Religion Matters: Take 3

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:40 pm

Yes, We Still Need Blasphemy DayEspecially Now

Ideas Don't Need Rights, People Do

The Beginner's Guide to Blasphemy Day

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:46 am

Darren Brown: How to Convert an Atheist

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:34 am

Changing the context can show insiders how obvious it is to outsiders.

ttf_doubleslyde · Post by **ttf_doubleslyde** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:32 am

Don't let groupthink cause blindness to what your eyes see and your instincts know. You were born an individual stay true to your birthright!

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:36 am

Quote from: doubleslyde on Oct 18, 2016, 09:32AMDon't let groupthink cause blindness to what your eyes see and your instincts know. You were born an individual stay true to your birthright!

Much smarter, however ... learn what it means to be a human brain owner and accept it. If you even begin to grasp this reality you can't help but know better than to trust your "instincts".

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:07 am

From: http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,91041.msg1162388.html#msg1162388

Quote from: B0B on Oct 25, 2016, 04:20AM Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 24, 2016, 07:06PM Quote from: B0B on Oct 24, 2016, 03:30PM Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 24, 2016, 03:11PMYou Guys need to go after Mother Nature (or whoever/whatever you believe created her) if you want to be consistent, because there are far more spontaneous/natural abortions than anything else. The second leading cause doesn't even come close. The (politicized) estimates run from around 10% to as high as 25% IIRC, so even the lowest figure is still many many times the number of any intentional cause. Clearly nature (and that which created it, if you believe in such a beastie) has a setup that's quite pro-abortion ... and choice has nothing to do with it.

Oddly I have yet to see or hear a rational pro-life response to that little fact. They're not hard to come up with, actually, but it is hard to come up with one that lines up well with the ... well, the dogmatic angle.The rationale is pretty simple. You have a woman, but then comes a man. And the man creates something with the woman. Now, this man's creation is valued more than the woman because HE is valued more than the woman. And such is the hierarchy - Man, Man's things/creations, woman who helped man create child and should take care of it.

What role does the government have in policing abortions? After all, for all but a very few abortions, they are considered and conducted when the fetus is little moral than a non-viable growth inside the mother. The role is a moral/ethical one in supporting traditional power structures. Wasn't that recently held up by someone as not worth consideration when looking at the government's role and the formation of legislation?

Who was that again?So how does this somehow remove the equation from the way nature was created to work by the creator, for those who believe that's the nature of the Cosmos (i.e. the nature of nature)?Why would it? God is the God of all, not just those who believe. And he CLEARLY created man first! They might have been said to be created together in the second story, but that's the SECOND... just like the woman. In the FIRST story, it was Adam, and then Adam wanted something to play with.
I'm not sure you're understanding the issue here.

If God created nature, then God created the system in which these spontaneous/natural abortions occur. Either God screwed up and nature went awry of his wishes, or he's not really the creator, or he's not really omnipotent, or he's not really omnibenevolent. Regardless though, if he created all things (which includes nature) then he's responsible for ... well, the nature of that creation--the nature of nature. There's no way around it--at least not if you care about being consistent with nature and the way reality works (unless of course it doesn't actually work according to God's will as believers allege). For God not to be responsible for creation he'd have to not be the creator, unless of course he was overruled or otherwise overpowered and it's not what he intended--out of his hands--beyond his means.

ttf_B0B · Post by **ttf_B0B** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:25 am

Um... Sarcasm.

That is all.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:34 am

Quote from: B0B on Oct 25, 2016, 06:25AMUm... Sarcasm.

That is all.

Ha! Nice.

Yeah ... you got me on that one.

Heh.

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:26 pm

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 25, 2016, 06:07AMFrom: http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,91041.msg1162388.html#msg1162388
The rationale is pretty simple. You have a woman, but then comes a man. And the man creates something with the woman. Now, this man's creation is valued more than the woman because HE is valued more than the woman. And such is the hierarchy - Man, Man's things/creations, woman who helped man create child and should take care of it.

What role does the government have in policing abortions? After all, for all but a very few abortions, they are considered and conducted when the fetus is little moral than a non-viable growth inside the mother. The role is a moral/ethical one in supporting traditional power structures. Wasn't that recently held up by someone as not worth consideration when looking at the government's role and the formation of legislation?

Who was that again?So how does this somehow remove the equation from the way nature was created to work by the creator, for those who believe that's the nature of the Cosmos (i.e. the nature of nature)?Why would it? God is the God of all, not just those who believe. And he CLEARLY created man first! They might have been said to be created together in the second story, but that's the SECOND... just like the woman. In the FIRST story, it was Adam, and then Adam wanted something to play with.
I'm not sure you're understanding the issue here.

If God created nature, then God created the system in which these spontaneous/natural abortions occur. Either God screwed up and nature went awry of his wishes, or he's not really the creator, or he's not really omnipotent, or he's not really omnibenevolent. Regardless though, if he created all things (which includes nature) then he's responsible for ... well, the nature of that creation--the nature of nature. There's no way around it--at least not if you care about being consistent with nature and the way reality works (unless of course it doesn't actually work according to God's will as believers allege). For God not to be responsible for creation he'd have to not be the creator, unless of course he was overruled or otherwise overpowered and it's not what he intended--out of his hands--beyond his means.

BVB, before you naively assume that your "problem of evil dilemma" is a slam dunk rebuttal of historic theism, please take the time to read this short piece by Greg Bahsen, the presuppositional Christian philosopher that I've mentioned before. He critiques your position and points out that your objections are actually irrelevant without explaining a number of other assumptions that you have not explained at all.

Here's the link:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa105.htm

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:52 am

Interesting:
Religious people understand the world less, study suggests
Scientists say believers in God more likely to think flowers and rocks can think and feel, and agree with statements like "stones sense the cold"

I'm posting this upon finding the article in today's Jesus & Mo. Interesting headline though. Seems maybe more about believers in the third world maybe?

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:18 am

Quote from: John the Theologian on Oct 25, 2016, 06:26PM

Here's the link:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa105.htm

BvB didn't really start down the "problem of evil" path. But in a strange way this link circles back and supports his point.

I'll distill the link's four premises (only three of which really are) into one statement: it's not evil if God does it. Therefore there is no problem with evil.

