tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post5802980362304806777..comments2023-10-30T04:35:26.999-06:00Comments on Every Thought Captive: Is God a Moral Monster? Abraham Sacrificing IsaacPhil Steigerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948892557259431751noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-65694860718452386932011-06-22T14:16:11.950-06:002011-06-22T14:16:11.950-06:00As for the color example: I don't think the an...As for the color example: I don't think the analogy works, or at least I don't yet see how it could work. When you say that the "devotees" wish to know "what colours are good and which are bad," am I supposed to understand 'good' and 'bad' in a <i>moral</i> sense, or in some other sense? On the view sketched above, God's preferences do <i>not</i> Brian Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-82300465585914880082011-06-22T14:14:55.182-06:002011-06-22T14:14:55.182-06:00As for your two other points:
1) Omnipotence: thi...As for your two other points:<br /><br />1) Omnipotence: this is indeed a slippery concept. But I know of no (sophisticated) theist who affirms that "God is omnipotent" entails that "God can do anything." Nor do I know of any who affirm that "God is omnipotent" entails that "God can do anything that is logically possible." So the <i>mere</i> fact that Brian Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-6952469655744158292011-06-22T14:13:24.538-06:002011-06-22T14:13:24.538-06:00A second, related way for the DCT-ist to proceed a...A second, related way for the DCT-ist to proceed at this point is to appeal to the (fairly standard) distinction in ethics between "the good" and "the right." So far we (both) have been speaking of "morality." But that's ambiguous. Are we talking about rightness and wrongness (i.e. about obligation, permission, and prohibition)? Or about goodness and badness Brian Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-2138201677764823812011-06-22T14:12:17.985-06:002011-06-22T14:12:17.985-06:00I'm losing my grip on what you mean when you s...I'm losing my grip on what you mean when you say that something is <i>arbitrary</i>. You say at one point that "Morality is still arbitrary if they are dependant on God's preferences, whether or not God is able to choose otherwise." But this is a strange notion of arbitrariness: if God's preferences are logically <i>necessary</i>, then there's certainly some obvious Brian Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-13702531110567154732011-05-08T11:05:14.992-06:002011-05-08T11:05:14.992-06:00I wrote those two posts in rather a hurry. I hope ...I wrote those two posts in rather a hurry. I hope they make sense.<br /><br />In any case, I believe an example may help to illustrate my point:<br /><br />Imagine I have just created a world and populated it with subjects over which I have the last (indeed, only) word on everything. Like good little devotees they wish to know my every whim - particularly on what colours are good and which are Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-49582220098403230262011-05-08T07:27:46.912-06:002011-05-08T07:27:46.912-06:00As for your second post, you are right, I did inde...As for your second post, you are right, I did indeed mean definition b) rather than a). I also take your point that many moral theories are abusable.<br /><br />But my problem is how verifiable the second proposition is. I say that in a good moral theory, P2* is readily verifiable. P2, by contrast, is practically impossible to verify or falsify. though many throughout history have believed their Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-92056150438667734602011-05-08T07:04:39.995-06:002011-05-08T07:04:39.995-06:00Brian - I am not sure if it is me who is confused ...Brian - I am not sure if it is me who is confused here, or you.<br /><br />You seem to believe that appealing to God's essential nature, gets morality of the hook of being called arbitrary. But it does not. Morality is still arbitrary if they are dependant on God's preferences, whether or not God is able to choose otherwise.<br /><br />If no deed has any objective moral weight, then why Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-14469602995036793082011-05-07T12:43:56.821-06:002011-05-07T12:43:56.821-06:00Finally, on your "biggest gripe" with Di...Finally, on your "biggest gripe" with Divine Command Theory: you say that it "actively allows evil acts to be committed." This is ambiguous. It could mean:<br /><br />(a) The <i>theory itself</i> contains, as part of its content, or strict implications of its content, the claim that evil acts are permissible<br /><br />or<br /><br />(b) The theory <i>lends itself</i> to Brian Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-56197433154316654072011-05-07T12:41:17.995-06:002011-05-07T12:41:17.995-06:00Thanks for the reply, Ritchie. A couple of my own...Thanks for the reply, Ritchie. A couple of my own:<br /><br />You ask, about the claim that God's essential nature is moral, "Is God's essential nature moral because it measures up to an external standard of morality...?"<br /><br />According to the view I sketched previously, the answer is 'no.' The other option you ask about, then, is whether (instead) "moralityBrian Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-80226397008790273082011-05-02T07:02:16.015-06:002011-05-02T07:02:16.015-06:00Brian B - Forgive me if I misunderstand you here, ...Brian B - Forgive me if I misunderstand you here, but it seems to me that you haven't solved the problem outlined by Plato at all - you have merely reworded it.<br /><br />"I can deny that morality is "arbitrary and subjective" by noting that God's "preferences" are rooted in - and therefore constrained by - God's essential nature."<br /><br />Is God'Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-88712371328587850282011-05-01T20:57:54.451-06:002011-05-01T20:57:54.451-06:00Ritchie - here's a quick thought regarding you...Ritchie - here's a quick thought regarding your claim that appealing to God to ground objective morality is "not a sufficient answer."<br /><br />You pose the famous dilemma (from Plato's <i>Euthyprho</i>) that if things are wrong because God says they are, then morality is "arbitrary and subjective;" but if God says things are wrong because they are, then God is "Brian Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-7562526339853611392011-04-28T01:41:57.521-06:002011-04-28T01:41:57.521-06:00"My question is: who says? You?"
