Wednesday, September 16, 2009

More with Burk


IF my presuppositions are true, THEN I can appeal to an objective standard for discerning good from evil. That's all I was saying.
I'd point to
1) your position's inability to give us an objective standard, and
2) the fact that you thus over and over again borrow from the Christian worldview when you make value judgments and act like they're supposed to be normative for anyone else and create some sort of obligation

as evidence against your worldview and for mine. Your actions indicate my view is right.

your own desires (selected readings and teachings from your tradition)

That's up to you to prove. What precisely have I left out (since you said I "selected")?
How do you know that I'm slapping makeup on my own desires? How do you know much of anything about me, or my desires? Are you my secret admirer (whom I've always suspected I had, but never knew for sure)?

I doubt you want to defend supernaturalism as being subjectively true, to the taste of the person doing the wishing.

Right, I don't. Interestingly, you are apparently defending your moral value judgments as being subjectively true.
I just think it's funny who ends up playing the postmodern relativistic card.

by way to desired consequences

Back up. On what basis do you argue that desired consequences are the basis of morality?

there is no objective good to appeal to- just our desires, which each person has in equal measure

How do you know that?

God himself has evolved with our cultural progress,

Um, God is timeless and immutable.
Maybe you mean our UNDERSTANDING of Him has evolved, but that's hardly the same thing. Further, the Bible's been around for 1000s of yrs. Hasn't really evolved. In fact, atheists frequently refer to Xtianity as "Bronze Age". Can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend.

this god has been made in our image, and reflects our wants and needs,

So, a God Who is so vast as to be incomprehensible in His fullness and Who convicts me of constant sin and breaking of His law, rendering me totally unworthy for any good thing, to say nothing of eternal life in Paradise, no matter what my actions end up being (b/c they always turn out for selfish evil anyway) is somehow a product of my desires, eh?
Again, how do you know that? Did you do a survey? When? Whom did you survey?
What makes you think humans dig a God Who delights in eternal self-glorification and eternal abasement of the puny man before said God?

Now, Constitution, you do realise that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution? Just like all the Constitution? 10th Amendment?

Now, you being a Christian, one would think that love would ring a bell, but whatever!

Sure it does. But love is not given by force. You still haven't responded to my original point about force vs generosity. Are you planning to do so?

I was simply trying to align your emotional reactions to mine, as have all the leaders in history.. Ghandi, MLK, etc. There is nothing objective about it.

So you don't know that Gandhi or MLK were doing good things, do you? That one would be justified in taking up common cause with them.
I'm sure you realise the stupidity of appealing to emotion in the face of lack of evidence. Wouldn't you be quick to criticise evangelists who try to ramp up ppl's emotions and then bring them to a crushing crescendo with a booming altar call, to see thousands rush the altar in tears? Yeah, I think you would. But apparently your distaste with that approach is reserved for viewpoints you don't like. When the shoe's on the other foot, you're full speed ahead. Why?



Dr Funkenstein said...

as evidence against your worldview and for mine. Your actions indicate my view is right.

No they don't - it only provides evidence at best (assuming your point 1 is correct for argument's sake) that people think inconsistently sometimes or are guilty of wishful thinking

Someone thinking inconsistently or wishing for something to be true when it's not doesn't change any facts about reality

eg let's say there's no God and no standard for morality on atheism. If someone then says 'X is always wrong', does that prove

a. their assertion is wrong, or
b. God suddenly exists because they mistakenly think there is, or would like there to be, an objective morality?

It's quite clearly a, not b that is correct here.

As for point 2 - you'd need to prove that rather than assert it. Given things like the Euthypro dilemma (your 'God's nature' response is just a tautology and doesn't tell us anything other than 'good is good' really, so it's not much of an explanation), the 'Evil God' thesis, problem of evil and so on that's easier said than done.

Rhology said...

doesn't tell us anything other than 'good is good' really

That's not what it says at all. It says "*God* is good, and there's no objective good if not Him".

Euthyphro is not a dilemma for the Christian in terms of irresolvable (God commands things b/c they're good, and good things are good b/c they are in line with His nature; thus, shortened, He commands that which is in line with His nature), and I've discussed the evil God idea here a few times before.