tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7412911849630567699..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Why Should an Atheist Care About the Problem of Evil?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73525140268473110222012-08-15T23:48:15.786-04:002012-08-15T23:48:15.786-04:00diogenes wrote: "Yeah right, 75% atheists in ...diogenes wrote: "Yeah right, 75% atheists in Japan"<br /><br />I agree with the point of your post diogenes, but this is just to let you know that while a lot of Japanese might answer in questionnaires that they "don't believe in God," they are probably thinking of the Western concept. I live in Japan and can assure you that the vast majority of Japanese are routinely religiously observant. The thing is that the religion and everyday culture are so entwined here that it is not always obvious.New Zealand Visitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09681318622771652715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4535978248818403092012-08-08T13:46:46.246-04:002012-08-08T13:46:46.246-04:00John Harshman, I don't believe you were famili...John Harshman, I don't believe you were familiar with the Euthyphro dialogue before you brought it up. You don't seem to be prepared to discuss it, despite your repeatedly hectoring me to do so. You might want to actually read it and some of the commentary on it. I'd recommend what I.F. Stone said in The Trial of Socrates for insightful, somewhat unorthodox criticism of it.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32690043216900422962012-08-08T13:21:43.027-04:002012-08-08T13:21:43.027-04:00After World War I, in German theology there was a ...After World War I, in German theology there was a so-called <b>"Luther Renaissance"</b> that was a reaction against the liberal theology of the 19th. century, which involved some of the most prominent Protestant theologians of the day, including <b>Paul Althaus, Werner Elert and Walter Künneth.</b> Althaus and Künneth promoted Schopfungsglaube.<br /><br />Many of them were students of prewar theologian <b>Karl Holl</b>, who, as I mentioned before, led the development of a theology of nationalism.<br /><br />Enough for today; I will post more on theologians when I get a chance.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8088540767770398852012-08-08T13:21:20.291-04:002012-08-08T13:21:20.291-04:00I will continue on the topic of Schopfungsglaube t...I will continue on the topic of Schopfungsglaube theology.<br /><br />As I said, in a 1931 debate, Nazis Hans Schemm and <b>theologian Walter Kunneth</b> agreed on many points.<br /><br />Schemm famously said "Nazism is applied biology" and denounced Darwinism, and said "Our religion is Christ, our politics Fatherland" and other slogans.<br /> <br />Steigmann-Gall describes the 1931 debate: 'As the counterpoint to [Hans] Schemm, the Protestant side was represented by Walter Künneth, the Berlin University lecturer and Schöpfungsglaube theologian. Like other confessional Lutherans of a conservative theology, he criticized the Nazis' violent political practices and doctrinal positions, particularly attacks on the Old Testament. However, he believed that <b>from the point of view of the gospel one could say a "joyful yes" to Nazism</b> specifically on the point of volkisch nationalism: <b>"Because we are Christians, we know that God created us as a particular race, as a particular Volk... racial commitment is not coincidence, but divinely ordained destiny."</b><br /><br />The <i>Allgemeine evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung</i> (AELKZ) [Common Protestant-Lutheran Church-Newspaper], the most widely circulated Protestant church periodical in Germany, reported on the meeting, stating that <b>Künneth's lecture had been received with "unanimous approval."</b>' [Steigmann-Gall, "Holy Reich", p.36]<br /><br />Hans Schemm said: "We want to preserve, not subvert, what God has created, just as the oak tree and the fir tree retain their difference in a forest. We are accused of wanting to deify the idea of race. But since race is willed by God, we want nothing else but to keep the race pure, in order to fulfill God's law."<br /><br />Theologian <b>Paul Althaus</b>, a few years later, said: "God has given me out of the wellspring of my Volk: the inheritance of blood, the corporeality, the soul, the spirit. God has determined my life from its outermost to its innermost elements through my Volk, through its blood, through its spiritual style. As a creation of God, the Volk is a law of our life." [Steigmann-Gall, "Holy Reich", p.35]<br /><br />Althaus again: "Among the factors which determine and make up a Volk, the community of blood or race has become decisively important for us Germans. ...It has to do with a specific, closed, blood relationship. Race is not already <i>Volk</i>, the biological unity is not already historical unity. But the unity of race in a significant sense and its protection is an essential condition for the formation and preservation of the <i>Volk</i>."