Edwin Curley: "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"
Here is an excellent presentation on the barbaric nature of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by Dr. Edwin Curley. This is a must see video! Peter Van Inwagen responds to him. To see the other parts just click on these subsequent links:
Curley 1 | Curley 2 | Curley 3 | Curley 4
Van Inwagen 1 | Van Inwagen 2 | Curley | Q&A 1 | Q&A 2
Curley 1 | Curley 2 | Curley 3 | Curley 4
Van Inwagen 1 | Van Inwagen 2 | Curley | Q&A 1 | Q&A 2
35 comments:
Did anyone understand what Van Inwagen's actual point was? Like Dr. Curley, I didn't see him actually engaging Curley's argument. Has Van Inwagen written anything about this topic?
John,
This is an amazing talk. Thank you so much.
Yeah thanks to Luke over at Common Sense Atheism too. I Listen to all of the conference and I also really like Eleonore Stump's: The Problem of Evil and the History of Peoples: Think Amalek
Curley is a fantastic Spinoza scholar, too.
Andre: Having actually attended the conference, Dr. Stump sounded like a broken record throughout the conference: Objecting that "That's just your interpretation" over and over.
I sat a few seats from Plantinga and noticed some discomfort in him through his (uncharacteristic) fidgeting during these eviscerating, take-no-prisoners presentations from Curley, Fales, and Antony. (No schadenfreude, I swear!)
If someone knows where, could you please link to the papers accompanying these debate series?
MC: Granting what you say is true, I think Dr. Stump was just trying to be nice and respectful considering the circumstances. Besides, she didn't sound as bad as the Christian/Jewish responses.
As for Mr. Plantinga, it's funny to hear you say that because as wise as he is, I was wondering how he could sit there and not see that the responses to the skeptics were full of "extreme rhetoric" (to borrow from John's recent use of this term).
Hjalti said: Did anyone understand what Van Inwagen's actual point was? Like Dr. Curley, I didn't see him actually engaging Curley's argument.
I agree that Van Inwagen wasn't particularly clear, but I think it is possible to reconstruct the basic line of his response. I'll situate my explanation in terms of the following reductio ad absurdam, which Curley outlined in his response to Van Inwagen:
(1) God is a supremely perfect being, who possesses all perfections, including moral perfection.
(2) The Bible is the inspired word of God.
(3) In many places the Bible represents God as authorizing - that is, either commanding or giving permission for - conduct which is clearly morally wrong.
(4) The Bible does not seriously misrepresent God's moral nature by repeatedly portraying him as authorizing conduct he did not authorize.
(5) God did repeatedly authorize conduct which was clearly morally wrong.
(6) God would never authorize conduct which is clearly morally wrong.
As Curley pointed out, Van Inwagen accepts the premises of the reductio, which are (1), (2) and (3). On the other hand, (5) and (6) evidently follow from (1-4), and clearly contradict one another: I never saw Van Inwagen dispute these points.
As far as I can tell, Van Inwagen disputes point (4). For example, he says:
"Yes, that's what seemed self evidently true to the Hebrews once, that it was right to punish the children for the sins of the fathers, and that that was therefore what God would have commanded their ancestors to do. With God's help we now know better."
Curley supports (4) by stating that it follows from (2). He also claims that Van Inwagen accepts (4), supporting this claim with the following quote from Van Inwagen:
(PvI-3) "... the wording of the various books of the Bible is (more or less) the way God wants it to be."
However, there is something a little more subtle going on here. Something like (PvI-3) is an obvious intermediate step in deducing (4) from (2). However, an extra step is needed to get from (PvI-3) to (4); something like this:
(4a) God does not want the Bible to seriously misrepresent his moral nature by repeatedly portraying him as authorizing conduct he did not authorize.
So although Van Inwagen accepts (PvI-3), he can (and does) still dispute (4) by presenting a defence of the negation of 4a:
(4a') God does want the Bible to seriously misrepresent his moral nature by repeatedly portraying him as authorizing conduct he did not authorize.
As Van Inwagen points out, it is not necessary for him to prove (4a') but only provide a defence of it, that is, a reasonable scenario in which (4a') would turn out to be true. He outlines one possible reason why God might have the desire outlined in (4a'), namely that a Bible which seriously misrepresents God's moral nature may be more effective for the attainment of some of God's purposes (for example, the spread of Christianity and the moral transformation of new converts from non-western cultures) than one which does not.
Unless this defence is undermined, Curley's argument fails. However, since Curley did not address this point in either his original paper or his response to Van Inwagen, his argument as it stands is incomplete and so does not demonstrate that which he intended it to (that is, that the conjunction of (1-3) is inconsistent).
Without listening to the lecture again, I believe Curley brought up the passage in Ezekiel was alleged to attribute child sacrifice to God.
If I was in the audience, I would've brought up the exegetical issue and the occasional peril of the philosopher (or even the systematic theologian) practicing exegesis outside his field. Of course that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (after all, I'm not a professional exegete) but only highlights the more tentative quality of their interpretation.
I'm pretty sure curely made reference to Ezekial citing that God gave the Israelites child sacrifice. I've made the point here, https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=3783227471683362731, that those rules spoken of were not a part of God's communicated intentions but provides an example of God's common practice of using evil that he did not create against rebellion. Thus God gave them over the worst of pagan practices that they received through their idolatrous adultry with pagan Gods.
As for other legitimate concerns, more than I'm going to deal with, If I was responding to curley, I would've noted that he's taking for granted what we consider obvious morality is a result of sociological developement and not just laying out black and whit moral absolutes. So the passage he cites in horror of Deut 21 as a grievance against modern feminist ideals in fact humanizes both the woman and her destroyed family. She has a right to grieve her parents, the parents of the destroyed city are worth grieving and she can't be sold into slavery or dominated tyranically if her husband sells her. She virtually is granted the rights of a Jewish woman!
The Pollyanna world of humanistic atheists as curley presents it only sees black and white and can't appreciate the advance in morality that is presented here which in a way provides the humanization of enemies in which it becomes concievable for Jesus to say "love your enemies".
(4a') God does want the Bible to seriously misrepresent his moral nature by repeatedly portraying him as authorizing conduct he did not authorize.
But this misrepresentation isn't as simple as Van Inwagen suggests.
God would also need to "want" to be portrayed as having a morality that evolves, which would also be a "misrepresentation" because God supposedly does not change.
God would also need to "want" me to conceder him a myth today because God's immoral behavior is one of the reasons I'm a non-theist.
