tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post3534213948649469526..comments2024-03-28T07:08:58.221-04:00Comments on Todd Seavey: Book Selection of the Month: "The Irrational Atheist" by Vox DayTodd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-9129315067673427562008-02-15T00:07:00.000-05:002008-02-15T00:07:00.000-05:00People who rely on their admittedly limited, subje...People who rely on their admittedly limited, subjective moral senses are deemed inferior; but, what’s the offered alternative? Just follow orders, unquestioningly. Of course, upon whose authority do you choose, say, these orders instead of those orders? Upon your own, subjective, limited authority, of course. And so, what goes around comes around, the difference being that one moral perspective can ultimately expand within the framework of human thought and experience, while the other lies static and stagnant, being based upon unchanging, primitive pronouncements by some who said they spoke for God. Sounds a lot like the difference between science and religion to me.jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-62816929755217505902008-02-13T10:39:00.000-05:002008-02-13T10:39:00.000-05:00I’d love to demonstrate why your refutation of Eut...I’d love to demonstrate why your refutation of Euthyphro is embarrassing, Vox, but unfortunately you appear to have banned me from your blog and your forums. This is because you welcome open debate and you like it when people challenge your position.<br><br>Your “refutation” is embarrassing because – like many of your arguments – it relies on deliberately misinterpreting what Socrates means by “piety”, and then deliberately conflating two different meanings of the word “love”. This is popularly known as a “straw man” argument, and is one of your favourite tactics. Anybody who wishes to see evidence for this can read the section in question themselves, and judge for themselves.<br><br>Incidentally, the accusation that I call into question the intellectual capacity of other people is dreadfully ironic and faintly amusing. I’m not the one who has just published an entire book predicated on calling other people’s intellectual capacity into question.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-36085921994988263862008-02-12T00:32:00.000-05:002008-02-12T00:32:00.000-05:00Blogger wrote, “You’ve returned to the initial poi...Blogger wrote, “You’ve returned to the initial point in an effort to rehash your position.”<br><br>Yes, I’ve returned to my initial point to rehash my position because no one has addressed it to my satisfaction.<br><br>Blogger quotes Karl Rahner: “‘Anyone who is just looking for religious inspiration and shies away from the demands of patient, laborious, and at times tedious reflection should not enter into this investigation.”<br><br>I can quote people too:<br><br>“So what are we left with? A collection of assertions about the ultimate nature of existence that are riddled with contradictions, defy reason and logic, convey no intelligible meaning, invalidate our consciousness, destroy our concept of reality–and that we are meant to take seriously while being told our limited development makes it impossible for us to understand them. If one does not have have an intellectual inferiority complex and is not easily intimidated, this is not impressive.” –Nathaniel BrandenRussell Hannekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-67661790652666208522008-02-11T21:49:00.000-05:002008-02-11T21:49:00.000-05:00You’ve returned to the initial point in an effort ...You’ve returned to the initial point in an effort to rehash your position. If it is God’s Game, God’s Rule, He gets to establish the order of preference. If you wish to know what theists think, read theologists, not bloggers or religious writers.<br><br>The “simplicity” is not incoherent as it has been well understood for close to 900 years (perhaps “able to be well understood by those that apply themselves”: “Anyone who is just looking for religious inspiration and shies away from the demands of patient, laborious, and at times tedious reflection should not enter into this investigation.” Karl Rahner)Bloggernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-26533411932608378932008-02-11T21:29:00.000-05:002008-02-11T21:29:00.000-05:00“If God’s rules are established as the objective m...“If God’s rules are established as the objective morality, it may or may not be moral to do what someone threatening you demands, you have to make the (prudent) choice, perhaps leading to martyrdom.”<br><br>I suppose. The question is, if God existed, would His rules be an objective moral code? Or would His code just embody another set of preferences, albeit the preferences of someone very powerful?<br><br>I see no necessary reason to believe the former. Which is why I don’t see why so many theists think the existence of God would be both necessary and sufficient to establish the existence of objective morality.<br><br>“The ’simplicity of God’ is that His Goodness, His Will, His Existence, etc are all the same thing.”<br><br>That is incoherent.Russell Hannekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-53339164572435042512008-02-11T21:12:00.000-05:002008-02-11T21:12:00.000-05:00“In the same way, it might be prudent to obey anyo...“In the same way, it might be prudent to obey anyone who has power over you, whether he be a prison guard, kidnapper, terrorist, policeman, bureaucrat, parent, etc. That doesn’t mean that it’s immoral to disobey, or that the person who has power over you has provided the basis for an objective moral code. It just means someone else’s will is a fact you have to consider when you’re figuring out how to get what you want.”<br><br>If God’s rules are established as the objective morality, it may or may not be moral to do what someone threatening you demands, you have to make the (prudent) choice, perhaps leading to martyrdom.<br><br>“I don’t understand what simplicity has to do with goodness.”