Obviously the author is a Platinga fan.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:43 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Oct 26, 2016, 05:18AMBvB didn't really start down the "problem of evil" path. But in a strange way this link circles back and supports his point.

I'll distill the link's four premises (only three of which really are) into one statement: it's not evil if God does it. Therefore there is no problem with evil.

Obviously the author is a Platinga fan.
Besides the elaborate presumption fabricated to give sufficiently auto-incredulous minds the sense of validity to simply defining problems out of existence that minds with more integrity/less auto-incredulity going on can't honestly just write off and ignore (well, and neither can presuppositionalists really, but they certainly can put a lot of effort into it), the terms presuppositionalists use quite often demonstrate their comfort with presumption (i.e. if you don't see this the way I do you're therefore naive). It's a quaint game, but such free and tight and obvious circularity indicates some serious problems with the integrity of the system. But I'll see if Mr. Bahnsen does better than any of the other presup apologists I've looked over.

You can't really look into presuppositionalism without seeing through it, by the way.

Heh.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:02 am

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 26, 2016, 05:43AM
But I'll see if Mr. Bahnsen does better than any of the other presup apologists I've looked over.

You can't really look into presuppositionalism without seeing through it, by the way.

Heh.

He does one typical thing his readers will miss.

He hypothesizes a possible explanation. Then considers it equally likely. Then accepts it. It's a pattern we see with creationists.

ttf_Bruce the budgie · Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:52 am

Ah, yes, the good old "mysterious ways" rebuttal to the problem of evil. That's a tough one to get around, especially for folks who are awake enough to realize their mental or cognitive limitations.

If forced to choose a theological position, I would stand with Abou ben Adhem (may his tribe increase) regarding love of G-d: "List me with the ones who love their fellow man." In his case it worked out well. In my case, I find it easier to play nicely with the ones I see regularly. Occasional chance encounters with, for example, self-promoting BS artists, can be harder to deal with.

My view of human activity became clearer after reading about conceptual metaphors, and how we cannot help but use them to grok the world around and within us. There often isn't time to come to a reasoned understanding of that root heave in the sidewalk ahead. Step over it and move on...

ttf_John the Theologian · Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:42 am

I believe some of you are still missing Bahnsen's main point. The non-theistic positions need to do a lot of "splaining" as Ricky Ricardo used to say before they can legitimately critique theism. Whether you agree with B's conclusions or not, I believe he's right about the lack of logical justification on the part of many non-theists of their basic assumptions.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:39 am

Quote from: John the Theologian on Oct 26, 2016, 08:42AMI believe some of you are still missing Bahnsen's main point.

No, we got his point, it's quite clear.

The problem of evil exists only if an unbeliever can prove it exists.

Unbelievers can't prove evil exists because they have no criteria for evil that a believer can accept. Only a believer's presuppositions (pre-existing biases) allows one to make that determination.

Therefore evil does not exist.

Therefore God is good.

Okay, I made up the last line, he didn't actually get that far.

I did google presuppositionalism long ago when John first brought it up but I'd forgotten. I've now done that again, and it makes as little sense this time as it did then. It's inherently just avoiding an argument by saying "your biases will prevent you from correctly perceiving what I say, so I'm right even if I have no evidence."

Pretty much the same thing Platinga was trying to do, with different gaps. I had not realized to what extent Platinga is a presuppositionalist.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:51 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Oct 26, 2016, 09:39AMI did google presuppositionalism long ago when John first brought it up but I'd forgotten. I've now done that again, and it makes as little sense this time as it did then. It's inherently just avoiding an argument by saying "your biases will prevent you from correctly perceiving what I say, so I'm right even if I have no evidence."
RationalWiki is a good source, as are pretty much any academic philosophy pages that cover it (even those that cover it apologetically can't polish this one). But yeah, it's basically just deciding the apologist gets to make the rules up about how reality works, and if you can't (or choose not to) refute his arguments within those rules, he's right and entirely justified and all that. It's a kind of inverse philosophical version of taking your ball and going home if others won't play by the "rule" that you win ... only there's a lot of window dressing to make it sound less absurd--if you can manage to convince yourself it makes sense (i.e. if you're invested enough in the notion--IOW simple re-framing/re-defining with lots of linguistic acrobatics, only they're very clumsy--they depend upon re-defining "acrobatics" to mean "whatever I do here"). Within the imposed framework not making the same presumptions upon which it's based becomes making presumptions about it. It's as subtle as a 2x4 across the cranium, and as obviously just about as valid an argument.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:09 am

Quote from: Bruce the budgie on Oct 26, 2016, 07:52AMAh, yes, the good old "mysterious ways" rebuttal to the problem of evil. That's a tough one to get around, especially for folks who are awake enough to realize their mental or cognitive limitations.
The more I experience and learn the more I think that bit I bolded is a truly critical key to sound critical thinking and understanding the Cosmos and our place in it--the vagaries of human brain ownership and use. It seems as if most of that is clear of most of those human brains' radar, and that seems to be a pretty significant source of a lot of misperception and presumption and all sorts of mental/intellectual malfunctioning. We're all Dunning-Kruger machines, but very very few seem to have the intellectual humility to realize it to any significant extent--and even fewer appreciate the fact that it applies to us themselves well.

ttf_doubleslyde · Post by **ttf_doubleslyde** » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:20 pm

You can't come from where you've never been!

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:36 pm

No matter where you go, there you are!

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:17 am

Jesus & Mo crack open the 2016 the December Wars!

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:03 am

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 18, 2016, 05:36PMNo matter where you go, there you are!

Coming is the new going.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:53 am

This is a rather blatant reversal of reason I've long found in a way telling when believers flip it around as discussed in this one. I remember having to explain the error in terms of economics for an economically minded believer once and seeing the light go on ... then back off with some effort. It's a curious drive, and a particularly overt application of that drive--pretty much requires proactive perceptual/analytical inversion. I don't agree with the commentator's take on "religion" though (or his take on Gervais' take on it). The commentator doesn't seem to distinguish between social human nature and how the religious aspects of our nature incline us to make them manifest, but he apparently sees the negative side of the equation as some sort of overriding monolith (this is a relatively common mistake, but not the universal one that many apologists see, making the very same error in a photo negative kind of way).

