Tuesday, June 08, 2010

You will bow before me!

Following in the same vein of this previous post, the Former Fundy, Dr Ken Pulliam, is now attempting to simply define his way into moral justification.  It's easy, apparently.  Just assert, w/o argument (or by reference to an obscure book, in this case written by one Audi) that your view is "self-evident", and you're golden.  Let's see how it all plays out, when I pretend to assert w/o argument the opposite view.


Dr Pulliam,
There are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs.

No no, I do understand that.  The purpose of my reductio is to demonstrate the emptiness of your ipse dixit.
See, *I* say that "rape is morally compulsory" is in fact that which is self-evident.  You are mistaken in thinking that "rape is morally wrong" is self-evident.  And I have a whole bunch of people, both in prison (those who are being oppressed by the oppressive majority) and out of prison (who take their stand against The Man) behind me.


If your intuition tells you that rape is good, then you are a socio-path who will wind up in prison.

I knew it.  Your view reduces to might makes right.
Plus, this has nothing to say about the morality of rape.  Now you're just telling about what you'd prefer to do to someone who violates your preferences.
See, if I can gain enough power, then I can make the same category error as you and start saying that rape is morally compulsory.  Since I have the power.
This is the problem with your human-centered and human-based moral system.



There are always exceptions but the near unanimous opinion of man is that rape is wrong

The near-unanimous opinion of human societies throughout human history have not been atheistic.  If you don't respect counting noses at all times, I don't see why this isn't an exception too.


Hume's guilliotine does not work against foundationalism

It does until you can make some real connection between what you intuit and what is normative and prescriptive outside yourself, and why.



you should be able to make a real name for yourself by refuting Audi.

Right, just like I'd make a real name for myself in refuting evolution.  Those things aren't quite as simple as you make them out to be, sir.


Now, I've noticed, BTW, a post by a none-too-bright commenter in the same thread by the name of Geds

S/he apparently has no idea that when s/he said:
I self-identify as a feminist. My argument is this: women are people, ergo they deserve to be treated like people and not objects.
And I responded:
1) Prove the ergo. I'd encourage you to read up on Hume's Guillotine. I've been bringing it up for several threads now, and nobody's touched it. Not even Dr Pulliam, who, as a PhD holder shouldn't be afraid to delve into a little elementary philosophy. how does IS imply OUGHT?
2) My argument is this: atheist women are not people, ergo they deserve to be treated like objects and not like real people. And any ideology that says otherwise should be resisted. Prove me wrong.

that I was engaging in an internal critique, a hypothetical, a thought-experiment. Geds really thinks that I think that atheist women are not real people!  Geds also apparently thinks that I somehow thought that the Atheist Experience was going to let me run their show during an April Fools' prank a couple of years ago.  Yeah, not so much.  Anyway, unfortunately Geds represents the majority of American voters' thought level.  Now I'm all depressed...

17 comments:

bossmanham said...

Dr. Pulliam says he has an open mind, but it's quite evident that he's in the same class as the new atheists, both with closed mindedness and quality of argument (bad).

Rhology said...

Yeah, and what's worse is that he doesn't even realise he's doing it.

NAL said...

Rho:

... Dr Ken Pulliam, is now attempting to simply define his way into moral justification.

Oh, the irony.

Rhology said...

Why is it ironic?

NAL said...

Because that is exactly what you do. Your morality is definitional.

If not, what is your basis for determining if God's morality is good?

Rhology said...

That's not what I'm doing, not even close. *God* is the One Who defines His way into moral justification. And of course! He's the very standard of good. Making man and his intuition the basis for good runs into the problems I'm revealing.
I don't determine whether God is good, not at all. I presuppose it.

NAL said...

Rho:

I don't determine whether God is good, not at all. I presuppose it.

Yes, you have no basis for such a determination.

In order to presuppose that God is good, you have to assume that God exists, and you have to assume a meaning for the term "good". When assuming a meaning for the term "good", what was your basis for determining that meaning?

The only way to presuppose that God is good is to use God as the meaning for the term "good".

bossmanham said...

When assuming a meaning for the term "good", what was your basis for determining that meaning?

Good either means something or it doesn't. This is typical. I've seen it before. Start redefining words when you're losing an argument.

Good is what God is. If something is opposed to God, that is evil. That is the difference between us and atheists. We have a standard by which to actually measure what is good and what isn't, you don't.

