Can I first draw attention again to the 'Mistakes' sections from yesterday? I will try and pay particular attention to point 2 for Christians, not to ignore atheists qs. I haven't meant to seem to be doing this; first, I have been trying to track down some decent reading material on them so we can discuss that so I avoid just saying what others have said; second, Billy you fire a lot of qs at once and it takes time to address them - hence my frequent suggestion to seek out other reading material to engage with. Can I ask you B and J to pay particular attention to points 1 and 4 for atheists? A large part of my frustration has been caused by the sense that there are a lot of straw men about. Just one example from one of your comments yesterday B: you ask Beat if he buys the 'argument from morality'. The underlying assumption seems to be that this argument is posing as a knock-down proof, which it's not - or at least good assessments of it are not; from the conclusion of the final link from yesterday,
'The moral arguments for the existence of God try to infer the existence of God from the nature of morality. After working through Lewis's argument and a contemporary version using the issues in contemporary metaethics, I believe that this counts as good evidence for the existence. Perhaps, this argument by itself is not sufficient to secure its conclusion, but certainly this will have some explanatory power in a cumulative case for the existence of God.'
What strike me as other examples of straw men are polarised thinking eg that faith and reason are opposed not complementary, morals are either totally fixed or totally relative (I'd say, to clarify, that they are objectively rooted/anchored but with built in flexibilty - principles stand and have an 'absolute' foundation but there application may vary.)
So, to begin finally to address the q about moral problems in the Bible esp OT, first a link from the 'CARM' site from yesterday, on one of many passages - follow links there to view others: 'Stone a woman for not being a virgin?'. See what you think. Beat - I agree we shd try to understand more before judging the Bible.
One last quote I can't source right now but I think is from the CARM site: 'Anyone can take verses out of context and compare them to other verses out of context and get a "contradiction." But, context is sacrificed in this manner and along with it, truth is lost.'
Finally, google 'bible difficulties encyclopedia' and you'll see a few books to seek out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
29 comments:
Hi Bruce, I thought some of the things in the "mistakes" links were themselves strawmen. Point 1 one to atheists in particular. You god does allegedly provide testable material - Prophecy, healings -etc. This is a point that keeps getting ignored. Also, if you cant demonstrate the supernatural, how can you use this to argue for "proof".
I find it totally bizarre that you think asking beat if he bought the argument for morality was a straw man? Let me clarify. I was asking him if he thought it was an argument for gods existence. You seem to have set a strw man of your own up here.
You have now gone from moral absolutes to some form of flexible morality exists. You have tried to change the meaning of absolute so much that it is by your definition , no longer meaningful.
In case you missed my latest post, I've copied it below. It shows nicely how shaky Lewis's argument is. It also demonstrates philosophy yielding to facts.
I thought I would tell you about vervet monkeys today, just for the hell of it. There are interesting for two. Firstly, they have a rudimentary language. They have words for Eagle, Leopard and Snake, which they call out to the troop when such a threat appears. Imagine they didn’t co-operate in this way. Each would be responsible for its own safety. It cant look in all directions at once, so it is not able to scan the sky, trees and ground simultaneously, so it is more vulnerable to predation. If however, there are many sets of eyes looking in many different directions, and these send out a warning, everyone’s survival chances are improved – would you not agree? So, your survival is actually dependant on the survival of and co-operation with those around you. Imagine you are in the trenches of Paschendale, some one tosses in a grenade. You either run and keep quiet, or you shout a warning and run. Which benefits you most? It’s the same principle.
Now, let us assume for the sake of argument that there are some moral universals; the scenario above shows how vacuous Lewis’ claims are that the only possible explanation of “absolutes” is an anthropomorphic law giver. The above scenario is absolutely impartial. It is called natural selection, but can work to produce a scenario where it is beneficial for you to be concerned about the well being of others.
Oh yeah, the second thing: they have the brightest blue pair of little monkey nuts that you have ever seen :-). Despite its humour value, it is actually the result of sexual selection driving this process. The bluer your balls, the more females choose to mate with you. Sexual selection also goes a long way to shaping the evolution of other male specific characteristics and behaviours.
