tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post3435107487458038823..comments2024-01-24T04:02:06.466-05:00Comments on Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: A Defense of Ethical Intuitionism--Part ThreeKen Pulliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-89611648144796485192010-07-03T16:10:47.559-04:002010-07-03T16:10:47.559-04:00Rhology,
I had been thinking to say about the sa...Rhology, <br /><br />I had been thinking to say about the same thing until I got to the post by SteveJ of 6-29, 5:11 PM. He puts the issue very well there. It doesn't appear you could be so poorly informed as to not know something about the long , contentious process, filled with a lot of uncertainty and changes over the early centuries, in coming to an eventual consensus on a NT canon. <br /><br />And, as Ken emphasizes as well, there WAS no gathering of writings anywhere close to the eventual NT at the writing of 2 Tim., even IF it was written well after Paul, in his name (which it almost certainly was -- and determining authorship is another insurmountable problem with the logic involved in a supposedly "authoritative" NT.) <br /><br />If you have NOT studied much about how the OT and NT canons were formed, and the arguments there were over individual books, it would be a fascinating study for you (or anyone).Howard Pepperhttp://www.coachpep.usana.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-70074097088874033802010-06-30T05:42:44.784-04:002010-06-30T05:42:44.784-04:00"If you think objectivity doesn't exist, ..."If you think objectivity doesn't exist, then your words carry no meaning."<br /><br />Unsurprisingly, you chose to focus on my injunction to you to save your questions for your own blog, rather than try and mount an argument for your belief that language is meaningless if objectivity doesn't exist.<br /><br />I should have remembered that you'll use any opportunity to avoid defending your arguments - trying to force your interlocutors to answer questions that are irrelevant to the blog post is only one such opportunity, but one you make use of in every single debate you attempt.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-58559928371694047882010-06-30T03:06:37.962-04:002010-06-30T03:06:37.962-04:00Ken Pulliam said... "I think there has been s...Ken Pulliam said... "I think there has been some evolution of these moral intuitions"<br /><br />Yes Ken i agree with you.<br /><br />I think Rhology would do well to see that evolution of morals does exist ,how else would people change thought with regards to morals like whether stoning people slowly to death is moral or infact somthing immoral.The holy bible itself is testimonial to the fact of evolving moral.Hearts dont really change so much they mostly pump blood.But minds and knowledge change.<br /><br />The fact that intuition is said to come from intuitio act of contemplating,still allows that some morals will evolve.<br /><br />Dr Pulliam you have a wonderful blog that is always full of such interesting material .Thanks for all the time and effort you put into it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-25475582999314868022010-06-29T21:03:17.765-04:002010-06-29T21:03:17.765-04:00moral objectivity can be derived from OT alone.moral objectivity can be derived from OT alone.John Sfiferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875271904363363020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-25743338786095697122010-06-29T17:11:39.529-04:002010-06-29T17:11:39.529-04:00Rhology: "It says 'All Scripture'. Th...Rhology: "It says 'All Scripture'. The NT is Scripture. The NT is God-breathed."<br /><br />Gargantuan assumptions all over the place. The "all Scripture" known to the author of 1 Timothy was the Old Testament -- there was no NT canon at that time. For Pete's sake ... you know this. <br /> <br />Also, you have NO good argument for the canonical NT being "Scripture." You're assuming this, wholesale. A long, long time ago, a bunch of men decided those 27 books were supernaturally penned and you flat-out take their word for it. <br /> <br />So at the bottom of your much-touted "objective" standard is the subjective judgment of men who decided your canon for you.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-29645975774212877002010-06-29T17:08:04.203-04:002010-06-29T17:08:04.203-04:00@Ken - I'm encouraged that you are looking at ...@Ken - I'm encouraged that you are looking at Pinker, Gilbert, etc. The only way to know about people's innate morality is through experimentation. That's why I felt Huemer is a very bad starting point. Keep up the route of empiricism, and I will try to share new stuff as I see it.<br /><br />For example, check this one out:<br />http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007273.html<br /><br />A brain scan can tell whether someone is likely to cheat or steal, far more accurately than their own conscious belief will tell you.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-21761593773879276622010-06-29T15:52:47.009-04:002010-06-29T15:52:47.009-04:00Rhology,
In the context of 2 Tim. 3:16 Paul says ...Rhology,<br /><br />In the context of 2 Tim. 3:16 Paul says that Timothy has known the Scriptures from a child (could only be the OT).<br /><br /><i>3:15-16: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: </i> <br /><br />Again if the inner law is not reliable, then Paul's argument loses all force. So it seems you have to say that it is reliable and since I think moral intutions are the same thing then you would have to admit they are reliable.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-35321338191712681322010-06-29T15:41:44.080-04:002010-06-29T15:41:44.080-04:00Paul C said:
Save it for your own blog.