These are just two consequences of such a misrepresentation off the top of my head.
He outlines one possible reason why God might have the desire outlined in (4a'), namely that a Bible which seriously misrepresents God's moral nature may be more effective for the attainment of some of God's purposes (for example, the spread of Christianity and the moral transformation of new converts from non-western cultures) than one which does not.
The issue I have with this theory is it suggests that a God who's morality evolves is more effective than a God who's morality is absolute. Are we to be like God, who's morality is depicted as evolving?
If this is the case, then how do we know the NT actually represents God's moral nature, instead of being a misrepresentation which we merely accept like the Hebrews did then? The Hebrew bible was written as a stand alone book that was only later made part of the Christian Bible when the NT was added. How do you know there isn't some even newer testament (ENT?) in which God's morality will again be depicted as changing? Will he change his mind about homosexuals? How about same sex marriage?
Furthermore, morality is but one aspect of God's actions in the OT. Was God's creation of man in final form a serious misrepresentation of God's actions which is ultimately "more effective for the attainment of some of God's purposes?"
We would only know these specific actions were misrepresentations because they conflict with God's apparent changing moral nature in the Bible. How do we determine if any of God's other supposed actions were really misrepresentations designed to make Christianity more appealing?
Last, if I were to put my faith in the God of the Bible, yet this God is a misrepresentation, then apparently the ends justify the means. God is willing to misrepresent himself to be accepted. This doesn't seem like the actions of a perfect being.
She has a right to grieve her parents, the parents of the destroyed city are worth grieving
There was one further point I wanted to make about this.
The man who takes the captive woman to be his wife is instructed to bring this woman grieving into his houshold and make her grief his own for a period before.
Scott,
The issue I have with this theory is it suggests that a God who's morality evolves is more effective than a God who's morality is absolute.
It's not God's morality that developes but rather it is his moral expectations of us which is realistic and on a trajectory.
Granted, I don't know that that is completely consistent with what Van Inwagen says, but I'm not sure that everything he said was helpful.
"It's not God's morality that developes but rather it is his moral expectations of us which is realistic and on a trajectory."
This is myopic. There have been people in all ages who have transcended the moralities of their times. To say that this would not be possible of more people with the instruction of eternal divine morals is ridiculous. You are putting the cart before the horse. It is far more reasonable to say that as people's morality and understanding of the world has evolved, so god has evolved with it, to represent who they are at any given time in history.
This is myopic. There have been people in all ages who have transcended the moralities of their times.
Indeed. amongst those people, the ancient Jews... at least in the moral vision they promoted which they failed. They did transcend the morals of their time and culture. They did advance (accept when they were unfaithful). but just not to the point where we are at now. Not that we are that far ahead of them, as for all the steps we've taken foward, we've taken a few back as well and occasionally are barbaric in our own ways. Just look at the laws that we take horror to that emphasized a woman's responsibility to scream in the case of rape on pain of death. No, we're so much better where a woman can scream (and has done so) in a crowded city as she's raped and murdered while her neighbors just shut their blinds and try to not be bothered about what's happening. Some of the differences here I think become evident when we contrast a communal outlook (where the community is thought of before the individual as in ancient middle eastern socieities as well as modern ones from Africa to the far east) vs. an individualistic one (as is the case in the west).
But the ancient Hebrews were not chosen by God because they were the most moral people as Moses explicitly pointed out anyhow. They were chosen for Abraham's sake. And that makes excellent sense that when the heart of the world's problems are broken relationships, God works through personal relationship in his masterplan to fix it. Relationship after all is the more basic issue than morality. Morality arises in the context of relationships.
It is far more reasonable to say that as people's morality and understanding of the world has evolved, so god has evolved with it, to represent who they are at any given time in history.
You could say that, but I don't share your outlook on God. So for someone who's putting the cart before the horse, here, you are asserting I should share you're outlook without giving reason for it.
Rob wrote: You could say that, but I don't share your outlook on God. So for someone who's putting the cart before the horse, here, you are asserting I should share you're outlook without giving reason for it.
Rob, If you're looking for "reasons" you can find an entire book full by reading, The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. It was an eye opener, even for me.
Here's a interview with Wright on the Bill Moyers show.
Rob,
Did you notice how Van Inwagen took the idea of "God's mysterious plan", and applied it to the factual nature of God's moral depictions in the Bible? Based on our previous discussions here, it seems he's taking one of the plays out of your playbook and taking it one step further than you.
Just as God might have some good reason to allow suffering, God might have a good reason for allowing the Hebrews to "fill in the blanks" with how they thought God would have demanded of their ancestors so he would appear more palatable.
Rob wrote: Granted, I don't know that that is completely consistent with what Van Inwagen says, but I'm not sure that everything he said was helpful.
That's the problem with this sort of argument, which I referred to as a slippery slope. And this is a concrete example of just such slippage.
If God is all knowing and has some mysterious plan, then we have no way of determining what God would do, including allowing himself to be "falsely" painted as a genocidal monster in the Bible.
It makes determining fact from fiction essentially impossible. That your "not sure that everything he said was helpful" seems to be referring to helping your specific definition of God, who you personally think wouldn't go that far.
But it's unclear as to how you know this given how God's plan is supposedly mysterious?
Scott said: God would also need to "want" to be portrayed as having a morality that evolves, which would also be a "misrepresentation" because God supposedly does not change.
I'm with you so far. That does seem to be what Van Inwagen was defending.
God would also need to "want" me to conceder him a myth today because God's immoral behavior is one of the reasons I'm a non-theist.
Here, I think Van Inwagen would take issue with you. After all, he suggests that God may intend that, properly read, the Bible would not lead you to believe that God actually behaved in an immoral manner. He says:
"God ... can reach into you and touch your heart and guide your thoughts, and, the church has promised us, he will do this when you read the Bible. He will be present within you and will guide you through its pages, highlighting this passage, awakening your critical capacities when you read that one, creating in your mind a sense that `this passage is not addressed to my condition' when you read a third. He will moreover guide you to passages that he particularly wants you to read. ... All this is true provided [that] you are willing to be transformed by submitting yourself to the will of God."
The issue I have with this theory is it suggests that a God who's morality evolves is more effective than a God who's morality is absolute.
It doesn't quite suggest that. Instead, it suggests that a portrayal of a God whose morality evolves is more effective for God's purposes than any other portrayal.
Are we to be like God, who's morality is depicted as evolving?
Again, I reckon that Van Inwagen would be happy with an aspiration to be like God but would take issue with the idea that, properly read, the Bible will lead you to believe that God's morality did in fact evolve.