Billy
PS, your science vs faith complaint is not a straw man. By your definition of god, he is not testable. Therefore, how is your definition of god in any way scientific?
When has the bible ever rewritten a science book, or given a clearer understanding of a physical law, or cured an illness? Astronomy and evolution constantly force those with a brain to re-interpret the bible
PS
Do we share the common view that infanticide is wrong or not?
Ok, I admit it was perhaps a little too strong to call your q to Beat about the AFM a straw man. Unless you really do view it as an attempt at a complete proof? Do you agree it's not trying to be that? I think the full link from yesterday helps clarify this, tho haven't had time yet to read it all.
And yes, I recognise the 'moral absolutes' issue will need to be clarified.
On the infanticide q, yes I do share that view, though Beat's previous comments shd be borne in mind. Re how it affects one's view of the bible, I'd just suggest for now reading today's link and perhaps follow up others which deal with the passages that concern you, and we can discuss further.
I was never claiming that the agument of where morality comes from was claimed to be an absolute proof of god (some christian think otherwise though). I am saying that philosophically, and experimentally (vervets, game theory etc) it is no evidence whatsoever that there is a god, and that the question of morality has a good naturalistic explanation that is consistent with the facts.
Billy
Bruce, it would take lifetime to go through all those bad passages. Now that we agree on infanticide, then by that standard we should accept that god is bad. For you to argue that he is right and we must start seeing things his way means that your argument for moral standards is defeated by your own doctrine: If you accept that god is the source of morality, but you cant recognise that morality, then you have no case. What it comes down to in the end is pure evidence lacking faith. Yu cant argue that he gives us a moral compass and that we cant recognise it. You definately cant assume he is right, and you must change your moral compas to recognise that, then claim it is something god has given everyone
Billy
PS, I consider myself more aware of context than most christians - including matthew - read how he misuses micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 for example
PPS,
The stoning a virgin link has nothing to do with infanticide performed by god. Also, this is the law of the allegedly perfect and loving god. Now, where is the acknowledgement of fairness? Would the victim not feel she was being unfairly treated? The law is supposed to be perfect. Do we then agree that this law is the result of human barbarism and not the law of a god that (sometimes) teaches forgiveness and treating people fairly?
Again, I say this law is evil - another example of moral relativism. I think you link argues my poit nicely - even if it doesn't address the issue of god killing babies - in that respect, it is a straw man
Billy
Billy, I'll try and find material that more directly addresses the 'infanticide in the bible' issue.
And I'm not ignoring your other comments - but a response will have to wait.
Jonathan, I haven't forgotten your parallel universe q BTW, but as you see there's enough on the plate just now.
Bruce, I can see you anytime, so give Jonathan's question priority
Billy
PS, I find it hard to take your CARM site seriously when it says things like " While the word "dinosaur" is a relatively new word, there seems to be evidence in many places around the world that men and these creatures have co-existed. In the Bible, when God is responding to Job, in Job 40 and 41, we see two creatures described, the 'behemoth' and the 'leviathan.' "
Creationists please note, the Flintstones is not a documentary!
I think I'll have to avoid blogging today - some pressing tasks. If you want to comment further B and J, I'd be interested in more reflection on the commentary in yesterday's link. I don't think the 'subjective' comment there is v. helpful, but I'd like to know to what extent you think its general points are worth considering.
It's also easy, Billy, to track down a few passages and commentaries on this site addressing the infanticide issue, if you want to look and see what you think - it wouldn't take a lifetime. I couldn't yesterday find any in-depth writing actually on the web addressing the morality in OT q - think I'll need to visit a library, but this wd be a start.
Billy any joy finding the Contours book? I hope to get a chance today or soon to visit a good library, so will have a look myself.
If you can recommend a book which you think most fairly commends your perspective I'd be happy to have a read. As I say, my impression of TGD is it's polemic, though I'll still persevere - do you know anything more balanced and thoughtful? One I've heard of is J. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, so I'll try and find that.
As you know I'd be far happier discussing good external material addressing the issues - that's why I ask.
I am rethinking my whole approach with this discussion - basically whether to transfer it to a forum like RD's site, and return on my blog to exploring my own thoughts and qs. But I'll need to look more closely at RD's site first.