<br /> <br />Althaus: "It does not have to do with Jewish hatred-- one can reach an agreement directly with serious Jews on this point; it does not have to do with blood or with the religious beliefs of Judaism. But it does involve the threat of a quite specific disintegrated and demoralizing urban spirituality, whose representative now is primarily the Jewish <i>Volk</i>." [Robert Ericksen and Susannah Heschel, "Betrayal", p.25]<br /><br />This language of "disintegrating", "dissolving", "corrosive", "reductionist" etc. was universally used against the Jews by most Christian theologians and all Nazis.<br /><br />One must note that creationists and ID proponents use the same language against evolutionary scientists today-- that their "worldview" is "disintegrating", "dissolving", "reductionist" etc.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56066843820407030012012-08-07T17:59:18.533-04:002012-08-07T17:59:18.533-04:00OK, so I'll resist the urge to reply again, si...OK, so I'll resist the urge to reply again, since you ignore everything I said in favor or your irrelevant diatribe. Let me know if you ever want to respond to my comment, which you can do by responding to my comment.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23785497546222520102012-08-07T16:52:12.764-04:002012-08-07T16:52:12.764-04:00@Thought Criminal:
Let's see, Barth, Niebuhr,...@Thought Criminal:<br /><br /><i>Let's see, Barth, Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer, ... you might impress an atheist who doesn't know his Barth from his elbow</i> <br /><br />No sir, the average atheist knows more about religion than the average religious believer. You cannot claim that atheists are ignorant of religion or its history, as you insinuate here.<br /><br />Your counter-examples fail, except for Bonhoeffer. Niebuhr was American. Barth was Swiss and was not recognized as German; the Nazis considered the Swiss a degenerate offshoot of the Aryan race.<br /><br />Bonhoeffer is a real counter-example, so that's one. He behaved quite courageously after 1939 (before 1939, his response to Nazi anti-Semitism was pathetic). But even then, he had to do so outside of his church. He conspired against Hitler with a secular mish-mash of opponents who did not share his religious beliefs. <br /><br />I have no doubt Bonhoeffer's motivations were religious, but the secular mish-mash that made up opposition to Hitler (however small) was at best an argument that courage and morality transcend doctrinal divides.<br /><br /><i>Or who exactly are you talking about? Quotes? </i><br /><br />The Christian Churches in Germany generally supported Nazism, with some exceptions. The Confessing Church was pro-Nazi; 85% of BK [Confessing] pastors swore loyalty to Hitler and Bishop Hans Meiser's supporters sang the Horst Wessel song. <br /><br />The BK didn't oppose the Nazis, they opposed the Deutsche Christen [DC] who were pro-Nazi; not the same thing. The DC had the annoying habit of winning church elections, and the BK's <i>raison d'etre</i> and goal was to claim they were the legitimate representatives of Protestantism.<br /><br />After the war, the history was re-written with a new-minted mythology about the Confessing Church resisting Nazism!<br /><br />If you want some names of theologians, we can start with <b>Walter Kunneth</b>. He was in the BK and a theologian of Schopfungsglaube, which literally means creation-belief, and in English is called Orders of Creation theology. This is the theology that God created humanity as "orders" like male/female, family, nation, Volk, race, etc. so moral principles must preserve the orders of creation.<br /><br />In other words, humans were created by God as different races/genders and the racial/sex boundaries must be preserved. Orders of Creation obviously survived the war in a variety of forms. It turned into Apartheid Theology in South Africa which was promoted by Dooyeweerd, a prominent creationist, and Stoker.<br /><br />In the USA it survives in racist forms among the Kinists (racist followers of Rushdoony) and in non-racist forms among opponents of gays. (The phrase "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is a dumbed-down version of Orders of Creation Theology.)<br /><br />The founder of ID, Phillip Johnson, believed in a sexist, non-racist version of Orders of Creation.<br /><br />Here is Hermann Goering citing some Schopfungsglaube: <br /><br /><i>"When the churches assert that first come they, and then the Volk, then we must say that God did not create the German person as Catholic or Protestant: He gave him his soul in a German body with German blood."</i> [Steigmann-Gall, "Holy Reich", p. 120]<br /><br />Kunneth had a debate in 1931 with powerful Nazi Hans Schemm, during which Kunneth and Schemm agreed on many points. The main disagreement: Schemm wanted to ditch the Jewish Old Testament, Kunneth wanted to keep it; but they agreed about the Jews, nationalism and racism. During this debate Schemm denounced Darwinism as the foundation of Marxism. They both used Schopfungsglaube language [Steigmann-Gall, p.35]<br /><br />Other Schopfungsglaube theologians were <b>Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch</b>. A lot of them were students of <b>Karl Holl</b>, who in World War I developed a theology of nationalism that could naturally evolve into a theology of race and gender.<br /><br />There are a bunch of other theologians worse than these, I'll write more when I get a chance.