This is an interesting one as well. If they saw the movie they should know that every point in the movie at which there's any kind of collision with the Jesus story, it's quite unarguably clear that Brian is not Jesus. The religious representatives on this panel seem not to realize that, or at least they expect the onus is on the artist to be certain the audience can't make that error or something. Interesting discussion in any case.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:40 am

Another minister who's an atheist (and was for years as a Christian[/western default] minister)
Note: the author's bias is pretty clear when it peeks out--and interesting.

There are undoubtedly a lot more than most believers think.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:00 am

Going to church could be more fun than you think: Religion stimulates the brain like sex, drugs and rock and roll

I'd say that's because it's about community--sharing time and space and interactions with your fellow humans, more or less like any other social beastie.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:15 am

I watched a bit of CNN's Finding Jesus last night. At least it was a break from political news.

But I was disappointed to find what was essentially evangelism from a supposedly neutral news source.

In trying to discuss the times and story line from a scientific perspective, they made brief mentions of historical artifacts and what they might mean, but accepted the gospel accounts uncritically as literal fact. The "expert" commentary came from theologians. This is a series done by believers for believers. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be on CBN rather than CNN.

ttf_John the Theologian · Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:22 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 06, 2017, 06:15AMI watched a bit of CNN's Finding Jesus last night. At least it was a break from political news.

But I was disappointed to find what was essentially evangelism from a supposedly neutral news source.

In trying to discuss the times and story line from a scientific perspective, they made brief mentions of historical artifacts and what they might mean, but accepted the gospel accounts uncritically as literal fact. The "expert" commentary came from theologians. This is a series done by believers for believers. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be on CBN rather than CNN.

Why do you assume that it's not legitimate to ask theologians for comment. I'm not sure who they asked, but there are many biblical scholars who take the historicity of the New Testament seriously. Would you rule them out simply because they don't fit a skeptical paradigm? That doesn't seem to fit with scholarly objectivity. If they are serious scholars and come to the conclusion that the NT is historical, why shouldn't their voices be heard?

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:38 am

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 06, 2017, 11:22AMWhy do you assume that it's not legitimate to ask theologians for comment.
Oh certainly they should have them on, but it might be worth telling both sides, and they did seem to slant towards conservative literalist theologians.

Here's how they bill their series:
QuoteFinding Jesus discovers fascinating new insights into the historical Jesus, utilizing the latest scientific techniques and archaeological research.
It seemed like the latest techniques mostly involved reading the gospels - and when necessary cherry picking from the gospel that supports your claim and ignoring the other three.

ttf_John the Theologian · Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:41 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 06, 2017, 11:38AMOh certainly they should have them on, but it might be worth telling both sides, and they did seem to slant towards conservative literalist theologians.

Here's how they bill their series:
It seemed like the latest techniques mostly involved reading the gospels - and when necessary cherry picking from the gospel that supports your claim and ignoring the other three.

Did they make their case or was your natural skepticism a filter through which you discounted what they claimed? I haven't seen the series nor do I know what claims you didn't find compelling, but the question needs to be asked.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:53 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 06, 2017, 11:22AMWhy do you assume that it's not legitimate to ask theologians for comment.Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 06, 2017, 11:41AMDid they make their case or was your natural skepticism a filter through which you discounted what they claimed?Are you aware of the kinds of issues the regular use of loaded questions indicates?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 06, 2017, 11:22AMI haven't seen the series nor do I know what claims you didn't find compelling, but the question needs to be asked.I'm sure it does, but in my observation a few loaded questions don't work very well against dissonance once you're aware enough of it to take measures against it gaining a foothold in you psyche--takes a lot more labor than that. Of course it can certainly be a lot easier if you share the load with others on a regular basis.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:47 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 06, 2017, 11:41AM I haven't seen the series nor do I know what claims you didn't find compelling, but the question needs to be asked.

They showed a photo of a stone containing Pilate's name, and were quite excited about the proof he existed. (I didn't know that was in doubt.)

Then they reenacted the trial, with special emphasis on how reluctant Pilate was to convict Jesus, and did so only at Caiphas's insistence.

These stories were written after the brutal suppression of the rebellion and destruction of the temple. Is there any chance the story was slanted slightly to make the Romans look better? Not according to the "new scientific and archaeological tools."

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:45 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 06, 2017, 11:22AMWhy do you assume that it's not legitimate to ask theologians for comment.
Because theologians are dogma monkeys. Their responses are tied to religion's dogma. They absolutely cannot offer a considered and reasoned opinion. No free will here. They must follow their dogma. Soooo, why bother to ask them anything since by definition, their response will be entirely and necessarily predictable.

Some day you might want to ask how I truly know this. Some day I may feel like giving a reasoned response. Of course, if you are a true theologian, reason will escape you and the independent thought associated with reason will not interest you.

For now this will suffice. A quote from Bible.org:
QuoteIn short, theology is a set of intellectual and emotional commitments, justified or not, about God and man which dictate ones beliefs and actions.
All hail Thomas Aquinas!

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:08 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 06, 2017, 11:41AMDid they make their case or was your natural skepticism a filter through which you discounted what they claimed? I haven't seen the series nor do I know what claims you didn't find compelling, but the question needs to be asked.
You mean, did they dictate the pertinent dogma.

Meh. No one is interested. Move along...

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:02 pm

Quote from: BillO on Mar 06, 2017, 10:45PMBecause theologians are dogma monkeys. Their responses are tied to religion's dogma. They absolutely cannot offer a considered and reasoned opinion. No free will here. They must follow their dogma. Soooo, why bother to ask them anything since by definition, their response will be entirely and necessarily predictable.

Some day you might want to ask how I truly know this. Some day I may feel like giving a reasoned response. Of course, if you are a true theologian, reason will escape you and the independent thought associated with reason will not interest you.

For now this will suffice. A quote from Bible.org:
All hail Thomas Aquinas!

Interesting dogmatic response. And sad.

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:07 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 07, 2017, 07:02PMInteresting dogmatic response. And sad.
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly what I had expected. Even though some personal insight to 'new' and questioning ideas was offered, only the response dictated by years of dogmatic stagnation was given. Please, don't pretend to know me. I'm simply not typical in any WRT religion, theology or dogma.

Anyway, thanks for not letting me down.

BTW, Mr. theologian, do you believe Bible.org to be a 'bad' resource?

