[Vision2020] Is John Calvin an Intolerista?

Wed Nov 2 14:39:57 PST 2005

This note will not display correctly in plain text.  HTML should be used.

Donovan,

You write:

"I do think that God can be evil if the definition of evil in the believer of God is anything which is the anti-thesis of God. In other words, God cannot do that which is against Himself- Anything he does is good, and not evil, because His actions and deeds are what define those terms as good and evil. If God kills bad people, God killing bad people is good. If God makes the corn grow then God's growing of corn is good. If God makes the corn die, then God making the corn die is good. No matter what He does, it is good, and anything of the opposite of God is evil."

Defining an object in a certain way does not miraculously bring that object into existence.  Just because one defines a unicorn as a horse with one spiral conic horn protruding from its forehead, does not mean a unicorn exists nor does it bring a unicorn into existence.

Likewise, defining an alleged god as the opposite of evil or defining an alleged god as omnipotent and omnibenevolent does not mean such an object exists nor does defining such an object bring it into existence.

Your argument is reminiscent of the Ontological argument for the Existence of God:

[1]     God is a perfect being.

[2]     A perfect being has all qualities.

[3]     Existence is a quality.

Therefore, God exists.

There are several problems with this argument.  However, Kant basically refuted this argument long ago.  He pointed out that existence is not a quality.  We use the words "X exists" only when X has qualities.  To say that something exists but without any qualities what-so-ever appears to be the height of linguistic nonsense.

If X has no qualities (but is pure existence), hence is unobservable in any way what-so-ever, how could one determine if statements about X are true or false?

For a much clearer, more detailed explanation of this problem see the discussion of the Ontological Argument in the Kant chapters in History of Western Philosophy by W. T. Jones.

Further, you have ignored the problem discussed by Plato and recently discussed on this forum:

Is X good merely because god says so or does god say so because X is (intrinsically) good?

W. T. Jones also discusses this problem in his chapters on Plato.

You further write:

I do not think people can define anything scientifically in positive terms. You can only define things as what they are not or in relation to others things already defined in our minds. Science cannot tell us if there is a God or not because something can exist without us being able to measure it. 

I do not pretend to understand this first part of your paragraph, hence I cannot rationally comment upon it.  It seems to be a prime candidate to be regarded in the same class as:

"Corrugated square roots transcend justice."

As to this statement:

"However, God can tell us individually that he exists."

Rather than state the snidely obvious, I urge you to read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer.  You will be quickly disabused from claiming that hearing an alleged god talk to you (or giving you "signs") is a rational method for affirming its existence.  This book is available at Book People or it can be ordered there.  Whatever your religious beliefs, it is a consuming read.

Finally,

We can though, measure some of the effects of those that believe in God and prayer.

There exists a substantial body of evidence to show that some people can benefit in certain areas of their lives by praying to some god or another.  There are some fascinating studies of the benefits of chanting by certain kinds of Buddhists, some of whom are atheists in the eyes of many Christians since they believe in an undifferentiated force rather than an anthropomorphic god.

Such evidence is not a proof of any alleged god's existence, however.

Such phenomena are part of a larger body of evidence on the benefits of positive attitudes, the belief/confidence in your own abilities, in certain routines and therapies, etc, etc - beliefs not requiring the invocation of a deity or deities in any way.  Extensive early work in this area was done in the early part of the 20th century By Thomas.  The original research area was termed self fulfilling prophecies.  Psychologist/Philosopher William James described it as "Faith in a fact can sometimes help create that fact."

There is little doubt that certain affirming beliefs, whether religious or secular in nature can be helpful to certain people in certain situations.  However, there are some large caveats to this approach.  Not all problems are amendable to help from this approach.  If a grizzly bear has chewed your leg off, it is quite improbable that prayer or any other kind of affirming, positive belief will help a new leg grow.  Using these methods may sometimes prevent finding and using other approaches/therapies that would be far more effective.  Further, like all medicines and therapies, the effects on different people of this approach will vary quite widely and there can be some negative side effects with some people.