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85630413310776658052012-08-06T23:00:22.291-04:002012-08-06T23:00:22.291-04:00Harshman, the Euthyphro dialogue doesn't do wh...Harshman, the Euthyphro dialogue doesn't do what you want it to, it deals with notions of piety, not morality in the sense I'm discussing, of duties to fathers and the state, not to the gods. Not universal obligations owed to all people. It has nothing to do with the Jewish conception of God, which was probably unknown to Plato, who had an extremely bizarre concept of both piety and morality. I wish you boys would find out what the term ad hominem means. In this discussion, in your own terms, discussing Plato's moral discernment is ENTIRELY RELEVANT to the point, discussing his moral discernment, as exposed in his own writings and the activities of himself, his pack of aristocratic thugs and the loud-mouthed old snob that egged them on through two bloody, brutal, anti-democratic putsches and a third conspiracy, with the connivance of Sparta. Plato had no leg to stand on in discussing the nature of morality or its possible origin. Socrates, a la Plato, as I.F. Stone pointed out, had absolutely no concern for the brutally slaughtered <i>thes</i>, whose death led to the court case brought by Euthyphro against his father. He was not concerned with the morality or the injustice done to him on the basis of his class standing. Euthyphro's action in bringing a charge of manslaughter against his father was criticized by Socrates because he had no regard for the rights of the "servant" to due process. Stone gives quite a good analysis of the story, its unstated aspects - which wouldn't serve the class and ideological purposes of both Plato and his Socrates - and in the context of contemporary events surrounding the two putsches which would have brought that level of justice to the free servant and middle classes of Athens. <br /><br />I'm not all that impressed with Plato and have no use for Socrates who probably couldn't hold his own in a real argument that wasn't stacked in his favor. He certainly doesn't seem to have impressed the jury during his trial who clearly had enough of his anti-democratic agitation and his boys, just about all of whom were involved in the two fascist dictatorships they'd suffered under. I'm against capital punishment but the old snob was asking for it. <br /><br />As I pointed out, your contention supports what I said about materialists being unable to account for the reality of good and evil and why doing evil is truly wrong. Atheists who want to bring up "the problem of evil" against religious believers are hypocrites because they've got an even bigger problem of evil, in that they can't account for it being real and, most importantly, why an atheist can't merely declare moral prohibitions against evil to be the equivalent of "unicorns, fairies, celestial teapots...." that they don't have to observe if they figure they can get away with it.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5497316241271504922012-08-06T18:01:46.731-04:002012-08-06T18:01:46.731-04:00Since you asked so politely, I will resist the urg...Since you asked so politely, I will resist the urge not to reply. No, I don't want to discuss Euthyphro (the dialogue). I want to discuss the Euthyprho dilemma, first stated in the dialogue of that name. And I paraphrased the dilemma so as to inform you just what I meant. How could that possibly be difficult to get? Do you even read what you claim to be responding to?<br /><br />Your point is irrelevant to my point. Your claim is that an atheist has no basis for morality. My claim is that whatever the truth of your claim (and I do dispute it), a theist has no better basis. And so to Euthyphro. Your turn.<br /><br />Oh, and all attempted theodicies fall flat, including the one that God moves in mysterious ways, we're not smart enough to tell what's really going on, and this truly is the best of all possible worlds.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71583547040146663372012-08-06T16:40:35.533-04:002012-08-06T16:40:35.533-04:00John Harshman, you're the one who wanted to di...John Harshman, you're the one who wanted to discuss Euthyphro and who charged me with dodging you on it. If you want to discuss it, tell me what in the long and involved dialogue you want to discuss. I assume you have read it and aren't relying on some neo-atheist dictionary entry of that name to dodge the point I made. What is the "dilemma" you want to discuss, because the entire thing is problematic from start to finish.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60051141141163071252012-08-06T13:58:37.382-04:002012-08-06T13:58:37.382-04:00Your tendency to ignore everything I say and inste...Your tendency to ignore everything I say and instead pontificate on a tangential subject annoys me enough that I will resist the urge to reply again.