If this is the case, then how do we know the NT actually represents God's moral nature, instead of being a misrepresentation which we merely accept like the Hebrews did then?
Van Inwagen is, I think, saying that it could be a misrepresentation but that this need not be a problem for God.
How do you know there isn't some even newer testament (ENT?) in which God's morality will again be depicted as changing? Will he change his mind about homosexuals? How about same sex marriage?
I think Van Inwagen's account of God properly guiding the thoughts of readers of the Bible deals with this objection, too.
Furthermore, morality is but one aspect of God's actions in the OT. Was God's creation of man in final form a serious misrepresentation of God's actions which is ultimately "more effective for the attainment of some of God's purposes?"
Van Inwagen doesn't address this issue, but I don't see why he couldn't take a similar line here.
How do we determine if any of God's other supposed actions were really misrepresentations designed to make Christianity more appealing?
As I've outlined above, Van Inwagen's account is that God may miraculously give christians the ability to make such determinations correctly.
Last, if I were to put my faith in the God of the Bible, yet this God is a misrepresentation, then apparently the ends justify the means. God is willing to misrepresent himself to be accepted. This doesn't seem like the actions of a perfect being.
This is a more interesting issue, and one which Van Inwagen addresses by analogy. He points out that it would be right for a schoolteacher to proceed indirectly in addressing the problem of bullying in his or her class. Rather than saying outright that bullying is wrong, the teacher may at first employ other methods. Similarly, Van Inwagen suggests, it may be right for God to proceed indirectly in his moral instruction of the human race.
post 1 of 2
Scott,
If you're looking for "reasons" you can find an entire book full by reading, The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.
I know of Wright and what he has to offer, though I'm sure he has had some success organizing the data in from his perspective(who knows how long that will last, though even if the idea is found defunct, it too will continue to survive amongst atheists and others as other defunct and disproven philosophical ideas have, such as the view that all knowledge should be scientifically validatable), it doesn't have much use for me from my perspective. And my perspective still works excellently.
For one thing, as Wright speaks of different gods, he's making a mistake that I see so many Christian Apologists make, that the different descriptions really do have different beings as their referent (and imaginary beings at that). No, it's not our (ocassionally divinely guided) understanding of the true God that gets better or worse according to Wright. God is our construct of god that evolves more useful. Well, what use is that to someone who doesn't assume his vague mildly agnostic theology?
Course the idea that God reflects the culture isn't a new one and neither is it accurate. Ravi Zacharias for example pointed out that in the paternalistic Hindu society, there are some forms of Hinduism where power comes from female gods contrary to this idea.
it seems he's taking one of the plays out of your playbook and taking it one step further than you.
And everyone else's as well. Human knowledge is finite and this is true even of scientific knowledge which can't even speak to all human concerns. But of course mystery in both cases is not asserted without a significant amount of explanation. The question is whether the mystery asserted is a reasonable one or one that covers up bad ideology. That takes more thought than what you offered.
Just as God might have some good reason to allow suffering, God might have a good reason for allowing the Hebrews to "fill in the blanks" with how they thought God would have demanded of their ancestors so he would appear more palatable.
hmmm, scott, I'm not interested here in going to much further in the subject as it's been discussed, but I did not leave it as a mystery as to why God allowed suffering. The only mystery is one that is necessarily mysterious because it is necessarily subjective (thus not objectively examinable even by atheists, so it's a mystery for them as well no matter what) and that's whether we can judge that what God accomplished was worth the risk of the degree of suffering.
God might have a good reason for allowing the Hebrews to "fill in the blanks"
that may be consistent with what Van Inwagen said. I'm not sure. But it isn't with what I assert. No, the law was clear with God's expectations. But the law had subtle trajectories that continued to be developed through the prophets, the wisdom literature and finally in Jesus and the apostles.
post 2 of 2
If God is all knowing and has some mysterious plan, then we have no way of determining what God would do, including allowing himself to be "falsely" painted as a genocidal monster in the Bible.
For a defense of Van Inwagen's position, I think sfwc has done well. But I don't think that God is painted falsely at all. His moral expectations are authentic, but they are different in some ways given the social context and context of grace which was different in an era before the acomplishment of the teachings, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But the moral expectations are pregnant with meaning and understanding as I have given an example above from the captive woman taken for a wife.
And his plan is not essentially and thoroughly mysterious on all accounts as knowledge is there to be had from plumbing the depths of these issues on many accounts especially scriptural ones. The plan is laid out in scriptures and not just any interpretation will work. It has mysteries and those mysteries yeild to knowledge through study and prayer and learning with the church and not just as an individual.
That your "not sure that everything he said was helpful" seems to be referring to helping your specific definition of God, who you personally think wouldn't go that far.
Van Inwagen and I have the same God. our conceptions of God are not God and in our quest to understand God, disagreements will happen and must be dealt with to continue to advance. Those conceptions will continue to develop give us a clearer view of God. I actually liked much of what Van Inwagen said. I'm just not sure what to do with it all nor do I feel that I will utilize all of it. But its part and parcel in the task of deepening our understanding of God.
oopsie,
The above two posts by barb are actually by me. Barb is my mother and I wrote those posts on her computer though I forgot to sign her out and me in.
I wrote God would also need to "want" me to conceder him a myth today because God's immoral
SFWC wrote: Here, I think Van Inwagen would take issue with you. After all, he suggests that God may intend that, properly read, the Bible would not lead you to believe that God actually behaved in an immoral manner.
Do you mean the actions in question were moral for God or that God didn't take the actions question? Because, for thousands of years, a majority of Christians held a belief in the former, not the latter. It's unclear why God would only fairly recently start "guiding" people to "properly" read the Bible.
Furthermore, If the Bible is "more or less" what God wants to be. This requires people to make false assumptions about God. It's unclear why a "properly written" Bible would result in falsehoods, while a "proper reading" would not, should it be more effective for his purposes.
I wrote: How do you know there isn't some even newer testament (ENT?) in which God's morality will again be depicted as changing? Will he change his mind about homosexuals? How about same sex marriage?
I think Van Inwagen's account of God properly guiding the thoughts of readers of the Bible deals with this objection, too.
In suggesting God allowed earlier inaccuracies, Van Inwagen's account opens the door to future revisions, but he seems to arbitrarily close it with the completion of the NT.
How do we determine if any of God's other supposed actions were really misrepresentations designed to make Christianity more appealing?
