http://www.libertypages.com/clark Mormonism and technical philosophy with an emphasis on Peirce, Heidegger, Derrida and Ricoeur. en-us http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10363.html Just a quick note that it seems to me that those criticizing Rand about compassion and self-interest do so simply because real compassion often ends up being against ones immediate self-interest. So justify it all you want you just can't escape that problem. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10363.html Furthermore, I don't think it's that hard to reconcile Rand's concept of selfishness with the Protestant faith...I don't know so much about the Mormon faith, unfortunately. I have heard it is similar but I don't know the specifics. Anyway, the ideas of charity and a certain degree of humility before God seem to be the same. In addition, the Protestant faith advocates that all people have a "purpose" to fulfill and that we should fulfill our purpose with our highest degree of excellence--that is, we should reach our highest potential. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10363.html I think the central point of Ayn Rand's views on selfishness is sorely lost on the majority of people. As she herself states in her collection of essays, "The Virtue of Selfishness," she does not mean a selfishness that is devoid of compassion or of honesty. Selfishness--as Rand explains in "The Virtue of Selfishness" and illustrates through the characters of Roark, Rearden and Dagny Taggart in her (ahem, entirely interesting and never preachy) fiction--is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest, informed by REASON. This does not mean running over anyone you have to in order to get where you want to go--in fact, she portrays characters who do this very negatively (cases in point: James Taggart and Peter Keating)--nor does it mean employing any means necessary. In Atlas Shrugged, the protagonists resort to law-breaking only when the laws become so amoral that they require dishonesty to be followed. Before this, all of the protagonists are honest in business. They give value and expect that value back. They neither ask for freebies nor give them. At one point, Hank Rearden actually DOES give a check to his brother for no reason at all, out of charity. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10804.html Well theater is not that popular as it used to be, and I am sorry to admit this fact because I still search the real value of that art. Perhaps theater nowadays needs a little more promotions to bring youngsters real interest. Now that I talk about this, I realize that it's been a while since I last bought theatre tickets. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11012.html To My Friends of Faith, http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10865.html Well I am not so sure that chocolate is recommendable specially for the children. Of course it also has benefits but I think that bad effects overwhelm the good effects. Most people should be careful with this product because it can become a bad habit and that can really affect our health. I am specially referring to high fats levels in blood. Those with blood pressure should be familiar with this. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10812.html Your readers may be interested to learn that Eco's 1962 essay is also reprinted in a recent collection, Arguing Comics: Literary Masters on a Popular Medium, that was issued by the University Press of Mississippi in 2004. Arguing Comics features over twenty-five essays on comics by major twentieth century writers, from Irving Howe and Dorothy Parker to Walter Ong and Manny Farber. While the book has not been widely reviewed, it has been assigned in a number of college courses on different aspects of comics and the graphic novel. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10920.html Well I don't doubt ketamine is useful in times of need but my concern is that this drug can create addiction and dependence, and that's why I think it's use should be strictly supervised by the doctor. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11012.html I am a nobody, but I have perused the site and am really enjoying it. I submitted student payment for membership and am just waiting to hear back. Again, I am nobody but I really think the layout is workable and user friendly and will get some views. My problem with blogs is that I never feel 'caught up' with contemporary thought on any subject, thus feeling the need to read the entire chain of comments, which, heaven only knows what kind of time I already waste online, I just can't do that. This way, I can be 'in the know' more so than before and have an outlet for my feelings that I am alone with my thoughts that stray from mainstream mormon thought. I look forward to progression and improvement of the page, let me know if I can help in any way. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10419.html I think Mormonism starts with the idea that we can all be prophets and that it is by personal revelation we know. The Protestant view that we can know by an appeal to the text or (for existentialists) via despair is just not convincing to me. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10419.html The stuff about pre-existence and choosing to come into this life seems arbitrary, and cannot be empirically shown. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11002.html Quinn's objectivity is questionable. In some ways he was an apologist as much as Hugh Nibley only with some significantly different views. In many ways he had the same failings in his scholarship as Nibley did. (One can't read Mormonism and the Magic World View without thinking of Nibley and his flaws) http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11002.html It is interesting to see how an objective Mormon scholar doing Mormon history fares working outside the church versus Dr. D. Michael Quinn, who was working inside the church, and whose objectivity basically cost him everything. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11011.html That made me laugh out loud. (The musical background and film technique sounds and looks like it was done by the same people who made The Godmakers.) http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11010.html This was fun to watch. Congrats on your continued success! http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11011.html Har! Classic. Thanks for passing that on Clark. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11010.html We'll have a fourth hopefully in a couple of weeks. We hoped to have it for Christmas but demand for our other bars was such we had to get batches for those done first. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11010.html Clark, that's a cool video. I only got to watch half of it before I was interrupted - but really found it interesting. At some point I want to post that video on my blog or another ... http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11011.html Deontology has ruined this country. It's about time someone had the courage to say so. Am I the only one who sees that situational ethics is our only hope for getting out of Iraq? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Given the evidentiary problem of evil, I think the most likely solution is in relatively radical finitism. Faith requires that God be able to accomplish his objectives in the process of time. It does not necessarily require that he be able to expend arbitrary sums of energy in arbitrarily short periods. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11011.html I saw this a while ago and find it positively hilarious. Kudos to the creator. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Then it doesn't really make sense for Rob to be blaming the devil for any evils in the world, does it? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Rich:It is as important that satan exists as it is that Christ exists. "For there must be opposition in all things." http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html No one. It is as important that satan exists as it is that Christ exists. "For there must be opposition in all things." http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Rob: We cannot blame God for any evils that happen in the world. Blame the devil for the evils in the World. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Even when we do everything right and do our best to follow God, He is not a respector of persons. A tidal wave will hit the house of a righteous man in the same neighborhood as a wicked man. But both men will be warned ahead of time by the Lord. But who will be the one who listens and hears the Lord? Which man will end up still alive? The righteous man, because he heard the warning form God and took his family somewhere safe. Now all these things are just an example to prove my points. There are always situations and things that happen in people's lives that only God knows. I do not mean to juge anyone of anything, I am simply trying to make a point that it is not God's fault for all the evil in the world. It is our own excuss to disregard our own responsibilities, where we have the power to act. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html We cannot blame God for any evils that happen in the world. Blame the devil for the evils in the World. We also need to blame ourselves and those who allow themselves to give into tempation and follow through with what Satan puts into their hearts. Most of the evils start in are own homes. How do we raise our kids? What movies do we watch, what music do we listen to, what TV show do we allow in our homes? I know that most of my afflications in my life happen do to making my own mistakes, being prideful, offended, unforgiving, etc. If God made us do good things, then would we learn, would be who we are? What if God made us love Him? Would we love Him because we want to, or because we were made to? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html thats great ok wutever http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Clark: since I've got my own business I can empathize. Best of luck and making the world a sweeter place! http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Just work. Getting the chocolate company going has been almost ridiculous amounts of work... http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html BTW Clark, it appears that you're not paying attention. We miss you. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10986.html LOVE IS EVERYTHING http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Sorry, I have a new drupal one set up. It's just that I'm so busy with work and family I've not had time to really dedicate to it. So I'm holding off until I do. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Has this become an orphan blog? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich: However, your problem is with the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon and not with me. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Michael Rich: Can you think of any place (outside of Genesis 1) where "yom" clearly means something other than a 24-hour day? (I have my concordances and lexicons packed away in the attic.) http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Perhaps I shouldn't enable a discussion that is probably irrelevant, but if you need a concordance, there is one available online: http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich, evolution isn't limited to Darwin. How Darwin came up with the idea is somewhat irrelevant for how the idea works within the scientific community and how the theoretical terms function. Likewise how Maxwell came up with Maxwell's laws is largely irrelevant to how the laws were thought of in the scientific community. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich: Can you think of any place (outside of Genesis 1) where "yom" clearly means something other than a 24-hour day? (I have my concordances and lexicons packed away in the attic.) http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Michael: As for the minor one, do you have any evidence (outside of your reading of Genesis 1) for the second root meaning of "Yom"? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Clark: “Typically theoretical entities are established because they are something real that offers explanatory power.” http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich, as you point out, there are two disagreements here, one minor, and one major. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Michael: 1) I did read what you wrote about prefixes and definite articles. The prefix in question is best translated "On", and the difference between "B'yom hashlishi" and "yom shlishli" is captured quite well in the English "On the third day" and "a third day". I remain unconvinced that the presence of the prefix changes the root meaning of the noun, and view the explanation as fabricated to fit a preconcieved desire to redefine "day". Personally, as I said, it makes no difference to me if you define "day" metaphorically as "era", as it has no bearing on the bigger issue. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich: http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Typically theoretical entities are established because they are something real that offers explanatory power. Now they may not be "existents" in the sense of being a thing rather than a structure. But that divide is blurry. (Consider, for example, virtual particles in quantum electrodynamics) http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Clark: At best you're adopting Michael's position only a bit more politely. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html 1. Go back and read what I had to say about the use of the Hebrew word “ywom’. You obviously didn’t get beyond my mention of the definite article. The existence of prefixes or the lack of prefixes does change the meaning of the word. I took the time to lay all that out, you can take the time to read it. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html To add, when first presented way back by Darwin they still weren't first principles. Rather they were hypotheses presented precinded from the data he had. Their explanatory role and their success in the same provided them with support. As evolution was tested and refined their success gave them strength via the abductive process. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Just a few quick comments. And I'm hoping to have the new blog up this weekend. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich, the use of the definite article does not change the meaning of the word. "A third day" and "the third day" have different contexts, but still refer to the same notion of "day". http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Michael: Random change and natural selection is not a "first principle". Scientists began by observing the world, using the scientific method, and came up with random change and natural selection as the best hypotheses to fit the facts. This is fundamentally different than choosing the creation myths in some set of texts (bronze age or otherwise) and then setting out to demonstrate why they must be accurate. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich, if by "taking serious" you merely mean talking to people in ideas they understand then I agree. However it seems to me that in your example you aren't taking seriously the Creationists. Far from it. You're rejecting it out of hand and then looking for better ways to communicate the scientific view. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich: Random change and natural selection is also not “scientific” unless you want to view it in terms some sort of Foucaultian way. It is simply a first principle which science has adopted. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Michael: That's not true, actually. I don't know of any scientists that are looking to silence (much less put to death) Creationists-- rather, the objective is to keep them out of the public schools. I, for one, don't care what nonsense other people choose to believe, but I tend to get worked up if they try to present it as "science" in my children's school. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html The traditional view of God and limits is what is logically possible. Put in a fixed nature and by definition you've created limits. I suppose put an other way the issue is over the nature of God. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Let me explain it this way, God has matter and form. The implication from this is that God cannot be in more than one place at any one time. The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, can be in more than one place because He is a being of spirit. Is this a limitation. No. It is not part of the nature of God to be in more than one place at any one time. It is not part of what it means to be God. If He could but was restrained from doing so, that would be a limitation. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html If other beings are co-eternal then the limits are not due to nature but something beyond this. This is a fairly discussed issue and is one reason why, philosophically, ex nihilo is often defended and why there can be (for such advocates) only a single divine being. Mormons are radical on this point and there are logically wide ranging implications of God not creating everything from nothing. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html I have to agree with Michael here Rich. Exactly what is there to discuss with the Creationists? Please be clear on this one. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich: Michael that is a metaphorical “burning at the stake.” Other than that I think the analogy is a good one. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html I think this confuses the term ‘limits’ with that of ‘nature’. To define the nature of God is to acknowledge what God is not. I do not equate that with limits. I’m addressing limits as expressed in Michael’s Epicurean question. “Limit seems to me to imply an attribute which is not allowed to be expressed.” If God does not have those attributes as an aspect of his nature, the term limits is not relevant. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Michael that is a metaphorical “burning at the stake.” Other than that I think the analogy is a good one. Both groups seek out the heretics in order to silence them in their respective arenas. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html "I recognize there are limits placed upon God. However, these are limits He placed on Himself. " http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich, I think the problem with Creationism is that they are not "getting involved and looking at the issue." Rather it typically is a way of closing off inquiry rather than opening it up. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Rich:I think all this hand wringing about Creationism a bit humorous. We have scientists roaming around the countryside rooting out the heretics of the sacred word like so many 16th-century priestly inquisitionist. The sacred word must be defended against blasphemers and heretics. “Burn them all at the stake.” What rot. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html I think all this hand wringing about Creationism a bit humorous. We have scientists roaming around the countryside rooting out the heretics of the sacred word like so many 16th-century priestly inquisitionist. The sacred word must be defended against blasphemers and heretics. “Burn them all at the stake.” What rot. So much for dedicating their lives to reason. And Aristotle thought man a rational animal. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Clarke: Despite what Rich says, I think Mormon theology entails strong limits on God, although he may have maximal power, as Blake says. But it seems to me that most Mormons accept pretty significant limits as opposed to what one finds, for example, in most Protestant theology. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Of course the second biggest problem is that the media misreports on science in a horrible fashion. They sensationalize without having a clue what they are writing about. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html I'm not sure I follow you, Blake. Clearly the human cerebellum offers an adaptive advantage, and thus would not be considered a spandrel. Spandrels aren't supposed to play an "explanatory role", except to explain the existence of traits that offer no adaptive advantage. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Good point Mike. I suppose I follow Dennett and the vast majority of evolutionary theorist. If they occur, spandrels play absolutely no explanatory role. Moreover, it is very doubtful that the notion of massively complex spandrels that require not merely a random association and long term development -- like the human cerebellum -- make any sense at all. There may be an purely coincidental association for one or even two genetic mutations, but the thousands of concurrent associations render it so improbable that the kinds of purely coincidental associations would continue for millions of years makes any such "explanation" literally beyond reason. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake: Perhaps you can give some example of "associated traits" since I don't recall those from my study of biology, zoology and genetics. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Clark: Perhaps you can give some example of "associated traits" since I don't recall those from my study of biology, zoology and genetics. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Let's say there is some trait B that is conducive to reproductive success and survival. That is the survival of the trait B is quite high. Yet associated with owners of trait B is trait A that offers little that, given the environment, is conducive to survival. It may even be costly. Yet because of the success of B those who inherit B also inherit A. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Clark: You're going to have explain more than that. Your sheer assertion doesn't go very far. Although in context it is the mechanism of survival of the fittest that explains that what is conducive to survival is what is what is chosen. It can't really go beyond that. Recombinant genetics opens the possibility that anything is possible; but just why this particular possibility it leaves unexplained. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html All that evolution is capable of explaining is what is strictly conducive to survival. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: "For me to be convinced by this argument, it would need to show that evolution can only produce traits strictly conducive to survival." http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Clark, http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: I think that you're missing the fact that adaptiveness for beliefs like "this is food" and "this is an animal that will eat me" and "Ill do better in this society if I feign belief in God" are entirely unrelated to abstract theoretical matters like physics and theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and the kinds of philosophical abstractions like "naturalism." We have not reason to believe at all that evolution would fit us with the kind of systems that could develop such theoretic knowledge. You've haven't grasped the essential structure of the argument. Certainly there are adaptive sorts of beliefs. They just aren't of the relevant sort to justify a belief in naturalism or that such judgments could be sound. That is why philosophical beliefs like atheism and naturalism are self-defeating. They require reliance on the very kinds of epistemic and cognitive abilities that we have reason to believe survival of the fittest could fit us for. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html There are some rather interesting formal arguments for the majority of our beliefs being correct. (I don't know if we could pin a figure like 75% - but I think the argument points to at least that number) The most famous is of course Davidsons. Unfortunately I don't remember it too well and don't have time to look it up. Hopefully soon. It's part of his radical interpreter arguments. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Religious experience is just categorized by the class of the experience. Roughly the context and meaning I suppose. It's clearly a rough category though. But I think it's useful enough. We can, of course, differentiate between scientific experience and religious experience. But the boundaries are ill defined. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html There's an old but good post that does a good job of expressing my views on why "spiritual" experiences (do I have to use the scare quotation marks forever?) are overemphasized in typical LDS folk epistemology. Ultimately, these experiences don't justify the claim that "I know x is true" (in testimony meeting) when the person making the claim clearly intends to communicate that there is no chance that x may be false. