[Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Jun 2 21:23:09 PDT 2013
Donovan,
I don't think you understand the argument. You assume I am just retelling
the problem of evil but that is just part of the story. That's why you
think I'm making assumptions about God's moral obligations. I'm not.
The argument I am giving fits the form of a constructive dilemma. In this
argument, you assert a dilemma (a true "or" sentence) and then claim that
if the first horn of the dilemma is true, then a certain claim follows, and
if the second horn is true, the same claim follows. This argument has one
disjunction and two conditionals. It doesn't make any assumptions. It tries
to show you that even if you exhaust the arguments, you come to the same
conclusion. Here's the argument.
1/ Either we should morally evaluate God's -- the God of traditional
theism's actions, to be precise -- actions according to the same standards
that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according
to different standards.
2/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by human standards, traditional
theism is problematic (since God seems guilty of negligence at the very
least). [This is a point Nick made in the article that sparked this
discussion.]
3/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by other standards, traditional
theism is problematic (I talked about this in detail in several of my
posts).
4/ Therefore, traditional theism is problematic.
Note it is not an argument for atheism; it is an argument against a
particular kind of theism.
Best, Joe
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> wrote:
> I UNDERSTAND you. Heard this argument before in Ethics and Logic classes,
> several times. It is a very narrow view of God. It is you that aren't
> following us. You are so busy explaining your view, you don't listen to the
> answer.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 4:52 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
> **
> @Joe,**
> I think it a reasonable inference that Donovan did not read, or if he did,
> did not understand the article you referenced.****
> w.**
>
> ****
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> Joe,
>
> Yes, you are making moral claims about God's obligations. And because He
> doesn't meet your understanding, you falsely conclude He must be immoral if
> He does exist.
>
> God's obligations are not the same as my own. I am morally responsible for
> saving a baby if I can without harm to myself or another. If God was too, I
> would no longer be. Why? Because I would know God would save the baby, or
> not even put the baby in danger in the first place. So would not exhaust
> the effort or loss, nor endure the experience of trying to save a baby.
> That opportunity, experience and effort to save a life would be lost. This
> is what helps define us as human, to love and sacrifice for another human.
> This loss and suffering for one another is how we come to know God and
> understand Him.
>
> The loss of the living flesh is not the same to God, because He doesn't
> lose anybody, He transforms them, He is always with them.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:23 AM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
> **
> I didn't make any claims about God's moral obligations. I was trying to
> carry YOUR logic full circle. ****Don't you think it is odd that God
> isn't obligated to (say) save a drowning baby during a hurricane (to use
> one example)? If you were standing next to a pool and a baby fell in the
> pool and all you had to do was lean over and pick it up, wouldn't you do
> that? Wouldn't you be properly blamed for failing to do so? Of course, for
> God (who is omnipotent) every act is as easy as leaning over and picking up
> a baby. Certainly it doesn't deprive the baby of his humanity simply
> because you saved his life. I'm not sure why God's prevention of (say)
> particularly heinous evils or suffering would deprive us of being human. *
> * **
> But what is worse is ultimately this view seems to leave you with a
> worthless God, or it ends up causing more mysteries than it attempts to
> solve. For either is totally inactive in worldly events (for the reason you
> give: saving everyone all the time would deprive us of our humanity) OR God
> picks and chooses who he saves and when. Why? How could a benevolent
> creature do that? Well, we don't know. People say things like "The Lord
> works in mysterious ways!" I'm not sure why one would go to the trouble of
> trying to solve one mystery only to produce others.
> **On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Joe,
>
> Let's carry your logic full circle. If God is obligated to prevent humans
> from dying, suffering, and feeling pain that would make humans incapable of
> dying, suffering, or feeling pain because God controls everything. If
> humans were incapable of dying, suffering, or feeling pain, that would
> change all humans into immortal Gods. In this event, we would no longer be
> humans, and God would have destroyed the existence of all humans. So, God
> has to let our bodies die before we return to him.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2013 10:53 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
> **
>
> If the creation story you are supposing is true, then NO ONE is a (true)
> creator of anything other than God. We are all just characters in God's
> "program." Computer programmers are no more the ultimate cause of their
> programs than parents are of their children. To the extent that computer
> programmers are justified in "killing" their programs by virtue of
> "creating" them -- and this supports the idea that God is justified in
> killing humans -- the same principle should apply to parents, as well. Yet
> it clearly doesn't apply to parents.****Thus, either the principle is
> false (as I maintain) or it is at least not supported by your example. In
> fact, you can't find an example to support the principle since there is
> only one true creator (according to your creation story). Nothing in the
> set of your cumulative life experiences could provide the basis for such a
> principle.****
> Again, I'm just trying to make a point similar to the one that Nick made
> in his original post, or maybe I'm extending that point a bit. Really our
> only understanding of morality comes from the human realm, as your attempt
> to support the principle in question suggests. (I'm not saying morality is
> a human creation, just that our moral understanding is limited by our
> experiences.) If we apply those moral principles to God, then the problem
> of evil suggests that some religious views are problematic. But not all, as
> Nick notes. People try to get around this by making up crazy moral
> principles that give God a unique moral status but it is unclear how those
> principles could be supported. Nick did a good job of showing that some of
> those principles have absurd consequences. My point is that they aren't and
> can't be support by appeal to common sense examples, nor anything else as
> far as I can see.