As I've outlined above, Van Inwagen's account is that God may miraculously give christians the ability to make such determinations correctly
So why did a number of Christians in the audience jumped to defend God's actions? Why has it taken this long for this position to appear?
Did God withhold his guidance so the Hebrews would fill in the blanks with their own incorrect view of God's morality or were they inspired by God to depict specific falsehoods?
How do we know this revelation isn't just one more step in God's mysterious plan?
Rob wrote: I know of Wright and what he has to offer
Rob, I'm specifically referring specifically to Wright's latest book.
What's presented there isn't merely an idea, but a comprehensive presentation of God throughout history. The earliest conceptions of Gods focused on why good and bad things happened. Gods were an agents because, as agents, they could be petitioned and appeased, to gain favor. Morality only comes much later and appears very gradually.
When viewed from this vantage point, this gradation leads relatively smoothly into Judaism and even continues though the OT and NT.
Recognized scholars have made a substantial case for practice of monolatry in ancient Israel. Monolatrism is the recognition of the existence of many Gods, but the idea that one should be worshiped.
Despite what appears to be monotheistic sanitation of the Bible, there are many biblical references that range from clear depiction of the worship of other Gods to what could easily be interpreted as Yahweh pushing other gods around.
Ezekiel 8:16 "And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD; and behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the east."
These are not just common people, but Jewish priests engaging in sun worship circa 586 BCE.
Psalms 86:8: "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."
They are other Gods, but they are none like Yahweh. These Gods do works, but none like the works of Yahweh.
Jeremiah 10:11: "Tell them this: 'These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.' "
Yahweh is telling the Israelites the Gods of the gentiles, who have not done the works he has done, will not only perish from the earth but will perish from under the heavens. When this occurs, the signs the gentiles fear will disappear.
As for less obvious verses….
Joshua 10: 12-13: "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
It's as if he's asking the them to kneel in the sight of Yahweh's chosen people. Why would it "hasten not to go down", as if it has a will which is being thwarted?
Again, this is just one of many verses that suggests Yahweh was one amongst many gods. The Hebrews just though their God was big enough to push everyone else's gods around, including the Sun and the Moon, which was commonly worshiped at that time.
Furthermore, we can even see this monotheistic sanitation going on today.
The New Living Translation of Jeremiah.
11 Say this to those who worship other gods: “Your so-called gods, who did not make the heavens and earth, will vanish from the earth and from under the heavens.
Rob wrote: it doesn't have much use for me from my perspective. And my perspective still works excellently.
However, Rob also wrote: For a defense of Van Inwagen's position, I think sfwc has done well. But I don't think that God is painted falsely at all.
Given that Van Inwagen's position draws on the same principle, how do you know which is correct? I'm sure that Van Inwagen thinks his perspective works just as "excellently" and is just as sound.
So, it's unclear why your view that "I don't think that God is painted falsely at all" is right.
that may be consistent with what Van Inwagen said. I'm not sure. But it isn't with what I assert. No, the law was clear with God's expectations.
Clarity does not guarantee accuracy. Nor does Van Inwagen suggest the law isn't clear. Instead, he has presented an argument that Bible can clearly depict the expectations of the Hebrew God and that these depictions can be false in a non-contradictory way. He suggests the Bible clearly misrepresents God's actions. On purpose.
but I did not leave it as a mystery as to why God allowed suffering.
Nor did Van Inwagen. Yet you do not share his view.
and that's whether we can judge that what God accomplished was worth the risk of the degree of suffering
Rob, as I mentioned two SFWC, the consequences of God's depiction of taking immoral actions isn't just limited to how people perceived God. People have taken actions based on these depictions. And there has been suffering because of it.
So, again, I could easily ask whether you can judge what God was trying to accomplish by falsely depicting himself as taking immoral actions was worth the risk of the degree of suffering. How do you know God wasn't justified by allowing false depictions to spread Christianity?
But the moral expectations are pregnant with meaning and understanding as I have given an example above from the captive woman taken for a wife.
But this is Van Inwagen's argument as well. He just thinks God allowed himself to be portrayed falsely so it would be even more effective. Again, this is not contradictory with a Bible that is ripe with "moral expectations" is "pregnant with meaning"
As I've Illustrated before, we can create concepts of God or Gods that have fewer contradictions and are significantly simpler, yet still explain what we observe. So, the ability to create a concept of God that works excellently doesn't seem to be sufficient means of determining what's more likely to be true.
Van Inwagen and I have the same God.
Indeed. This same God is defined in such a way that both concepts can exist without the ability to determine which is correct. Theists can create an almost infinite number of ways to explain what we observe. However, this kind of an explanation is NOT conducive to finding an underlying truth.
Please see the following TED talk: A new way to explain explanation.
post 2 of 2
Rob, as I mentioned two SFWC, the consequences of God's depiction of taking immoral actions isn't just limited to how people perceived God.
I disagree with you and (probably) Van Inwagen that the actions of God as described in the Bible were immoral. To the extent that anyone has acted immorally on the basis of these passages is often due to the fact that they also have ignored the narrative of scripture as a whole and have failed to understand the development of morality that has taken place since then in consistency with the inauguration of the new covenant.
How do you know God wasn't justified by allowing false depictions to spread Christianity?
Didn't I just read your comments to the effect that you recognize that I don't agree with VanInwagen on this point?
But this is Van Inwagen's argument as well.
Good. Just because we disagree on one thing doesn't mean we have to disagree elsewhere.
As I've Illustrated before, we can create concepts of God or Gods that have fewer contradictions and are significantly simpler yet still explain what we observe.
No thank you. I will stick to developing my concept of God around scripture, experienc, reason, tradition and whatever else is helpful.yet still explain what we observe. I'm not interested in "creating" a an ad hoq concept of God out of the blue. there's no good reason for it. You were convincing to yourself if I recall correctly in your illustration.
the ability to create a concept of God that works excellently doesn't seem to be sufficient means of determining what's more likely to be true.
Right. I didn't invent the concept of God. It was given to me. But what works excellently involves far more than what I can discuss in a few small blog discussions. But in terms of what is believed to be true, everything we believe we know such as from science for example, we believe because we think it works excellently.
Indeed. This same God is defined in such a way that both concepts can exist without the ability to determine which is correct.
I am able. I have determined. you're welcome.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the only way for that to come out is to do exactly what we have been doing, discussing, reasoning. If there is a name for the fallacy that asserts the falsity of an idea because there is controversy, skeptics just love to commit it. But its profoundly irrational.
Theists can create an almost infinite number of ways to explain what we observe. However, this kind of an explanation is NOT conducive to finding an underlying truth.