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78990176190774373372012-08-06T06:34:19.141-04:002012-08-06T06:34:19.141-04:00Make that, "The typical atheist citation of &...Make that, "The typical atheist citation of "the problem of evil" asserts that because religious people can't account for the existence of evil in a universe created by a God that is all good, therefore, no God". <br /><br />Which doesn't follow since it could be that people don't have a complete understanding of God or God's intentions, something that has been discussed since the earliest sections of the Jewish scriptures. People don't have an entire knowledge of any aspect of the universe, including the most elementary aspects of arithmetic and the most fundamental of particles, yet those exist. Their existence isn't dependent on complete or even adequate human understanding. You can't require that religious people have a complete understanding of God before they are permitted to believe in God anymore than atomic science is required to have a complete understanding of matter at that level before it is permitted to believe in atomic science. Never mind the tiny fraction of evolution which science has managed to reveal. Though, people being what they are, they'll always try to rig the rules in favor of their own POV, something Plato was rather skilled in doing. Doesn't make it any more honest an endeavor.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89120591708492878362012-08-05T13:13:14.781-04:002012-08-05T13:13:14.781-04:00If you want to go over the Euthyphro dialogue, may...If you want to go over the Euthyphro dialogue, maybe you should state what it is you want to discuss in the silly thing - which I've just re-read in the Jowett translation. Like all of the Plato dialogues, it's a total set-up job that leaves out huge parts of reality. <br /><br />I was discussing the total inability of materialism to produce the categories of evil or good. The typical atheist citation of "the problem of evil" asserts that because religious people can't account for the existence of evil in a universe created by a God that is all good. Which is a thorny problem but, as most atheists these days are materialists, they lack the ability to bring up the question from their own ideological foundations, which can't produce a material definition of "evil" or assert that it has any reality that stands up to their own methods of debunkery. They have to leave materialism to even raise the question as anything but a rhetorical tactic. <br /><br />As Dawkins put it:<br /><br /><i> In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. </i><br /><br />"No evil, no good". You have to exit materialism in order to hold that those categories have any more reality than you hold God to have. In his case, his neo-Malthusian add-on argues against its reality in something he clearly believes to be natural law. Materialism always tends to moral nihilism. There, I said it. <br /><br />As I pointed out, Christians who commit murder, who commit genocide are acting against the teachings left by Jesus and those who knew him. You can't say that materialists, in their rather breathtakingly extensive record of murder and genocide over the past two centuries, are violating any rules of materialism. It's hard enough to get Christians to live up to their claimed belief in prohibitions on murder and oppression, when there's no prohibition on those taken as having any more than a merely contractual basis there isn't any reason to expect better behavior.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48991469912052629952012-08-05T11:10:28.350-04:002012-08-05T11:10:28.350-04:00You don't seem to understand Plato's point...You don't seem to understand Plato's point. It isn't that god is the origin of moral law. It's that there is a contradiction in the idea that god is the origin of moral law. Thanks for the ad hominem argument about Plato, but I hope you realize that it's a logical fallacy. But how about dealing with the argument itself? Here, let me help with a paraphrase:<br /><br />Is it moral because god says so, or does god say so because it's moral? If the former, then what if god said that killing Egyptian babies was the highest morality? Would you agree? You may respond that god wouldn't say that, but then you're supposing there is an independent moral standard by which we can judge what god would or would not say. In the former case, morality is arbitrary, based on the whim of a deity; in the latter case, there is a moral standard, but it isn't god. Which do you choose?<br /><br />There are possible objective standards available to a materialist, but they do rely on a basic assumption or two about goals. I'd go with a basic assumption of empathy, that other people are in some way equivalent to me. Morality can also arise simply through evolution; monkeys have notions of fairness, for example. These need not be universal truths, only human ones.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37203023213163591432012-08-05T11:00:53.369-04:002012-08-05T11:00:53.369-04:00T. C.: That was seriously garbled, and it didn'...T. C.: That was seriously garbled, and it didn't answer the question either. You both do and do not have an objective basis for morality. The Golden Rule is objective, but apparently atheists, being objective and all, can't be expected to follow it. Go figure. Apparently a belief in god is necessary for morality, but only because it generates a fear of punishment. Do you pay any attention to what you say?