<br><br>The “simplicity of God” is that His Goodness, His Will, His Existence, etc are all the same thing. This resolves your last point as well.Bloggernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-56353462800282463372008-02-11T21:04:00.000-05:002008-02-11T21:04:00.000-05:00“Go with hedonism, or happiness, or avoiding pain,...“Go with hedonism, or happiness, or avoiding pain, or whatever else has been posited as ‘good’. Then what is moral is what gives you eternal reward and immoral is the opposite, that which doesn’t.”<br><br>Yes, if God existed, obedience to His rules might be an instrumental good, in that it might help you get something you wanted, or avoid something you didn’t want.<br><br>In the same way, it might be prudent to obey anyone who has power over you, whether he be a prison guard, kidnapper, terrorist, policeman, bureaucrat, parent, etc. That doesn’t mean that it’s immoral to disobey, or that the person who has power over you has provided the basis for an objective moral code. It just means someone else’s will is a fact you have to consider when you’re figuring out how to get what you want.<br><br>“Take as the axiom the simplicity of God. Then His existence and goodness are one in the same, thus, we have an objective morality.”<br><br>I don’t understand what simplicity has to do with goodness.<br><br>In any case, if you want to define “God” as an objective moral good that we all ought to seek, then you’ve “proved” (in a tautologous fashion) that “God,” if it existed, would be the basis for an objective morality. But you’ve done so by sacrificing the usual notion of “God,” the one that theists and atheists argue over. The word “God” does not normally refer to some sort of end state to be attained or maximized.Russell Hannekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-11477145004394460112008-02-11T20:24:00.000-05:002008-02-11T20:24:00.000-05:00Fine. Take as the axiom the simplicity of God. The...Fine. Take as the axiom the simplicity of God. Then His existence and goodness are one in the same, thus, we have an objective morality.<br><br>Or don’t take that axiom. Go with hedonism, or happiness, or avoiding pain, or whatever else has been posited as “good”. Then what is moral is what gives you eternal reward and immoral is the opposite, that which doesn’t.<br><br>Regardless:<br><br>As stated, you are free to determine your own morality (Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil…), but you won’t necessarily be judged on it…in the God’s Game, God’s Rules (↠objective morality) scenario.Bloggernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-49413776134999258362008-02-11T19:33:00.000-05:002008-02-11T19:33:00.000-05:00Sure, if God existed, He would be in a position to...Sure, if God existed, He would be in a position to deal out worse punishment than I can.<br><br>So what you’re saying is that it would be prudent for me to follow God’s rules, assuming I don’t want to suffer. Fine, but that’s not the same thing as saying it’s <em>immoral</em> not to follow God’s rules, or that God provides a basis for objective morality.Russell Hannekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-52606039705594131182008-02-11T19:13:00.000-05:002008-02-11T19:13:00.000-05:00Of course you are free to decide that God’s rules ...Of course you are free to decide that God’s rules of morality don’t apply to you (another one of God’s rules and a decision once made in a certain garden), but the rules of God’s game always will.Bloggernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-67866197989390157542008-02-11T19:09:00.000-05:002008-02-11T19:09:00.000-05:00“I can make a rule that says you’re obligated to f...“I can make a rule that says you’re obligated to follow my rules. I could also threaten to hurt you if you don’t follow my rules. That doesn’t mean you’re obligated–in an objective moral sense–to follow my rules.”<br><br>The difference between your rules and God’s rules are that (assuming the existence of God, which this scenario is) God’s rules have eternal consequences whereas yours only have temporal ones. Violating your rules may carry a threat to one’s life in this world, but if God’s rules were obeyed, eternal reward would be granted (one of God’s rules). Choosing to obey your rules in this life may grant prosperity, but if it violates God’s rules, eternal punishment follows (another of God’s rules).<br><br>You may respond that ’since God doesn’t exist, His rules don’t apply’, but in the “God’s game, God’s rules” scenario, He does exist and His rules do apply.Bloggernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-49162166865683134002008-02-11T16:39:00.000-05:002008-02-11T16:39:00.000-05:00I can make a rule that says you’re obligated to fo...I can make a rule that says you’re obligated to follow my rules. I could also threaten to hurt you if you don’t follow my rules. That doesn’t mean you’re obligated–in an objective moral sense–to follow my rules.Russell Hannekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-3556373368517202172008-02-11T15:59:00.000-05:002008-02-11T15:59:00.000-05:00How does that imply I am somehow obligated to foll...<i>How does that imply I am somehow obligated to follow those rules?</i><br><br>Maybe because one of the rules is that you are obligated to follow the rules, or else suffer the consequences?JohnMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-36696763782534849222008-02-11T15:01:00.000-05:002008-02-11T15:01:00.000-05:00Vox wrote, “To put it crudely, if God did create u...Vox wrote, “To put it crudely, if God did create us, then the law God’s Game, God’s Rules applies.”