Atheists have a tireless way of hovering in the generalities and shrugging their shoulders as if this was an argument. The fact is, these "infinite" ways of explaining things can be examined in detail and dealt with and progress can be made. Course it isn't as if the plurality of opinion only belonged to religion but it is a feature of many important feilds of thought. Don't you know that even atheists have their disagreements as well?
post 1 of 2
Scott, I don't know whether what you (or Wright?) say about morality coming later after appeasement in connection to tragedy and fotune is true or not and whether I need to accomodate it. But of course tragedy and fortune are ultimately connected to our actions and the oldest book of the Bible, Job demonstrates this realization as Job wonders why the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer.
I have known the ancient Jews were monolotrists. It was a legitimate way of dealing with the plurality of religions and it yields nicely to monotheism when it dawned on them that their God, the only one deserving of their worship is furthermore the only one recognized as a true deity.
And of course the ancient Israelites, even priests "prostituted" themselves to ancient pagan god's including sun worship. This is not a subtle and overlooked message of the old testament but is a constant source of drama and grief that Yahweh's chosen were not faithful to him.
I doubt that any of this is unique to Wright. The beef I have is just the idea that religious developement is like a naturalistic process where developement is along the lines of what survives in the culture. It's not that horrible of an idea in terms of understanding developement in as long as it is not understood as something that precludes divine guidance though I'm not sure that Wright is really opposed to that idea, but he doesn't trust much of the content of what may have been divinely guided with his doubts of God's personhood. It's too bad because there is nothing in our immediate experience that is greater than personhood. So why should God be less than we are who are greater than a dead unthinking unknowing (bottom line, impersonal) universe no matter how vast it may be.
When I said that I don't think God is painted falsely, you asked,
Given that Van Inwagen's position draws on the same principle, how do you know which is correct?
What principle? If I share a principle with him that leads to his conclusion, what is it and why should it lead to that conclusion?
Why do I think I am correct and he is not? Describing God is just too basic of a task of scripture for it to use false ideas. And I don't believe it is consistent with the task of revelation that is scripture for people to be falsely lead about God. If something seems wrong, I'd prefer to say that there is something under the surface that explains this and I have offered such sub-surface explanations here and in other places on this blog.
I'm sure that Van Inwagen thinks his perspective works just as "excellently" and is just as sound.
Obviously. That's why anyone promotes their own view, because they have confidence in it. That's the way it should be.
Clarity does not guarantee accuracy.
I didn't say it did. And that didn't have much to do with the line of thought that you asserted to which I said that the law was clear.
Nor does Van Inwagen suggest the law isn't clear.
I was responding to your comment on the Hebrews needing to fill in the blanks.
I said, "but I did not leave it as a mystery as to why God allowed suffering."
to which you replied:
Nor did Van Inwagen. Yet you do not share his view.
the issue of suffering doesn't have much to do with this discussion. I don't remember Van Inwagen saying anything about it except that he was going to follow a pattern of thinking that some philosophers follow in the problem of suffering. What I said to which you responded had little to do with this discussion except to point out that you were mistaken in how you had remembered a previous discussion.
sfwc: Van Inwagen's account is that God may miraculously give christians the ability to make such determinations correctly
Scott: So why did a number of Christians in the audience jumped to defend God's actions?
Those Christians may not have been reading their Bibles properly.
Why has it taken this long for this position to appear?
I guess Van Inwagen's position isn't new (I haven't checked). Even if it is, that is no objection. After all, the question `Why has it taken this long to appear?' could equally be applied to much of modern science.
Did God withhold his guidance so the Hebrews would fill in the blanks with their own incorrect view of God's morality or were they inspired by God to depict specific falsehoods?
Since, on Van Inwagen's account, the whole Bible is inspired, I guess he would say they were inspired to depict specific falsehoods. What he means by inspiration is another matter.
How do we know this revelation isn't just one more step in God's mysterious plan?
On Van Inwagen's account, it surely is just one more step in that plan. Why is that a problem?
sfwc: [Van Inwagen] suggests that God may intend that, properly read, the Bible would not lead you to believe that God actually behaved in an immoral manner.
Scott: Do you mean the actions in question were moral for God or that God didn't take the actions question?
I mean that God didn't take the actions in question.
Because, for thousands of years, a majority of Christians held a belief in the former, not the latter. It's unclear why God would only fairly recently start "guiding" people to "properly" read the Bible.
If you're going to claim that there has been a recent sudden shift in the ratios of Christians believing these two propositions, you're going to have to back that up with some evidence. As far as I can tell, many more Christians still believe the former, and there have always been a few who believed the latter. So what Van Inwagen has to answer for is not a recent change in the actions of God. Instead, it is the unsettling fact that the majority of Christians are not properly reading the Bible (on his account). He suggests that this is the fault of those Christians, not of God, and he gives the following example:
`If you come to the Bible with preconcieved moral notions, say that slavery is morally permissible, looking for prooftexts, you will not only get no moral truth out of it but you will almost certainly do yourself positive moral harm.'
Scott: This requires people to make false assumptions about God. It's unclear why a "properly written" Bible would result in falsehoods, while a "proper reading" would not, should it be more effective for his purposes.
It is still true on Van Inwagen's account that God does not want people to believe falsehoods about him (and hence that, properly read, the Bible will not lead to false beliefs about God).
Scott: How do you know there isn't some even newer testament (ENT?) in which God's morality will again be depicted as changing? Will he change his mind about homosexuals? How about same sex marriage?
There is no need for Van Inwagen to claim to know this as a part of his defence. If he later claims to know this, and to know it on the basis of having read the Bible, then he need only provide good reason to believe that that reading was proper.
Scott: In suggesting God allowed earlier inaccuracies, Van Inwagen's account opens the door to future revisions, but he seems to arbitrarily close it with the completion of the NT.
This appears arbitrary only in that he provided no reason, during the course of his argument, why the canon should close with the completion of the NT. But why should he have? After all, the closure of the canon wasn't the issue he was addressing. Perhaps he has other grounds for believing that the Bible is complete: I expect so, but I don't know. You'd have to ask him. In any case, your objection amounts to changing the subject.
Scott, I don't know whether what you (or Wright?) say about morality coming later after appeasement in connection to tragedy and fotune is true or not and whether I need to accomodate it.
Rob, I was referring to your comment to stamati anagnostou where you wrote: So for someone who's putting the cart before the horse, here, you are asserting I should share you're outlook without giving reason for it.