Said the...Paul C said:<br /><i>Save it for your own blog. </i><br /><br />Said the guy who doesn't have one. This isn't SteveJ's blog either.<br /><br /><br /><br />Dr Pulliam,<br /><i>at best only applies to the OT.</i><br /><br />It says "All Scripture". The NT is Scripture. The NT is God-breathed. <br /><br /><br /><i>If the moral law written on the hearts is not reliable, then Paul's argument in Rom. 2 loses it effect.</i><br /><br />It's not reliable in terms of setting the moral framework. As I said, it merely reflects it, partially. Or a better way to say it might be that it communicates the law to the human heart. <br /><br /><br /><i>He is saying that the Gentiles know they are doing wrong because of the inner law (which I would call inuitions).</i><br /><br />Yes, and I agree with this statement.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-54770870541049382712010-06-29T15:07:15.766-04:002010-06-29T15:07:15.766-04:00Rhology,
My point about 2 Tim. 3:16 which you cit...Rhology,<br /><br />My point about 2 Tim. 3:16 which you cited as proof that the Bible is inspired, at best only applies to the OT.<br /><br />If the moral law written on the hearts is not reliable, then Paul's argument in Rom. 2 loses it effect. He is saying that the Gentiles <b> know </b> they are doing wrong because of the inner law (which I would call inuitions).<br /><br />Regarding subjectivity, you haven't shown how a subject can know something is objective since all of his knowledge is subjective. The reason we can communicate is because we have agreed upon the meaning of words. In that sense the meanings are "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity" rel="nofollow">intersubjective</a>". One could say that it is "objective" in a relative sense but not in the true sense of the meaning of the word.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-87554374003587893622010-06-29T14:21:03.994-04:002010-06-29T14:21:03.994-04:00"Let's take this another way - I've a..."Let's take this another way - I've answered some questions. Now it's your turn."<br /><br />It really isn't. Save it for your own blog.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-39360091028636001222010-06-29T14:15:01.939-04:002010-06-29T14:15:01.939-04:00"If you think objectivity doesn't exist, ..."If you think objectivity doesn't exist, then your words carry no meaning."<br /><br />You have a premise and a conclusion, but no actual argument to join the two. Good luck, though.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-58583194703471759872010-06-29T13:57:20.605-04:002010-06-29T13:57:20.605-04:00SteveJ,
despite the dearth of good reasons for s...SteveJ,<br /><br /><i> despite the dearth of good reasons for such a belief.</i><br /><br />You assume quite a lot. You have no idea of my reasons. <br /><br /><br /><i>When it comes down to it, the shifting sands of errant church tradition have declared what belongs in your objective guide and what doesn't</i><br /><br />Good thing I don't appeal to church tradition, then.<br /><br /><br /><i>Imperfect, subjective church authority somehow gave you a perfect, objective standard.</i><br /><br />No, God did. The beauty of His power and plan is that He uses imperfect sinful man to His own perfect ends.<br /><br /><br /><i>it's just thoroughly unconvincing</i><br /><br />Yes, b/c you're not willing to actually look at it. Rather, you'd prefer to stand afar off and assume that there are no good reasons, and make assertions as such. <br /><br /><br /><i>But why?</i><br /><br />Why does He want to communicate? B/c He wanted to tell people about Himself?<br />Let's take this another way - I've answered some questions. Now it's your turn. How do you know that anything else exists? Also, where did the laws of logic come from? <br /><br /><br /><br />Dr Pulliam,<br /><i>2 Tim. 3:16 in context only refers to the OT (actually the LXX which includes some of the apocrypha).</i><br /><br />Well, the OT. There's a lot of good evidence that Jesus-era Jews held only to the Protestant OT; just b/c apoc books were frequently included in the same codex for convenience and economy doesn't mean they were considered inspired. <br /><br /><br /><i>If the "moral law" written on the hearts as Paul describes in Rom. 2:14-15 is reliable and you say it is</i><br /><br />I didn't say it was reliable. I said it was sufficient to convict them, and it should be obvious that in the hands of sinful men, a law written on the heart of a man who is suppressing the truth in wickedness (Rom 1:18) would imperfectly reflect the actual law. <br /><br /><br /><i>YOur nonsense statement in reply to "objectivity" doesn't prove anything</i><br /><br />I was trying to be subtle. I'll have to be less so, it appears.<br />If you think objectivity doesn't exist, then your words carry no meaning. Disclaiming objectivity is self-defeating. So stop. :-)<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-10166181179644124502010-06-29T13:20:59.495-04:002010-06-29T13:20:59.495-04:00Rhology,
