Showing posts with label problem of evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label problem of evil. Show all posts
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Monday, January 09, 2006
Richard Dawkins and the Root of All Evil
Richard Dawkins wrote and appears in a two-part series called "The Root of All Evil?" to be aired on the UK's Channel 4. In the second episode, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins equates the religious education of children with child abuse claiming that "Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods. It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"
Dawkins doesn't hold back his feelings towards the God of the Bible either: "The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist," he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament "St Paul's nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin." (source: WorldNetDaily).
Dawkins is opposed to claims of religious knowledge because they don't conform to the rigorous standards of science. He'd like us to believe that he is being completely rational and objective while those who don't share his materialistic, atheistic outlook are simply being emotional and unreasonable. However, from quotes like those above as well as from the series title it's obvious that Dawkins' aversion to Christianity is motivated largely by moral considerations. He appeals to the emotional force of analogies to child abuse and finds the God revealed in the Old and New Testaments detestable. But this raises some major problems for Dr. Dawkins. His moral pronouncements are not themselves the fruit of science for values such as justice are not capable of being empirically studied. Dawkins speaks as though certain states of affairs, actions, and motives are wrong despite the fact that he denies the existence of any objective and absolute standard of goodness. Given his view of things, I have no doubt that he finds the God of the Old Testament unpleasant but that's about as far as he can go while remaining true to his atheism.
Dawkins doesn't hold back his feelings towards the God of the Bible either: "The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist," he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament "St Paul's nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin." (source: WorldNetDaily).
Dawkins is opposed to claims of religious knowledge because they don't conform to the rigorous standards of science. He'd like us to believe that he is being completely rational and objective while those who don't share his materialistic, atheistic outlook are simply being emotional and unreasonable. However, from quotes like those above as well as from the series title it's obvious that Dawkins' aversion to Christianity is motivated largely by moral considerations. He appeals to the emotional force of analogies to child abuse and finds the God revealed in the Old and New Testaments detestable. But this raises some major problems for Dr. Dawkins. His moral pronouncements are not themselves the fruit of science for values such as justice are not capable of being empirically studied. Dawkins speaks as though certain states of affairs, actions, and motives are wrong despite the fact that he denies the existence of any objective and absolute standard of goodness. Given his view of things, I have no doubt that he finds the God of the Old Testament unpleasant but that's about as far as he can go while remaining true to his atheism.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
More on Satanic Ethics (and Fashion)
A good friend emailed me in response to the conversation with a Satanist that I posted in three parts. He had some perceptive insights and asked a very good question that I'd like to share with other readers. His comments are in italics, followed by my reply.
I have a couple of comments on your exchange with the Satanist. First, logic certainly doesn't seem to be a big thing for him. He doesn't even recognize what a contradiction is. But self-deification comes through in his answers. Secondly, he did try to express a concept that may be legitimate as a rule for behavior. He denied the existence of an absolute moral standard based on right or wrong from God, but claimed a standard based on consequences. "If you do this it will only hurt you." He called it Karma and common sense, but I believe God uses that motivation, alongside the right and wrong motivation. "In the day you eat of it you will die," "Those who love money pierce themselves with sorrow," etc. Isn't it possible to arrive at some universal guidelines for behavior on the basis of consequences, apart from divine Law?
Thanks for the feedback on the conversation with a Satanist. I agree that God does use the fact that sinful behavior has negative consequences as a motivation. But I wasn't addressing the issue of motivation. I wasn't claiming that one should be motivated to perform or abstain from a given act on the basis of what is right or wrong. Rather, I was trying to get him to think about what best explains the fact that we can't help thinking and speaking in terms of objective moral truths.
The point I was trying to make was that even if we observe that a particular action yields harmful results, it doesn't follow that that action is morally wrong. At best, we can conclude that it is imprudent. Yesterday I broke out with what I believe is an allergic reaction to something my wife used in the wash. This morning when I was trying to decide how many Benadryl tablets to take, she said that I shouldn't (or ought not) take two because that would make me very drowsy. I decided to heed her advice but it wouldn't have been immoral or blameworthy of me had I decided to take two. The "ought" in her counsel is different from the "ought" in the statement "You ought not steal from your neighbor" as the latter "ought" conveys a moral prescription. Sure, pragmatic considerations can be helpful guides for behavior but they're not necessarily moral rules one is obliged to obey. Moral obligation requires some kind of moral authority. The Satanist, while denying the existence of a moral authority, expressed moral outrage as though some universally binding moral standard had been violated. This is why I wanted to press him on his likening urinating into the wind to doing violence to someone. He wanted to say that both are stupid acts with undesirable consequences yet it was clear that he made a moral distinction between them.
I have a couple of comments on your exchange with the Satanist. First, logic certainly doesn't seem to be a big thing for him. He doesn't even recognize what a contradiction is. But self-deification comes through in his answers. Secondly, he did try to express a concept that may be legitimate as a rule for behavior. He denied the existence of an absolute moral standard based on right or wrong from God, but claimed a standard based on consequences. "If you do this it will only hurt you." He called it Karma and common sense, but I believe God uses that motivation, alongside the right and wrong motivation. "In the day you eat of it you will die," "Those who love money pierce themselves with sorrow," etc. Isn't it possible to arrive at some universal guidelines for behavior on the basis of consequences, apart from divine Law?
Thanks for the feedback on the conversation with a Satanist. I agree that God does use the fact that sinful behavior has negative consequences as a motivation. But I wasn't addressing the issue of motivation. I wasn't claiming that one should be motivated to perform or abstain from a given act on the basis of what is right or wrong. Rather, I was trying to get him to think about what best explains the fact that we can't help thinking and speaking in terms of objective moral truths.
The point I was trying to make was that even if we observe that a particular action yields harmful results, it doesn't follow that that action is morally wrong. At best, we can conclude that it is imprudent. Yesterday I broke out with what I believe is an allergic reaction to something my wife used in the wash. This morning when I was trying to decide how many Benadryl tablets to take, she said that I shouldn't (or ought not) take two because that would make me very drowsy. I decided to heed her advice but it wouldn't have been immoral or blameworthy of me had I decided to take two. The "ought" in her counsel is different from the "ought" in the statement "You ought not steal from your neighbor" as the latter "ought" conveys a moral prescription. Sure, pragmatic considerations can be helpful guides for behavior but they're not necessarily moral rules one is obliged to obey. Moral obligation requires some kind of moral authority. The Satanist, while denying the existence of a moral authority, expressed moral outrage as though some universally binding moral standard had been violated. This is why I wanted to press him on his likening urinating into the wind to doing violence to someone. He wanted to say that both are stupid acts with undesirable consequences yet it was clear that he made a moral distinction between them.
********************
And while we're on the topic of Satanism, I came across this interesting article about a Swedish designer who has increased sales of a new jeans line by incorporating a Satanic logo, an inverted cross on the forehead of a skull. Bjorn Atldax describes himself as a "devout anti-Christian" and admits to using the logo to make Christians angry.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Satanic Ethics - Part Three
Part One Part Two
Notna: Yes, there is. It's called gut instinct. The thought of murder or rape of a child simply makes me sick to my stomach and angers me. If it were done to someone in my family, the wrath I would bring would be just. However, I wouldn't kill or rape, but I might pay to have it done.