Jonathan, are you still with us? You too asked about the morality q so I hope we haven't lost you. I'd be interested in your response too to the last couple of day's links.
Hi Bruce, I thought I covered yesterdays link. I chose the infanticide of Exodus 11 specifically, because the children have done no wrong and were being murdered by god because of a gripe with one man (whose heart god hardened to allow him to send these plagues in the first place). I have examined the Christian attempts at justifying it, but I think it is something you should investigate. I did not choose stoning of virgins, this is just a distraction. Anyway:
Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality.
This seems to disagree with you on the claim that god is a source of moral absolutes. I presume you also believe that god can not issue an immoral command and that he is constant and unchanging for ever, and that he can not abide sin. These values all contradict this passage. He did call Isreal to holy living did he not? (Exodus 19:2 “Speak to the whole congregation of the Israelites and tell them, ‘You must be holy because I, the lord your God, am holy.” Does holiness change with time and culture?
The above verses were written 3000 years ago in a very different culture and location.
More like 2500 years ago, by a culture called to holy living
Sexual purity was very highly valued, unlike today, and when a man would marry a woman, her virginity was critical. In ancient times a dowry was paid to the father of the bride and the rightful expectation was that the bride would be a virgin.
In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was was representative of the fathers ability to raise her according to the laws God.
Are we then to assume the constant god changes his mind on what is pure?
Therefore, in that culture, a man's reputation, as well as the family's reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter.
Poor father – does this not sound like a society run by men for men? The problem is that it seems to be the fathers reputation they are concerned with, not the fact that she has sinned against god. Where is the influence of god the forgiver?
If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married, and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin and this would bring great shame the family and the community, not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God's law.
Or she had been raped! What if the man was not a virgin? What if her hymen had been broken in an accident? Where is the trial? We just go to summary execution. Note concern for god as an after thought!
In this case, to insure the integrity of the family, and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated.
So, the verse is actually saying be good or else. It is not saying be good because it is the right thing to do. This suggests no external moral input – i.e. god!
Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one.
And where exactly does it say that in the passage? Note, there is not any source material backing up this claim – it is just made up – no evidence at all
Does this actually sound reasonable to you? This site seems a literalist/inerrantist site. The bible most certainly is not inerrant - check all those foot notes concerning other possible translations. The septuagint had methusela surviving the flood. Ezra's sums dont add up in the vulgate, the NJB (and others) translate Isaih 7:14 as young woman (not virgin) and many translations refer to Bethelehem as a Clan and not a town in Micah 5:2 for example, yet it appears that inerrantists cant see this. This is a terrible site.
The contours book is in the library at work. TGD may have a polemic aspect, but as I’ve said before, it trashes religious arguments. What do you think of his refutation of the argument from design? I’ll think about some reading material, but it really is you who has to demonstrate that god is needed to explain moral behaviour. I have given a lot of evidence why he is not required. It would be nice if you could actually show that he is required without appealing to personal ignorance e.g. – “I just can’t see how….. can arise by natural means”
Billy
If you want something on godless morality, you could try this http://www.geocities.com/
paulntobin/evolpsych.html
Just join the two halfs together. However, it really is your job to back up your claim that morality comes from God.
Billy
'I did not choose stoning of virgins, this is just a distraction.'
Well, Billy, you have complained plenty of times about the stoning of homosexuals, so I thought this passage wd at least be of interest to you. In the time I had yesterday, it was the first 'difficult passage' commentary on this site that I came across and thought wd provoke reflection. You have responded now so thanks at least for that. As I say, I'll be looking out more in-depth material on this stuff, including the book I've mentioned before, 'Moral difficulties in the bible' (or a title v like that). You cd see if that's in the library too.
'it really is you who has to demonstrate that god is needed to explain moral behaviour.'
Again, you're putting it in your terms. I tried to clarify yesterday the limited - but still significant - ambition of the moral argument, to provide evidence but not conclusive proof. The 4th link from my 9th Oct post might be worth reading in full if you want to engage with this more.