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:27 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Oct 26, 2016, 08:42AMI believe some of you are still missing Bahnsen's main point. The non-theistic positions need to do a lot of "splaining" as Ricky Ricardo used to say before they can legitimately critique theism. Whether you agree with B's conclusions or not, I believe he's right about the lack of logical justification on the part of many non-theists of their basic assumptions.
Yeah, there is a reason for this. Please excuse my use of that word, reason. I know you folks have no use for it and cannot possibly understand what it entails. The reason atheistic types try to 'splain' is that they use reason as a matter of course. Such people question everything they hear, including their own thoughts, and check them out. So it is in their nature to present their thought processes as a part of their argument. I am well aware this is an alien concept to you folks.

Naturally, those that are force fed dogma from birth will not recognize the processes associated with reason and independent thought. There is no question as to why this will completely escape them (you).

However ... there may be hope for you, as by your own admission, with sufficient 'splainin' our arguments become legitimate. The very fact that you can make that connection is telling. Please forgive for saying this, as I don't really mean it as an insult, but it means you might have some capacity for independent thought! Dogma forbid!

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:07 pm

Quote from: BillO on Mar 07, 2017, 08:27PMYeah, there is a reason for this. Please excuse my use of that word, reason. I know you folks have no use for it and cannot possibly understand what it entails. The reason atheistic types try to 'splain' is that they use reason as a matter of course. Such people question everything they hear, including their own thoughts, and check them out. So it is in their nature to present their thought processes as a part of their argument. I am well aware this is an alien concept to you folks.

Naturally, those that are force fed dogma from birth will not recognize the processes associated with reason and independent thought. There is no question as to why this will completely escape them (you).

However ... there may be hope for you, as by your own admission, with sufficient 'splainin' our arguments become legitimate. The very fact that you can make that connection is telling. Please forgive for saying this, as I don't really mean it as an insult, but it means you might have some capacity for independent thought! Dogma forbid!

if you really want to see some really high level "independent" thought give the works of distinguished philosopher, Alvin Plantinga a try. If you can read his serious philosophical works and still make the claim that orthodox Christians don't use reason and are just "force fed dogma from birth," be my guest. However, I would suggest that the guild of university philosophers of every stripe who have praised his work, even if they radically disagree with his conclusions suggests otherwise.

Here is a list of his books, most published by distinguished publishing houses such as Oxford University Press, Cornell University Press, Clarendon Press, Blackwell, etc.

https://www.amazon.com/Alvin-Plantinga/e/B000APU3AM/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

Here are a few comments by some of those university philosophers who have praised his work. I could add many more endorsements, but since he holds essentially the same beliefs that I do, I wonder if you would just dismiss his work as just "force fed dogma."

"An important contribution which will be widely stimulating and influential for years to come."--Ernest Sosa, Brown University

"This two-volume work is one of the major accomplishments of twentieth-century epistemology."--Richard Foley, Rutgers University

"These books are contributions to epistemology of the first order of importance. They will, deservedly, receive a great deal of attention."--William P. Alston, Syracuse University

"A comprehensive and penetrating exposition and critique of contemporary epistemologies."--Umit D. Yalcin, East Carolina University

It's astonishing that so many scientists, philosophers, and theologians think there is a serious conflict between science and theistic religion. In this superb book, the world's leading philosopher of religion explains, with characteristic wit and perceptiveness, why none of the main reasons for thinking there is such a conflict are even remotely successful." --Mike Bergmann, Purdue University

Stephen T. Davis
-- Claremont McKenna College
"Alvin Plantinga is one of the top Christian philosophers in the world today. He is well known in Christian and secular philosophical circles for his logical skills, his rigorous arguments, and his energetic defense of full-blooded Christianity."

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:57 am

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 07, 2017, 11:07PMif you really want to see some really high level "independent" thought give the works of distinguished philosopher, Alvin Plantinga a try. If you can read his serious philosophical works and still make the claim that orthodox Christians don't use reason and are just "force fed dogma from birth," be my guest. However, I would suggest that the guild of university philosophers of every stripe who have praised his work, even if they radically disagree with his conclusions suggests otherwise.

Here is a list of his books, most published by distinguished publishing houses such as Oxford University Press, Cornell University Press, Clarendon Press, Blackwell, etc.
Others aren't so easily impressed with claims of academic accolades. Actually I doubt you are either, unless they're for your guy. The odd thing is when someone uses that as an argument from authority as if others are suddenly going to be impressed with something they themselves wouldn't be for the other guy. It's pretty revealing. Personally, when I'm checking these kinds of credentials I tend to read criticism first and then see what sticks.

Theistic philosophy is always fixated on getting a foot in the door--has to be, because that's its only avenue of survival (well, almost any rhetoric works for the rather less erudite type believers, but that's not who we're talking about here). From what I can tell so far, Plantinga seems better at that than most for sure--he often seems to be right on the money, and then when he's pretty much done, or so it seems, he suddenly yanks the wheel and veers wildly off course, working hard to justify it all the way from there. Had he just stayed on course he wouldn't have had all (or any) of that extra work to do (believers who are into the persecution delusion are right about how oppressive the world is to they and theirs, they're just very wrong about who and why). But then I'm not a devotee of Plantinga or invested in his conclusions or argumentation. I'm sure it all makes sense ... or rather, it resonates with them (devotees are also notoriously "sea lions" regarding the object(s) of their devotion).

In any case I agree it's not a bad idea to familiarize yourself with Plantinga (and other currently popular cultural figures) if you're at all interested in such things, because it's a name you can expect to hear from religious apologists, and if you know a bit about these referents you'll have a better sense of where the given apologist is coming from--the rhetoric behind the shorthand you'll see. I'll delve into these figures a bit here and there, as warranted, so at least I have a good sense of whether there's really anything terribly useful or actually interesting or of any other value driving the seal lion behavior, or if it's more likely just about personal investment and the need to compensate for the Cosmos' notorious stinginess with affirmation for theistic memes.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:56 am

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 08, 2017, 04:57AM

Theistic philosophy is always fixated on getting a foot in the door. From what I can tell so far Plantinga seems better at that than most for sure--he often seems to be right on the money, and then when he's pretty much done, or so it seems, he suddenly yanks the wheel and veers wildly off course, working hard to justify it all the way from there.
I think he does what the CNN series does, though in a more sophisticated manner.