KP: Are you saying that people SHOULD believe as you do? And if not, then why do they "deserve" to be punished for not so thinking and acting in accord with YOUR beliefs? And by the way, the pedophile acts out on what he calls "gut instinct" as well.
Notna: KP, there is just a moral human code that should not be crossed. You and I know what it is but for those that don't, they don't deserve to live among us. They haven't evolved far enough from the ape yet. I know you understand...if I were to rape a child I would deserve whatever ill-will begets me.
KP: So this moral code is ultimately just the product of our biology? (Are you saying that people SHOULD believe as you do? And if not, then why do they "deserve" to be punished for not so thinking and acting in accord with YOUR beliefs? <---you havent answered this yet. )
Notna: The biology of the mentally elite. If only we could breed out mental imperfections of people like that society would be better as a whole. They serve no purpose except to instill fear. Let a robber try to take my wallet. He will leave a much wiser man.
In this particular circumstance we’re discussing, YES, people should believe as I do. Anything less is uncivilized.
KP: Whoah! That sounds kind of authoritarian.
Notna: Yet true.
KP: What happened to free thought? Why should people join your herd?
Notna: That's not herd mentality, that mental awareness and eliteness...the wisdom to know that doing something like that is morally wrong.
KP: According to what standard of right?
Notna: Human standard. The ability to judge naturally right from wrong. Other animals in the animal kingdom do not rape the young. Nor do they murder their own kind unscrupulously.
KP: So on one hand you're saying that people should think for themselves (which in itself is a prescription) and on the other you're saying that people should think like you.
So, we should use the animals as our measure of what is acceptable? I know of some animals that eat their young. What should we conclude from that?
Notna: I think for myself, KP. Nobody tells me how to think and personally, I can't tell a rapist how to think, but if he decides to rape I can tell myself to beat his sorry ass down. As for animals who eat their offspring, they don't do it out of malicious intent. Alligators do it to control their population in their environment.
KP: Should humans do it for that reason? There are some pretty overcrowded areas in the world.
Notna: Alligators will not thrive if they overpopulate...We have actually barely begun to populate this planet. Our instincts do not tell us to eat our young, theirs do. But if that’s the only way for our species to survive, then so be it. My guess though, is by deductive reasoning that we would eat the old.
KP: Do you see how dehumanizing your position actually is? Looking to animals lower than ourselves to determine how we should live? This is exactly what the Bible says is the case when man refuses to acknowledge God in his thoughts and makes himself the final reference point of meaning and truth. He becomes less than what he actually is.
Notna: See? The Bible is demeaning. Use intelligence and be less than you are. Repress, repress, repress. Love your neighbor even though he's a total c*******er. HA! Not this kid. Repress your feeling that you can't stand him and love, love, love - then end up hating yourself for it. What makes you follow such requests? You seem intelligent. Why waste your time trying to uplift people who can't uplift themselves? They look to God and hope some mighty power is going to pick them up and hand them what they want or blame Satan when things go wrong. Why can't we just be responsible for our OWN good & bad?
KP: Notna, first things first. First of all, I didn't say that one must trash intelligence. I DID question however, whether it is intelligent to use the animals as the standard for our behavior.
Notna: I say yes. Ecology applies to us as well as the animals. We ARE animals. We just happen to be self-aware and more intelligent than any other in the kingdom.
KP: Furthermore, it’s the kind of internal inconsistency that you’re demonstrating that makes me adverse to nontheistic thought. So, we should look to less intelligent creatures to determine how we should live. I see. That's intelligent.
Notna: KP, it’s not inconsistency. I have not contradicted myself once. I think maybe you just want to debate and try to defeat a Satanist. You can’t tell me that I have changed anything I have said.
KP: Notna, It is inconsist to assert that one should think for himself and then to assert that one should think as you do.
Notna: I didn’t say that either. I used ecological examples. We have animal instinct whether you like it or not. I choose to listen to mine. God chooses to repress it for you and make you feel guilty about it. You are completely misunderstanding me and I knew this was going to happen.
KP: Notna, do you think a pedophile has instincts?
Notna: KP, there is free thought, and there is human responsibility. In order to be successful and thrive in this environment I think people SHOULD feel the way I do about murder and rape. Yes, the pedophile does have instincts and he should be locked in a room with kids that want to get abused [even with asterisks I couldn’t post what was originally said] Are there any? Nope! So I guess he should just be locked in a prison with bikers who will beat some common sense into him.
KP: And someone should feel guilty and be punished for acting in accord with his biological instincts?
Notna: That is a biological goof, and other species would kill it off or strand it as a lame of the breed.
KP: Oh, so biological goofs should be killed?
Notna: Us, we just lock it in a cage and feed it.
KP: Why should someone be penalized for what he/she can't control? Isn't that your objection to Christianity? Animals kill runts of the litter as well. Should we do that?
Notna: They can control it! Just like a junkie can control whether or not they smoke crack. They may crave it, but it's their own plotting and planning that makes it happen.
KP: So you're saying that in some cases instinct can and should be repressed?
Notna: We have places in society for the mental runts. We don't kill them because it's not morally objective. What purpose would it serve?
KP: Can animals control their instincts?
Notna: Sure. I've wanted to blindly murder someone in revenge as I'm sure you have. I think everyone has contemplated suicide at least once in their life, but what purpose does it serve? Free thought and inner-instinct is what stops you. And, yes, animals can control their instincts. Dogs under our command are taught to control theirs. But not all animals can and they don't live amongst us and we are wise enough to avoid them if encountered.
KP: So, if not all animals can control their instincts, why would we choose to look to them to determine how we ought to live?
Notna: KP, you are splitting hairs. I've made my answers quite clear and you are seeking holes that need not be there. I know you understand where I am coming from. If you want to know more, you’ll have to read the works of Anton LaVey. He does quite well at explaining it all in full color for you.
KP: Why look to organisms driven by their biology apart from rational thought, to determine how we as humans should live? I appreciate your talking with me and hope that you'll be open to it in the future.
Notna: I don't base my entire existence on the actions of animals. I used it as an example and you are blowing it way out of proportion. I know you understand where I am coming from and your argument is becoming nerve-wracking. I find the luster to be gone in this conversation. Please read LaVey's works for your own education. You will see the light. Whether or not you agree with it, you will understand it. Thanks for talking to me. Have a good weekend.
Notna: Yes, there is. It's called gut instinct. The thought of murder or rape of a child simply makes me sick to my stomach and angers me. If it were done to someone in my family, the wrath I would bring would be just. However, I wouldn't kill or rape, but I might pay to have it done.
KP: Are you saying that people SHOULD believe as you do? And if not, then why do they "deserve" to be punished for not so thinking and acting in accord with YOUR beliefs? And by the way, the pedophile acts out on what he calls "gut instinct" as well.