But the bottom line is, this is why I'm so keen for you to carefully read a book like the Contours Philosophy of Religion one. It presents balanced carefully thought-out academic treatment of such issues that wd enlighten this discussion and help prevent wasted time in uninformed argument.
Well, Billy, you have complained plenty of times about the stoning of homosexuals, so I thought this passage wd at least be of interest to you.
Homosexuals are not female virgins. The reason I find the stoning of homosexual wrong is because homosexuality is not immoral - if you think otherwise, then please demonstrate how this practice is so evil, that participants deserve to die.
Again, you're putting it in your terms.
What, you mean reason?
I tried to clarify yesterday the limited - but still significant - ambition of the moral argument, to provide evidence but not conclusive proof.
And as I pointed out yesterday, morality has a naturalistic explanation and that Lewis's argument is a non sequitir, and demonstrated by observation and experiment to be totally false. The magnitude of this "evidence" is irrelevant, the point is it has been refuted - feel free to address my points on this issue. Whether god is there or not, the moral argument has been shown to be flawed.
You were given the opportunity to chose your best evidence, and you chose morality. If this is the best, theism is not a particularly likely proposition.
I do understand what you are saying about it not being a conclusive proof and being part of several threads that you can draw on, but I've just refuted that point - unless you care to come back on it.
Evolution for example is built up on several threads that are self supporting and help explain each other. Thet are also testable. For example, we deaw on biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, ethology, geology, developmental biology, bioinformatics etc and they all come together and make sense. For example, why are there only kangaroos in australia? Well, they evolved from a particular lineage (based on genetic an morphological analysis) that vere isolated from other mammal groups by continental drift before the evolution of the lineages that gave rise to cats and dogs etc (based on platetectonics, radiometric and stratigraphic dating and paleontology) - that's why australias mammals are unusual - each thread of evidence builds a stronger case and offers greater explanatory power, so I do know what you are on about.
As far as I am concerned the moral argument is refuted (unless you have anything new to add). That is one line of evidence gone. As an atheist, I claim that there is no evidence for god. I have shown how the moral argument fails - the rest do the same - non more spectacularly so than the argument from design.
The 4th link from my 9th Oct post might be worth reading in full if you want to engage with this more
I have, you should address the points I make.
It presents balanced carefully thought-out academic treatment of such issues
I'll be the judge of that
Billy
I can't blog much today, have an application to do. Have read comments so will get back. The Contours book is an introductory textbook so not exhaustive - no book is - but giving it a fair reading shd at least make you pause for thought.
I haven't read it - hopefully my sister is posting it back from France, but as you're a scientist Billy, the 'Science and its limits' book in that series shd be of interest too.
Bruce, I'm aware of limits and the philosophy of science. Your god however is not beyond investigation: flood, prophecy, prayer, charismatic gifts etc. As is the question is life designed, or what is the basis of morality? Does spirituality have a neurological explanation? Who wrote the bible? These questions and more are testable. You should realise that philosophy does not have to deal with any definition of reality either. Incidentally, is it just me who noticed the obvious flaw in the argument that if someone takes something that is yours (like your TV set) yous say "that's mine as if you are appealing to a common standard? 1 that standard may be biological 2 the thief doesn't seem concerned about fairness 3 I would be more annoyed that they are stealing my thing, and not concerned with issues of fairness - Try taking a piece of meat off a lion and ponder whether it thinks your action is unfair - Think about the biological reasons that the Lion has for not letting you take its meal and consider how these principles translate into people.
Enjoy your Ceilidh (If you guys had prayed harder, I could have come too. Think of that christian influence god is depriving me of :-)
Billy
Thouught you would be interested in this defense of god killing babies (stick the two parts together as usual and remove the space at < /blockquote)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?
page=NewsArticle&id=5767< /blockquote>
It offends me both morally and intellectually.
Here is the son of Billy Graham saying it is OK to use weapons of mass destruction.
http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109
/14/lt.01.html
Who knos what lengths he would go to to defend his religion?
Still believe in moral absolutes?