No, no..."My question is: who says? You?"<br /><br />No, not just me. Moral philosophers stretching back to Plato.<br /><br />"Who are you but a bag of biochemicals evolved from dirt?"<br /><br />Just because we human beings have evolved does not undermine our capacity to rationalise, to think, to feel, to empathise, to reason, to moralise (if that's a word). I don't understandRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-73093675513867238872011-04-27T23:01:27.635-06:002011-04-27T23:01:27.635-06:00I'll start with this:
appealing to a deity as...I'll start with this:<br /><br /><i>appealing to a deity as a moral arbiter is not a sufficient answer</i><br /><br />My question is: who says? You? Who are you but a bag of biochemicals evolved from dirt? You throw out these facts as if they were objectively true with absolutely nothing to base them on save opinion. For someone else the appeal to a deity is entirely sufficient, are theyDanny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-24208812029217461092011-04-27T08:35:53.476-06:002011-04-27T08:35:53.476-06:00I'm not trying to be dense here, but I'm s...I'm not trying to be dense here, but I'm still not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, human beings are subject to the process of evolution. Just as we are subject to the processes of growth and aging or the laws of gravity. Why you are singling out evolution is a total mystery to me, unless it is just because you happen to disagree with it...?<br /><br />Your question, if I may Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-89093089346389499652011-04-27T02:19:27.785-06:002011-04-27T02:19:27.785-06:00You insinuated that the slippery slope of believin...You insinuated that the slippery slope of believing the Bible could eventually lead one to fly airplanes into the sides of buildings. But wasn't it simply evolved masses of flesh that flew those airplanes into the side of those buildings? Now I would presume that the electrons flowing through the evolved gray matter in the heads of the products of evolution that carried out this terrorist Danny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-53722433808845850132011-04-26T02:49:32.130-06:002011-04-26T02:49:32.130-06:00??? I've no idea what you think terrorist atta...??? I've no idea what you think terrorist attacks have to do with evolution. They simply are the deeds of people who sincerely believe they are enacting the will of God, which trumps any value human life carries - an ethic explicitly demonstrated by the Abraham-Isaac story and accepted, without exception to my knowledge, by all the Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions.<br /><br />And as forRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-75068629828855376952011-04-24T10:12:55.456-06:002011-04-24T10:12:55.456-06:00On what basis, Ritchie, do claim that it is bad to...On what basis, Ritchie, do claim that it is bad to fly airplanes into the side of buildings? It would seem to me that such is simply the ongoing process of evolution. Perhaps you can clear this up for me.Danny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-58376094414167285992011-04-21T11:35:55.581-06:002011-04-21T11:35:55.581-06:00What, in your opinion was the point of this test? ...What, in your opinion was the point of this test? We test things to see what will happen - we test people to see what they will do. But God is often claimed to be all-knowing, and an all-knowing being would know ahead of time what his test subjects would do without actually having to test them.<br /><br />And as for sending his son to a nicer world, well, that just teaches us not to value human Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com