2 Tim. 3:16 in context only refers to th...Rhology,<br /><br />2 Tim. 3:16 in context only refers to the OT (actually the LXX which includes some of the apocrypha).<br /><br />If the "moral law" written on the hearts as Paul describes in Rom. 2:14-15 is reliable and you say it is, then the moral intutions (which are one and the same thing) are also reliable.<br /><br />YOur nonsense statement in reply to "objectivity" doesn't prove anything. Please reply as to how an individual subject could ever have objective knowledge?Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-9847840043301211232010-06-29T13:17:13.530-04:002010-06-29T13:17:13.530-04:00Besides, Rhology, your argument from God's wis...Besides, Rhology, your argument from God's wish to communicate ... well, it's just thoroughly unconvincing. What you're saying is, "I'm sure God wishes to communicate with us. Therefore, Hebrews and Jude must be divine communications." But why? There's a quantum leap between the first and second sentence, don't you think?SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-41339647514964215122010-06-29T13:03:26.733-04:002010-06-29T13:03:26.733-04:00"I take God's existence and speech as my ..."I take God's existence and speech as my fundamental presupposition."<br /> <br />You also assume up front that God wrote the 66 books of the Bible, despite the dearth of good reasons for such a belief. When it comes down to it, the shifting sands of errant church tradition have declared what belongs in your objective guide and what doesn't. There's a certain irony in that: Imperfect, subjective church authority somehow gave you a perfect, objective standard.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-40538730368891556872010-06-29T12:52:27.718-04:002010-06-29T12:52:27.718-04:00SteveJ,
Like I said, the impossibility of the con...SteveJ,<br /><br />Like I said, the impossibility of the contrary. If God did not speak clearly, then we are left with irrationality.<br />I'm "cocksure" about it b/c I take God's existence and speech as my fundamental presupposition.<br /><br /><br />Dr Pulliam,<br /><i>This is equivalent to the moral intuitions that I am talking about.</i><br /><br />Then the inadequacy I've pointed out over and over again of your moral framework is agreed upon by both of us.<br /><br /><br /><i>Surely you don't think Paul means that all of the details of the ceremonial law is written on the Gentile's hearts. </i><br /><br />Yes, that's right. <br /><br /><br /><i>there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for this moral law which all men share</i><br /><br />And I don't deny that either.<br />I am simply asking you to show the prescriptive and normative power of such intuitions. Why *should* anyone do what they say?<br /><br /><br /><i>As for "objectivity," I maintain there is no such thing or if there is we could never know it because everything we know we know as subjects. </i><br /><br />Eating 6ly Tuesday requires bluish adversity care. Further, Jell-O has furtively bones and the further they fly the much.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-88300138054315772842010-06-29T12:46:55.600-04:002010-06-29T12:46:55.600-04:00Rhology,
You said: But biblical Christians would ...Rhology,<br /><br />You said: <i>But biblical Christians would also say that intuitions have no authority, disconnected from the divine command</i>. I replied that Rom. 2:14-15, which you accept as divine truth, says that the law is written on their hearts. This is equivalent to the moral intuitions that I am talking about. Surely you don't think Paul means that all of the details of the ceremonial law is written on the Gentile's hearts. The point I am making is that what Paul and you say is the divine moral law written on the hearts of all people is what I call moral intuitions and there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for this moral law which all men share. Paul attributed it to God but that is not necessary.<br /><br />As for "objectivity," I maintain there is no such thing or if there is we could never know it because everything we know we know as subjects. Unless you can get outside of your own mind, then whatever you know or think you know, is subjective. Thats just the way it is, since we are all subjects.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-18431895091095213282010-06-29T12:45:38.475-04:002010-06-29T12:45:38.475-04:00OK, so why are you so cocksure that 2 Tim 3:16 app...OK, so why are you so cocksure that 2 Tim 3:16 applies to Jude or Hebrews? (If you read the preceding verses, it sounds like he's talking about the Old Testament -- the Scriptures Timothy has known from infancy.)SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-65854446621818965892010-06-29T12:42:07.681-04:002010-06-29T12:42:07.681-04:002 Timothy 3:16, and other comments on the authorit...2 Timothy 3:16, and other comments on the authority of Scripture in the NT, such as Mark 7:1-13. And God's stated desire to communicate with His people what He wanted to communicate.<br />We know from the impossibility of the contrary that God has revealed His Scripture to His people.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-42925040876611711852010-06-29T12:40:12.670-04:002010-06-29T12:40:12.670-04:00Rhology, please explain when and where God said th...Rhology, please explain when and where God said the books of Jude and Ruth were divinely inspired and authoritative.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-11173278525365006102010-06-29T12:36:29.777-04:002010-06-29T12:36:29.777-04:00Hello Dr Pulliam,
