to. There's no object "morality" as there is a Big Mac, or mountain range, is there. So the word appears to be meaningless, unless related to human needs (or "passions", though that term didn't mean what it does now in the Soap OperaOcracy). Even then it's questionable whether "morality" means anything tangible. To some people, joining the Klan might be moral. Others might consider joining the maoists to be moral. <BR/><BR/>His arguments against religion of a similar sort: really Hume's an early positivist, I believe (and Carnap read him as such). When some ancient claims angels and demons exist, a reasonable person does not hold that text to be authoritative. A bit cold: dems the breaks. Must we believe, simply in the Biblical narrative because it's there? That's seems even colder than Hume (and oppressive)<BR/> <BR/><BR/>The sort of arguments via intuition--humans think they have freewill, and value "freewill"; therefore they have freewill?--not the greatest, Tio. That people believe things does not at all make the things they believe in true, or astrology would be true as well as all religious claims--not sure that is the argument, but it sort of looks like that. Now, if you are saying something like "people value their right to be at liberty to work, or vote, or drive to the store, I sort of agree, but do not think that relates to theology at all. And I reject the idea that reason itself presumes God; indeed theocrats have often been the enemies of reason. <BR/><BR/>Many humans seem to value something like Justice--yet of course they disagree on what that is. In 2002, most Americans supported war against Iraq. Was that just? <BR/><BR/>So if you're merely doing some ethics by consensus, I don't think that helps your case; then I don't think rational theology can be defended anyways, except perhaps as metaphor.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56773086365386887602009-03-03T16:38:00.000-07:002009-03-03T16:38:00.000-07:00John:"Not only does your claim not change the past...John:<BR/><BR/><I>"Not only does your claim not change the past,"</I><BR/><BR/>This statement seems to me to demonstrate the futility of your argument and the point of my example. <I>How do you <B>know</B> the past hasn't been changed? How can you <B>prove</B> it hasn't been changed?</I><BR/><BR/>As Rob G has already outlined, <I>"if God changed the past, how would we know? Our memories of the original event would no longer be memories, but fantasies. Yet if our memories changed with the changing of the event, we'd never know that either."</I><BR/><BR/>So the test can never be verified or falsified, and is therefore pointless. Until you answer how it can be verified and falsified, none of your other explanations is meaningful.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64061465646647193142009-03-03T16:30:00.000-07:002009-03-03T16:30:00.000-07:00Perezoso:"Theologians who claim that God exists sh...Perezoso:<BR/><BR/><I>"Theologians who claim that God exists should also be required to prove God's justice, goodness, benevolence (or at least touch upon the problem). Lacking any such proof (or even likelihood that this is the case), they are just saying something like "a Being of immense power and scope exists."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean by "proof" but there are certainly <I>arguments</I> based on ethics. Without going into the details, which I'm sure you're familiar with anyway, the argument goes like this ....<BR/><BR/>People almost universally believe their conscious selves are real, they have free will to make choices not necessarily determined purely by physical processes, their rational thoughts can reach true conclusions and that some things are <I>really</I> right and wrong.<BR/><BR/>Atheists struggle to explain these things, and many are reduced to denying their reality, even though they cannot live by those conclusions. (David Hume recommended that we deal with this inconsistency with <I>"carelessness and inattention"</I> - hows that for being "delusional" and ignoring the facts?) Not only that, but most of the anti-theistic arguments fail if we deny consciousness, freewill, rationality and ethics.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, theists can easily explain all these things, even if we don't fully understand them.<BR/><BR/>So the arguments for theism seem to me to have greater reality. I understand you and others may think differently, but your statements were a bit over-confident, don't you think?unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35219039243239054652009-03-03T15:34:00.000-07:002009-03-03T15:34:00.000-07:00unkle said This amazing John, because I did just t...unkle said <I>This amazing John, because I did just that. The world was going to be hit by a giant asteroid whose orbit was determined, and when it was only an hour away and everyone was panicking I prayed that God would change its orbit, and you know the rest. It never happened, God answered that prayer.<BR/><BR/>How could you possibly disprove such a claim? And if you can't disprove such a claim (any more than I could prove it), the argument has no ability to discriminate and is worthless.</I><BR/><BR/>Not only does your claim not change the past, I do not have to disprove anything. If I must disprove something for you to cease believing then you can go on believing. Disproofs are very hard to come by in these matters. We're talking aboutprobability here. What's the probability that there is a forknowing God who answers prayers if prayers don't affect the past?<BR/><BR/>Try this one for size though: Pick a tragic event that happened and was recorded in the newspapers on a certain day, and have as many people as you can to pray that such an event never happened. Announce it too!<BR/><BR/>Then watch and see. My prediction is that if it's possible for God to have foreknowledge then he can foreknow your prayers. And in that sense prayers should affect the past just as they are supposed to affect the present and the future. Since I don't think that prayers affect the present and the future then one way to test this is to see if they affect the past. My prediction is that nothing will change in the past AND that you will remember praying for such ane event.<BR/><BR/>With philosophical and scientific confirmations that the past is not unalterable and that time travel through wormholes might be possible then the modern reality is that the past can be changed, and if so believers have just discovered something new to do...pray for the past.<BR/><BR/>You could say God cannot foreknow the future, I suppose, but that's not how most Christians think, and it would also make problematic predictive prophecy in the Bible along with the belief that God will bring this world to a foreordained conclusion. <BR/><BR/>But to claim that God didn't say we should pray for the past means nothing at all and is merely an <I>ad hoc</I> attempt to escape the test itself. For then there would be a myriad of things God has not spoken about in the Bible for which believers should not do either. If commanding us to love people justifies modern medicine and flying an airplane to deliver that medicine to needy people, then the command to pray also justifies praying for people in the past.