<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Joe, et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Joe quotes Doug Jones:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>"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."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There are several problems with this view.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[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."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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?
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If there is a god, then the evidence points to that god being
a sadistic jokester. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There are several other problems with goodness as an
unchangeable part of some alleged god's nature</FONT> <FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: <</FONT><A href="mailto:josephc@mail.wsu.edu"><FONT
size=4>josephc@mail.wsu.edu</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:11 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Subject: [Vision2020] Re: More Qualified
Writer</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=4>> Thank you for clarifying
your remarks, Doug. Thanks to Wayne, Saundra, and<BR>> Scott also for tying
to set Doug straight. Let me give it a try.<BR>> <BR>> You say, Doug, that
I am guilty of a false dilemma but you are wrong about<BR>> this. For one
thing, you have confused my claim with Socrates's dilemma,<BR>> phrased above
as a question by Wayne (as it was originally phrased in<BR>> Plato's
Euthyphro): "Is something good purely because God says so or does<BR>> God
say so because it is good"?<BR>> <BR>> As you and Wayne both note, my
claim is based on this dilemma but my claim<BR>> is not a dilemma, it is a
conditional statement: If one accepts that the<BR>> Divine Command Theory
(DCT) is true, then one is a relativist, for in that<BR>> case "goodness is
an arbitrary judgment of God," as Wayne notes. This is<BR>> putting forth
only one horn of the dilemma, so to speak.<BR>> <BR>> Furthermore, Doug,
you are simply wrong when you suggest that your essay,<BR>> "Euthyphro
Droning," shows that Socrates's dilemma is a "false dilemma."<BR>> Your essay
is not an endorsement of DCT. It is an endorsement of a<BR>> related, though
quite different, view. You write: "Instead of speaking<BR>> about God's will
determining morality, we would be more correct to say<BR>> that God's own
(not independent) unchanging (not arbitrary) nature<BR>> determines the
standards of good and evil." You admit that DCT is wrong.<BR>> It is neither
God's word or God's will alone that determines morality, on<BR>> your view,
but God's nature. This is a clear rejection of one horn of<BR>> Socrates's
dilemma, the one that both he and I reject. Alone it does not<BR>> prove that
Socrates's dilemma is false, since the view is consistent with<BR>> the other
horn of Socrates's dilemma.<BR>> <BR>> Lastly, the move to the God's
nature view of morality (GN) that you<BR>> endorse is problematic for a few
reasons. First, the very same move is<BR>> open to other ethical theorists
(something you even seem to acknowledge at<BR>> the end of your essay). Hume,
for instance, can say that the unchanging,<BR>> non-arbitrary sentiment of
human beings determines the standards of good<BR>> and evil. If this move is
less attractive than your own, I'd like to know<BR>> why.<BR>> <BR>>
Second, DCT has a nice view about the truth-makers of moral claims that<BR>>
your theory clearly lacks. What, for example, makes it the case that<BR>>
masturbation is wrong? DCT has an easy answer: It is so written! Hume
has<BR>> an easy answer, too: Masturbation is not wrong, for it is not found
to be<BR>> distasteful by all human beings. According to GN, the wrongness
of<BR>> masturbation somehow manifests itself in God's nature. How is this
so?<BR>> <BR>> Third, GN seems to strip scripture of its moral authority.
It is no longer<BR>> enough to show that it is so written in order to prove
that something is<BR>> wrong. A further step is required. One must now show
the connection<BR>> between the claim of wrongness and the nature of God.
Good luck with this<BR>> endeavor!<BR>> <BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT
size=4>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>
<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>
<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>