But, the main point again is that beneficial results from prayer, chanting, transcendental meditation, or from any secular positive affirming belief strategy is not evidence of any alleged god but is evidence of an ordinary human phenomena that can be studied empirically and the results applied.

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
To: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>; "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is John Calvin an Intolerista?

> "If there is a god, then this god may be indifferent
> to humankind, totally or partially amoral, have a
> totally different conception of good/evil, or be
> partially or totally evil in the terms of humankind."
> Wayne Fox
> 
> I do think that God can be evil if the definition of
> evil in the believer of God is anything which is the
> anti-thesis of God. In other words, God cannot do that
> which is against Himself- Anything he does is good,
> and not evil, because His actions and deeds are what
> define those terms as good and evil. If God kills bad
> people, God killing bad people is good. If God makes
> the corn grow then God's growing of corn is good. If
> God makes the corn die, then God making the corn die
> is good. No matter what He does, it is good, and
> anything of the opposite of God is evil.  
>  
> "The question of the existence
>> or nonexistence of an object with certain qualities
>> whether it be a black hole, a unicorn, or some
>> alleged god is a matter of reasoning and verifiable
>> evidence, not just fanciful and/or linguistically
>> nonsensical speculation."--Wayne Fox
> 
> I do not think people can define anything
> scientifically in positive terms. You can only define
> things as what they are not or in relation to others
> things already defined in our minds. Science cannot
> tell us if there is a God or not because something can
> exist without us being able to measure it. However,
> God can tell us individually that he exists. We can
> though, measure some of the effects of those that
> believe in God and prayer. 
> 
> -DJA
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --- Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> 
>> Michael, et al,
>>   
>> The existence of evil is not an argument for the
>> existence or nonexistence of some god.  If there is
>> a god, then this god may be indifferent to
>> humankind, totally or partially amoral, have a
>> totally different conception of good/evil, or be
>> partially or totally evil in the terms of humankind.
>>  If some people are seriously arguing that evil
>> exists means there is no god of some kind, they need
>> to retake Logic 101.  The question of the existence
>> or nonexistence of an object with certain qualities
>> whether it be a black hole, a unicorn, or some
>> alleged god is a matter of reasoning and verifiable
>> evidence, not just fanciful and/or linguistically
>> nonsensical speculation.
>>   
>>   
>> However, all of what you argue below is irrelevant
>> to the central point of my post, which is:
>>   
>> If god did not know, then it/she/him is not
>> omniscient.
>>   
>> If god did know, then it/she/him is not
>> omnibenevolent.
>>   
>>    
>> Further, there is a great hypocrisy and fallacy in
>> rejecting the deductive approach:  In order to
>> reject it, you must use it.  Further, in rejecting
>> the deductive approach [specifically reductio ad
>> absurdum and modus tollens], you are rejecting tools
>> upon whose application in great part all
>> mathematics, science, and everyday practical
>> knowledge is discovered and used.  If logic is not
>> applicable to statements about some alleged god,
>> then knowledge thereof, in the ordinary meaning of
>> "knowledge", is not possible.
>>    
>>   
>> Anticipating other comments:
>>   
>> If some alleged god is knowable, then so far
>> humankind hasn't an inkling based upon the millions
>> of different contradictory religious claims of
>> its/her/his properties.
>>   
>> If some alleged god is unknowable, then there is no
>> way by definition to test or even to validly claim
>> the truth of any statement about it/her/him.
>>   
>>   
>> Statements about god are either [1] true, [2] false,
>> or [3] nonsensical.
>>   
>> [2]    If they are contradictory, they are false.
>>   
>> [3]    If they are nonsensical, they are not
>> verifiable and perhaps not even comprehensible
>> except in a syntactical context.
>>   
>> [1]    So far, there is no agreement about the truth
>> of statements of the existence or the properties of
>> many alleged gods.  Worst yet, unlike statements
>> about gravity, herpes, and/or continental drift
>> there is no agreed upon valid , fruitful method to
>> test the truth of such statements about the
>> existence or the properties of these alleged gods
