the god excuse and other stories

Some sheeple having read Dawkins’ God Delusion felt obliged to write him a letter to express what he thought he, Dawkins, did not get right.

This sheep is for once quite charitable. He is not wishing Dawkins a painful death and other niceties the godcultists are known to promise all heretics and blasphemers.

The sheep, for lack of space of time addresses three areas of disagreement with the book.

  1. Dawkins is wrong about faith. He says faith is belief with evidence. Why call it faith then?
  2. Evolution. I don’t understand evolution, so you are wrong.
  3. Divine command theory. Here there are several arguments

a. read the bybowl in context

b. foreign language for example in biblical times kill all the children didn’t mean kill. It meant slaughter, you get what I mean?

c. god’s hand was forced. After giving his creation 1000 yrs to change, he became impatient and felt killing was the way to go.

I don’t know how a rational person can believe this.

On the other stories, IB, writing about the rational atheist almost shocks me that for once she has seen the light only to finish her post thus

So, I am a firm advocate of the non reasonable, the illogical, the emotional, the Spirit led.

and this is just after she wrote, bold face by us, ignore that she talks to god and he answers such trivial issues as what to do with a book,

Then God quietly asked, why are you allowing someone who calls himself the Voice of God and a Supreme Dark Lord  define what is rational? And in that moment I realized that atheism really is quite rational, logical, and reason based. It is actually Vox Day who is emotionally driven, irrational, his broken bits cloaked behind a mask of intellectualism, moral superiority, and reason. Trapped in a deception he cannot even see. Irrational, emotional, rhetorical.

And friends, had she stopped there, I would have toasted to her.

Divine command theory

James has written a comment on his blog to clear any questions I might have with DCT.  Unfortunately, I find his attempt unsuccessful and if you can bear with me, I will explain in a minute. In order that he doesn’t claim I have misrepresented him, I will use his definition of DCT and work from there.

He writes

The Divine Command Theory (DCT) essentially teaches that a thing (i.e., action, behavior, choice, etc.) is good because God commands it to be done or evil because God forbids it from being done. Thus, to say that it is good to love our neighbors is semantically equivalent to saying God commands us to love our neighbors. Similarly, it is evil to commit murder because God forbids murder.

My contention is that man doesn’t conceive his god as good or bad. The god idea, originating from our primitive past and from people mainly practical isn’t conceived as good or bad. The primitive person has her/ his god answering to a particular purpose. Either it is the community preserver, avenger among others but never as a good or bad god. The idea that god is good is, I contend, a recent idea. I think it is a christian idea.

The god of the Jews, the one we find in the old testament is not anything close to good but is practical. If the Israelites want to grab land, they have him support it with Thus says the lord.. when Joshua wants to justify rapine, he has his god endorse it. When Abraham wanted to sacrifice his son, he had his god command it. There is nowhere in this instances god being conceived as a moral agent.

It seems to James is ignoring the very basis of morality, human association. To keep insisting god this or that doesn’t bring us any closer to resolving how it is we should act. Our only guide is reason and not revelation.

The rest of his post is what I can only describe as balderdash, an attempt to make sense of the absurd. And if there is any difference between TB’s position and James, it is one of degree not of kind. They both believe, god is good. God commands good. They both have no way of showing what god has commanded isn’t good. TB is consistent and honest.

Divine Command Theory

my foot!

Here is WLC opening his mouth to exchange shoes on morality. He was asked what one were to do if the IS god is the one true god and it commanded rapine and murder if you hold DCT to be true. He starts by deflecting the issue by questioning the emotional status of the person asking the query.

I am going to lift a few of his quotes here and you can read the rest for yourself.

He writes, with emphasis by us

Most divine command theorists are non-voluntarists who hold that moral values are not grounded in God’s will but in His nature. Moral duties are grounded in His will or commands; but moral values are prior to His will, since God’s own nature is not something invented by God. Since His will is not independent of His nature but must express His nature, it is logically impossible for Him to issue certain sorts of commands. In order to do so, He would have to have a different nature, which is logically impossible.

And we must ask whether he admits that if his god exists, it cannot have free will. And in some sectors, theologians have said the nature of god is unknowable, me wonders how Craig has come to this knowledge and two is who invented god’s nature?

Craig the goes ahead to say

It is logically impossible that there be any other God. So if you were mistaken and believed in the wrong God, you would be a Muslim or a Hindu or a polytheist or what have you; but there wouldn’t be another God. Remember: on perfect being theology, God is a maximally great being, a being which is worthy of worship. Lesser beings are not “Gods” at all. In fact, in my debates with Muslim theologians, this is one of the arguments I use against the Islamic conception of God: that Allah cannot be the greatest conceivable being because he is not all-loving and therefore cannot be God.

And we must ask why is it logically impossible that there be any other god? What criteria does Craig use to arrive at the conclusion that the christian god is the only one and the right one to boot. Please god, I want such powers of cognition as Craig does! Amen. While still on this matter, JZ asked if being worshiped is to be seen as a virtue or vice. And how is YHWH all loving when we hear there are two paths, one to damnation and the other to the pearly gates? or are these lies to keep people in church?

And I think this

The idea is that moral values are based in God, but if your concept of God is inadequate, then your ethics are going to be messed up. The problem lies in a defective concept of God.

explains why those who are so steeped in belief and faith are not useful to the society. I am waiting to hear the one believer who will give a logically coherent definition of god. Am patient, I will wait.

In the end Craig brushes the problem away by making a claim that only his god is god, the rest are defective conceptions of god. I hope he will give us reasonable answers to how he comes to this conclusion without obfuscation and a wave of the hand.

Professor Coyne has written on this here.