Wright's book addresses this issue, in detail. There are many reasons, whether you're aware of them or not.
[monolatry] was a legitimate way of dealing with the plurality of religions and it yields nicely to monotheism when it dawned on them that their God, the only one deserving of their worship is furthermore the only one recognized as a true deity.
Wright makes strong arguments why the Israelites became monotheists based on previous historical trends and specific disruptive events which occurred during the transition. Monotheism appears to be, in part, a desperate attempt to salvage Yahweh rather than a "recognition" that he deserved to be worshiped.
I doubt that any of this is unique to Wright.
What's unique is how this information is presented in a single book, which is the result of over a decade of research on the subject. It's the linear progression which shows the evolution of God at the macro level.
It's too bad because there is nothing in our immediate experience that is greater than personhood. So why should God be less than we are who are greater than a dead unthinking unknowing (bottom line, impersonal) universe no matter how vast it may be.
The things in our immediate experience which make personhood so "great" are the very things that God does not exhibit. For a personal God to explain the universe we observe, he must be unlike any person you know, unlike any creator we know, unlike any father we know, etc. We're left with a disembodied being that intentionally hides himself from us, does not approach communication as a two way street , etc. The role you see as being played by God and that which we find great about personhood is vastly different.
Gods were initially agents which explained variations in the natural world. Some of which took the forms of animals or natural elements. These Gods were NOT moral. They were forces that created complex variation for which natural laws had yet to be found.
An explanation about phenomenon can seem essentially "useless" unless said explanation actually provides some measure of influence, control or consistency. This is why agency is often preferred in cases where little knowledge or influence. It gives the illusion of some form of control though appeals or consistency through form of some kind of overarching purpose, even when none is actually apparent.
We've seen this time and time again in historical accounts.
A God who becomes angry when people melt bee's wax or when he watches dogs mate - and expresses his anger as lighting - is preferred over a mysterious phenomenon with no apparent rhyme or reason. It's a coping mechanism we use when we feel out of control.
What principle? If I share a principle with him that leads to his conclusion, what is it and why should it lead to that conclusion?
That God is justified in taking actions he may deem necessary for the greater good, including presenting falsehoods in the bible. We are simply too finite to know exactly how God's actions, or lack their of, will bring about God's ultimate plan.
Describing God is just too basic of a task of scripture for it to use false ideas. And I don't believe it is consistent with the task of revelation that is scripture for people to be falsely lead about God.
This assumes that human beings would always act in a way that God could use to illustrate exactly what he wanted to say. In fact, God manipulating Job wouldn't be much different than God manipulating readers of the Bible to make a point.
If something seems wrong, I'd prefer to say that there is something under the surface that explains this and I have offered such sub-surface explanations here and in other places on this blog.
But this is what Van Inwagen has done as well. The thing that seems wrong, the apparent immoral depictions of God, can be explained by the sub-surface account that God more or less allowed falsehoods in the Bible so his purpose would be meet.
And [Clarity] didn't have much to do with the line of thought that you asserted to which I said that the law was clear.
If God allowed the Hebrews to fill in the blanks, this doesn't mean the law would be unclear either. In fact, clarity would result in higher contrast between moral views.
the issue of suffering doesn't have much to do with this discussion
Just as you did not leave it a mystery as why God supposedly allows suffering. Van Inwagen did not leave it a mystery why God would allow himself to be falsely depicted as taking immoral actions. Despite providing a logical motive, you do not share his view.
To the extent that anyone has acted immorally on the basis of these passages is often due to the fact that they also have ignored the narrative of scripture as a whole and have failed to understand the development of morality that has taken place since then in consistency with the inauguration of the new covenant.
Rob, Van Inwagen also think's the narrative should not be ignored. He just thinks God allowed himself to be falsely depicted as acting immortally so, when the narrative is viewed as a whole, the contrast is more pronounced.
I wrote: How do you know God wasn't justified by allowing false depictions to spread Christianity?
Didn't I just read your comments to the effect that you recognize that I don't agree with VanInwagen on this point?
That's not the question I'm asking. As a finite being, by what means do you decide that God wouldn't allow falsehoods in the Bible to achieve his purpose?
I'm not interested in "creating" a an ad hoq concept of God out of the blue. there's no good reason for it.
Rob, there is a good reason for it. It shows the mere ability to construct a God that could be considered logically possible doesn't mean it's correct.
But in terms of what is believed to be true, everything we believe we know such as from science for example, we believe because we think it works excellently.
Much of what is considered scientific evidence that supports the Christian God is limited to supporting deism or multiple Gods, and evil God, etc. and is being superseded by a cosmos with multiple universes. That nothing existed before our universe was created is no longer the mainstream position.
If there is a name for the fallacy that asserts the falsity of an idea because there is controversy, skeptics just love to commit it.
Rob, you seem to be responding to a strawman of my argument. Both your positions are easy to vary, which makes them bad arguments. Again, please see…
A new way to explain explanation
sfwc wrote: If you're going to claim that there has been a recent sudden shift in the ratios of Christians believing these two propositions, you're going to have to back that up with some evidence
While many liberal Christians may think that God is falsely depicted as committing immoral acts, this isn't exactly what Van Inwagen is suggesting. That God allowed mistakes as not to oppress free will of the Bible's authors, and that the Bible is more or less what God wanted it to say, including false depictions of immoral actions are not the same thing. Yes, it's subtle, but I think it's an important difference.
So what Van Inwagen has to answer for is not a recent change in the actions of God. Instead, it is the unsettling fact that the majority of Christians are not properly reading the Bible (on his account). He suggests that this is the fault of those Christians, not of God, and he gives the following example:
If we assume that God's "guidance" has been consistent, then we need some other factor that would cause Christians to suddenly start reading the Bible "correctly." Furthermore, why this factor would only appear after thousands of years, given that it is necessary for proper interpretation.
`If you come to the Bible with preconcieved moral notions, say that slavery is morally permissible, looking for prooftexts, you will not only get no moral truth out of it but you will almost certainly do yourself positive moral harm.'
I do not come to the Bible to support a position of slavery in the Bible. I go looking for prohibitions of slavery in an attempt to determine if the Bible is the word of men rather than a perfectly moral being. That God doesn't clearly admonish slavery suggests the former. Given the number of truth claims out there, we must create a criteria to distinguish them. Van Inwagen is muddying what was already a unclear water in the first place.
It is still true on Van Inwagen's account that God does not want people to believe falsehoods about him (and hence that, properly read, the Bible will not lead to false beliefs about God).