<br /><br />I, atheist that I am, don't think fear of punishment is a good basis for morality; it certainly isn't a very moral one. But I'm certainly glad that you believe in god, if that's the only thing holding you back from a murderous rampage. There are those of us who think it would be a bad thing to do, quite aside from any punishment. But you appear not to be one of those people.<br /><br />I presume there's a "not" missing from your second to last sentence, because taken literally it claims that those who don't believe will indeed behave better. Inserting the "not", you don't seem to have any argument other than the claim that religious folks are more moral than the non-religious, without presenting any justification for that claim.<br /><br />And you're still dodging the Euthyphro dilemma. Why?john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23468003832950465112012-08-03T20:45:33.184-04:002012-08-03T20:45:33.184-04:00John Harshman, you didn't answer the questions...John Harshman, you didn't answer the questions because you can't. And now you're covering up that inability as frantically as Mitt Romney is trying to avoid releasing his tax returns. <br /><br />You bringing Plato into the discussion is pretty odd, it in no way refutes what I said about materialism being at far more of a disadvantage to religion in a discussion of evil, if anything it supports my point. The assertion that God is the origin of moral law means that religion can account for the reality of the moral characteristics, good and evil. Materialism can't do that. Any particular assertion of religion about what is good and what is evil might be wrong but it is possible within religion, it's not possible within materialism. Any atheist who claims to be a materialist has to temporarily abandon his pretended adherence to materialism to make any kind of moral assertion. Just as they have to abandon their materialism to assert that their preferred ideas can transcend mere physical causality in order to produce a true representation of truth or an objective representation of the universe. <br /><br />I wouldn't look too closely to Plato for moral discernment, the guy was about as morally obtuse as it was possible to be, he thought Sparta was just swell, even as it would have expelled him if not killed him for practicing philosophy. I've never understood why anyone who believes in democracy, equality, etc. would have any use for him. Socrates, as presented by Plato, was pretty much a dolt and a snob.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33513436048459766632012-08-03T19:20:05.421-04:002012-08-03T19:20:05.421-04:00Thought Criminal:
John Harshman, you seem to assu...Thought Criminal:<br /><br /><i>John Harshman, you seem to assume I was expecting you to tell me what a reasonable person would think.</i><br /><br />Nope. I'm assuming you were expecting all your readers to gasp in amazement at your erudition and bow down before you. It should be obvious that won't happen.<br /><br /><i>I notice you don't answer my questions. </i><br /><br />Good catch. I used the rhetorical device of turning your question around. If materialism presents no objective basis for good and evil, is there in fact any place we can find such a basis? Presumably, you claim to find it in God. But how? Hence my reference to Euthyphro. Which I, being equally observant, also notice that you have dodged. Since I've never seen a good answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, I'd be very interested to know how you deal with it.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28596085625870780432012-08-03T17:23:04.340-04:002012-08-03T17:23:04.340-04:00Your percentages of majority atheist populations i...Your percentages of majority atheist populations in Japan and Sweden are based on what? <br /><br /><i> In 2000, 82.9%[3] of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden. By the end of 2009, this figure was 71.3%.[1] The percentage of Swedes belonging to the Church of Sweden is decreasing yearly by more than one per cent. </i> Wikipedia (I'd usually look for another source but I'm pressed for time.)<br /><br />I believe this covers the period during which mandatory support for the CoS was limited to members, providing a financial disincentive to maintain membership. <br /><br />I looked at the Wiki article, Religion in Japan, which seems to be a mix of assertions, ranging from 83% of the population belonging to Shintoism to your assertion that looks suspiciously like ideologically atheist "editing", as is so often the case with Wikipedia. I wouldn't bet the ant farm on any of it. <br /><br /><i> and there's no real distinction between Nazi anti-Semitism, jargon and language and that used by the most respected Christian theologians of their era. </i> <br /><br />Let's see, Barth, Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer, ... you might impress an atheist who doesn't know his Barth from his elbow but, really, what a ludicrous thing to say. Or who exactly are you talking about? Quotes? <br /><br />Show me how fascism can be consistent with the teachings of Jesus as found in the four gospels. I can show ways in which genocidal, atheist, anti-religious dictatorships of the 20th century are inconsistent with some of Marx's ideas, I can't tell you how they violated physical law or materialism, something they just about all pretended supported them.