> ****
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
> **
>
> In my analogy, the parent is just another character in the video game.
> They didn't program it, they just made use of an existing subroutine to
> generate another character. The programmer(s) that made game is a
> different story.
>
> Paul
>
>
> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>** *To:* Paul
> Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> ***Cc:* Scott Dredge <
> scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com> ** *Sent:* Friday,
> May 31, 2013 9:54 PM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
> **
> The "I created it, I can kill it" rule doesn't work for parents, right?
> **On May 31, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> wrote:** **
>
> The way I view it, since God created the universe and everything in it,
> then if anyone has the right to kill one of the denizens therein, God
> does. Especially since, to Him, He's just moving us from one place to
> another (earth to heaven or hell). It would be like saying that a computer
> programmer doesn't have the right to kill off the characters in the video
> game he's writing.** **Paul**
>
>
> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 6:16 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
> **
> You are confusing descriptive facts about the world (what is the case)
> with norms (what should be the case).
> **On May 30, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:** **
>
> 'Might makes right' is irrespective of a belief in God. It's an
> irrefutable fact of life, the universe, and everything. It holds true for
> your rhetorical question of 'can [God] not take our bodies away at will'
> and Joe's scenario about killing your own dog if you so choose. It doesn't
> really matter one wit if someone deems that someone else 'has no right' to
> do something. All that some else (or entity) needs is means, motive,
> opportunity, and - above all else - the power to do it.** **
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:50:04 -0700**From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com*
> *Subject: Re: RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)** To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com;
> scooterd408 at hotmail.com**CC: vision2020 at moscow.com** **
> Only if you don't believe in God.
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> **
> * From: * Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; ** * To: * Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; philosopher.joe at gmail.com <
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; ** * Cc: * viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>; ** *
> Subject: * RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?) ** * Sent: * Fri, May 31, 2013 1:37:55 AM **
> **
> Might makes right.****
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 00:41:29 -0700**From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com*
> * To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com**CC: vision2020 at moscow.com**Subject: Re:
> [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)** **
> Didn't say kill it Joe. We didn't create dogs we simple capture them and
> call them our own. We do modify the bodies of dogs. And we do kill our pets
> and other animals under conditions we deem proper.
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> **
> * From: * Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; ** * To: * Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; ** * Cc: * Nicholas Gier <
> ngier006 at gmail.com>; vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; ** * Subject: *Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)
> ** * Sent: * Wed, May 29, 2013 4:55:07 PM **
> **
> Donovan asks: "... since we are also the property of God, can he not take
> our bodies away at will?"
>
> No. Even if you own a dog, you can't just kill it because you want to do
> so. Sorry.
> ****
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> I don't think God punishes us with tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and
> volcanic eruptions. Most of these deaths are almost 100% human fault. We
> know where floods, earthquakes and volcanoes are located, yet choose to
> still build crappy buildings and live there. Tornado deaths are now usually
> the fault of global warming, caused by humans, and the collapse of
> buildings, built by humans in tornado prone areas. God doesn't create the
> deadly situation, humans do. Any human saved from the consequences of
> human action can be considered an act of God. However, let us also consider
> that since we are also the property of God, can he not take our bodies away
> at will? To God, nothing dies, it just changes shape and location. Only in
> our minds is the death of someone a loss.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
> **
> *From:* Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 10:51 AM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
> **
> Good Morning Visionaries:
> **
> I dusted off this exercise in the philosophy of religion from the time of
> Katrina and I'm reissuing it once again.
> **
> One Oklahoma official said that it was wonderful that God saved those who
> survived. But if God was the cause of the storm, then why didn't he save
> those who did not make it? I address the issue of Satan below.
> **
> The problem of evil and the very unsatisfactory answer from the Abrahamic
> religions is one of the primary reasons why good, rational people become
> atheists.