>> except possibly by the vote of authoritarian or
>> popular sentiment, a hardly reliable method.
>>   
>> Continuing:
>>     
>> Your last paragraph below (and the attempts by many
>> philosophers and theologians) is a classical example
>> of equivocation -- using "good" in one way when
>> referring to humankind and another way when
>> referring to some alleged god.  
>>   
>> [Equivocation: 
>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm]
>>   
>> If you think that a person creating a baby in order
>> to torture it is not evil, then you are using the
>> word quite differently than what is generally meant
>> by "evil" when humankind use the word.  The
>> equivocation is in saying creating a baby in order
>> to torture it is evil for humans, but not evil for
>> some alleged god who allegedly created us and who
>> also allegedly tortures us (Example: when a baby
>> dies in screaming agony of leukemia or when this
>> alleged god allegedly sends the majority of his
>> human creations to suffer the extreme misery of
>> eternal combustion).  As in the examples given in
>> the link above, you are using "good" and "evil" in
>> two different ways in your argument.
>>   
>>   
>>   
>> As a note, the problem of predestination and god's
>> foreknowledge is related to the problem of evil, but
>> is not isomorphic to it.
>>   
>> Here is a classic statement of the problem of evil:
>>   
>> [A]    If God is omnibenevolent and had the power to
>> do so, it would prevent evil from existing.
>>    
>> [B]    If God is omnipotent, it has the power to do
>> anything, including the power to prevent evil from
>> existing.
>>   
>> [C]    God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
>>   
>> Therefore,
>>   
>> [D]    God would prevent evil from existing.
>>   
>> Therefore,
>>   
>> [1]    Evil does not exist.
>>   
>>    
>> On the other hand:
>>   
>> [E]    Babies dying of leukemia screaming in agony
>> is an evil.
>> [F]    Old folks unable to control their bowels is
>> an evil.
>> [G]    The extermination by Hitler of about
>> 6,000,000 Jews is an evil.
>> [H]    Repeatedly raping then murdering a young
>> child is an evil.
>>   
>> Therefore,
>>   
>> [2]    Evil exists.
>>   
>>   
>> Note that [1] and [2] are contradictory, hence one
>> or the other is false.
>>   
>> In my opinion, given the ordinary usage of the word
>> "evil", only someone quite delusional would deny [E]
>> - [H], their basis in fact, and therefore [2].
>>   
>> Hence, [1] [Evil does not exist] is false.
>>   
>> Therefore, since [A] and [B] are merely and clearly
>> definitions, then [C] God is omnibenevolent and
>> omnipotent is also false.
>>   
>>   
>> Notice again please, this is not an argument for the
>> nonexistence of all alleged gods.  It is only a
>> demonstration that a alleged omnibenevolent,
>> omnipotent god cannot exist (just as a person with
>> exactly 1 arm and exactly five arms cannot exist). 
>> For example, the god of the Zoroastrians is not
>> claimed to be omnipotent.  Unlike the definition of
>> most Christian sects' god,the problem of evil does
>> not disprove (nor give any probability for) the
>> Zoroastrian's god's existence.
>>   
>>   
>> Also please note that if it is alleged that some god
>> is omnipotent, then that god has the power to
>> deceive or to prevent any knowledge of itself.  That
>> means, that those who allege an omnipotent (or even
>> a vastly powerful god) are prevented from certain or
>> even probable knowledge thereof, since there is no
>> way of knowing whether they are being deceived or
>> are in error.  [Although ignorance, hubris, 
>> egomania, and/or megalomania do not prevent some
>> from asserting their superiority to their alleged
>> omnipotent god by claiming certain or probable
>> knowledge of it/her/him.]
>>   
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> deco at moscow.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>   From: Michael 
>>   To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
>>   Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:30 PM
>>   Subject: [Vision2020] Is John Calvin an
>> Intolerista?
>> 
>> 
>>   Wayne,
>> 
>>    
>> 
>>   That was a good summary of the argument from the
>> problem of evil.  However, over the last decade or
>> so most philosophers (as I hear) have been uneasy
>> with such a deductive approach.  The reason is that,
>> well, 
> === message truncated ===>
> _____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step
>> Internet, 
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>>  
>>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>>    
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________ 
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051102/72d7ec51/attachment-0001.htm