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51031071169594321452012-08-03T15:22:30.399-04:002012-08-03T15:22:30.399-04:00materialism requires that anything be a material e...<i>materialism requires that anything be a material entity in order to exist.</i> <br /><br />Absurd. Straw man attack. Materialism does not insist that the number seven be a material entity. Abstract concepts like mathematics are not material, but they are useful in making testable predictions about observable quantities.<br /><br />The fact that abstract quantities like mathematics are useful in describing nature, does not mean that spooks exist which cannot be mathematically described.<br /><br /><i>Religion has no such restriction on reality and can accommodate the idea that evil and good are non-material.</i><br /><br />Religion permits anything and everything, including genocide, infanticide and the rape of the Midianites, slavery, selling your daughters into slavery, etc. Accommodating everything, it predicts nothing.<br /><br />The question is: what problems do religion's hypothesized entities, specifically, solve?<br /><br /><i>Unless you can come up with a material demonstration of good and evil, that remains an insurmountable problem.</i><br /><br />Absurd. Materialism does not mean that there are no abstracts that are useful in describing the world. It means spooks do not influence human events.<br /><br />Terms like "good" and "evil" are descriptors of human relationships, they don't need to be material any more than mathematical correlations need to be made of matter.<br /><br />Supernaturalism means that spooks exist and influence human events. You have not demonstrated that the only possible solution to the problem necessarily involves the existence of spooks and their influence on human events. For supernaturalism, that remains an insurmountable problem.<br /><br /><i>"Spook", how unimpressive an intellectual position atheism is</i><br /><br />You're just accustomed to unearned privilege; I'm supposed to call other people's spooks "spooks" but I'm supposed to show respect and treat your spooks respectfully like they're better.<br /><br />If somebody points out that your spooks are no better than the spooks of African witch doctors, you have no recourse except the ad hominem of saying I'm stupid.<br /><br />You're intellectually superior? OK genius, if you're so smart, prove your spooks are different from, and better supported by evidence than, Muslim djinn or the spooks of Daoists or African witch doctors. <br /><br />Just because abstract concepts are useful in describing the world, does not mean your spooks exist. That is exactly the crux of your logical leap. <br /><br /><i>if you want me to take you seriously, talk like an adult.</i><br /><br />I am talking like an adult, the way an adult talks to an exorcist, witch doctor, medium or parlor psychic. You're a conceited charlatan who expects to be treated with respect when he's shown to be full of bull.<br /><br />But by "talk like an adult", I think you mean I have to use a polite language in which your religion is treated as more exalted and intellectual than that of an African witch doctor. That I will not. You and witch doctors both believe in spooks. The only difference is you don't have a bone through your nose, so you think you're better.<br /><br /><i>The history of atheists with political power is impressive for its body count. In virtually every single case it has been bloody and has been, uniformly, despotic.</i><br /><br />Yeah right, 75% atheists in Japan, lotta crime there. Or Sweden, total chaos in Sweden. Would you rather live in Guatemala or El Salvador with 95%+ Christians or Japan? Can you name even one country that is more than 95% Christian and is not a hell-hole?<br /><br />Every fascist movement was explicitly Christian (unless you count the Baath who were Muslim). All the fascist movements around Germany were based on Catholicism, usually explicitly. Nazism itself pretended to be above the Catholic-Protestant divide but was in fact pro-Protestantism, and there's no real distinction between Nazi anti-Semitism, jargon and language and that used by the most respected Christian theologians of their era.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75624337595098599342012-08-03T14:54:42.163-04:002012-08-03T14:54:42.163-04:00Al, before you or your friends forget, I didn'...Al, before you or your friends forget, I didn't try to define the number "6" as being something other than the integer between 5 and 7. Have you got an example of someone who actually did what you assert in your example? I've never know of someone to do that. Have you? If it wasn't so hot and humid here I'd go to the bother of drawing the parallel to several examples of the false equivalence fallacy that are so popular in atheist polemics these days. <br /><br />As pointed out above, the limits of human definition don't determine whether or not something exists. One of the problems of human thought is that it is largely dependent on rather concrete reference to physical experience. The idea that a definition of the supernatural could be anything other than "substance-free" is kind of funny, considering what the supernatural is assumed to be. <br /><br />Can you define existence in a way that isn't problematic? Even in physical terms?The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46195298316314284502012-08-03T14:34:57.211-04:002012-08-03T14:34:57.211-04:00In every case you list, when Christians kill peopl...In every case you list, when Christians kill people THEY ARE VIOLATING THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, they are acting against the teachings of a man they claim is divine and who speaks with the authority of God. That they can kill large numbers of people while professing a belief in the teachings of Jesus doesn't mean that it follows that people who believe that there is no reason to believe that those standards of behavior constitute absolute law will behave better.