> **
> On this Memorial Day I send out my own tribute to those were served, and
> also those, such as Rosie the Riveter and my UP train master father, who
> made sure that war machines were built and that those machines and soldiers
> got to where they were needed.
> **
> Nick
> **
> *THE GOOD LORD JUST DONE GAVE US A WHUPPIN’!*
> *NATURAL DISASTERS AS THE WRATH OF GOD?*
> I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.**
> ~Isaiah 45:7 (Anchor Bible)
> Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the wicked
> get away with murder and the innocent die in disasters such as tornadoes,
> hurricanes, and terrorist attacks? **
> After Katrina hit, a man gave this explanation to NPR: “The
> Good Lord just done gave us a whuppin’.” This is the Pat Robertson
> answer: all of us are being punished for the sins of homosexuals,
> abortionists, and their liberal supporters. Most of us, however, are
> repulsed by such an outrageous and poisonous diagnosis.
> In Agatha Christie’s *Then There Were None*, one of the
> characters opines that those who had been murdered were “struck down of the
> wrath of God.” Justice Wargrave was not convinced: “Providence leaves the
> work of conviction and chastisement to us mortals.”
> Justice Wargrave is a good Confucian in holding a doctrine of
> General Providence. In this view, held also by Presidents Washington and
> Lincoln, God presides over a world that operates by natural laws and in
> which humans govern their own affairs.
> On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions--Judaism,
> Christianity, and Islam-- believe in Special Providence. This means that
> God chooses particular prophets or saviors that embody divine authority,
> and God then intervenes in history as an expression of divine will and
> judgment.
> There is a difference between moral evils and natural
> evils. The first is the result of humans choosing to do good or evil. For
> orthodox Christians the prototypical moral evil was Adam and Eve’s choice
> to disobey God in the Garden of Eden.
> Natural or physical evil is defined as that which is not the result of any
> human will: disease (both physical and mental) and natural disasters. In a
> theology in which God is all powerful, it must be God who wills these
> conditions and events to happen.
> Recently some Christian legislators in Oklahoma tried to change the
> language of their insurance law, which called natural disasters “acts of
> God.” For them Satan was the cause of all evil, and they thought it was
> blasphemy to make God responsible for these horrible events.
> Orthodox Christians, however, have always rejected the heresy of
> Manicheanism, a view that undermines God’s power by holding that there is
> another cosmic power that competes with God.
> Following the Book of Job, where it is clear that Satan operates only with
> the permission and delegated power of God, Christian theologians have
> consistently declared that even Satan is empowered by God. In the end
> Job’s brothers and sisters “comforted him for all the evil the Lord brought
> upon him” (42:11).
> Martin Luther expressed the point most clearly: “Since God moves and does
> all, we must take it that he moves and acts even in Satan and the godless;
> . . . evil things are done with God himself setting them in motion.”
> How do Christian theologians justify God doing evil? Here is one
> rationale: God cannot abide the moral evils committed by humans, so God
> must show that justice must prevail.
> Natural disasters are simply dramatic previews of the Last Judgment, when
> divine justice will finally be done. If God is performing justice, then
> God is doing *good*, not evil. We would call a judge who let all
> criminals off the hook a bad judge, wouldn’t we?
> Let’s take a closer look at this solution to the problem of evil. There
> is something important that has been forgotten.
> When the former Manichee St. Augustine discussed the Fall of Adam and Eve,
> he made a very interesting concession: “Our first parents fell into
> disobedience because they were already secretly corrupted.”
> Adam and Eve were already corrupted because they had “deficient
> wills.” But who was responsible for their deficient wills? They could be
> only if they had created themselves. The only answer is that God created
> them finite, fragile, and corruptible.
> I submit that General Providence is a much more coherent view if people
> are going to continue their belief in God. The Confucians and Stoics also
> believed that God is not a Creator. Rather, God is coeternal with a
> universe that operates according to natural laws and contains rational
> beings that freely choose their own destinies.
> Following Justice Wargrave, we are solely responsible for our own
> “convictions and chastisements.” Louisiana and New Orleans government
> officials are responsible for not being prepared for the big storm they
> knew was coming. And God had nothing to do with it, and she certainly does
> not stand ready with a whip to punish her children.
> Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31
> years.
> **=======================================================** 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**=======================================================
> ****
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
> **
> **======================================================= 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<Vision2020 at moscow.com>=======================================================
>
> **=======================================================** 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**
> =======================================================****
>
> ****
>
> **
> **=======================================================** 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**
> =======================================================****
>
> ****
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
> ******-- **Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)**art.deco.studios at gmail.com** ****
> **=======================================================** 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**
> =======================================================****
>
> =======================================================
> 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/20130602/e7c47bb2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list