This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well it's simple:
Is there a higher power to which God is beholden? No. So it's not that.
Is something made good by God arbitrarily saying so? No. So it can't be that either.
Indeed, in Christian thought God cannot even be arbitrary, but is always, by nature, perfect. So anything He says must be in alignment with His perfect nature. So if He calls something good, He's doing so not arbitrarily, but because it is in alignment with His nature.
Therefore, 'goodness' is something like equivalent to 'in alignment with [God's] nature'. And God's nature is not arbitrary, but necessary. It simply is what it is, and could not be anything else.
Flat denial, I say. Refusal to answer an uncomfortable question does not render it invalid.
Even if I were to grant that something by nature perfect exists, I don't see how that is a god, much less your god in particular.
These are two completely different (and sort of contradictory) complaints.
Let me put it this way:
Atheist: We evolved from lower apes.
Fundie: So you say. But did the apes turn into us, in which case there should be no more apes? Or did we evolve from something other than apes, in which case why are we so similar to apes rather than the other thing?
Atheist: ...Some of the apes evolved into humans while others did not.
Fundie: Aha! You are refusing to answer with one of the horns of my lemma. Why even talk to you if you won't answer?
Now,
You: Is it A or B?
Me: Neither, it is C.
You: Aha! You refuse to answer an uncomfortable question!
So that's the first complaint down.
As to the second (where you note that I did in fact answer), I fail to see what your ability to understand the argument has to do with its validity.
And you are definitely misunderstanding, since I'm not arguing that "if something by nature perfect exists it is a god and mine in particular."
My argument is: According to Christian understanding, God's nature is the standard of goodness itself.
To elaborate: God could not be other than what God is, so it's not arbitrary. And there is no other reference frame from which something like 'good' could be evaluated, so it's not external.
Now, you can say that doesn't make sense to you, or you can say that it's a silly thing to believe. That's fine. The point -- the only point here -- is that neither horn of Euthyphro's dilemma is applicable to Christianity in the first place. So expecting me to tell you which of two inapplicable concepts is applicable (let alone correct) is... not productive.
Do you want to eat your cake and therefore not have it? No. Do you want to keep it and therefore not eat it? No. False dilemma, I want both. My cake is special, by definition.
If goodness means in alignment with god’s nature, god is not good, he’s just In alignment with his own nature. And if god’s nature is not arbitrary, goodness is external.
To say that He is good is to say that He is in alignment with His nature, sure, since His nature is the benchmark of goodness.
This would seem to be unsupported.
You wish to drape your god in a positive attribute, recognized among men. But you cannot accept the judgment of men upon which your compliment rests, so you try to define it away. Your definition of goodness is useless in any other context. If I say, 'why did god order the destruction of the canaanites, amalekites, the flood, the egyptian firstborns etc'? try and reply: ‘it was his nature, that was good’.
I'll reply that without hesitation. What's the problem?
Or do you suppose you're able to judge the actions of a transhumanly intelligent entity with access to understanding and wisdom vastly beyond anything to which we might hope to aspire?
Is temporal death an insurmountable evil in the face of an afterlife?
Look man you can disagree, but there's no internal contradiction here.
You can reply that, it just exposes the difference in our definitions of goodness. Your position collapses into the voluntarist horn. Imagine we’re haranguing a crowd. “A few minutes ago he told us his god was good. Now he says badness is good. Therefore, his God is bad/the Devil “. Far from philosophers’ and theologians’ tricks, I find this convincing, and I think common people do too.
If his goodness is incomprehensible to me, I cannot praise him for it. If his ways are impenetrable, I cannot discover him through reason (he might have buried the dinosaurs to confuse us etc) .
Yes.jpg
Aren’t you walking back your previous commitment here? Ie, by saying his murders are justified because paradise makes it alright to kill people, you are using a knowable morality separate from god to absolve him of his previously incomprehensible acts/crimes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link