Notna: KP, there is just a moral human code that should not be crossed. You and I know what it is but for those that don't, they don't deserve to live among us. They haven't evolved far enough from the ape yet. I know you understand...if I were to rape a child I would deserve whatever ill-will begets me.
KP: So this moral code is ultimately just the product of our biology? (Are you saying that people SHOULD believe as you do? And if not, then why do they "deserve" to be punished for not so thinking and acting in accord with YOUR beliefs? <---you havent answered this yet. )
Notna: The biology of the mentally elite. If only we could breed out mental imperfections of people like that society would be better as a whole. They serve no purpose except to instill fear. Let a robber try to take my wallet. He will leave a much wiser man.
In this particular circumstance we’re discussing, YES, people should believe as I do. Anything less is uncivilized.
KP: Whoah! That sounds kind of authoritarian.
Notna: Yet true.
KP: What happened to free thought? Why should people join your herd?
Notna: That's not herd mentality, that mental awareness and eliteness...the wisdom to know that doing something like that is morally wrong.
KP: According to what standard of right?
Notna: Human standard. The ability to judge naturally right from wrong. Other animals in the animal kingdom do not rape the young. Nor do they murder their own kind unscrupulously.
KP: So on one hand you're saying that people should think for themselves (which in itself is a prescription) and on the other you're saying that people should think like you.
So, we should use the animals as our measure of what is acceptable? I know of some animals that eat their young. What should we conclude from that?
Notna: I think for myself, KP. Nobody tells me how to think and personally, I can't tell a rapist how to think, but if he decides to rape I can tell myself to beat his sorry ass down. As for animals who eat their offspring, they don't do it out of malicious intent. Alligators do it to control their population in their environment.
KP: Should humans do it for that reason? There are some pretty overcrowded areas in the world.
Notna: Alligators will not thrive if they overpopulate...We have actually barely begun to populate this planet. Our instincts do not tell us to eat our young, theirs do. But if that’s the only way for our species to survive, then so be it. My guess though, is by deductive reasoning that we would eat the old.
KP: Do you see how dehumanizing your position actually is? Looking to animals lower than ourselves to determine how we should live? This is exactly what the Bible says is the case when man refuses to acknowledge God in his thoughts and makes himself the final reference point of meaning and truth. He becomes less than what he actually is.
Notna: See? The Bible is demeaning. Use intelligence and be less than you are. Repress, repress, repress. Love your neighbor even though he's a total c*******er. HA! Not this kid. Repress your feeling that you can't stand him and love, love, love - then end up hating yourself for it. What makes you follow such requests? You seem intelligent. Why waste your time trying to uplift people who can't uplift themselves? They look to God and hope some mighty power is going to pick them up and hand them what they want or blame Satan when things go wrong. Why can't we just be responsible for our OWN good & bad?
KP: Notna, first things first. First of all, I didn't say that one must trash intelligence. I DID question however, whether it is intelligent to use the animals as the standard for our behavior.
Notna: I say yes. Ecology applies to us as well as the animals. We ARE animals. We just happen to be self-aware and more intelligent than any other in the kingdom.
KP: Furthermore, it’s the kind of internal inconsistency that you’re demonstrating that makes me adverse to nontheistic thought. So, we should look to less intelligent creatures to determine how we should live. I see. That's intelligent.
Notna: KP, it’s not inconsistency. I have not contradicted myself once. I think maybe you just want to debate and try to defeat a Satanist. You can’t tell me that I have changed anything I have said.
KP: Notna, It is inconsist to assert that one should think for himself and then to assert that one should think as you do.
Notna: I didn’t say that either. I used ecological examples. We have animal instinct whether you like it or not. I choose to listen to mine. God chooses to repress it for you and make you feel guilty about it. You are completely misunderstanding me and I knew this was going to happen.
KP: Notna, do you think a pedophile has instincts?
Notna: KP, there is free thought, and there is human responsibility. In order to be successful and thrive in this environment I think people SHOULD feel the way I do about murder and rape. Yes, the pedophile does have instincts and he should be locked in a room with kids that want to get abused [even with asterisks I couldn’t post what was originally said] Are there any? Nope! So I guess he should just be locked in a prison with bikers who will beat some common sense into him.
KP: And someone should feel guilty and be punished for acting in accord with his biological instincts?
Notna: That is a biological goof, and other species would kill it off or strand it as a lame of the breed.
KP: Oh, so biological goofs should be killed?
Notna: Us, we just lock it in a cage and feed it.
KP: Why should someone be penalized for what he/she can't control? Isn't that your objection to Christianity? Animals kill runts of the litter as well. Should we do that?
Notna: They can control it! Just like a junkie can control whether or not they smoke crack. They may crave it, but it's their own plotting and planning that makes it happen.
KP: So you're saying that in some cases instinct can and should be repressed?
Notna: We have places in society for the mental runts. We don't kill them because it's not morally objective. What purpose would it serve?
KP: Can animals control their instincts?
Notna: Sure. I've wanted to blindly murder someone in revenge as I'm sure you have. I think everyone has contemplated suicide at least once in their life, but what purpose does it serve? Free thought and inner-instinct is what stops you. And, yes, animals can control their instincts. Dogs under our command are taught to control theirs. But not all animals can and they don't live amongst us and we are wise enough to avoid them if encountered.
KP: So, if not all animals can control their instincts, why would we choose to look to them to determine how we ought to live?
Notna: KP, you are splitting hairs. I've made my answers quite clear and you are seeking holes that need not be there. I know you understand where I am coming from. If you want to know more, you’ll have to read the works of Anton LaVey. He does quite well at explaining it all in full color for you.
KP: Why look to organisms driven by their biology apart from rational thought, to determine how we as humans should live? I appreciate your talking with me and hope that you'll be open to it in the future.
Notna: I don't base my entire existence on the actions of animals. I used it as an example and you are blowing it way out of proportion. I know you understand where I am coming from and your argument is becoming nerve-wracking. I find the luster to be gone in this conversation. Please read LaVey's works for your own education. You will see the light. Whether or not you agree with it, you will understand it. Thanks for talking to me. Have a good weekend.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Satanic Ethics - Part Two
Continued from Part One
KP: My earlier comment wasn't so much about the number of people who believe as you do. I'm quite sure there are many. Rather, I was curious as to why anyone SHOULD believe as you do.
Notna: SHOULD?! Honestly, it's self-fulfilling, gratifying, and when a lucid grip of it is obtained, you do hold the upperhand at times when you otherwise would not.
KP: So, people should do whatever is self-gratifying?
Notna: Yes, but responsibly so. Here comes the ethical stuff. I do not condone rape, murder, preying on the invalid, stuff like that - no matter how gratifying that is. That is NOT evil, that is STUPID! Those are the dipsh**s that turn to Satanism without knowing what it is and expect to be patted on the back. FOOLS!
KP: But why should people do what is self-gratifying? According to what authority is this ethical prescription based? And why shouldn't people do what is stupid?
Notna: Did you really just ask me that?