Here's what I mean. CNN billed this series as a scientific investigation. They showed an archaeological artifact that Pilate existed. They moved from there to interviewing theologians, all of them who accepted the gospel accounts of Pilate's reluctance to prosecute Jesus uncritically. This gives the veneer of science supporting a literal gospel account, not by logic but by juxtaposition. Then they doubled down, speculating on the motives of Caiaphas for being the real villain in the story.

Platinga's logic has holes in it that have been spotted and discussed by amateurs here - but he starts the discussion reasonably and does not distinguish when he leaves that area.

Pilate's supposed sympathy for Jesus seems unlikely - he was a brutal ruler tasked with maintaining order, and with essentially no restraints on his behavior, faced with a charismatic rebel during Passover, a time when Jewish traditions emphasized an earlier successful rebellion. But to even speculate that the story was adjusted during war years to avoid Roman recriminations doesn't fit with the inerrant interpretation of scripture CNN was selling, so they had to be careful which theologians they interviewed.

ttf_John the Theologian · Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:06 am

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 08, 2017, 04:57AM
Others aren't so easily impressed with claims of academic accolades. Actually I doubt you are either, unless they're for your guy. The odd thing is when someone uses that as an argument from authority as if others are suddenly going to be impressed with something they themselves wouldn't be for the other guy. It's pretty revealing. Personally, when I'm checking these kinds of credentials I tend to read criticism first and then see what sticks.

Theistic philosophy is always fixated on getting a foot in the door. From what I can tell so far Plantinga seems better at that than most for sure--he often seems to be right on the money, and then when he's pretty much done, or so it seems, he suddenly yanks the wheel and veers wildly off course, working hard to justify it all the way from there. Had he just stayed on course he wouldn't have had all (or any) of that extra work to do (believers who are into the persecution delusion are right about how oppressive the world is to they and theirs, they're just very wrong about who and why). But then I'm not a devotee of Plantinga or invested in his conclusions or argumentation. I'm sure it all makes sense ... or rather, it resonates with them.

My point was not an argument from authority, nor an attempt at all to to show that academic accolades are the final word to impress us all. My point was that the previous poster made dogmatic claims that amounted to saying that someone who held to an orthodox Christian faith could not be capable of doing real independent thinking. I believe the work of brilliant philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga shows otherwise. You may not follow him to his conclusions-- many don't-- but there are a significant number of professional philosophers who do and don't at all think that his "dogma" stopped him from pursuing truth and the near universal conclusion within the guild of academic philosophers is that his work is brilliant, original and of the highest quality. That's hard to square with a claim that it is not possible to do such work if one holds to "dogma."

I'm not a philosopher and have only read a small bit of his work. I have read his theologian brother, though, who is also very good. I've read plenty of theologians and can tell you that they are fully capable of independent thinking, both for good and not so good, sometimes in my thinking.

Would I think an atheist or and agnostic philosopher was not as brilliant as an A. Plantinga. Yes, perhaps, but I've read a number in various fields that I have no difficult agreeing that they are brilliant and that their thinking is independent. My beef is with blanket dismissals of anyone who hold to an orthodox Christian belief as inherently incapable of serious thinking when the reality is obviously quite different, not just among older scholars, but among contemporaries such as Plantinga.

My belief is that philosophical naturalism is just as dogmatic a point of view as what you think an orthodox theological point of view is. It's a matter of presuppositions again, which is always where the real debate comes down to.

We, of course, could rehash what we've discussed before, which I'm not planning on doing. My point is that blanket statements about the "dogmatic" nature of theologians don't advance the discussion at all. Merriam-Webster"s definition of "dogmatic:" "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts" applies to atheists and agnostics as much as it does to theists.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:46 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 08, 2017, 06:06AMMy point was not an argument from authority, nor an attempt at all to to show that academic accolades are the final word to impress us all. My point was that the previous poster made dogmatic claims that amounted to saying that someone who held to an orthodox Christian faith could not be capable of doing real independent thinking.
Fair enough ... my bad.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:03 pm

Reply moved from: TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMI agree that everything is God's responsibility (but not that he is accountable to us) and that includes the good and the bad.Accountability is a tangential issue. If the creator is responsible then how can we somehow also be responsible, particularly since we're the creations? Frankly I find it very strange that this is a point of contention--the question of whether we're somehow responsible for our own creation and the nature we were created with rather than the creator who's clearly and by definition responsible for both (for those who believe in such a beastie as a creator, of course). Apparently the contention is really about accountability, which is another matter entirely. It does, however, highlight the problem of trying to twist it all around to make us somehow accountable for being created as we were created.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMHowever I disagree that the only rational response to that is to adjust God's omnipotence eg to remove "evil" from his power and want to point out that many christians have other responses to the problem.If a being is truly an omnipotent creator then everything is absolutely and inherently in every detail precisely as that creator intended and created it to be, period. With actual omnipotence (ignoring the fact that it's a fundamentally self-contradictory concept for the sake of discussion) there's absolutely nowhere to go with that, by definition. It's a very short and very decisive argument. The definition of omnipotent makes this crystal clear. It's unlimited power--the power to do absolutely anything, without qualification.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMIts a problem in the sense that we would expect that an all powerful being that loved us to make things comfortable for us, to do things that we wanted and not to allow bad things to happen to us. So when reality doesn't work that way we question our beliefs or our understanding of reality.No, it's the fact that a truly omnipotent creator could have created a reality that achieves all the very same things the creator wanted to achieve, without any bad things happening to us. If there's a creator and it's omnipotent, that's the way it is--that's the definition of omnipotence and reality has to be precisely the way this alleged creator wants it in every way. In this scenario there's simply no other option.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMEven christians need the world as they see it to make sense and if reality keeps contradicting and biting their beliefs, then it is generally the beliefs that are changed to match reality (in my experience).If there's a truly omnipotent creator, that's purely its desired reality, and it could have made it otherwise.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMSome christians as you say modify the scope of God's omnipotence but there are other responses too, eg
- change the definition of love from doing what we want to doing what is ultimately best for us - this is how I think the bible uses love.If there's a truly omnipotent creator, that's purely its desired reality, and what's best for us could have been made painless.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PM- deciding that you don't understand how God is running the world but trust that God is in control, that he has a purpose for everything and that as he has promised, everything is for the best for those that love him.That's completely irrelevant. Also, see the two previous responses and apply the same pattern here, which is required by the definition of omnipotence.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PM- reject the idea the God is omnipotent or loving.That's the only one that actually works. As you're trying to argue otherwise you're actually just demonstrating that the other options you're proposing all require limited omnipotence in order to actually work, otherwise they can all be sidestepped with infinite ease, by definition.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMSome believers who have recently wrestled with the problem include Feinberg, Carson and (I think) Plantinga. Feinberg's 'The Many Faces of Evil' is IMO an especially rational discussion of the topic (of theodicy) as opposed to Carson's which was more for the 'thinking' christian (excuse the oxymoron