Yes, Rom 2:14-15 is a great and...Hello Dr Pulliam,<br /><br />Yes, Rom 2:14-15 is a great and very thought-provoking psg, and you are right, as far as your statement goes. Paul's just shown that the Jew doesn't have an excuse before God, b/c he has the written law and can't keep it. Then Paul goes on to expound on why the Gentile can't appeal to the excuse of not having the written law - the reason the law written on their hearts condemns them before God is b/c the heart-written law is a reflection of the objective written law.<br /><br />Surely you know that<br />1) objectivity is not affected by the reader's or listener's understanding, memory, or obedience to the object, and<br />2) objectivity (or truth) is not measured by counting noses, argumenta ad populum.<br /><br /><br /><i> What they do agree on is no different than what everyone else agrees on anyway as a result of moral intuitions.</i><br /><br />That is true to a large and lamentable extent in practice. But on what grounds can someone, or God, look at those intuitions and the actions based on them and judge between good and bad? What, more intuitions? That's what <b>your system</b> offers, and it's pitifully inadequate. No, we can judge them b/c there's a higher law, and it is objective, static, and written. <br /><br /><br /><i>Many societies who have never seen the Bible have moral codes that prohibit murder, stealing, rape, etc. </i><br /><br />Yes. Surely you didn't already forget Romans 2:14-15, did you?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />SteveJ,<br /><i>But biblical Christians give no good reasons that the 66 books of the Bible should be invested with ultimate authority</i><br /><br />An ignorant statement. You should get out more.<br />One good one is the inadequacy of all other means of knowing moral truth.<br /><br /><br /><i>Why, for example, is the book of Jude or Hebrews or Esther clothed with divine authority? Who says so? </i><br /><br />God said so.<br /><br /><br /><i>You take an awful lot for granted. </i><br /><br />Haha, <a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/08/evidentialisms-bloody-nose.html" rel="nofollow">so do you</a>, my friend. You just don't know it, apparently.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-8312673467128220122010-06-29T12:33:17.158-04:002010-06-29T12:33:17.158-04:00"But biblical Christians would also say that ..."But biblical Christians would also say that intuitions have no authority ..."<br /><br />But biblical Christians give no good reasons that the 66 books of the Bible should be invested with ultimate authority. Why, for example, is the book of Jude or Hebrews or Esther clothed with divine authority? Who says so? Why is the gospel of Mark stamped with some divine imprimatur, when it never even makes any claim to special authority? <br /><br />You take an awful lot for granted.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-29624083212883307352010-06-29T12:29:12.958-04:002010-06-29T12:29:12.958-04:00Rhology,
What about Rom. 2:14-15. Paul said that ...Rhology,<br /><br />What about Rom. 2:14-15. Paul said that the Gentiles were without excuse for breaking the law because it was written on their hearts.<br /><br />Universal Intuitions or instincts are more "objective" than the myriads of interpretations of the Bible. That is your problem, Christians can't agree on what their "objective" moral code says. What they do agree on is no different than what everyone else agrees on anyway as a result of moral intuitions. Many societies who have never seen the Bible have moral codes that prohibit murder, stealing, rape, etc.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-175391076164170062010-06-29T12:25:17.280-04:002010-06-29T12:25:17.280-04:00DW,
It is a form of presuppositionalism or more a...DW,<br /><br />It is a form of presuppositionalism or more accurately epistemological foundationalism. There has to be a starting point before one can know anything; however, the presuppositionalism that you advocate is different in that it presupposes a whole system, namely biblical Christianity. That is much more than just an epistemological foundation.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-27787224556616495532010-06-29T12:14:28.637-04:002010-06-29T12:14:28.637-04:00Christians would say they come from God. He implan...<i>Christians would say they come from God. He implanted them in us when he created us in his image.</i><br /><br />But biblical Christians would also say that intuitions have no authority, disconnected from the divine command. Just b/c you intuit that sthg is right or wrong means nothing more than that you intuit that sthg is right or wrong. No necessary connection to actual normativity, prescription, proscription, moral law. <br /><br />I'm glad to see you fleshing out this topic, thank you. I do have to say that it makes me thankful to God for rescuing me from such an empty system as atheism.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com