<br /><br />History shows that atheists with power don't behave better. <br /><br />As to Hitler and religion, I didn't mention Hitler. I'm always so grateful when atheists attribute statements to me that, somehow, I didn't make. But, then, I have seen that kind of thing is a common practice of atheists and others who don't have a leg to stand on.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40987522647079791512012-08-03T14:26:52.076-04:002012-08-03T14:26:52.076-04:00The fact that people might disagree on definitions...The fact that people might disagree on definitions is a matter of preference having nothing to do with whether or not the thing being defined is in fact well-defined. I can define X to be an integer between 5 and 7, and you may disagree and say X ought to be something else, but that doesn't mean X isn't well defined as I've stipulated. On the other hand, if I say X is an odd integer between 5 and 7, it doesn't matter if we all agree that that's what X is, it's still poorly defined.<br /><br />It's worse than that for "supernatural." "Supernatural" doesn't have a basic working definition that isn't incoherent or substance-free, let alone possessing "sufficient precision."ALnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73252108979236152152012-08-03T13:54:02.958-04:002012-08-03T13:54:02.958-04:00J.H. I strongly suspect that you wouldn't agre...J.H. I strongly suspect that you wouldn't agree with me about what constitutes an objective basis for determining right and wrong. I would say that, based in human history and experience, the idea that you should not do to other people what you would not have done to you is about as objective a moral standard as could possibly exist. I think history and experience provide the best means of judging those questions through rigorously excluding self-interest from the consideration.<br /><br />I would generally not talk about morality in terms of objectivity. The demand of objectivity is far more characteristic of atheism than it is of religious belief. As I pointed out, you would have to have a material demonstration of good and evil in order to overcome the typical atheist method of debunkery that it uses to deride a belief in God. Unless you had that, any desired moral standard would tend to fall whenever an atheist wanted to do something, the only restraint, in that case, being what they figured they could get away with. I've seen enough of that among some of those who profess religious belief, even among those who claim to believe they will be punished for violating moral laws, to have any faith that those who don't believe in the reality of moral laws will behave better. I think history shows there is no reason to believe atheists will.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31285638212010449252012-08-03T13:43:17.345-04:002012-08-03T13:43:17.345-04:00You haven't demonstrated that good and evil ar...<i> You haven't demonstrated that good and evil are greater problems for materialism, or are solved by anti-materialism (which in this case means believing in spooks.) </i><br /><br />There is no requirement in religious assertion of good or evil to account for it as an aspect of physical reality or to explain how those could arise as material entities, materialism requires that anything be a material entity in order to exist. Religion has no such restriction on reality and can accommodate the idea that evil and good are non-material. Unless you can come up with a material demonstration of good and evil, that remains an insurmountable problem. <br /><br />"Spook", how unimpressive an intellectual position atheism is, considering its pretenses of intellectual superiority. Other people can make their own decisions but if you want me to take you seriously, talk like an adult. <br /><br />The history of atheists with political power is impressive for its body count. In virtually every single case it has been bloody and has been, uniformly, despotic.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64490841390596919832012-08-03T12:05:52.809-04:002012-08-03T12:05:52.809-04:004. Christian morality is not absolute, it is relat...4. Christian morality is not absolute, it is relative. Biblical morality keeps changing, depending on the culture. It used to be mandatory to stone homosexuals to death and kill your own daughter if she's not a virgin on her wedding night, etc. etc. Now I guess it's not anymore. <br /><br />Even Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis says that incest was OK before the Book of Leviticus outlawed it (Adam's sons married their sisters, Abraham married his half-sister, etc.)