)If I hear something that suggests this material might offer anything of genuine interest on the matter I'll pursue it, otherwise I've seen no reason to do so. I'm not inclined to chase any and every rabbit someone can loose just because they find chasing it compelling for some reason. Also, I'm pretty sure I've studied a whole lot more Christian doctrine and rhetoric than virtually any (if not just any, unmodified) of the religious apologists in here have looked into philosophy and argumentation against religion and/or theism.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMI was talking about Dave's preconceptions. You're not suggesting that HE is projecting his doctrines are you?!No, I'm pointing out that what you see as preconceptions are really your own--when Dave made a comment contrary to your own beliefs, you see that disparity as his preconceptions. You can't get there without your own preconceptions though, otherwise there's no disparity. Further, Dave presented, directly and clearly, a thought experiment context for his observation. You then pointed it back out (as if that hadn't just been done), and call it a preconception. No, it was the context of a thought experiment, it just worked better for your purposes to perceive it as preconception rather than what it obviously was according to how it was explicitly presented. It's precisely the same as someone saying for the sake of exploring the idea, consider this in another context, and you coming back with [/i]that's just a preconception[/i]. In fact that's just a more abstract way to state precisely what was posted.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 04:41PMActually I think that we all project our worldviews when we are discussing things, not just scripture.

I think that we all have preconceptions about how the world works, call it a "world view" if you like or even Weltanschauung. I think parts of our worldview operates at a conscious level and is open to articulation and discussion, but other parts are subconscious and are not easily articulated.

I hope my doctrines are informed by scripture rather than vice versa but recognise that my preconceptions often interfere with my understanding. I also think that that's the case for everyone.

In my experience the ability of people to chill on matters of difference is inversely proportional to how important the think the difference is. Its difficult to be tolerant of differences that are significant, eg the value of epistemologyhttp://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,87141.msg1184961.html#msg1184961

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:27 pm

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 13, 2017, 06:03PMReply moved from: TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

Accountability is a tangential issue. If the creator is responsible then how can we somehow also be responsible, particularly since we're the creations? Frankly I find it very strange that this is a point of contention--the question of whether we're somehow responsible for our own creation and the nature we were created with rather than the creator who's clearly and by definition responsible for both (for those who believe in such a beastie as a creator, of course). Apparently the contention is really about accountability, which is another matter entirely. It does, however, highlight the problem of trying to twist it all around to make us somehow accountable for being created as we were created.

I'm not sure what aspects of responsibility that you are referring to if you exclude accountability. Obviously I think he did it, he made the decisions, it was his job. And he did it in a way that we could make voluntary decisions. Isn't that how you experience your life? So what's the problem with being held accountable with your decisions?

Quote If a being is truly an omnipotent creator then everything is absolutely and inherently in every detail precisely as that creator intended and created it to be, period. With actual omnipotence (ignoring the fact that it's a fundamentally self-contradictory concept for the sake of discussion) there's absolutely nowhere to go with that, by definition. It's a very short and very decisive argument. The definition of omnipotent makes this crystal clear. It's unlimited power--the power to do absolutely anything, without qualification.

You seem to be acting as though the definition of the word 'omnipotence' in your mind constrains God. That would be an oxynmoron. And I'm not convinced that you have the correct description of God in this case. Wikipedia has a number of definitions that I think are more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence Can you point me to evidence as to why your definition of omnipotence is accurate and complete. If not then why is your definition decisive?

And if you want to limit the argument to definitions 'omni' doesnt mean unlimited, it means all, so omnipotent would mean all the power rather than infinite power.

Quote No, it's the fact that a truly omnipotent creator could have created a reality that achieves all the very same things the creator wanted to achieve, without any bad things happening to us. If there's a creator and it's omnipotent, that's the way it is--that's the definition of omnipotence and reality has to be precisely the way this alleged creator wants it in every way. In this scenario there's simply no other option.

So how do you know that "a truly omnipotent creator could have created a reality that achieves all the very same things the creator wanted to achieve, without any bad things happening to us." Are you just relying on your definition of omnipotence again?

QuoteThat's the only one that actually works. As you're trying to argue otherwise you're actually just demonstrating that the other options you're proposing all require limited omnipotence in order to actually work, otherwise they can all be sidestepped with infinite ease, by definition.

it might be the only one that works for you, but that's not the case for others.

Quote If I hear something that suggests this material might offer anything of genuine interest on the matter I'll pursue it, otherwise I've seen no reason to do so. I'm not inclined to chase any and every rabbit someone can loose just because they find chasing it compelling for some reason. Also, I'm pretty sure I've studied a whole lot more Christian doctrine and rhetoric than virtually any (if not just any, unmodified) of the religious apologists in here have looked into philosophy and argumentation against religion and/or theism.

If you wanted to read a book on christian theodicy I would recommend Feinberg's 'The Many Faces of Evil' to you. I think that you find it interesting and is academic enough to give you something to get your teeth into. He's a professional philosopher and sets out the topic in concrete enough terms that I could understand enough of to follow his argument. He analyses the different types of evil that we experience, why they are problematic and looks at the historic solutions.

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:46 pm

Besides Feinberg's serious philosophical work on the problem of evil, he has also written some more popular level books that focuses on his personal struggles due to his wife's serious illness. One of those should be read together with his more technical work.