KP: Yes, I did.
Notna: C'mon KP, that doesn't even deserve an answer.
KP: Humor me. ;-) I'm just a dumb Christian, remember?
Notna: I never said that. Stupid actions get stupid results. Equate it to pissing into the wind.
KP: Do you have the same objection to pissing into the wind that you do to rape, murder, and preying on invalids?
Notna: Sure I do. It's like running in a circle. You're never gonna end up anywhere except chasing your own tail.
KP: So someone who pisses into the wind is as blameworthy as one who rapes a child?
Notna: No. Only equally as stupid.
KP: But there really isn't any basis for moral praise or blame, is there?
Notna: Someone who rapes a child deserves to have the living sh** kicked out of him. Someone who pisses in the wind needs not be touched. YUCK!
KP: So you believe in something like justice? But if there is no evil, why should there be justice?
Notna: Pissing in the wind doesn't cross the same moral boundary as rape or murder. It works the same way with the law actually. The rapists and murderers are punished worse than the guy who was throwing snowballs at cars. They are both stupid as hell.
KP: But if there is no real evil, why should there be penalization?
Notna: There is evil, but I don't find it to be defined the same way as the Bible. Fortunately Webster didn't write the Bible.
KP: Please tell me how you define evil. What is it?
Notna: Evil is LIVE spelled backwards. Everything that is defined as evil is something that we would possibly enjoy in THIS lifetime. Why repress it? Why spend this lifetime repressing myself in hopes of my "next" life that I don't even know I'm gonna have? Screw that! I'm having too much fun now and who should stop me?
KP: Deriving our ethics from the spellings of English words may not be the best practice. Furthermore, I think the child rapist enjoyed his actions. Why repress it?
Notna: Because it's f***ed up and if he raped one of my relatives he'd better find a nice secluded dungeon to hide in. I wouldn't kill him, I'd rather watch him live and suffer. We don't turn the other cheek. Nor do I think the meek will inherit the Earth. The strong will survive and that's just how ecology works. The meek don't win the Superbowl.
KP: Why does someone who does what you said he should, namely live for self-gratification, deserve to "have the living s*** kicked out of him?" He deserves to be penalized for what may be normal for him?
Notna: KP, why do YOU think? I just told you why I thought so. You're welcome to cuss. I'm a 30 year old adult.
KP: He deserves to be penalized for doing what he OUGHT to do? That's a pretty messed up ethical system where someone gets punished for behaving as he ought to.
Notna: Sure. That's causing harm and damage to another person who didn't deserve it.
KP: But you said people should do whatever is self-gratifying, didn't you? And now you want to punish them for it? That sounds unjust.
Notna: I also said what I don't condone. And Satanists only believe in doing harm to those who well deserve it. Whether it be through magick or through personal physical vengeance.
Notna: No one is supposed to rape a child and you know it. You sound like one of the stupid ass misdirected people who turn to Satanism for all the wrong reasons and get disgruntled when they figure out they're dumber than hell.
KP: I'm not advocating the rape of children. I'm just trying to follow the logic of your position. Please don't be upset with me. But you've already said that people ought to act consistently with their desires. Now you're saying that in some cases those desires should be repressed. But I thought your objection to Christianity was exactly because you saw it as repressive. Why should the rapist conform to the herd mentality of civil laws?
Notna: KP, we are all required to be responsible humans. Actions like that need repercussion. Things like that were not meant to be. I'm not upset with you, I just think this debate may be losing a bit of its luster. There are some things xtiantiy preaches that I have no problem with. But sleeping in, overeating, sex, indulgence, etc. - those are self-gratifying and don't hurt anybody else.
KP: So we are morally obliged not to harm another? Is that what you're saying?
Notna: Yes, when it comes to victimizing an unsuspecting individual who does not deserve it.
KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is....?
Notna: The rapists who escapes the law because the big-breasted 14 year old wore a revealing shirt should not be free from getting his face smashed in by the girl's father.
KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is......?
Notna: In Satanism there is no "authority." Satanism is not meant for people who prey on the weak for no reason.
KP: So if there's no authority, then what is the origin of this moral obligation you keep talking about?
Notna: It is simply a moral code of humanity and harming someone in that manner simply buys bad karma. If you wish for bad things to happen to you, go ahead and pull sh** like that but don't cry when the sky starts falling.
KP: But why am I morally obliged to abide by the moral code of humanity? If there is no transcendent authority, then there is no such obligation.
Notna: You are not obliged but if you do it, don't cry about the results. You get what you deserve.
KP: So then I'm NOT obliged to not harm another, am I? There ‘s no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question is, Why should I abide by your personal preferences? I fail to see how your position isn’t reducible to subjectivism and ultimately nihilism. You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?
Notna: For the most part. But you’re looking for holes that don't possess lucid thought. You're making the argument of an uneducated fool. I realize that you're not, but you're trying to make me defend myself instead of having stimulating conversation.
KP: I'm simply asking you to be consistent, that's all. And I don't see asking you to defend your position as being diametrically opposed to stimulating conversation. And there’s no need for you to engage in insult and ad hominem argumentation. If my argument is flawed, please point out how. Otherwise, please address my questions.
Notna: I wasn't. I concurred that I knew you weren't stupid. Anyway, I am quite consistent.
KP: There is no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question arises, why should I abide by what you prefer? You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?
Notna: I don't try to shove it down your throat with fear tactics like the friggin' Christians do. There is no God of everlasting power that I am to be afraid will strike me down if I have sex with someone I just met. Where's the justice in that, man? My opinion as well as others, but there is no law other than the laws of magick or karmic consequence that will strike me down if I do something stupid.
KP: So you believe it's wrong to "shove one's ideas down someone's throat" (whatever that means)? But that again is simply a statement of your personal preference, right? There's no objective standard by which we can determine that that is actually wrong, is there?
Part Three
KP: My earlier comment wasn't so much about the number of people who believe as you do. I'm quite sure there are many. Rather, I was curious as to why anyone SHOULD believe as you do.
Notna: SHOULD?! Honestly, it's self-fulfilling, gratifying, and when a lucid grip of it is obtained, you do hold the upperhand at times when you otherwise would not.
KP: So, people should do whatever is self-gratifying?
Notna: Yes, but responsibly so. Here comes the ethical stuff. I do not condone rape, murder, preying on the invalid, stuff like that - no matter how gratifying that is. That is NOT evil, that is STUPID! Those are the dipsh**s that turn to Satanism without knowing what it is and expect to be patted on the back. FOOLS!
KP: But why should people do what is self-gratifying? According to what authority is this ethical prescription based? And why shouldn't people do what is stupid?
Notna: Did you really just ask me that?
KP: Yes, I did.
Notna: C'mon KP, that doesn't even deserve an answer.
KP: Humor me. ;-) I'm just a dumb Christian, remember?
Notna: I never said that. Stupid actions get stupid results. Equate it to pissing into the wind.
KP: Do you have the same objection to pissing into the wind that you do to rape, murder, and preying on invalids?