<br /><br />5. There are many moral systems in Christianity. Besides the multiple moral systems listed above, God has a completely different definition of "good" and "evil" unrelated to human "good" and "evil", in which it's OK for God to kill babies and commit genocide, and he orders Moses to order the Israelites to rape the Midianite virgins and kill the non-virgins [Num. 31] So far we've got 3 or 4 definitions of "good" and "evil" going.<br /><br />6. The fact that you haven't solved the problem is obvious from the fact that conservative Christians historically supported every kind of genocide and mass murder of Native Americans, Cathars, Tasmanians, Bushmen, Jews, accused witches, East Timorese, etc. etc. So it seems their source of super-knowledge is not so super.<br /><br />5. Asserting that a solution to the problem exists, but it is in the mind of an inaccessible spook, does not assist us with <b>any of the moral problems we face today.</b><br /><br />Let's say you're a doctor, a disaster brings to your hospital 100 patients, wounded and dying, of various ages, genders, education levels, professions, etc. If you help one, the others will die. Whom do you help?<br /><br />This is a real moral problem, of the kind faced by many people in the real world. Your reply is to simply assert that the knowledge of good and evil exists in the mind of an inaccessible spook, thus you have solved the problem. <br /><br />If you had solved the problem, you would be useful, but you are in fact, useless.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19246163103257407672012-08-03T12:05:24.998-04:002012-08-03T12:05:24.998-04:00You haven't demonstrated that good and evil ar...You haven't demonstrated that good and evil are greater problems for materialism, or are solved by anti-materialism (which in this case means believing in spooks.)<br /><br />There are many concepts which are not strictly material, but nevertheless useful. Abstract concepts like numbers, mathematics, statistics etc. are not material but they are useful in forming scientific theories that make predictions about observable phenomena.<br /> <br />Subjective experiences like love, hate, happy, sad are not material but nevertheless they are a part of human experience; but being subjective they are less useful in forming inferences that make predictions about observable phenomena.<br /><br />We speak of our "relationships" with fellow human beings, and the "relationships" between parts in a system. A relationship is not a material object, but it is useful in describing our interactions with others or interactions of parts in a system.<br /><br />Likewise, "good" and "evil" are useful in describing our interactions with others or interactions between parts in a system. The fact that they are not material does not prove spooks exist. The number seven is not material; that does not prove it can sponsor an episode of Sesame Street.<br /><br />The usefulness or reality of non-material subjective qualia is not proof that spooks objectively exist. Hypothesizing spooks exist does not assist forming inferences that make testable predictions about observable phenomena.<br /><br />Moreover, by hypothesizing the existence of spooks, you are certainly not solving the problem you claim to have solved. You have simply hypothesized that a spook-based solution to the problem of evil exists, somewhere, perhaps in a parallel universe of some sort, probably in the mind of a spook or spooks.<br /><br />You have no access to that spook-based solution, so we have no reason to believe your assertion that the problem has been solved by anyone, man nor spook.<br /><br />To invoke divine-command theology--"It is good because God tells us it's good, bad because God tells us it's bad"-- has so many logical contradictions it's hard to know where to begin.<br /><br />1. You haven't solved the problem, you simply asserted that a spook solved the problem, but you can't prove either a.) the spook exists nor b.) that the spook solved the problem.<br /><br />2. You can't access the spook's alleged solution, because you cannot conjure the spook, nor more generally, can you form a theory about the spook's hidden knowledge that makes testable predictions. Your only knowledge about the spook derives from <b>a human tradition created mostly by genocidal mass murderers.</b> It is unclear why your human tradition should be privileged over other human traditions likewise created by genocidal mass murderers.<br /><br />3. You are invoking <b>argument by convenience.</b> It would be convenient if a simple solution existed that does not require much thinking and can be understood even by stupid people. Therefore a simple solution exists, that does not require much thinking and can be understood even by stupid people. <br /><br />The convenient solution you have chosen is to assert that, as a source of knowledge about spooks, your human tradition (which was created by genocidal mass murderers) should be privileged over other human traditions likewise created by genocidal mass murderers. Convenient? Yes, for religious conservatives. True? Certainly not proven.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.com