[Vision2020] Re: More Qualified Writer

[Art Deco]

Joe, et al,

Joe quotes Doug Jones:

"Instead of speaking about God's will determining morality, we would be more correct to say that God's own (not independent) unchanging (not arbitrary) nature determines the standards of good and evil."

There are several problems with this view.

[1]    Assuming for the sake of argument that the quoted sentence is a knowledge claim (instead of a pseudo-knowledge claim like "Blue kisses justice"), then what evidence can be adduced to demonstrate that the claim is true?  As Joe says, "Good luck."

We do not quibble over the gravitational constant, the relation of the area of a circle to its radius, or that the agent that causes shingles is a herpes virus.  However, when it comes to statements about the qualities of some alleged god, where is the evidence? There is no agreement about these qualities.  Worst yet, where is any acceptable method of coming to an agreement?  

Any crackpot can make statements about the qualities of some alleged god without fear of being disconfirmed.  Even if the crackpot's statements are contradictory, she/he can always stoop to asserting statements about their alleged god are beyond logic.
   
    
[2]    By postulating/asserting the infinite (or even the superior) power of some alleged god, then one is prevented from knowing any of the other qualities of said alleged god.  A god with superior powers would have the power to deceive anyone about his true nature, including his alleged goodness.

In fact, going on the basis of evidence available, this is exactly what is happening.  Many deluded persons believe that their alleged god is good.  However, a look at the amount of human and animal suffering -- the outcome of the actions of these alleged gods and allegedly within their total control -- argues invincibly against such a view.

If there is a god, then the evidence points to that god being a sadistic jokester.  

This situation parallels that of Pavlov's experiments on induced neurosis.  Dogs are positively conditioned by food bits (the good) by pressing a lever when an oval appears.  Then the dogs are adversely reinforced (avoidance) with an electric shock (the evil) by pressing the lever when a circle appears.  Then the oval is gradually transformed becoming closer and closer to a circle!  At some point when the meaning of the figure starts to become too ambiguous, the dogs develop neurosis.  The closer the figure comes to a circle, the deeper the neurosis.

There are thousands and thousands of different religions;  their individual variants probably push this number into the billions.  Each belief is contradictory in part to each other belief.  Among the believers of most of these religions are those that are convinced that their belief is the only true one and that everyone else is wrong and SOL.  

Each different believer basis their belief on certain "signs" (writings, alleged miracles, UFOs, etc) whose origin and "meaning" is attributed to their alleged god.  None of these beliefs about the nature and intent of alleged gods is verifiable or disconfirmable.  The worst part is that these fanatic (neurotic) believers use their superstitious beliefs to attempt, many times successfully, to proscribe the actions and the curtailment of freedom of others who do not share their superstitions.

If there is a god, then it/she/he is running Pavlov's neurosis experiments!  It/she/he is deliberately sending confusing, ambiguous "signs" and mixing in a whole lot of suffering with the better things in life in what seems to be a very arbitrary manner.  It/she/he is playing with us in a very sadistic, cruel manner not unlike Pavlov's experiments on induced neurosis.  The evidence of mass suffering and torment and the welter of different contradictory religious views support this view in an unimpeachable manner.
  
[3]    By saying that some alleged god's nature is unchanging, that alleged god is being castrated/spayed.  It/she/he lacks the power to change.


There are several other problems with goodness as an unchangeable part of some alleged god's nature but the above, especially [1] and [2] should be enough to suffice, and to affirm that the apodictic believers, like Pavlov's dogs, are suffering ailments similar to, if not worse than, the ailments of those poor neurotic dogs.

Cheers,

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





----- Original Message ----- 
From: <josephc at mail.wsu.edu>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:11 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Re: More Qualified Writer


> Thank you for clarifying your remarks, Doug. Thanks to Wayne, Saundra, and
> Scott also for tying to set Doug straight. Let me give it a try.
> 
> You say, Doug, that I am guilty of a false dilemma but you are wrong about
> this. For one thing, you have confused my claim with Socrates's dilemma,
> phrased above as a question by Wayne (as it was originally phrased in
> Plato's Euthyphro): "Is something good purely because God says so or does
> God say so because it is good"?
> 
> As you and Wayne both note, my claim is based on this dilemma but my claim
> is not a dilemma, it is a conditional statement: If one accepts that the
> Divine Command Theory (DCT) is true, then one is a relativist, for in that
> case "goodness is an arbitrary judgment of God," as Wayne notes. This is
> putting forth only one horn of the dilemma, so to speak.
> 
> Furthermore, Doug, you are simply wrong when you suggest that your essay,
> "Euthyphro Droning," shows that Socrates's dilemma is a "false dilemma."
> Your essay is not an endorsement of DCT. It is an endorsement of a
> related, though quite different, view. You write: "Instead of speaking
> about God's will determining morality, we would be more correct to say
> that God's own (not independent) unchanging (not arbitrary) nature
> determines the standards of good and evil." You admit that DCT is wrong.
> It is neither God's word or God's will alone that determines morality, on
> your view, but God's nature. This is a clear rejection of one horn of
> Socrates's dilemma, the one that both he and I reject. Alone it does not
> prove that Socrates's dilemma is false, since the view is consistent with
> the other horn of Socrates's dilemma.
> 
> Lastly, the move to the God's nature view of morality (GN) that you
> endorse is problematic for a few reasons. First, the very same move is
> open to other ethical theorists (something you even seem to acknowledge at
> the end of your essay). Hume, for instance, can say that the unchanging,
> non-arbitrary sentiment of human beings determines the standards of good
> and evil. If this move is less attractive than your own, I'd like to know
> why.
> 
> Second, DCT has a nice view about the truth-makers of moral claims that
> your theory clearly lacks. What, for example, makes it the case that
> masturbation is wrong? DCT has an easy answer: It is so written! Hume has
> an easy answer, too: Masturbation is not wrong, for it is not found to be
> distasteful by all human beings. According to GN, the wrongness of
> masturbation somehow manifests itself in God's nature. How is this so?
> 
> Third, GN seems to strip scripture of its moral authority. It is no longer
> enough to show that it is so written in order to prove that something is
> wrong. A further step is required. One must now show the connection
> between the claim of wrongness and the nature of God. Good luck with this
> endeavor!
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050920/d73b6576/attachment-0001.htm