Notna: Sure I do. It's like running in a circle. You're never gonna end up anywhere except chasing your own tail.
KP: So someone who pisses into the wind is as blameworthy as one who rapes a child?
Notna: No. Only equally as stupid.
KP: But there really isn't any basis for moral praise or blame, is there?
Notna: Someone who rapes a child deserves to have the living sh** kicked out of him. Someone who pisses in the wind needs not be touched. YUCK!
KP: So you believe in something like justice? But if there is no evil, why should there be justice?
Notna: Pissing in the wind doesn't cross the same moral boundary as rape or murder. It works the same way with the law actually. The rapists and murderers are punished worse than the guy who was throwing snowballs at cars. They are both stupid as hell.
KP: But if there is no real evil, why should there be penalization?
Notna: There is evil, but I don't find it to be defined the same way as the Bible. Fortunately Webster didn't write the Bible.
KP: Please tell me how you define evil. What is it?
Notna: Evil is LIVE spelled backwards. Everything that is defined as evil is something that we would possibly enjoy in THIS lifetime. Why repress it? Why spend this lifetime repressing myself in hopes of my "next" life that I don't even know I'm gonna have? Screw that! I'm having too much fun now and who should stop me?
KP: Deriving our ethics from the spellings of English words may not be the best practice. Furthermore, I think the child rapist enjoyed his actions. Why repress it?
Notna: Because it's f***ed up and if he raped one of my relatives he'd better find a nice secluded dungeon to hide in. I wouldn't kill him, I'd rather watch him live and suffer. We don't turn the other cheek. Nor do I think the meek will inherit the Earth. The strong will survive and that's just how ecology works. The meek don't win the Superbowl.
KP: Why does someone who does what you said he should, namely live for self-gratification, deserve to "have the living s*** kicked out of him?" He deserves to be penalized for what may be normal for him?
Notna: KP, why do YOU think? I just told you why I thought so. You're welcome to cuss. I'm a 30 year old adult.
KP: He deserves to be penalized for doing what he OUGHT to do? That's a pretty messed up ethical system where someone gets punished for behaving as he ought to.
Notna: Sure. That's causing harm and damage to another person who didn't deserve it.
KP: But you said people should do whatever is self-gratifying, didn't you? And now you want to punish them for it? That sounds unjust.
Notna: I also said what I don't condone. And Satanists only believe in doing harm to those who well deserve it. Whether it be through magick or through personal physical vengeance.
Notna: No one is supposed to rape a child and you know it. You sound like one of the stupid ass misdirected people who turn to Satanism for all the wrong reasons and get disgruntled when they figure out they're dumber than hell.
KP: I'm not advocating the rape of children. I'm just trying to follow the logic of your position. Please don't be upset with me. But you've already said that people ought to act consistently with their desires. Now you're saying that in some cases those desires should be repressed. But I thought your objection to Christianity was exactly because you saw it as repressive. Why should the rapist conform to the herd mentality of civil laws?
Notna: KP, we are all required to be responsible humans. Actions like that need repercussion. Things like that were not meant to be. I'm not upset with you, I just think this debate may be losing a bit of its luster. There are some things xtiantiy preaches that I have no problem with. But sleeping in, overeating, sex, indulgence, etc. - those are self-gratifying and don't hurt anybody else.
KP: So we are morally obliged not to harm another? Is that what you're saying?
Notna: Yes, when it comes to victimizing an unsuspecting individual who does not deserve it.
KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is....?
Notna: The rapists who escapes the law because the big-breasted 14 year old wore a revealing shirt should not be free from getting his face smashed in by the girl's father.
KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is......?
Notna: In Satanism there is no "authority." Satanism is not meant for people who prey on the weak for no reason.
KP: So if there's no authority, then what is the origin of this moral obligation you keep talking about?
Notna: It is simply a moral code of humanity and harming someone in that manner simply buys bad karma. If you wish for bad things to happen to you, go ahead and pull sh** like that but don't cry when the sky starts falling.
KP: But why am I morally obliged to abide by the moral code of humanity? If there is no transcendent authority, then there is no such obligation.
Notna: You are not obliged but if you do it, don't cry about the results. You get what you deserve.
KP: So then I'm NOT obliged to not harm another, am I? There ‘s no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question is, Why should I abide by your personal preferences? I fail to see how your position isn’t reducible to subjectivism and ultimately nihilism. You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?
Notna: For the most part. But you’re looking for holes that don't possess lucid thought. You're making the argument of an uneducated fool. I realize that you're not, but you're trying to make me defend myself instead of having stimulating conversation.
KP: I'm simply asking you to be consistent, that's all. And I don't see asking you to defend your position as being diametrically opposed to stimulating conversation. And there’s no need for you to engage in insult and ad hominem argumentation. If my argument is flawed, please point out how. Otherwise, please address my questions.
Notna: I wasn't. I concurred that I knew you weren't stupid. Anyway, I am quite consistent.
KP: There is no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question arises, why should I abide by what you prefer? You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?
Notna: I don't try to shove it down your throat with fear tactics like the friggin' Christians do. There is no God of everlasting power that I am to be afraid will strike me down if I have sex with someone I just met. Where's the justice in that, man? My opinion as well as others, but there is no law other than the laws of magick or karmic consequence that will strike me down if I do something stupid.
KP: So you believe it's wrong to "shove one's ideas down someone's throat" (whatever that means)? But that again is simply a statement of your personal preference, right? There's no objective standard by which we can determine that that is actually wrong, is there?
Part Three
Friday, December 16, 2005
Satanic Ethics - Part One
Starting today and concluding early next week I plan to post the log from an online exchange with a self-professed Satanist. Reviewing this dialogue reminded me of something C.S. Lewis wrote in his preface to The Screwtape Letters. In warning against the two equal and opposite errors of disbelieving in devils and obssessing about them, Lewis noted that evil spirits "...hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight." In our fractured, postmodern ethos, sometimes the materialist and the magician are, as in the case with the individual I'll (uncreatively) call Notna, one.
I chose not to omit the profanity used by my conversation partner though I have replaced some letters with asterisks. My reason for leaving such language untouched is because I think Christians have to stay on point and not get sidetracked by such speech. Furthermore, we need to perceive and portray fallen life as it really is so that depravity and lostness are not diluted. I also believe that our willingness to listen to what a person is saying under and at times, through such coarse language is part of our witness.
I'm fully aware of the limitations of conversations like these. This one didn't "seal the deal" and culminate in my dialogue partner's repentence and faith. In fact, I didn't even get around to presenting the gospel. However, as Mark Coppenger notes in the article I linked to in the previous post, such encounters "can strip away smugness, loosen up hardened soil, embarrass treasured criticisms and sow disarray in a pagan worldview." My goal in exchnages like the following is the same as that described by Greg Koukl. I really like the image:
Notna: No I'm not materialistic if by that you mean that I only believe in that which is "tangible" or "proveable.” Magick is not tangible or proveable any more than the power of God but believe me when I tell you that it is real.
KP: I had in mind philosophical materialism, the idea that all that exists is that which consists of matter and/or material processes.