Here are the links:

https://www.amazon.com/Where-God-Personal-Finding-Suffering/dp/0805430415/ref=la_B001JRTP8Q_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489517495&sr=1-10

https://www.amazon.com/When-There-Are-Easy-Answers/dp/0825444128/ref=pd_cp_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825444128&pd_rd_r=9T6AJR5HVFWVCK01T163&pd_rd_w=uxLaI&pd_rd_wg=CmL6S&psc=1&refRID=9T6AJR5HVFWVCK01T163

https://www.amazon.com/Deceived-God-Journey-Experience-Suffering/dp/089107886X/ref=la_B001JRTP8Q_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489517495&sr=1-11

BTW, here's the link to his large philosophical work:

https://www.amazon.com/Many-Faces-Evil-Revised-Expanded/dp/1581345674/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:22 pm

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 10:27PMI'm not sure what aspects of responsibility that you are referring to if you exclude accountability. Obviously I think he did it, he made the decisions, it was his job. And he did it in a way that we could make voluntary decisions. Isn't that how you experience your life? So what's the problem with being held accountable with your decisions?I'm not sure accountability makes sense for an omnipotent being, but culpable, responsible--yeah. "Accountable" can simply be used as a synonym for responsible, but obviously that context makes no sense when the issue is already responsibility (that just becomes Is God responsible for what God is responsible for?). A creator is responsible for its creation. How could it be otherwise? An omnipotent creator of all that is is also responsible for everything else--every aspect of creation. Again, how could it be otherwise? The creation cannot somehow be responsible for its own creation or how it was created--its nature. If you disagree I'd like to see an explanation of how a creation can somehow be responsible for its creation and/or its nature--the nature in which it was created.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 10:27PMYou seem to be acting as though the definition of the word 'omnipotence' in your mind constrains God. That would be an oxynmoron. And I'm not convinced that you have the correct description of God in this case. Wikipedia has a number of definitions that I think are more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence Can you point me to evidence as to why your definition of omnipotence is accurate and complete. If not then why is your definition decisive?Interesting. My point is precisely the opposite of how you've taken it. In fact what I've been trying to explain is the fact that because omnipotence means unlimited power, when you make up some excuse as to why there's pain and suffering, with unlimited power a creator could have done it differently if it had chosen to do so. You keep saying these aspects of pain and suffering must be best for us, but when you do that you're forgetting that an omnipotent creator would have had to create those parameters that way by choice. For an omnipotent creator everything is an option, so an omnipotent creator has to choose to put pain and suffering into its creation, because with unlimited power it could make things work precisely the same with or without any particular option, certainly including pain and suffering--every aspect of the creation is an option such a creator chose to include having every other option available, without exception.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 10:27PMAnd if you want to limit the argument to definitions 'omni' doesnt mean unlimited, it means all, so omnipotent would mean all the power rather than infinite power.There you go! That certainly makes more sense, but I'm not sure you want to go there given the implications. But I've pointed out many times that the ultimate problem here is with the term and that it's more of a litmus for how wedded a given believer is to the traditional dogma, but omnipotent does in fact mean unlimited power (all powerful, not has all the power there is currently available). But the biggest problem with the "all the power there is" model is that it doesn't allow for violations of natural law, so there go the miracles (unless we redefine them so they comply with the laws of nature, thereby making them non-miraculous miracles).

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 10:27PMSo how do you know that "a truly omnipotent creator could have created a reality that achieves all the very same things the creator wanted to achieve, without any bad things happening to us." Are you just relying on your definition of omnipotence again?Are you trying to put limits on God now? Which is the problem? trying to put limits on God as you thought I was doing, or not putting the right ones on him to protect his superpowers as it would appear you're doing now?

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 10:27PMit might be the only one that works for you, but that's not the case for others.Check some dictionaries ... note that Webster's (the same one that connects atheism with denial) also strangely limits the power of "omnipotence" to virtually unlimited power, which is odd because it stays with the notion that it's about the level of power rather than the amount, but it directly contradicts what omni would mean in that context. So ... odd, but whatever.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 10:27PMIf you wanted to read a book on christian theodicy I would recommend Feinberg's 'The Many Faces of Evil' to you. I think that you find it interesting and is academic enough to give you something to get your teeth into. He's a professional philosopher and sets out the topic in concrete enough terms that I could understand enough of to follow his argument. He analyses the different types of evil that we experience, why they are problematic and looks at the historic solutions.Thanks! I'll take a look at that.

--

... except that for $30.00, not so much.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:00 pm

I think we've got 2 points of discussion.

1. God's responsibility for creation v accountability.
2. God's omnipotence

For "Responsibility":

The google definition is:
QuoteResponsibility
rɪˌspɒnsɪˈbɪlɪti/
noun
1.
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.
"women bear children and take responsibility for childcare"
synonyms: authority, control, power, leadership, management, influence; duty
"we train those staff who show an aptitude for managerial responsibility"
2.
the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.
"the group has claimed responsibility for a string of murders"
synonyms: blame, fault, guilt, culpability, blameworthiness, liability
"the organization denied responsibility for the bomb attack at the airport"

Byron,

I am curious in understanding what you think and why.

We both agree that God did it so that's not an issue. So the other aspect of responsibility is accountability or blame. If this is not the aspect of responsibility that you are concerned about, can you explain.

For "omnipotence":

you think that God can do anything (this is in the context of a thought experiment that assumes that God exists for the sake of the discussion). Why is this? I am fine with going there. I am not so wedded to traditional dogma that I can't question it. But I also can't see why infinite power would make it possible to do something that is not possible (eg no amount of power would allow the creation of a square circle), or why you would think that God would do something that is out of character (God isn't going to lie).

Quote... except that for $30.00, not so much.

ouch. My copy didn't cost that much. and some people are offering it for > $100!

You can borrow my copy if you want.

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:22 pm

Interlibrary loan-- won't cost you a thing. I use it all the time.

By the way you mentioned that you were interested in the psychology of why people believe what they do. An interesting critique of the psychology of unbelievers from a Christian standpoint is R.C. Sproul's The Psychology of Atheism, also released under the title: If There is a God, Why Are There Atheists. You might find it interesting.