Billy
Billy, thanks for looking out these sites, I've just read the first article with interest. I quote the key section:
By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
I'm not going to get into a debate about this - I quite simply don't have the time just now, and I'll be saying where I now stand in this discussion soon - but just to give a brief response: I personally find the first paragraph here more persuasive than the second, because it elicits in me a humble awareness of my limited understanding both of the culture of OT times, and of God's dealings with Israel. I find the second p a little more problematic, but it's mainly a philosophical/theological problem with the idea that children who die automatically 'go to heaven' which wd need further exploration... ie it seems on the surface to deal in an arbitrary way with the child's potential to choose either for or against God and goodness. But I'm not getting drawn in today.
Bruce, does it not sicken you? Is not a logical extension kill everyone and let god deal with them? It is terrible to reduce human life to these terms.
Again, for the first part, it is still hardly loving.
I personally find it pointless discussing the fate of murdered children (and the cathoilc church has changed its position on this several times). It works on an assumption that I do not accept - that there is an afterlife. To justify killing someone on this basis is disgusting - but then, I'm a moral relativist.
Billy
Are we to also assume that no one was worthy of saving? This seems strange, when we consider that lot and his family were considered worthy of saving. In case you forgot, he was the one who was prepared to allow his daughters be be raped by a mob to save some men. He then got so drunk that he impregnated both of them (gen 19:1-10, gen 19:30-36) Not exactly a good way to behave now was it - also remember that apology on stoning a virgin - here was a guy willing to let his virgin daughters be raped - another reason that article fails miserably.
Billy
I also find it curious that these Canaanite CHILDREN could not have been spared, and raised in the Israeli tradition. But apparently they would be a very corrupting influence. Many is the time I have seen small children destroying the moral integrity of adults and subverting them to the worship of false gods. Or not.
And by this logic, the writer should be praising murderers for sending their victims to God. Yet I somehow don't think that he does.
It's just a weak attempt to justify the appalling things recorded in the OT. The trouble is, there is very often little or no justification!
Jonathan.
It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.
He didnt seem too bothered about it when he told the israelites to kill every one of tye Midianites - except any virgins the men may want to get jiggy with (i.e rape) (Numbers 31:7-18).
Talking of rape, God even brings victims to the rapist, and orders that children should die because of the fathers sin :Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." (2 Samuel 12:11-14 ).
How do you reconcile this with the cuddly NT god and the NT theologians who keep saying people are made in gods image - respect them for that reason - even although that does not seem to bother god.
Good to see you back Jonathan. Lee looks sad now that mark has thrown in the towel
Billy
Indeed Billy, I must admit that that thread was the one that I pretty much always checked- a bit aimless on there at the moment! Still, Lee has that other forum to throw physics at people. I've skimmed it, and I don't think it's right for me. Perhaps I should start a blog devoted to my glory, I mean, the glory of Quetz. I could steal from this site (sorry Bruce) and it would be a good excuse for me to be sarcastic a lot!
Good idea your Quetzness. I may start a blog too, but that might be a bad idea - especially since it took me ages to actually put some photos on line.
Billy
Yes, nice to see you back Jonathan, thought we might have lost you; I was worried you might have been put off by the serious Christian reading I'd been suggesting.
I wouldn't say God in the NT is cuddly by the way Billy. Aslan not a tame lion and all that.
Night.
Bruce, I almost agree with you for once - The NT is were we first see Hell proper appear and god is going to kill several billion in revelation. Did you know god has killed over 2.5 million in the bible - not counting the flood. Satan has only killed 10 - job's family for a bet
Billy
Well, I can't deny this makes me chuckle, comparing biblical annihilation tallies between God and the devil. I'd venture to suggest a theologically more reflecive appraoch might churn out some different 'figures'.
I do like to face some issues head on, BTW, that's why I didn't shrink from copying the paras from the link yesterday. I read the whole piece and I think you have to judge it fairly, but I don't deny the 2nd para's thought seems rather fatuous and shallow. I feel more positively about the piece as a whole though.
Bruce, theology is a non subject, since everyone has their own idea of god. The bible however tells how many each have killed. Theologians deal with and disagree on pointless questions like did god or the devil cause the boxing day tsunami? Neither have any evidence either way - the bible at least gives nimbers - personally, I dont think the devil has killed anyone :-)
Billy
Post a Comment