Notna: I base things on reasoning and intellect. I can choose when and how I react spiritually. I have an energy as well as anyone else, and how I direct it is not materialistic, nor can it be.
KP: Can you tell me how Magick is consistent with rationality whereas Christian theism isn’t?
Notna: Because I can practice it solitarily with my OWN influence. I am the keeper, and I'm not being instructed or told how to do it. It is all performed with my own mentality and creativity.
KP: That doesn't really answer my question, though. The fact that I can do something solitarily doesn't mean that it is necessarily rational. I may choose to believe a whole host of things privately but there is no necessary connection between that and their being rational.
Notna: I use rationality to decide when, how, and if a ritual is appropriate. I'm not told to have this ceremony on this specific day, or worship this deity on this day, etc. It's a thought-out mental process first. I'm not amongst a herd of sheep who repeat after their "teachers."
KP: I think you're missing my point. Does it necessarily follow from the fact that I believe something on the basis of authority that the belief itself is irrational?
Notna: You'd have to understand where I come from. I do not condemn you for your beliefs. What you asked me was, am I materialistic and the answer is no. I explained why.
KP: Please tell me where you come from.
Notna: What do you want to know?
KP: Whatever it is that you think I need to know in order to understand your position.
Notna: It would require a lot of reading. Truthfully, I am a Satanist which does not mean I worship Satan WHATSOEVER. I simply oppose Christianity, and I believe it is repressive and an insult to human nature. It rides guilt on people for being normal.
KP: Thank you for telling me.
Notna: No problem. I come into Christian rooms to learn more, not make enemies. Nice talking with you.
KP: With you as well.
KP: Can you tell me whether you believe there are any ethical absolutes?
KP: What do you believe to be the nature of those absolutes?
Notna: I suppose the nature of the situation in which they apply could alter the nature of the absolutes, however I believe in karmic consequence. This conversation could get really deep, man. Not to mention long-winded.
KP: That's no problem for me. I thrive on such conversations. :-)
Notna: There are so many ethical absolutes. What would you like to inquire about?
KP: Your objection to Christianity seems to be on moral or ethical grounds, at least to some extent. Am I right?
Notna: Somewhat. I don't think overall that it is immoral, but I believe it promotes herd mentality, control, and represses free thought. I don't think it's unethical necessarily. For some people it works. For me, I just have trouble swallowing all of it. It's tough living as a religious minority. You must know when to shut up and when to speak.
KP: Well, you certainly must believe that it is immoral to repress free thought, right? And you obviously believe that people should not promote or submit to a "herd mentality."
Notna: Indeed it is. And I believe that for SOME people Christianity does just that. They look to religion to answer for everything, they give themselves no credit for good and blame Satan for everything that goes wrong.
KP: So, in some sense you're making ethical prescriptions, aren' t you?
Notna: Somewhat. I guess I could see how you might think that. But to me it feels like more of a personal inhibition to the theory.
KP: You're making assertions about how people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT behave and/or believe, aren’t you?
Notna: Those are just my opinions and that is how I base the path I choose to take.
KP: But nevertheless, you're making ethical assertions.
Notna: By no means are my ideas indoctrinated nor should they be followed by everybody. The mentally weak could not handle the left hand path. They would crumble. Perhaps I am making ethical assertions but everyone does.
Notna: A lot of people do. More people believe as I do than you think. Benjamin Franklin, for one. I’m curious as to why people believe as you do. That's why I come to the Christian room and debate. Once in a while I meet someone lucid such as yourself. Mostly I get brainwashed, scripture quoters would couldn't conjure up a debate to save their butts.
KP: LOL
Notna: You laugh ‘cause you go to the same room.
KP: Yes. And believe me, what I see here at times frustrates and disturbs me. I agree that there is a mindlessness that is rampant in some segments of Christendom but I don’t believe (obviously) that that is inherent to Christian faith. Rather, I think it is more of an accommodation to the mindlessness and anti-intellectualism that so pervades our culture.
Notna: Well, actually this conversation turned out nicely. I thought this would be the battle of evermore. If you are interested in what I believe, Barnes & Nobles or Books-a-million carry or can order the collection of writings from Anton LaVey. I don't expect you to succumb to his theories, but it may be educational to you.
KP: I'm vaguely familiar with the Satanic Bible.
Notna: Satanism has the same misdirected goofballs, but they are not recognized, nor welcomed. They come looking for orgies and some magic power that will hold them high above the rest, and that's not at all what it's about. It's almost completely psychiatric theory.
Part Two
I chose not to omit the profanity used by my conversation partner though I have replaced some letters with asterisks. My reason for leaving such language untouched is because I think Christians have to stay on point and not get sidetracked by such speech. Furthermore, we need to perceive and portray fallen life as it really is so that depravity and lostness are not diluted. I also believe that our willingness to listen to what a person is saying under and at times, through such coarse language is part of our witness.
I'm fully aware of the limitations of conversations like these. This one didn't "seal the deal" and culminate in my dialogue partner's repentence and faith. In fact, I didn't even get around to presenting the gospel. However, as Mark Coppenger notes in the article I linked to in the previous post, such encounters "can strip away smugness, loosen up hardened soil, embarrass treasured criticisms and sow disarray in a pagan worldview." My goal in exchnages like the following is the same as that described by Greg Koukl. I really like the image:
I want to put a stone in his shoe. All I want to do is give him something worth thinking about. I want him to hobble away on a nugget of truth he can’t simply ignore because it continues to poke at him. Whether the opportunity is a short one with a transient audience or a long one with a captive audience, my goal is the same - a stone in the shoe.
________________________________________________________________________
Notna: No I'm not materialistic if by that you mean that I only believe in that which is "tangible" or "proveable.” Magick is not tangible or proveable any more than the power of God but believe me when I tell you that it is real.
KP: I had in mind philosophical materialism, the idea that all that exists is that which consists of matter and/or material processes.
Notna: I base things on reasoning and intellect. I can choose when and how I react spiritually. I have an energy as well as anyone else, and how I direct it is not materialistic, nor can it be.
KP: Can you tell me how Magick is consistent with rationality whereas Christian theism isn’t?
Notna: Because I can practice it solitarily with my OWN influence. I am the keeper, and I'm not being instructed or told how to do it. It is all performed with my own mentality and creativity.
KP: That doesn't really answer my question, though. The fact that I can do something solitarily doesn't mean that it is necessarily rational. I may choose to believe a whole host of things privately but there is no necessary connection between that and their being rational.
Notna: I use rationality to decide when, how, and if a ritual is appropriate. I'm not told to have this ceremony on this specific day, or worship this deity on this day, etc. It's a thought-out mental process first. I'm not amongst a herd of sheep who repeat after their "teachers."
KP: I think you're missing my point. Does it necessarily follow from the fact that I believe something on the basis of authority that the belief itself is irrational?
Notna: You'd have to understand where I come from. I do not condemn you for your beliefs. What you asked me was, am I materialistic and the answer is no. I explained why.
KP: Please tell me where you come from.