At some point in history, should no one have accepted these false depictions as truths, then they would not have been added to the Bible because they were falsehoods. This includes, but is not limited to, those individuals involved in the process of canonization. They must have remained as part of the Bible at least until whatever factor became present that caused "correct" interpretations appeared. These false readings were necessary as part of God's purpose.
I wrote: Why has it taken this long for this position to appear?
I guess Van Inwagen's position isn't new (I haven't checked). Even if it is, that is no objection. After all, the question `Why has it taken this long to appear?' could equally be applied to much of modern science.
First, the position includes the conclusion. For Van Inwagen to say the proper interoperation as guided by God is to reject the immoral depictions as falsehoods, he must have actually been guided by God to reach this conclusion. Otherwise, it's unclear how he could know God actually intended this interpretation.
Second, science is not inspired by an all knowing and all seeing supernatural being.
I guess he would say they were inspired to depict specific falsehoods.
On Van Inwagen's account, it surely is just one more step in that plan. Why is that a problem?
Sorry I wasn't clear.
If God inspired falsehoods in the past, then how does Van Inwagen know God isn't currently inspiring him to think other aspects of the Bible are true when they are actually false.
For example, I would conceder a God that sentences anyone to eternal torture without a chance to learn from said punishment is immoral. God could be moving people to some completely different truth about God's moral character beyond what Van Inwagen holds at the present or even beyond what the Bible contains. The Bible might be almost or entirly false as a way to meet God's purpose. However, Van Inwagen seems to limit the extent of God's allowed falsehoods arbitrarily.
In other words, it's not clear why Van Inwagen thinks he's not being intentionally fooled via revelation today, just as other were fooled by revelation in the past, for some greater purpose.
post 1 of 3
Wright's book addresses this issue, in detail. There are many reasons, whether you're aware of them or not.
Scott, my comment to stamati a. in the context of this discussion are reasonable in the context of this discussion. We could all back up our positions by saying some guy wrote a book about it, and while there is some place for that, it is not the best way to defend that position. Of course, there's only so much you can do on a blog and it only highlights the limitations of these sorts of discussions.
Wright makes strong arguments why the Israelites became monotheists based on previous historical trends and specific disruptive events which occurred during the transition. Monotheism appears to be, in part, a desperate attempt to salvage Yahweh rather than a "recognition" that he deserved to be worshiped.
Whether he's right or wrong, there is nothing you've posted that an orhodox view of scripture and developement of the judeo-Christian worldview. Of course their were disruptive desperate events in the history of Israel that threatened Judaism. Again, it is not new that the Israelites were frequently unfaithful to God. And so what if that played a role in the development of the stronger position of monotheism. God throughout scripture uses evil situations that he did not instigate in order to bring about good.
What's unique is how this information is presented in a single book,
I highly doubt that. As far as I can tell, his unique contribution is describing the process of developement as evolution where some parts of religion and views of God are selected because they survive in a culture and others are unselected.
The things in our immediate experience which make personhood so "great" are the very things that God does not exhibit.
Nonsense. God of course has consciousness. Nothing matters with out that. Then there is intentionality, emotional, rationality. Uniquely and yet not so much is that God is a relational community as we come to learn in the trinity which teaches us how important relationality is to personhood, a message that the perversely individualistic west needs to learn badly.
he must be unlike any person you know
and yet, yes, God is unique, in a category with only one example, Godhood.
We're left with a disembodied being that intentionally hides himself from us, does not approach communication as a two way street , etc.
and personhood is perfectly conceivable even alongside similar traits as these, though what you describe is not precisely what the Bible describes.
Gods were initially agents...
and yes, on with the liteny of the unsupported claims that some guy defends in some book that i'm not going to look into since I have enough on my plate and I'm not all that worried about. Sure people believed all that, but I'm concerned with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the title of the blog post suggests.
post 2 of 3
That God is justified in taking actions he may deem necessary for the greater good, including presenting falsehoods in the bible.
Scott, you aren't tracking the discussion very well. No, this is not a principal I share with Van Inwagen for the second (or third) time. God does not present falsehoods about himself.
I said, "Describing God is just too basic of a task of scripture for it to use false ideas. And I don't believe it is consistent with the task of revelation that is scripture for people to be falsely lead about God."
to which you replied
This assumes that human beings would always act in a way that God could use to illustrate exactly what he wanted to say. In fact, God manipulating Job wouldn't be much different than God manipulating readers of the Bible to make a point.
I have no clue how you drew this conclusion from what I said.
But this is what Van Inwagen has done as well. The thing that seems wrong, the apparent immoral depictions of God, can be explained by the sub-surface account that God more or less allowed falsehoods in the Bible so his purpose would be meet.
If you don't want to understand how my view is distinguished from Van Inwagen's then you won't. It's not hard to understand. There is something reletively on the surface that Van Inwagen accepts that I don't, that God's actions are portrayed as immoral and that God is falsely presented. I don't believe they are immoral actions and I have explained why in one situation and elsewhere for other situations.
If God allowed the Hebrews to fill in the blanks, this doesn't mean the law would be unclear either. In fact, clarity would result in higher contrast between moral views.
I geuss I don't know what you mean by God letting the Hebrews fill in the blanks.
Rob, Van Inwagen also think's the narrative should not be ignored.
right scott. I was speaking to something you said. I wasn't interacting with what Van Inwagen said in that instance.
by what means do you decide that God wouldn't allow falsehoods in the Bible to achieve his purpose?
I specifically said that God wouldn't allow scripture to falsely portray him. Again, it goes against the basic principle of scripture to teach us about God, a principle that I don't believe was in operation only after the Jewish-Christian canon was closed.
I did not say that scripture wouldn't have false ideas in and of themselves it if those ideas are not essential to the purpose of scripture. A possible example of that is the second day of creation where the structure of the world described strongly resembles that described by other surrounding cultures of a world with a hard dome for a sky with water behind it. The point is not that this is technically accurate but that the sky and system of weather is of God's making. That it is technically innaccurate says nothing deceptive about God but instead communicates effectively to the people at the time what is truely important using concepts that they knew.
post 3 of 3
Rob, there is a good reason for it. It shows the mere ability to construct a God that could be considered logically possible doesn't mean it's correct.
which has little to do with an understanding of God that is not only logically possible but very powerfully meets so many existential concerns and interacts with history in a believable rational way that is consistent with what we know of history (granted that history is controversial) and can be defended on historical grounds as has been done by many orthodox scholars. And that is far more than can be reasonably discussed in this small discussion that is already at risk of branching out in too many directions. So lets stick somewhat closer to the topic.
