tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115374928663871781..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Particularism and ChristianityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15776392889239333492007-05-08T21:14:00.000-04:002007-05-08T21:14:00.000-04:00Bill,Excellent post, and a great exchange. You so...Bill,<BR/><BR/>Excellent post, and a great exchange. You sound like a reasonable man who is after truth.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1154652977149334762006-08-03T20:56:00.000-04:002006-08-03T20:56:00.000-04:00EV,Particularism gives a good epistemic grounding ...EV,<BR/><BR/>Particularism gives a good epistemic grounding for asserting knowledge moral truths. Moreland argues that methodism does not. He would argue that accepting methodism leads to skepticism of all knowledge. Moreland proposed that particularism gives one good grounds to reject skepticism, materialism, and atheism. He implied that it was good for Christianity. I saw that moral knowledge (justified through particularism) also presented challenge for Christianity. I suppose it is not particularism itself that presents the challenge, rather the moral knowledge.<BR/><BR/>By way of illustration, Steve Hays at Triablogue stated in response to my post here that <EM>“You can’t answer the epistemic question in the affirmative until you address the metaphysical question of whether there is a right or wrong to be known in the first place. What makes something right or wrong? What metaphysical conditions must be met for moral truths to exist?</EM>” He must think that I in order to have moral knowledge, I must be able to show that I have a sufficient ontological justification.<BR/><BR/>As a particularist, I can just reject his assertion here. Why does he think moral knowledge requires more justification than I have provided? Has he given me examples of knowledge that requires ontological justification? Obviously, he has not. I can think of no reason to take his assertion seriously.<BR/><BR/>However, a Methodist would be committed to providing justification through criteria. That would allow Steve to just continue ask “How do you know that?” after every response I would give.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1154118140277135072006-07-28T16:22:00.000-04:002006-07-28T16:22:00.000-04:00Ev,I think you have accurately characterized my po...Ev,<BR/><BR/>I think you have accurately characterized my position. You are correct that I hold my moral criteria contingently. There may be a better criteria/moral hypothesis that makes sense of the particular moral facts I accept. I need to be open to revising what I believe based upon facts made aware to me. Even though I use criteria to sort beliefs, someone could point out that my criteria is flawed, and I may have to re-evaluate my beliefs. I am actually going through this process now, having recently been convinced Christianity is not true. I held a lot of beliefs because of my Christianity, and it is a challenge to re-evaluate my positions on many things.<BR/><BR/>As to your question of couldn’t the objection still hold if Methodism is the best way of obtaining knowledge? I suppose a Methodist could make the same claim, but the way I would defend my claim would be very different. For example, the objection “it is possible you are wrong” has more force to a Methodist than to a Particularist. J.P. claims that the Methodism was used to obtain certainty. If you grant you need certainty before having knowledge there is very little, if anything, that you know. Defending any knowledge claim becomes very difficult.<BR/><BR/>Some people claim that I can’t hold to absolute moral standards unless I have an ontological basis for morality. This objection is essentially trying to shift the burden of proof by getting me to behave as a Methodist. I have at least two questions for those raising that objection. 1) Why should I think I need to have a worked out ontology before claiming to know moral truths? 2) How would one know that the ontology is sufficient to support a particular knowledge claim?<BR/><BR/>I think the approach I am using is fair and promotes discussion. My claims may not be known with absolute certainty, but not much can be known with certainty anyway. It is true I may have to revise my beliefs when someone actually provides evidence. However, when they raise a merely “logically possible” objection, I think I am justified in rejecting it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Abe,<BR/><BR/>I agree that there could have been good reasons for killing the Amalekites, even the infants. The problem for Christians is not only did Samuel give a bad reason, but that bad reason was codified in the cannon of Christian scripture. If Samuel had said, “Go and kill the Amalekites in accordance with prophecy,” or “the Amalekites will be a danger to you,” or if Samuel had not attributed a reason to God at all then my objection would not have nearly the force.<BR/><BR/>If there is a God who intends to provide scripture and if “all scripture” is profitable for “instruction in righteousness,” then I think it is reasonable to conclude that the writing of Samuel is not part of that scripture. What moral precept are you supposed to take away from the justification offered by Samuel? Why would his inclusion of the justification be better than not providing the justification? I don’t understand why you think the surrounding text justifies giving a pass to the 1 Samuel 15. Keep in mind, the whole question is “Is the Bible the word of God?” Why shouldn’t I believe the Bible is slandering the Amalekites, just as it is apparently slandering God?<BR/><BR/>An aside here, I do want to thank you for attacking my argument and not me personally. I have been very impressed by the level of discourse I have seen here.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1153926309732545672006-07-26T11:05:00.000-04:002006-07-26T11:05:00.000-04:00Abe,To quote my post “The mere possibility we are ...Abe,<BR/><BR/>To quote my post “The mere possibility we are wrong is no reason to think we are wrong.” Your reply seems to imply either (or maybe both) that 1) The moral law giver is incapable of dispensing sufficient punishment directly to the guilty individuals after their deaths or 2) Killing innocent (relative to the stated crime) individuals is really not punishment to the killed individuals. (Feel free to offer your own moral postulates if my characterization doesn’t capture the essence of your objection.)<BR/><BR/>Now I am a particularist. I don’t agree with either of the moral postulates that you have seemingly offered. If you could offer clear examples (that I would agree with) that reinforce your moral postulates, then you have given me reason to reconsider my position. That is what I tried to do. I made moral claims and sustained a burden of proof. I reasoned from easy to understand examples before offering the first criterion. To make your case, you need to shoulder a burden of proof as well.<BR/><BR/>I also offered Deuteronomy 24:16 as corroboration to my second moral fact. Why wouldn’t “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin” imply a general moral principle applicable to Samuel? If it isn’t, how could you possibly interpret any moral precept found in the Bible?<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that I am approaching this text as a theist/deist. What hypothesis should I think is more likely? The moral law giver instructs his followers to kill infants for other peoples’ sins, or that some guy is using God’s name as a justification to get people to do what he wants.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1153886803788470282006-07-26T00:06:00.000-04:002006-07-26T00:06:00.000-04:00Barny Frapplegait once challenged Tito Ortiz to a ...Barny Frapplegait once challenged Tito Ortiz to a fight, Ortiz didn't respond, guess he was afraid of Fraplegait.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, here's a quote from Loftus' "Read This" post on the DC sidebar:<BR/><BR/>"We will respond to the posts we choose to respond to if we have the time. But please don’t assume that because we didn't respond to a post that it means anything at all."<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I have about 6 or 7 posts that Loftus never bothered responding to. They were not generic posts like this one, but specific refutation of his position, I guess his non-response means I stumped him?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it's always easy to catch Loftus refuting himself.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1153856652626530232006-07-25T15:44:00.000-04:002006-07-25T15:44:00.000-04:00Is it possible that when no Christian responds it'...Is it possible that when no Christian responds it's because you stumped them? If so, congratulations! Keep it up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com