tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1239894430199529660..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: How religion does dirt on everything good (2)Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90299547323702158312011-10-04T17:28:14.277+11:002011-10-04T17:28:14.277+11:00No one has ever demonstrated that the existence of...No one has ever demonstrated that the existence of God makes any difference one way or the other to whether Good (I think I know what you mean by that VS) exists. Rowland certainly didn't; she just made a lot of unsupported assertions to that effect.<br /><br />Beyond that, it does dirt on every good thing to complain that it is not Good in some metaphysical sense unless a being like God somehow gives it his sanction. That's just I'm complaining about.<br /><br />Even if (contrary to what happened in the debate) Rowland could demonstrate that the value of sex, for example, lacks some metaphysical <i>oomph</i> if and only if there's no God, it doesn't follow that sex is reduced to "mutual manipulation". All that follows is that it lacks the mysterious metaphysical <i>oomph</i>.<br /><br />Sex could still have all sorts of characteristics that are quite inconsistent with the idea that is is just "mutual manipulation". Sex could still involve mutual tenderness and good-will, intimacy, the emotional opening up of people to each other, the joy of giving someone else intense pleasure, the sheer ecstasy of the act itself, and the joy of someone else being prepared to give it ... the joy of knowing that the other person is even sharing <i>that</i> joy with you, etc,. etc. To describe sex as "mutual manipulation" when, even from a purely this-worldly viewpoint, there is so much more involved, is reductive (in the worst sense) and false.<br /><br />Something similar can be said about all the other good things of life. Reductive and demeaning descriptions of them don't become true or even plausible just because there's no God.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54675901913586917122011-09-29T10:42:24.392+10:002011-09-29T10:42:24.392+10:00Well, I'm sure that status anxiety has always ...<i>Well, I'm sure that status anxiety has always been with us to some extent or other, and to the extent that religion once provided serfs and other underlings with a rationalisation for their lowly status that is hardly to its credit.</i><br /><br />Indeed. How many times do you hear people say, "Well, <i>you</i> might need God, but...", never acknowledging they they're defending existing social strata.Ken Pidcockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15236539087094493564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84373567874129425172011-09-29T04:12:11.793+10:002011-09-29T04:12:11.793+10:00Now, Russell, you've done a lot of philosophy,...Now, Russell, you've done a lot of philosophy, so you are surely aware of the numerous non-religious philosophies that basically conclude the same thing, and insist that their method is, in fact, far more respectful of what it really means to be human, and that those desires that you champion are, in fact, denigrating humans if elevated above the real proper values? Like, for example, most Virtue Theories. So you don't need "supernatural standards" to question how good the "good things of life" really are.<br /><br />The key is the distinction between what is good and what is Good. Few will deny that those certain human desires are "good". Since sex brings pleasure it is, in fact, good in that sense. But does that make it Good? Intrinsically desirable in and of itself? Not to be sacrificed for any reason?<br /><br />Ultimately, for philosophies like that of the Stoics, the Good was something beyond the base desires. For Kant, making happiness the goal was doing morality wrong. All of these, in some sense, do transcend those simple goods that you advocate. But we can all see arguments for it, by asking if, say, one should give up pleasure for Justice, or Honour or Honesty. And it is, then, at least a far more open question about whether the theological approach is in fact getting what humans should really desire better than appealing to those specific desires that you claim religion -- and, presumably, those other philosophies -- sneer at. They do, but they need not in the sense that you need for "doing dirt on". They can, like the Stoics and Kant and Aristotle reject them as being Good but accept them as being good, but argue that good does not trump Good.<br /><br />To defend the religious view -- even though that isn't how I view the world -- the argument I make is this: To reject God means to them rejecting things like Good, as the mindset does not allow for them (that's why God is out of the picture). If you look for Good, you will find God, and if you insist there is no God you cannot find Good. I think there are problems with this argument, but it's not completely unreasonable, I think.Verbose Stoichttp://verbosestoic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4229753589732076402011-09-28T22:16:49.331+10:002011-09-28T22:16:49.331+10:00@bad Jim
or the child placed in your care@bad Jim<br /><br />or the child placed in your caresteve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48083664480010524222011-09-27T18:38:39.218+10:002011-09-27T18:38:39.218+10:00This sort of thing reminds me of the quip that sex...This sort of thing reminds me of the quip that sex is so dirty, disgusting and degrading that it can only be shared with the one person in the world you most deeply love.bad Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-86064370368091080722011-09-27T16:22:25.344+10:002011-09-27T16:22:25.344+10:00It is revealing to me when apologists defend the v...It is revealing to me when apologists defend the virtues of Religious thinking by appealing to the virtues of poetic thinking. In doing so they lend strength to their critics who condemn the folly of codifying old poems for modern living.@blamerhttp://twitter.com/blamernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87560432679481425132011-09-27T15:24:38.769+10:002011-09-27T15:24:38.769+10:00Russell, thank you for organizing this. Stephens&...Russell, thank you for organizing this. Stephens' last paragraph sums up the conflict for me: <i>I often hear atheists insist that they do not need God in order to be good. But if I am in any way accurate in what I have argued here, we are faced with a far more destructive possibility: that without God, there simply is no Good.</i><br /><br />So the slogan "Good without God" is more powerful in practice than some atheists might suppose. I'll only add that for Rowland and Stephens, I imagine they see the world as not so much dirt as dearth:<br /><br /><b>dearth</b><br /><br /><i>dearth the lack<br />oh sheaves of weed by wind<br /> west wind<br />who sow what with all shall<br />and yet those who can<br /> or will not</i><br /><br /> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q76prDDG1SY" rel="nofollow">-- Tension Brett</a>Dave Rickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03131126038425198891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14934787179843386672011-09-27T03:59:28.841+10:002011-09-27T03:59:28.841+10:00And I really must comment on the insulting claim t...<i>And I really must comment on the insulting claim that sexual relations without God become mutual manipulation.</i><br /><br />And thank you for saying so! It is insulting, and I'm damn tired of hearing religious people say it. Consensual sex, in which everyone involved is honest about what they want and informed about what they're going to get, is the very definition of acting freely.<br /><br />Tim MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com