I said, "But in terms of what is believed to be true, everything we believe we know such as from science for example, we believe because we think it works excellently."
you replied:
Much of what is considered scientific evidence that supports the Christian God is limited to supporting deism or multiple Gods, and evil God, etc...
Scott, what I said had nothing to do with the implications of science for the existence of God but had to do with my epistemic use of the term "excellently".
Rob, you seem to be responding to a strawman of my argument. Both your positions are easy to vary, which makes them bad arguments. Again, please see…
it is too much rigidity that makes a worldview of humans bad that cannot adapt to new evidence or better conceptualizations when we are finite in knowledge. Of course too much flexibility is bad when a view implies nothing, but that has not been demonstrated.
Scott: If we assume that God's "guidance" has been consistent, then we need some other factor that would cause Christians to suddenly start reading the Bible "correctly."
As I mentioned already, the onus is on you to show that there has been a recent sudden shift in the correctness (with respect to Van Inwagen's account) of the readings of the Bible by Christians. A correct reading, according to Van Inwagen, is one in which God's reported immoral actions are not believed to have occured, rather than one in which those actions are not believed to have been immoral. But as you admitted, there have been Christians whose readings were correct in this sense since the very beginning.
It is worth noting at this point that a correct reading in this sense need not include agreement with the account of the origin of the Bible suggested by Van Inwagen.
sfwc (quoting Van Inwagen): If you come to the Bible with preconcieved moral notions, say that slavery is morally permissible, looking for prooftexts, you will not only get no moral truth out of it but you will almost certainly do yourself positive moral harm.
Scott: I do not come to the Bible to support a position of slavery in the Bible. I go looking for prohibitions of slavery in an attempt to determine if the Bible is the word of men rather than a perfectly moral being. That God doesn't clearly admonish slavery suggests the former.
The example in the quote I gave is just that; an example. I expect that Van Inwagen would claim that there are other possible ways to incorrectly approach the Bible and so exclude the possibility of properly reading it. In fact, he expresses a criterion for proper reading like this:
`All this is true provided that you are willing to be transformed by submitting yourself to the will of God.'
Later he puts it even more forcefully: `If you have submitted yourself to God's will'. He could easily claim that, since you have not submitted yourself to God's will, you cannot expect your reading of the Bible to be proper.
Scott: Given the number of truth claims out there, we must create a criteria to distinguish them. Van Inwagen is muddying what was already a unclear water in the first place.
I favour the more agnostic position that, if we do not have a criterion for distinguising some class of truth claims, we should admit our ignorance regarding that class of claims rather than accepting an inadequate criterion. In such a case, a careful exposition of the difficulty of distinguising the class of truth claims (or, as you put it, a muddying of the waters) can be helpful.
Scott: At some point in history, should no one have accepted these false depictions as truths, then they would not have been added to the Bible because they were falsehoods. This includes, but is not limited to, those individuals involved in the process of canonization.
Van Inwagen is happy for these texts to form part of the canon, despite the fact that he does not believe they consist entirely of truth. Similarly, not believing that the texts were completely true need not have prevented the canonisers of the texts from choosing them. My history is a little fuzzy at this point; could you provide some evidence that those involved in the canonisation of the old testament texts Van Inwagen is dealing with believed that the accounts in those texts were literally true?
In any case, at the worst this objection shows that the canonisers of the texts did not read them. Van Inwagen goes further; on his account, even the authors of the Biblical text did not properly read the texts they were writing. But this is no more a problem than the fact that many later readers also did not properly read those texts. All it shows is that Van Inwagen's account of inspiration must not rely on a proper reading of the texts by their human authors or canonisers.
sfwc: I guess Van Inwagen's position isn't new (I haven't checked). Even if it is, that is no objection. After all, the question `Why has it taken this long to appear?' could equally be applied to much of modern science.
Scott: First, the position includes the conclusion. For Van Inwagen to say the proper interoperation as guided by God is to reject the immoral depictions as falsehoods, he must have actually been guided by God to reach this conclusion. Otherwise, it's unclear how he could know God actually intended this interpretation.
This extra factor has nothing to do with the (alleged) recent provenance of Van Inwagen's account. It also fails as an objection to his account. Van Inwagen never claims to know that his account of `proper reading' is accurate. It is instead part of the scenario he provides as part of his defence of the proposition I called (4a') in my first post. But what he is providing is simply a defence, and so he only has to show that the scenario he outlines is plausible, rather than certain. He puts it like this:
`I don't know what's the truth of this matter. What I'm going to do is more or less what philosophers, what students of the problem of evil call presenting a defence. That is, I'll tell a story that I think is true for all anyone knows given that there was a god, a personal god, who acted in history.'
His claim that his account is plausible appears to be based more on reason than on divine inspiration.
Scott: Second, science is not inspired by an all knowing and all seeing supernatural being.
Once more, this has nothing to do with the recency of the ideas in question.
Scott: If God inspired falsehoods in the past, then how does Van Inwagen know God isn't currently inspiring him to think other aspects of the Bible are true when they are actually false.
As I mentioned, since he is only presenting a defence, there is no need for Van Inwagen to rely on such a claim. He may nevertheless believe it to be true (I don't know). But if he does, he must justify that in a different way on a separate occasion. It is not essential to his argument here.
Scott: For example, I would conceder a God that sentences anyone to eternal torture without a chance to learn from said punishment is immoral. God could be moving people to some completely different truth about God's moral character beyond what Van Inwagen holds at the present or even beyond what the Bible contains. The Bible might be almost or entirly false as a way to meet God's purpose. However, Van Inwagen seems to limit the extent of God's allowed falsehoods arbitrarily.
Van Inwagen doesn't claim here to believe that God will torture some people eternally in hell. For all I know, he doesn't even believe this. So this isn't a limitation he puts on god's allowed falsehoods. If you think Van Inwagen makes a different such limitation elsewhere, you'll have to point it out.
Scott: In other words, it's not clear why Van Inwagen thinks he's not being intentionally fooled via revelation today, just as other were fooled by revelation in the past, for some greater purpose.
I'd go further: It's not even clear that Van Inwagen thinks he's not being intentionally fooled via revelation today, just as others were fooled by revelation in the past, for some greater purpose. He certainly relies on no such claim in the course of his argument.
Correction: In the first of my two posts above, `In any case, at the worst this objection shows that the canonisers of the texts did not read them.' should read `In any case, at the worst this objection shows that the canonisers of the texts did not read them properly.'
Post a Comment