<BR/><BR/>I've written more extensively on this test in my companion book, which can be found linked on my Blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-564663447703845112009-03-03T14:24:00.000-07:002009-03-03T14:24:00.000-07:00Furthermore, if we're dealing with Christianity, w...Furthermore, if we're dealing with Christianity, we're given therein no Scriptural or Patristic warrant to pray to God to change the past. What Loftus is asking the believer to do is outside the bounds of the faith, like praying to God to show you an angel, or asking Him to give you the ability to fly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35218046481961355242009-03-03T14:14:00.000-07:002009-03-03T14:14:00.000-07:00"The challenge is to the believer who claims a per..."The challenge is to the believer who claims a personal experience with Jesus. Loftus asks that person to sincerely pray to Jesus to change the past. The believer is then left to interpret the results."<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but this seems to me to be nonsensical, like asking God to make a square circle. Furthermore, if God changed the past, how would we know? Our memories of the original event would no longer be memories, but fantasies. Yet if our memories changed with the changing of the event, we'd never know that either.<BR/><BR/>This is simply a more advanced version of "Can God make a rock too heavy for him to pick up?"<BR/><BR/>"Assuming that a God exists, AND given the convincing evidence of God's lack of justice, goodness, benevolence, God = Satan"<BR/><BR/>Again I refer you to Hart's 'The Doors of the Sea.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79969497997512950252009-03-03T13:54:00.000-07:002009-03-03T13:54:00.000-07:00Another possible, and neglected solution to these ...Another possible, and neglected solution to these sorts of problems: neo-gnosticism. Theologians who claim that God exists should also be required to prove God's justice, goodness, benevolence (or at least touch upon the problem). Lacking any such proof (or even likelihood that this is the case), they are just saying something like "a Being of immense power and scope exists." Lacking any convincing arguments for God's justice, or even concern for human race (demonstrated rather convincingly by 20th century history), a reasonable inference would be, A)Assuming that a God exists, AND given the convincing evidence of God's lack of justice, goodness, benevolence, God = Satan." <BR/><BR/>That, OR reject the A)assumption. Q E f-n D.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44674952012218766892009-03-03T13:47:00.000-07:002009-03-03T13:47:00.000-07:00unkle: I suspect Loftus can answer for himself, b...unkle: I suspect Loftus can answer for himself, but I've read his book and I think his hypothetical is very interesting. Here's how I interpret it:<BR/><BR/>The challenge is <I>to the believer</I> who claims a personal experience with Jesus. Loftus asks that person to sincerely pray to Jesus to change the past. The believer is then left to interpret the results.<BR/><BR/>I do not think Loftus would claim that he could prove or disprove what the believer claims about the results of his personal prayers (just as we can't confirm or disconfirm when Mormon's feel a "burning in the bosom" or Christians feel an indwelling of the Holy Spirit or what have you). It's up to you, the believer, to be honest with the atheist asking the question.Andrew T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07562402977211994270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69205428609722894332009-03-03T13:00:00.000-07:002009-03-03T13:00:00.000-07:00John,Thanks for your apology. I said at the start ...John,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your apology. I said at the start you were more polite than Marshall Brain, and you have confirmed it. For the record, I didn't even read the Locust post in full because I didn't like it, and now I read it through, I think you were right to be offended - I certainly feel offended on your behalf, and I'm sorry it was written.<BR/><BR/>But, you haven't actually answered my hypothetical point regarding the meteorite. <I>How could you possibly disprove such a claim?</I> And if you can't disprove such a claim (any more than I could prove it), the argument has no ability to discriminate and is worthless.<BR/><BR/>What do you say?unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32683470389663244462009-03-03T12:59:00.000-07:002009-03-03T12:59:00.000-07:00It's been many moons since I read Hume (early 90's...It's been many moons since I read Hume (early 90's); his arguments didn't do much for me back then. I doubt that's changed, but perhaps I'll give him another look-see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39259414147850939362009-03-03T12:06:00.000-07:002009-03-03T12:06:00.000-07:00Ah you forgot something called justification: "Hum...Ah you forgot something called justification: "Hume is overrated, because ______________ ".<BR/><BR/>Hume it might be recalled was rather well-read in Roman history (as was his younger associate Gibbon). He was not just some arm-chair skeptic. The essay on miracles in the Enquiry a very powerful piece of writing, and also influential; Ben Franklin read that, as did Voltaire and encyclopedists. I suspect the Jefferson had read Hume (maybe not always agreeing). Even Marx quotes Hume (a pal of Adam Smith) once in a while. <BR/><BR/>(and saying "because his arguments challenge my religious ideology" will not suffice)Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72549922911848066892009-03-03T11:42:00.000-07:002009-03-03T11:42:00.000-07:00Hume is overrated.Hume is overrated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63168536998940417132009-03-03T11:09:00.000-07:002009-03-03T11:09:00.000-07:00Our we're back to accepting the reliability of Scr...Our we're back to accepting the reliability of Scriptural narrative!<BR/><BR/>I thought we (or some of we) had agreed Hume had won that battle via miracles (and thus suggesting that any theology, if it still holds, would be purely rational) in showing the unreliability of any narrative alleging demons exist, dead come back to life, virgin births, great whores. Guess not.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69870812650214296202009-03-03T08:52:00.000-07:002009-03-03T08:52:00.000-07:00Especially the picture, that had me in stitches!Especially the picture, that had me in stitches!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com