On Selfishness
In light of my ongoing discussion with ‘The Unknown’ (which you can read here, and who I’ll refer to simply as ‘TU’), I’ve been giving some thought to the idea that what motivates us most is our selfishness, and that therefore every decision we make — if I’ve understood ‘The Unknown’ correctly — is inherently and necessarily selfish. What follows is a ‘fleshing out’ of my current thoughts.
First things first, what do we mean by selfishness? In his opening reply, TU gave a few examples of how selfishness can be understood: “In the home for example, ‘selfish’ is simply means not doing what the person who uses the word wishes you to do and ironically, ‘unselfish’ is used to mean the exact same thing.” Moreover, “In the religious sense, ‘selfish’ means that you don’t covet the Church’s approval of how you live, or the ‘proper’ way to spend … (Read more)
Responsibility and Blameworthiness
Just this morning I read someone claiming that God had ‘set up’ Adam and Eve to sin, and that therefore He (God) is responsible for the Fall. In reply to this sentiment, I wish to create a distinction between ‘blameworthiness’ and ‘responsibility’.
If God created all things, and nothing came into existence independent of God’s creative work, then it is true (and undeniable) that the ‘snake’ which tempted Eve, Eve herself, and Adam himself, were creations of God. God is responsible for their creation. Does it follow, then, that God is blameworthy for their choices? I say no, He is not. For Adam and Eve, and the snake, were creatures created with (free) moral agency. Possessing moral agency, these creatures are free to obey or disobey, or otherwise act in whatever manner they wish — God has not coerced them to act in a specific way. As such, they are … (Read more)
Further Thoughts on Anselm
See my thoughts on ‘Gaunilo’s Island’ here: http://nascentthinker.org/gaunilos-island/
Lately I’ve been thinking about how absolutely brilliant Anselm’s Ontological Proof actually is. Beyond the popular misconceptions and refutations, I think Anselm really was on to something with his ‘being than which nothing greater can be conceived’. As a result, what follows is an adaptation of a short essay I wrote a little while ago.
Introduction
Charles Hartshorne says of Anselm, “[he] is a philosopher whom it has long been fashionable to discuss, but quite unfashionable to study”[1]. Born in 1033 (at Aosta) and dying in 1109[2], Anselm is best known for his Ontological Argument, with which he attempted to demonstrate the necessary existence of a ‘greatest conceivable being’ (what we generally take to mean ‘God’).
Having already argued for the existence of God in his Monologium, Anselm became increasingly displeased with the complexity of his arguments. [3]… (Read more)
A Problem with Philosophy
I’m starting to notice a trend in the philosophical discourse I’m being exposed to (e.g. through school): “(close to) self-evident,” “assumption,” “this is not an attempt at a comprehensive account of ‘X’”… What is the purpose of philosophical discourse if one is simply going to claim a position self-evident, or close to it? Make assumptions with respect to a position, rather than argue it, and deflect objections with the use of phrases such as, “this isn’t a comprehensive account”?… (Read more)
Eternal Punishment
It struck me late last night that if Hell were only a finite experience, people would still object to it. By that I mean it’s a popular ‘thing’ (right now, at least) to make a case against Hell — and thus, God — on the grounds that the punishment is disproportionate to the ‘crime’, if you will. Why should lying, or theft, or some other “insignificant” sin recieve an eternity of punishment? But as I said last night I realized if I imagined the Christian doctrine of Hell to espouse only a temporary period in Hell (something aking to purgatory, perhaps), then it would be objected that it wasn’t long enough. It’s one thing to argue about lying and theft, it’s quite an easy thing to argue about lying and theft. However it’s something completely different to argue about genocide, murder, rape, etc. If Hell were only temporary, God would … (Read more)
Theology as Confessional?
School has once again begun (last week, actually), so for the next 34 weeks there is absolutely no reason for me to utter the words, “I’ve got nothing to do”. The fact is that I have much to do. And in having much to do, I’ve encountered a rather odd distinction — the distinction between ‘Religious thinking’ and ‘Christian theological thinking’. It is a distinction one of my professors explained to me (stating he was uncomfortable if there was too much Christian theology in my papers, and that I should think and write from a religious perspective, rather than from a Christian theological perspective) for one of my courses. I have to admit I don’t quite get it, and perhaps the issue is one of semantics more than anything. Naturally, I’ve spent some time thinking about what he wrote.
The reason for the distinction is because my professor views Christian theology … (Read more)
Divine Hiddenness
I keep running across the question (or objection, depending on how it’s phrased), “Why does God hide himself?” or “Why does God reveal Himself to some people, but not to others”. In reply my answer is, ‘I’ll have to think about that’. Which in part means that I’m not going to accept out of hand that God hides himself, as I think that presumes too much, namely, that I know every way which God reveals Himself (also that I’m capable of recognizing them). As for why God reveals Himself to some but not to others, well, I think there are a number of reasons for that, probably most common is, “some people aren’t listening”, followed by “God doesn’t exist”.
I’ve also hard it said that if God revealed Himself, He would be doing us a favor by clearing up all our religious confusion and misunderstandings of Him. But according to … (Read more)
Outsider Test for Faith Examined
Recently I began thinking about John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), and I have serious doubts that it’s the ‘tool’ he believes it is. As a reminder (or introduction), the OTF asks believers to, “test [their] beliefs as if [they] were an outsider to the faith [they] are evaluating”… That “if your faith stands up under muster, then you can have your faith. If not, abandon it…” In other words, the OTF asks religious believers to test their beliefs as objectively as possible, with the presumption of skepticism.1 My initial thoughts are as follows:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(1) If as a Christian (or a Jew, or Muslim, etc.) I take the OTF and find my beliefs lacking, and as a result of taking the OTF reject these beliefs, then to what position will I ‘convert’? Supposing my aim was to verify the claims of the Christian religion, then I will … (Read more)
Could I be Wrong?
The following is a fun (well, at least I had fun writing it) dialogue I wrote earlier today on one of the forums I’ve recently stopped regularly frequenting. It concerns the question ‘are you willing to admit you might be wrong?’ The dialogue was written in reply to someone who disagreed with me (did not think such an admission should be made).
-=-=-=-=-
Characters: Socrates, Glaucon
Setting: After speaking with Euthyphro, Socrates is stopped by the Sophist Glaucon, a first year philosophy student who thinks he’s learned it all. Glaucon has heard the accusation that Socrates is corrupting the youth, teaching the young about ‘the God’ and denying the gods of the poets. Glaucon proceeds to examine to Socrates.
Glaucon: Socrates, much has been said of your new god — tell me, how did you come by him? Fancy or intoxication?
Socrates: Examination, of course — “following the argument … (Read more)
Do I Believe in Divine Protection?
John Loftus asks:
Really, do you? Then why is it that God’s divine protection is indistinguishable from chance? And why do you act as if there is none? (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/08/christian-do-you-really-believe-in.html)
Yep, I do.
But here’s a good question: what is chance? One of the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster is,“the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings”. Their other definition (which I like much better) is: “something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause”. As an example; if I throw a piece of dice into the air, we might ask, ‘what are the chances of it landing on six’? (1÷6th) Aside from performing some basic calculations on how many sides to a die there are, we really couldn’t say (I might throw a die as many times as needed, and still not role a six). The ‘chance’ involves how the dice is thrown, … (Read more)
Recent Comments