Here are a couple of links:

https://www.amazon.com/psychology-atheism-R-C-Sproul/dp/0871234599

https://www.amazon.com/Theres-God-Why-There-Atheists/dp/0842315659/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489551615&sr=1-1&keywords=sproul%2C+if+there+is+a+god%2C+why+are+there+atheists

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:27 am

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 14, 2017, 07:00PMWe both agree that God did it so that's not an issue.Rather, not questionable.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 14, 2017, 07:00PMSo the other aspect of responsibility is accountability or blame. If this is not the aspect of responsibility that you are concerned about, can you explain.If you're using this as a synonym for responsibility, then obviously it applies. If you're responsible, it's your fault (I accept the definition of the term as-is), so blame works fine if you choose that term--it's fair. How to hold such a beastie as an omnipotent creator accountable? ... I don't see it.

It's not an issue in which I'm invested though ... I don't really care about the ins and outs of a hypothetical beastie (at least not in the sense that any of this matters), so I'm not terribly interested in wringing my hands over it. I accept what's reasonable in a purely mental exercise sense.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 14, 2017, 07:00PMyou think that God can do anything (this is in the context of a thought experiment that assumes that God exists for the sake of the discussion). Why is this?No, I think "omnipotent" means and is used to mean unlimited power. I'm pretty sure no such a beastie exists. This is all about a fictional critter that a lot of people are very invested in believing is real, so it has cultural and sociological and psychological significance to my fellow humans, so in that sense it's important to me, but I don't have any investment in the nuts and bolts of the character in question.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 14, 2017, 07:00PMI am fine with going there. I am not so wedded to traditional dogma that I can't question it. But I also can't see why infinite power would make it possible to do something that is not possible (eg no amount of power would allow the creation of a square circle), or why you would think that God would do something that is out of character (God isn't going to lie)."I've pointed out many times that the ultimate problem here is with the term and that it's more of a litmus for how wedded a given believer is to the traditional dogma, but omnipotent does in fact mean unlimited power (all powerful, not has all the power there is currently available). But the biggest problem with the "all the power there is" model is that it doesn't allow for violations of natural law, so there go the miracles (unless we redefine them so they comply with the laws of nature, thereby making them non-miraculous miracles)."

I haven't raised any out of character issues. Having the power to do anything doesn't mean you must demonstrate that power, much less in every aspect, even those that you don't want to do.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 14, 2017, 07:00PMYou can borrow my copy if you want.I'm open to that ... I usually don't like to try and force things into my reading list because that requires bumping something I'm more interested in (just means it doesn't work very well for me--I buy books and get to them when they organically get to the top of my list). But at least a chunk of the time required for me to get through what's currently at the top of my list will happen before a loaner from Australia arrives. Just have to consider what shipping costs ... I have no idear. But, I'd make sure to get on the Feinberg book, and I expect it would immediately make the top of my list when it arrives just because of the situation behind all that. In other word I appreciate the sentiment--it would be a cool connection to make just on human terms if nothing more.

Before we go there though, I can also look into whether we have that here at UGA or not (pretty sure we don't here at the Science Library anyway--but as JtT so eagerly points out, I can also go with an ILL). In any case I'm really not in any hurry and as I said, I'm not terribly invested here ... interested, but not anxious with anticipation or anything like that--not a new issue to me, not a new situation to me ... etc.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:43 am

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 14, 2017, 09:22PMInterlibrary loan-- won't cost you a thing. I use it all the time.

By the way you mentioned that you were interested in the psychology of why people believe what they do. An interesting critique of the psychology of unbelievers from a Christian standpoint is R.C. Sproul's The Psychology of Atheism, also released under the title: If There is a God, Why Are There Atheists. You might find it interesting.

Here are a couple of links:

https://www.amazon.com/psychology-atheism-R-C-Sproul/dp/0871234599

https://www.amazon.com/Theres-God-Why-There-Atheists/dp/0842315659/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489551615&sr=1-1&keywords=sproul%2C+if+there+is+a+god%2C+why+are+there+atheists
Ever notice the presumption of who should read what tends to go in only one direction, and that those on the export side of the equation also seem to be blind to this, and often judgmental about the situation on top of all this? I find that pretty telling ... not sure that's been established here though ... yet (particularly since I don't think I've made any recommendations--I don't tend to think such disagreements are about information or exposure to reasoning ... although psychology/neurology are another matter, just less accessible--to me as well). Does seem to be a potential though.

However, that said, I do find it pretty fascinating to see the psychology of belief laid out in apologetic/rhetorical form. It tends to be far more revealing than more neutral topics, particularly when you and yours, so to speak, are the subject.

Have you read much in the way of criticism of theism? It's much more important for functional understanding--to be informed rather than to just have the standard prejudices affirmed--when you're part of the overwhelmingly dominant culture and you're trying to genuinely consider a small minority rather than the reverse, because the dominant culture is everywhere, whereas small minorities stand out because they contrast with the status quo.

ttf_John the Theologian · Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:36 am

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 15, 2017, 05:43AM
Ever notice the presumption of who should read what tends to go in only one direction, and that those on the export side of the equation also seem to be blind to this, and often judgmental about the situation on top of all this? I find that pretty telling ... not sure that's been established here though ... yet (particularly since I don't think I've made any recommendations--I don't tend to think such disagreements are about information or exposure to reasoning ... although psychology/neurology are another matter, just less accessible--to me as well). Does seem to be a potential though.

However, that said, I do find it pretty fascinating to see the psychology of belief laid out in apologetic/rhetorical form. It tends to be far more revealing than more neutral topics, particularly when you and yours, so to speak, are the subject.

Have you read much in the way of criticism of theism? It's much more important for functional understanding--to be informed rather than to just have the standard prejudices affirmed--when you're part of the overwhelmingly dominant culture and you're trying to genuinely consider a small minority rather than the reverse, because the dominant culture is everywhere, whereas small minorities stand out because they contrast with the status quo.

I actually have read criticism of theism as well as criticism of biblical history, etc. I believe Martin has as well. Some of us just don't have our heads in the sand as you seem to imply.

You may not make recommendations, but your posts always assume that the skeptical position is a slam dunk. There are a fair number of us in the world who beg to differ and some of us have actually read opposing viewpoints and dismissed them as inadequate explantaions. My recommendations on the subject of the psychology of belief were because I thought you said that you were genuinely interested in the topic and I thought you would find an orthodox Christian perspective informative. Certainly Sproul is apologetic, but do you really think some of the skeptical treatments of the subject are really "neutral" and not apologetic in their own way?