Notna: What do you want to know?
KP: Whatever it is that you think I need to know in order to understand your position.
Notna: It would require a lot of reading. Truthfully, I am a Satanist which does not mean I worship Satan WHATSOEVER. I simply oppose Christianity, and I believe it is repressive and an insult to human nature. It rides guilt on people for being normal.
KP: Thank you for telling me.
Notna: No problem. I come into Christian rooms to learn more, not make enemies. Nice talking with you.
KP: With you as well.
KP: Can you tell me whether you believe there are any ethical absolutes?
Notna: Sure, there are ethical absolutes. What you reap is what you sow. But there are times when boundaries are crossed and ethics don't apply.
KP: What do you believe to be the nature of those absolutes?
Notna: I suppose the nature of the situation in which they apply could alter the nature of the absolutes, however I believe in karmic consequence. This conversation could get really deep, man. Not to mention long-winded.
KP: That's no problem for me. I thrive on such conversations. :-)
Notna: There are so many ethical absolutes. What would you like to inquire about?
KP: Your objection to Christianity seems to be on moral or ethical grounds, at least to some extent. Am I right?
Notna: Somewhat. I don't think overall that it is immoral, but I believe it promotes herd mentality, control, and represses free thought. I don't think it's unethical necessarily. For some people it works. For me, I just have trouble swallowing all of it. It's tough living as a religious minority. You must know when to shut up and when to speak.
KP: Well, you certainly must believe that it is immoral to repress free thought, right? And you obviously believe that people should not promote or submit to a "herd mentality."
Notna: Indeed it is. And I believe that for SOME people Christianity does just that. They look to religion to answer for everything, they give themselves no credit for good and blame Satan for everything that goes wrong.
KP: So, in some sense you're making ethical prescriptions, aren' t you?
Notna: Somewhat. I guess I could see how you might think that. But to me it feels like more of a personal inhibition to the theory.
KP: You're making assertions about how people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT behave and/or believe, aren’t you?
Notna: Those are just my opinions and that is how I base the path I choose to take.
KP: But nevertheless, you're making ethical assertions.
Notna: By no means are my ideas indoctrinated nor should they be followed by everybody. The mentally weak could not handle the left hand path. They would crumble. Perhaps I am making ethical assertions but everyone does.
KP: You're right about that. But what I'm curious about is why anyone else should believe as you do.
Notna: A lot of people do. More people believe as I do than you think. Benjamin Franklin, for one. I’m curious as to why people believe as you do. That's why I come to the Christian room and debate. Once in a while I meet someone lucid such as yourself. Mostly I get brainwashed, scripture quoters would couldn't conjure up a debate to save their butts.
KP: LOL
Notna: You laugh ‘cause you go to the same room.
KP: Yes. And believe me, what I see here at times frustrates and disturbs me. I agree that there is a mindlessness that is rampant in some segments of Christendom but I don’t believe (obviously) that that is inherent to Christian faith. Rather, I think it is more of an accommodation to the mindlessness and anti-intellectualism that so pervades our culture.
Notna: Well, actually this conversation turned out nicely. I thought this would be the battle of evermore. If you are interested in what I believe, Barnes & Nobles or Books-a-million carry or can order the collection of writings from Anton LaVey. I don't expect you to succumb to his theories, but it may be educational to you.
KP: I'm vaguely familiar with the Satanic Bible.
Notna: Satanism has the same misdirected goofballs, but they are not recognized, nor welcomed. They come looking for orgies and some magic power that will hold them high above the rest, and that's not at all what it's about. It's almost completely psychiatric theory.
Part Two
Monday, June 13, 2005
An Atheist's Problem with the Problem of Evil
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
The following online exchange began with Mark (not his real name) claiming that even if the Genesis account were true, it would have been wrong for God to penalize Adam for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil since prior to that time he would have had no moral understanding.
*****************
KP: You realize your objection is based on certain ethical assumptions which are also at odds with your atheistic faith. You're reasoning that one shouldn't be blamed for what he doesn't know is wrong. But as an atheist, what is the foundation for your making such moral claims?
Mark: Adam had the intelligence of an infant or maybe an animal until he ate from the Tree of Knowledge, no? How is he to be blamed for disobeying God? He was simply not capable of differing right from wrong yet. And my raising this objection is not a problem when we're discussing the internal consistency of the Christian story. Then the ethical norms in question are the Christian ones
KP: It doesn't follow that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil meant that prior to that Adam had no knowledge of what is right. If you pay attention to the context and the literary cues, it's clear that eating from the tree was tantamount to Adam and Eve deciding for themselves what was good and evil as opposed to submitting to God. This is why, for example, the formula "And God saw that it was good..." is repeated in the first chapter and then in Chapter 3 the transgression is preceded by the words "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food...." Prior to this God alone saw what was good but the nature of the transgression was that man autonomously determined what was good for himself. That's the nature of sin.
Mark: Adam had the intelligence of an infant or maybe an animal until he ate from the Tree of Knowledge, no? How is he to be blamed for disobeying God? He was simply not capable of differing right from wrong yet. And my raising this objection is not a problem when we're discussing the internal consistency of the Christian story. Then the ethical norms in question are the Christian ones
KP: It doesn't follow that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil meant that prior to that Adam had no knowledge of what is right. If you pay attention to the context and the literary cues, it's clear that eating from the tree was tantamount to Adam and Eve deciding for themselves what was good and evil as opposed to submitting to God. This is why, for example, the formula "And God saw that it was good..." is repeated in the first chapter and then in Chapter 3 the transgression is preceded by the words "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food...." Prior to this God alone saw what was good but the nature of the transgression was that man autonomously determined what was good for himself. That's the nature of sin.
[Many thanks to John Sailhamer, a former professor, for alerting me to this. In his The Pentateuch as Narrative, he notes: "Thus the temptation is not presented as a general rebellion from God's authority. Rather, it is portrayed as a quest for wisdom and "the good" apart from God's provision."]
Mark: Why does God impose it as a law that his creation should obey him like a dictator?
KP: Do you find that morally objectionable? And if so, on what basis?
Mark: KP, yes very much so. God creates us without asking our permission then plays dictator on us. He has no right to do that
KP: No right? What moral authority are you basing that judgment on? If all that exists are matter, motion, time, and chance, then there are no objective moral rules are there?
Mark: God's own moral norms. Oppression is not good
KP: You assume that God's law binds him in exactly the same manner that it does humans but this is not in keeping with biblical teaching. For example, God commands us not to steal but how is it possible for God to steal when all that he has made belongs to him?
Mark: OK, stealing example is nice but it doesn't fit to the problem of oppression.
KP: Biblically speaking it is not oppressive for God to demand obedience of those created for his purposes. So again, no internal contradiction. You just find it oppressive because you don't like it but that's hardly an argument against it.
Mark: That's true I don't like it. It sounds like oppression to me and I think it is. He is going to burn half human kind in hell. If that is not oppression then what is?
KP: What's wrong with oppression of any kind? Let's not just limit it to the question of God. If evolution is true, as you have said it is, then isn't oppression natural and amoral? Survival of the fittest, you know.