<br><br>I’m not sure what “applies” means here, unless you’re begging the question. Let’s suppose that God exists, He created me, and He made up some rules. How does that imply I am somehow obligated to follow those rules? Anyone can make up games and rules.Russell Hannekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-13386884620930173892008-02-11T12:50:00.000-05:002008-02-11T12:50:00.000-05:00Todd, perhaps I should explain. Merkur is a stran...Todd, perhaps I should explain. Merkur is a strange individual who has been repeatedly banned from commenting at my blog. He has taken up the quixotic jihad of following links and sharing his unique views with everyone who will listen. You’ll note that he doesn’t actually write anything of substance, but instead is content to call into question your intellectual capacity and that of everyone else who happens to see any merit in the book.<br><br>Of course, when called on his claims, he invariably fails to back them up… I, for one, should be very interested to see his demonstration that my refutation of Euthyphro is merely an embarrassing attempt at one.Voxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-72035192820431414262008-02-11T12:37:00.000-05:002008-02-11T12:37:00.000-05:00The first thing stated by nearly every review by n...<i>The first thing stated by nearly every review by nearly every person who has read the book is that it brings a great deal that is new to the discussion.</i><br><br>I fear that this may reflect poorly on the people who read your book, rather than reflect well on the content on the book itself. As I made my way though your attempted refutation of Euthypro, I actually felt embarrassed for you.<br><br>“This ties in with the Game Designer God concept mentioned by Mr. Seavey, that ever-so-common feature of Christian apologetics throughout the ages.”<br><br>I also realise that you think that the “Game Designer God” is somehow incredibly original, but I feel bound to point out that it is really only weak deism with some geek decoration added.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-74693683365705855162008-02-11T07:59:00.000-05:002008-02-11T07:59:00.000-05:00A fair, reasonable and detailed review, Todd. If ...A fair, reasonable and detailed review, Todd. If you don’t mind my attempting to clarify a few things for your readers, I have the following responses for them:<br><br><em>Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to have anything new to add.</em><br><br>You obviously haven’t read the book. The first thing stated by nearly every review by nearly every person who has read the book is that it brings a great deal that is new to the discussion. Among other things, TIA includes a refutation of Euthyphro, which isn’t exactly a major feature of the average apologetic.<br><br><em>I confess I don’t understand the argument that with God there’s an (objective) basis for moral judgments. If God says “X is good, and Y is bad,†what makes His opinion more valid than anyone else’s? </em><br><br>To put it crudely, if God did create us, then the law God’s Game, God’s Rules applies. This ties in with the Game Designer God concept mentioned by Mr. Seavey, that ever-so-common feature of Christian apologetics throughout the ages.<br><br><em>Let round that out with a rigorous study by Creighton University (a Christian university) that correlated level of religiosity with societal health. Religion fails.</em><br><br>A study based on comparing historically Christian nations, plus Japan, with each other…. you don’t see the flaw in that? I note that the same basis for comparison will show that increased secularism is bad for science. More importantly, using Sam Harris’s definition of atheism requires substituting Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Laos, and Vietnam for Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. Care to guess how that comparison of social health computes?Voxhttp://voxday.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-39747943296791942782008-02-10T23:38:00.000-05:002008-02-10T23:38:00.000-05:00“More to the point, the poorly-behaved unchurched ...“More to the point, the poorly-behaved unchurched remind me of the stats showing that church attendance itself is correlated with good behavior — but that’s no surprise”<br><br>Let round that out with a rigorous study by Creighton University (a Christian university) that correllated level of religiosity with societal health. Religion fails. The ‘prosperous democracies’ that have the lowest levels of organic atheism had the lowest levels of (their list of) societal ills. The converse was true also. See the study here: <a href="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html" rel="nofollow">http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html</a><br><br>or a nice, graphical summary here:<br><br><a href="http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html</a>Mike (FVThinker) Burnshttp://fvthinker.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-23525822015661600762008-02-10T20:43:00.000-05:002008-02-10T20:43:00.000-05:00“. . . libertarians, whose philosophical common gr...“. . . libertarians, whose philosophical common ground is merely the belief that markets work and government doesn’t . . .”<br><br>Or at least that <a href="http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/10/the-essence-of-.html" rel="nofollow">markets work better than government</a>.<br><br>“. . . the common religious assertion that without God there can be no basis for moral judgments . . .”<br><br>I confess I don’t understand the argument that <em>with</em> God there’s an (objective) basis for moral judgments. If God says “X is good, and Y is bad,” what makes His opinion more valid than anyone else’s?Russell Hannekennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-43978636217667956332008-02-10T15:04:00.000-05:002008-02-10T15:04:00.000-05:00Thanks. It is always hard to find the arguements p...Thanks. It is always hard to find the arguements people advance in their books (theists seem to be allergic to it). Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to have anything new to add. Well, except the flaws in the other guys books, but some of them aren’t flaws and some of them are real interesting (red county, blue county).Samuel Skinnernoreply@blogger.com