NAL said...

bossmanham:

Good is what God is.

bossmanham is now attempting to simply define his way into moral justification.

Notice how unsatisfying that definition of good is. Someone could say that "evil is what God is" and they would be just as right. That's the problem with definitional morality, there's no sense of good or evil, just the subjective definition.

bossmanham said...

bossmanham is now attempting to simply define his way into moral justification.

That's childish. I'm using the definition of good to determine what is good.

Someone could say that "evil is what God is" and they would be just as right.

Then you'd be stripping away definitions and decimating the English language. How bout we don't do that? This kind of intellectual dishonesty is nothing but retarded.

hat's the problem with definitional morality, there's no sense of good or evil, just the subjective definition.

You could say that about anything if you wanted. The proper use of the English language won't let you get away with it. God is the definition of good. I didn't decide it, Rho didn't decide it. It's true by definition; just as it is that a negatively charged subatomic particle is an electron. I could change definitions all around so an electron is a proton, but it wouldn't change reality. Semantic word games show a weak argument, but that's no longer surprising to me when debating atheists.

Paul C said...

Then you'd be stripping away definitions and decimating the English language... God is the definition of good. I didn't decide it, Rho didn't decide it.

Since proper use of the English language is so important to you, I feel bound to point out that the definition of good that you will find in any dictionary appears to contain no reference to God at all. It's not NAL who is redefining words to suit his argument; it's you.

Semantic word games show a weak argument

I couldn't agree with you more.

Rhology said...

Yes, you have no basis for such a determination.

Now comes the part where you show that your own worldview has sthg better to offer.
Of course, we all know that ain't coming.


In order to presuppose that God is good, you have to assume that God exists, and you have to assume a meaning for the term "good".

All this time, and the notion of internal critique still escapes you? It's as if you aren't even trying to learn, not even a little.



use God as the meaning for the term "good".

And that's what I do. Well, at least you've learned SOMEthing.


Paul C,
I feel bound to point out that the definition of good that you will find in any dictionary appears to contain no reference to God at all.

I'm sure bossmanham would be the 1st to remind anyone that our definitions are not only dictionary-based but Bible-based.
Besides, he didn't mention a dictionary; you did.



Semantic word games show a weak argument
I couldn't agree with you more.


Actually, you could, given the bizarre games you've played with the word "should" in the past. Your memory is either very selective or very short.

Paul C said...

I'm sure bossmanham would be the 1st to remind anyone that our definitions are not only dictionary-based but Bible-based.

Bossmanham argues that "Good is what God is" and that NAL's argument is consequently "decimating the English language" because the “proper use of the English language won't let you get away with” NAL's argument. Since the Bible gives no guidance on the proper use of the English language, while dictionaries do, my argument stands.

Actually, you could, given the bizarre games you've played with the word "should" in the past.

I have never at any point played “bizarre games” with the word “should”. I have merely pointed out that not all uses of the word “should” involve a moral component. You continue to ignore this very elementary grammatical point, although there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why you would do such a thing.

Paul C said...

And just in case you are genuinely too dense to grasp my point, it is this:

In the framework of your beliefs, I agree that what you are referring to as "good" may be identical to "God". However that definition plays no part in the actual definition of the word "good" that is described in dictionaries or in daily use. I therefore request that you find another word to describe what you are talking about, since it is not "good".

NAL said...

boss:

Then you'd be stripping away definitions and decimating the English language.

No, I'm showing the arbitrariness of definitions.

God is the definition of good. ... It's true by definition; ...

It's true by a definition. You have no way of determining the validity of your definition.

Rho:

use God as the meaning for the term "good".

And that's what I do. Well, at least you've learned SOMEthing.


Then God is your definition (meaning) of good, and you simply define your way into moral justification.

Now comes the part where you show that your own worldview has sthg better to offer.

I'm still looking. But your brand of definitional morality is too subjective for my tastes.

bossmanham said...

No, I'm showing the arbitrariness of definitions.

Then if we can just make up definitions as we go along, ghuwekm saoeg asd;afj,wuyjgicwpg ajdofsdfuh surgj.

You have no way of determining the validity of your definition

Sure I do. By discovering that God exists.

Then God is your definition (meaning) of good, and you simply define your way into moral justification.

No, we use a standard to define morality. You really are being dense.

NAL said...

boss:

Then if we can just make up definitions as we go along, ghuwekm saoeg asd;afj,wuyjgicwpg ajdofsdfuh surgj.

Thank you for proving my point.