Mark: Oppression is wrong because you violate another person's rights.
Mark: Why does God impose it as a law that his creation should obey him like a dictator?
KP: Do you find that morally objectionable? And if so, on what basis?
Mark: KP, yes very much so. God creates us without asking our permission then plays dictator on us. He has no right to do that
KP: No right? What moral authority are you basing that judgment on? If all that exists are matter, motion, time, and chance, then there are no objective moral rules are there?
Mark: God's own moral norms. Oppression is not good
KP: You assume that God's law binds him in exactly the same manner that it does humans but this is not in keeping with biblical teaching. For example, God commands us not to steal but how is it possible for God to steal when all that he has made belongs to him?
Mark: OK, stealing example is nice but it doesn't fit to the problem of oppression.
KP: Biblically speaking it is not oppressive for God to demand obedience of those created for his purposes. So again, no internal contradiction. You just find it oppressive because you don't like it but that's hardly an argument against it.
Mark: That's true I don't like it. It sounds like oppression to me and I think it is. He is going to burn half human kind in hell. If that is not oppression then what is?
KP: What's wrong with oppression of any kind? Let's not just limit it to the question of God. If evolution is true, as you have said it is, then isn't oppression natural and amoral? Survival of the fittest, you know.
Mark: Oppression is wrong because you violate another person's rights.
KP: What is a right? Is it a physical entity? Is a right capable of being scientifically verified? When you refer to these things called "rights" how exactly do they cohere with a materialistic philosophy?
Mark: Rights are something that exist within a state
KP: Oh, so rights are conferred by the state?
Mark: Yes.
KP: Are you pro-choice?
Mark: Yes.
KP: If the state were to pass anti-abortion laws, would you still argue that a woman has the right to choose?
Mark: Uhm, yes.
KP: But if rights are conferred by the state, then women wouldn't have that right, would they? So you'd be arguing that women have a right that is not granted by the state.
Mark: OK, you have a point.
KP: So you don't really believe that all rights are conferred by the government, do you?
Mark: I guess not.
KP: You really believe that people have inherent rights. Would that be fair?
Mark: We have to believe that.
KP: But this poses another problem for your atheistic philosophy. For, given your view of things, there are no such things as rights. There is only the natural world but no transcendent origin of rights. So again I ask you, what do you mean when you refer to rights and how do they cohere in an atheistic framework?
Mark: You are right there. We have to accept rights without asking of an account of their origin.
KP: No, I don't. You do. So, you live as though such things as intrinsic rights exist even though you know they have no rational basis. Another dissonance that leads me to reject atheism.
Mark: There must be another way other than accepting theism
KP: Wishful thinking. Why MUST there be another way?
Mark: Because theism just doesn't make sense
KP: So far it has made a whole lot more sense than atheism. It has provided the necessary presuppositions for such things as ethics, science, rationality, etc.
Mark: I think if theism were true atheism wouldn't exist at all because theism's truth would be obvious to all
KP: Again, you overlook the effects of a little word called sin.
(At this point, someone else asked Mark if he felt the same way about atheism. In other words, if atheism was so obvious, why would there be theists.)
Mark: No, atheism's truth is not that obvious
KP: But you said it was obvious that there is no God. That's how this conversation started. You said it was obvious that god-belief was made up.
Mark: When you consider the problem of evil and the biblical stories that sound like myths, then yes.
KP: Now you say atheism isn't that obvious? We've dealt with the problem of evil and you've conceded that there is no necessary logical inconsistency.
Mark: Right
KP: The pendulum is swinging. Atheism is obvious and not obvious at the same time.
Mark: But still some things don't sound right to me. A good God wouldn't let innocent people suffer even if the Fall happened. God would forgive that sin of Adam's. What was God doing before he created the universe anyway? I can't imagine a God sitting in eternity without doing anything then suddenly deciding to create a universe to play with.
KP: Some of the most ardent atheistic philosophers have acknowledged that the so-called logical problem of evil is no longer a problem with the addition of another proposition: "God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil he allows." Now, unless you can demonstrate that God has no such morally sufficient reason, then your objections are pointless.
KP: Is your inability to conceive of something evidence that it is not or cannot be true?
Mark: OK, then I step back on the problem of evil.
KP: Good move
Mark: Rights are something that exist within a state
KP: Oh, so rights are conferred by the state?
Mark: Yes.
KP: Are you pro-choice?
Mark: Yes.
KP: If the state were to pass anti-abortion laws, would you still argue that a woman has the right to choose?
Mark: Uhm, yes.
KP: But if rights are conferred by the state, then women wouldn't have that right, would they? So you'd be arguing that women have a right that is not granted by the state.
Mark: OK, you have a point.
KP: So you don't really believe that all rights are conferred by the government, do you?
Mark: I guess not.
KP: You really believe that people have inherent rights. Would that be fair?
Mark: We have to believe that.
KP: But this poses another problem for your atheistic philosophy. For, given your view of things, there are no such things as rights. There is only the natural world but no transcendent origin of rights. So again I ask you, what do you mean when you refer to rights and how do they cohere in an atheistic framework?
Mark: You are right there. We have to accept rights without asking of an account of their origin.
KP: No, I don't. You do. So, you live as though such things as intrinsic rights exist even though you know they have no rational basis. Another dissonance that leads me to reject atheism.
Mark: There must be another way other than accepting theism
KP: Wishful thinking. Why MUST there be another way?
Mark: Because theism just doesn't make sense
KP: So far it has made a whole lot more sense than atheism. It has provided the necessary presuppositions for such things as ethics, science, rationality, etc.
Mark: I think if theism were true atheism wouldn't exist at all because theism's truth would be obvious to all
KP: Again, you overlook the effects of a little word called sin.
(At this point, someone else asked Mark if he felt the same way about atheism. In other words, if atheism was so obvious, why would there be theists.)
Mark: No, atheism's truth is not that obvious
KP: But you said it was obvious that there is no God. That's how this conversation started. You said it was obvious that god-belief was made up.
Mark: When you consider the problem of evil and the biblical stories that sound like myths, then yes.
KP: Now you say atheism isn't that obvious? We've dealt with the problem of evil and you've conceded that there is no necessary logical inconsistency.
Mark: Right
KP: The pendulum is swinging. Atheism is obvious and not obvious at the same time.
Mark: But still some things don't sound right to me. A good God wouldn't let innocent people suffer even if the Fall happened. God would forgive that sin of Adam's. What was God doing before he created the universe anyway? I can't imagine a God sitting in eternity without doing anything then suddenly deciding to create a universe to play with.
KP: Some of the most ardent atheistic philosophers have acknowledged that the so-called logical problem of evil is no longer a problem with the addition of another proposition: "God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil he allows." Now, unless you can demonstrate that God has no such morally sufficient reason, then your objections are pointless.
KP: Is your inability to conceive of something evidence that it is not or cannot be true?
Mark: OK, then I step back on the problem of evil.
KP: Good move
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)