Well if someone accepts God created, and that such entails omniscience/omnipotence then I'd think an argument could be made that God could not possibly be illogical (I'm assuming you meant in the sense of irrational), accident prone or dead based on these accepted qualities. And if God were malevolent, then why didn't he create a world without good (a reversed theodicy would be required)? Given some thought, there are lots of things that could perhaps be deduced about God given that the creation of our world is accepted. But then... I'll freely admit that we can't nail down everything about God. If anything, what we have are glimpses of what God has chosen to be revealed about Himself.Blind Electric Ray wrote:I agree with that. However my point was a stronger one: the argument from design doesn't support any qualities for the creator other than the fact of creation, and possibly (but only at the time of creation) omniscience/omnipotence (I have been doing some thinking in another thread, and have explained what I mean there. This is actually a concession I didn't expect to make!) In any case, even if omniscient and omnipotent, the creator could still be malevolent, accident prone, illogical or even, after Nietzsche, dead.K wrote:there can be a wide range of opinion within Christianity on qualities "we think" God has
I'm really not sure I see a problem with saying we can't know everything about God... I could see a problem if I said we can no nothing about God, but my words above shouldn't be equivocated to the later.Ray wrote:... but in the specific case of a ministry aimed at building its metaphysic on rational grounds, isn't this a little problematic? It does have something of a fideistic ring to it, doesn't it?we will never fully comprehend or entirely understand God
I'm assuming you're dissatisfied in general with teleological arguments, that is, arguments made from the order inherent within the universe. I'm not sure I see the fallacy, although I can see how some mind consider the general premises unconvincing.Ray wrote:... The teleological argument certainly ups the stakes (I hadn't realised this until I went through it this evening). But I do think as a proof it's logically fallacious. Once a creator is proved, it may have something to say about the creator's qualities.K wrote:In what way do you think it is fallacious, or were you just meaning you find it unpersuasive?
As for something being "proved," it seems to me that something being proved is dependant on our subjective judgement? Try proving to a philosophical idealist that you really do physically exist for example. Such a person would have to trust their apparent physical senses as telling them the truth. Actually colour is a good example. Do you know the colours you see don't really exist? Rather what we call colours, are simply different wavelengths of light being absorbed and reflected. It's all perceived in your mind. As philosopher Frank Jackson points out:
What I am trying to highlight is that we can't be 100% certain when presented even with empirical proof of something. You may find you trust what you observe as "proof" of its existence, whereas an idealist may not. Someone may find teleological arguments very persuasive and so consider such as "proof", while others (like yourself?) may find them somewhat lacking. That's just how the cookie crumbles with "proof" I spose.We sense the world as made up of coloured, materially continuous, macroscopic, stable objects; Science and, in particular, Physics, tells us that the material world is constituted of clouds of minute, colourless, highly-mobile particles… Science forces us to acknowledge that physical or material things are not coloured… This will enable us to conclude that sense-data are all mental, for they are coloured.
(Frank Jackson, Perception (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 121.)
I believe postmodernism is often seen as a reaction against the rationalism and empiricism that came out of the Enlightenment period. My mother, a Christian, has been very much influenced in her phsychology studies by postmodern thought. She has often a time pointed out that even scientists, who often pride themselves on their empirical methods and rationality, get things wrong... that basically the conclusions scientists may draw from the same facts are very subjectively influenced. She's also pointed this out within Christianity--the different conclusions theologians might draw from the same piece of scripture. Therefore it is her conclusion that "intellectuals" (so they get called, although I've pointed out that her paradigm also consists of a different "intellectuality" -- not sure it had much effect ) claim to know what they really can't, which is objectivity. Therefore anyones subjective opinions are just as good as anyone elses and should be respected as such. I remember speaking to her about certain arguments on these boards, and she reacted to the empiricism and logic within what I was saying, "What? I thought that was in the past, it's postmodernism now." So there are actually many who believe the times of modernity have passed, and people such as you and I, this website even, are seen as backward or not with the times.Ray wrote:I'm very intrigued by this idea, which has never occurred to me. Could you elaborate? Do you think post modernism is alligned for or against Christianity? Your implication is that is it's alligned against science. In practice maybe, but not in theory: I think postmodernism has some very interesting things to say about rationalism, but I think the "downplaying of reason" aspect arises from a misunderstanding of the value of the post modern programme in the first place.K wrote:Modernism by placing such value on empiricism and rationalism has often relegated one's experiences in life as unimportant. This is possibly why many become involved Post-Modernism where personal experiences are more uplifted although reason is often downplayed
Do I think postmodernism is aligned with Christianity? Not really. It tends to deny an objective reality and subjectivity gets uplifted (too high in my opinion). Therefore Christ's dying on the cross might be true for the remission of my sins, but not yours (as you observed in another thread where you said this means non-Christians do not have sins unless they are Christian, which to comment here I believe sin is objective to all and that right and wrong is rooted in God whether we acknowledge that or not). Emotions tend to play a very large role in postmodernism, and the experiences of the self whether or not empirically justified, are placed on a pedastool. To add, my mother often sees modernity and science as denying and writing off the spiritual side to us. Oprah seems very postmodern with her thought, and especially when she use to have the finding your spirit segment to her show.
So postmodernism is very dangerous for Christianity, and any belief that claims objectivity. As you could expect, it is also dangerous for science. Infact Christians like myself and empiricists like yourself will in some sense be comrades in trying to bring some sense to the world if the trend continues. I'm sure you have heard people say that, "all religions have the same God." This is a statement that dismisses the truth claims within each religion, so in reality they all might as well be false. Relativity is a big part of postmodernism, not just when it comes to morality (which you probably accept that morality is relative, an often accepted belief today even amongst Christians), but also with empirical facts that we would call objective. It seems to me that "truth" to some extent gets classified as unimportant, and a higher emphasis gets placed on subjective experiences and emotions. Truth becomes what you make it to be, not what it is.
Ray wrote:Except that Christianity, as with all other religious research programmes (it's a term applied by Kuhn to competing scientific theories, and certainly as far as the ministry of this board is concerned, that counts religion), is the determinant of what are sins in the first place, which gives you a circularity, doesn't it? i.e., religion defines your moral code, then provides a method of absolution from breaches of it ... does that offer any independent reason favouring that research programme?K wrote:And out of all other religions (research programs?), a significant theological point I find with Christianity, is that it is the only faith I've found where God reaches down to us in our sins
I don't see such circularity as everyone acknowledges the same moral values (I didn't say moral laws within which is a "big" difference). For example, we have a concept of fairness which is seen as good. Concept of love, also good. Hate becomes bad, and with it killing. Preserving good is good, therefore penalties become imposed for those who do wrong in order to preserve good. So, whether or not you agree, I believe my "religion" doesn't define moral values. Rather, these values are rooted in God, and He has implanted them within us. We simply acknowledge them whenever we say, "that's unfair!", and act them out in life.
Kurieuo.