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html I also want to add that I think the idea of separating each belief into a separate neuronal structure is specious. I doubt beliefs can be mapped onto discrete neurons that way. I realize that you didn't explicitly state that idea, but it seems to underlie your argument. Without it, resorting to 50/50 odds becomes even less justifiable. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html For various reasons, it has taken me a while to get back to this. I apologize. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html It all depends upon what one feels the limits of omniscience are. It literally means "all knowing" but is it limited by what exists? Is there a distinction between potential and actuality? 'When' is the actual actual. There's a lot to unpack there and a lot of disagreement over how to unpack it. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Clark: So long as inquiry continues ones knowledge increases http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html There is great symmetry and clarity in your examination of this dichotomy. I am grateful and impressed that you would have the energy and courage to so thoroughly tackle a subject which apparently is so much of a challenge that it is usually met with a deafening silence or pathetic passification by major religions. The honesty involved in arriving at no contrived conclusion and resisting the gerry-rigging of one sets you apart--It is better to beat your head against the wall than to walk around it, insuring that it will never come down. I believe that we can help restore the faith of a friend simply by demonstrating an empathetic understanding of the cause of his doubt and despair. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html We can hope that Michael. But I guess what I'm suggesting is that we have to be realistic and recognize that most people don't want to understand science. We can (and perhaps should) criticize them for this. But it's a fact of life. Even in Europe where supposedly science is held in higher regard you have all sorts of goofy beliefs that are pretty opposed to science. At best we can say that, perhaps purely due to the decline of religion in Europe, that a few scientific ideas are accepted de facto. But I'm not sure the average European who accepts evolution and looks down their nose at Americans who don't really understands it any better nor has accepted it for any better reasons than those Americans who have rejected it. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Clark:But Michael, for the vast majority of Americans scientific truth is justified for them purely through argument from authority. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html But Michael, for the vast majority of Americans scientific truth is justified for them purely through argument from authority. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Clark:Some are trying so hard to turn this into a science vs. religion conflict whereas the real problem is ignorance vs. information. By focusing in on the narrow problem they are both fighting the wrong war and also missing many bigger problems. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html I think that's the point. Some are trying so hard to turn this into a science vs. religion conflict whereas the real problem is ignorance vs. information. By focusing in on the narrow problem they are both fighting the wrong war and also missing many bigger problems. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Mike: I agree that the person who believes in God is relying on more than reason, and I'd add that it has been shown pretty conclusively by Damsio and others that reasoning relies on our affective or emotional capacities to a large extent. We all go beyond reason just because we are human. We value and care about things often because we have a "feel" for it rather than because we have reasoned our way to it. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of our actions, decisions and even our reasoning depends on affective cognition rather than discursive or logical cognition. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake:I'm having a hard figuring out how your post is responsive to what I have said. I'm looking for a logically valid argument. You gave a logically invalid argument. I don't care whether the supposed evil is pain, a hurricane or the existence of mosquitoes, the argument from evil that you gave is still not logically valid. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Clark:I think knowing that the earth orbits the sun is pretty basic. I think it's far worse to believe that isn't true. You'd think everyone would know that but according to one poll nearly 20% of Americans didn't know that. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake it is always possible I missed some of the dialectic. But I think there's more going on. I was thinking more broadly in terms of discussions of the problem of evil and why so many see it as a problem. As with any dialectic there are so many lines of power going along that sometimes to look and see one is to be blind to the others. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Sadly some among both liberals and conservatives feel that way of the other. There's many sad things in politics but I think the polarization and the inability to accept that those who disagree with oneself are being rational are the worst. In that I heap plenty of scorn among the shrill and shreaking of both parties. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Face it Clark, the liberals have shown that all conservatives disagree with them only because of brain damage. To even suggest that they are not getting the matter right is just to demonstrate that your brain damage also leads to self-deception and a host of cognitive biases. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Clark: I think you've simply missed the dialectic here. In # 154 Mike stated that the seven factors I listed in # 144 "As for your seven reasons to accept the hypothesis of God's alleged super-secret justification, it seems to me that they all boil down to revelation, which is outside of the realm of logical argument." I responded that they don't, my purpose was merely to give reasons which, taken together, might show that a person is rational in believing in God. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake, http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html But Blake, the issue isn't if it is irrational to believe in God. That never was the issue. At least that I could see. The issue is whether it is a problem for ones beliefs. There can, of course be problems for a belief yet still be rational to believe. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Michael: I'm having a hard figuring out how your post is responsive to what I have said. I'm looking for a logically valid argument. You gave a logically invalid argument. I don't care whether the supposed evil is pain, a hurricane or the existence of mosquitoes, the argument from evil that you gave is still not logically valid. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html I think knowing that the earth orbits the sun is pretty basic. I think it's far worse to believe that isn't true. You'd think everyone would know that but according to one poll nearly 20% of Americans didn't know that. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake:I'm still waiting for a logically valid and sound argument to suggest that human sickness is contrary to God's goodness. Do you have one? Let me ask this: what is your ethical theory that allows you to determine what is good and what is evil? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11009.html Clark:Believing in Creationism isn't (IMO) even the most egregious error held belief they have. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: I think that you are right that you provided a potential response to the first premise of my argument and I overlooked it. Before moving on, let me note that such a response does not to support an argument from evil for God's non-existence. I don't want to presume, but are you conceding that the inductive argument of evil is not successful? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html No. Since it would be physically possible in my context for a being to lift 500 lbs and I've gotten out of shape and probably can bench only 250. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html That was more helpful. Thanks. Of course that still leaves unanswered my argument in #114. How do you justify your premise that "P(R | N&E) is low"? I see no reason to accept this at face value, as this seems to have been presented. In fact, I believe that this is actually false given that a relatively faulty rationality (depending on how you define that term) is likely to be selected against. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Are you maximally knowledgeable and powerful in your context? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html He does. Maximum power can change with time as it is context dependent. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake, do you believe God progresses in knowledge and is maximally knowledgeable, as with power? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html To note, the religious believer who believes because of relational experiences with God can of course answer this argument. They can provide the burden of proof, at least to themselves, by saying something like this: http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Well lets just do the common sense one then. It's an informal argument but very persuasive to many. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: All that I have to do to refute a deductive argument like that given by Michael is to show that it is logically invalid. That is a total refutation: See post # 120. It is a full refutation because I show that his argument is logically invalid and a logically invalid proves exactly nothing. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html I've had to step away for a bit to attend to other things. This space has helped me to get some perspective. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Clark, no you can use whatever theory of inductive probability you think works in a valid inductive scheme. There are in fact Bayesian arguments (like William Rowes'), but certainly probability theory is not exhausted by Bayesian types of calculating probabilities. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Just to clarify Clark, you took my reference to a "logically valid" argument to mean that I was looking for a deductive argument. Of course, inductive arguments must also be logically valid. However, I can see in context why you might have misunderstood me. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html What do you mean by "probability judgments"? Are you talking Bayesian calculations? If so I can but say I'm not a Bayesian and don't think induction works that way. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html No Clark, I'm looking for a persuasive inductive argument that actually has premises about probability judgments that we can make. So I repeat, show me the argument -- that inductive argument that you believe is persuasive. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html To add, the issue is ultimately "persuasive to whom?" One has to consider the person in question to address the issue of persuasion. Persuasion in the abstract (i.e. de-contextualized) is almost meaningless. Just because something isn't persuasive to you doesn't mean it isn't very persuasive to others for good reasons. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Umm. Reread what I said. I said there wasn't "a logical necessity" to stop believing in God. But of course many arguments while short of being a necessary inference lead to some justification. For instance I might not be able to simply prove in a deductive form the four color theorem but I can provide good inductive reasons for why it's probably true. (Of course the four color theorem has been proven - but it's so complex no one can understand the full deductive proof - they can only understand in a vague way) http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Clark: Where is the logically valid and persuasive argument that you talk about that provides a strong reason to stop believing in God? Let me see it. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html The issue, Blake, then becomes based upon why they believe in God. I suspect the majority of people who believe in God don't believe in him because of some evidence. Rather it's either an uncritically adopted social belief or else just some best explanation. ("Well someone had to make it.") In those cases then that argument provides a very strong reason to start disbelieving in God. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Clark: I grant that "there must be a reason" is a poor response if the question is: why should I believe in God?" However, for the person who already believes, the question has to be: is there a good argument that challenges my belief? You already admit that moral evils don't work because God is not accountable for them. Well, natural law theodicies combined with the Mormon world view provide a pretty good answer as to why God could not accomplish his purposes without a stable natural environment having laws pretty much like the ones we have without constant intervention that undermines his purposes. Further, it is asking way too much of th theist to say what God's actual reasons are (heck, I often don't know what my own reasons are, and I wouldn't dare guess about yours). At most we can give possible reasons that would justify the kinds of evils that we encounter given the limitations inherent in interpersonal relationships and what is necessary for human growth in light of a vastly more eternal perspective. I don't expect an atheist to take that perspective for granted, but it vastly changes the assessment. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Michael, I don't think it makes sense to necessarily worship anything or anyone hypothesized as some "creator." Rather (and I'm fairly sure Blake would agree) worship arises out of an engagement with someone through experience. The whole more philosophical approach to God where God is inferred from some philosophical need (first creator, first cause, "Goodness," etc.) never made much sense to me. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Clark: The dialectic of the problem of evil depends on what it is supposed to accomplish. It is usually an argument that God cannot exist given the existence of evil in the world. So the believer says: show me the argument. When the logical argument is trotted out it is found to be logically invalid. That's not a good reason to give up belief. It is then argued: OK, I don't have a logical argument that shows that God's existence is logically impossible if evil exists, rather it is the kinds and amounts of evil that challenge God's existence. The believer then says: OK, show me the argument. When the inductive or evidential argument is trotted out, we find that it makes several inferences that we don't know are more or less probable and we are not in an epistemic position to assess the probabilities. So the believer's stance is once again not challenged. You are mistaken about who has the burden of proof with respect to this argument. You place it on the theist who you believe must show that God's existence is plausible in light of evils in the world. It assumes a kind of evidentialist presupposition which I believe is simply in error. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Michael: You might accept it because: (1) you have experiences of God wherein you have experienced his love; (2) you have very good reason to believe that God's knowledge and access to what will lead to your growth is vastly superior to yours; (3) you trust that God will always seek your best interests because of your encounters with God; (4) we can be refined and grow through challenges and opposition; (5) we may have agreed to the very circumstances we confront in a pre-mortal life; (6) there is no growth inside the comfort zone and sickness and other human challenges give us an opportunity to learn from our experiences and to learn compassion; (7) mortal life is a very fractional part of what our existence is about and we would consent to such experiences so that we could progress further in what really matters; etc. etc. Of course, you are free to choose not to open your heart, not to trust and so forth just like in any relationship where love leaves us truly free to choose whether we seek the relationship. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Clark:That is that God is maximizing the amount of goodness. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Clark, I was using the more formal sense-- I am not committed to any institution that holds the non-existence of God as a dogma. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake:He can also heal the sick at will, http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Well Lincoln, I know I'm not omnipotent ("maximally powerful" is the term I use) because I cannot bring about the maximal range of possible states of affairs that are logically consistent with the past that has actually obtained and consistent with the fact that the actions are, by their very nature, such that they can only be brought about by a particular agent (e.g., I cannot bring about your free acts and neither can God because by their very nature your free acts must be brought about you). For instance, I cannot lift a 2,000 lbs. rock and God can. He can also heal the sick at will, and I can't etc.. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake, thinking about your definition of omnipotence, I'm not sure how you can know that you are not omnipotent, and I'm not sure how God can know he is. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Well Clark there ya have it. You understand QM better than I do; but I suspect that anyone who really claims to understand QM merely demonstrates that they don't really understand it. Ditto relativity theory. Ditto string theory -- especially string theory (if you can begin to grasp 10 dimensions, more power to you). If you are vague on it, the problem is that you have no idea just how vague you are. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html I only vaguely understand quantum mechanics although it is considerably less vague than when I was a freshman. I only vaguely understand string theory. I guess I'm not sure what's vague about vagueness. Most our knowledge is vague. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Clark: Just what is it to understand something in a vague way? It seems a lot like not understanding to me. As I said, your assessment of our cognitive abilities is different, vastly different, than mine. We cannot even make all things considered judgments about things like whether or how much black matter there is, let along the moral justification for all that occurs. Heck, we have a difficult time even coming up with a moral theory. For instance, one of my beefs about how the problem of evil is addressed is that I am definitely not a consequentialist; but every argument I've seen assumes consequentialism. So for me these kinds of arguments are non-starters. There are theodicies based upon deontological and agape theories, but I've never seen the problem of evil stated in terms of these theories in a logical sense that holds any water. BTW I'm still waiting for a logically valid and at least plausibly persuasive argument. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Oh, good catch on Platinga. You're right of course. Plantinga doesn't offer a theodicity. Although the idea that free will is something good and that free will has implications for God's actions obviously is tied to a theodicity. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Yeah, I'm claiming we should be able to understand in a vague (i.e. incomplete) way what God's actual reasons are. I find the idea that we couldn't preposterous. Must be some odd fundamental intuitions in conflict. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Clark: Are you seriously claiming that we should be able to understand what God's actual reasons for allowing evil are? I find that rather preposterous. Perhaps an analogy with your four year old son or daughter would suffice ... though the gap between us and God is much, much greater. We simply don't have access to all things considered kinds of judgments. You believe that we understand far more about the universe than I do. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html BTW - the problem with all theodicities is that there is always that huge gaping hole where God's reasons stay. Plantinga does well, as I mentioned, with the free will defense. However as I said this doesn't explain in the least natural evils. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html I think it depends what one means by "cognitive capacity." I ought turn this into an other blog post so as to not get too tangental. And it's not as if this thread isn't long enough. So if I have time I might do that. (No promises) http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Mike and Jonathan: Just to make it clear, there is absolutely no way that I or any being but a God could be maximally powerful. I define maximal power as follows: A is maximally powerful at t if A is able unilaterally to bring about any state of affairs SA which: (i) does not entail that "A does not bring about SA at t," and (ii) is compossible with all events which preceded t in time i the actual world; and (iii) A's essential properties are consistent with A's actualizing the maximal range of states of affairs possible for any being. So as you can see, your charge is without merit. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake, I find your dog analogy more than a little bit of a dodge. We can reason and at least deal with vague reasons. Dogs can't. God doesn't really even give that. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html I think though, with regards to omnipotence, there is a huge difference between the limits of being what we are and the limits of what is physically possible. Certainly the discourse of omnipotence has tended to allow only logical limitations - primarily due to a certain philosophical tradition of absolutism. However within a set of pre-existent beings one can talk about what is maximally powerful and it really doesn't correspond in the least to how you or Jonathan are using it. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Mine: I didn't redefine your terms at all! I took omnipotence in whatever sense you wish and demonstrated that your argument is unsound by a logical response. Look, if my A. is consistent with your 1) and your 3), and not consistent with your 2), it follows logically that your argument is logically invalid. It is a simple matter of logic. Either your conclusion follows logically or it doesn't. It doesn't follow because there is the logical possibility that God has good reasons for allowing evil. That is all that is needed to refute your logical argument QED. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: the definition I gave is the maximum power that is logically consistent to believe in. No one believes that omnipotence must be an incoherent notion of power. So the question is: what is the maximal power. On that, there is actually pretty wide agreement and my definition doesn't differ significantly from those of the primary writers in philosophy of religion. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Blake:First you'd have to show that the features of the world as we know it, including the presence of actually self-aware beings like ourselves, is more parsimonious http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html However, I have given an argument (a pretty darn good one too!) that such reasoning doesn't follow if what we mean by omnipotence is the maximally consistent power a single individual could possess. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: Let me add that if we adopt a naturalistic world-view, I don't see that you have standing to complain. What is evil on your view? What kind of moral theory could one have that indicts God, if he exists, on such a naturalistic view of ethics? http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan: Like you said: lazy. The problem is that we have absolutely no reason to accept (3) or (6) on a Mormon view. The argument is not sound on the Mormon view. So how could it affect your views? It doesn't even touch mine. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html Jonathan, isn't Blakes claim the epistemological one? The fact one can't see any good reason to refrain doesn't entail there is no good reason. All you've done is moved from the logical problem of evil to the more subtle version which I like to term the evidentiary problem of evil. However by their very nature things like illnesses, fires and so forth tend to engender a different sort of discussion. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html To add, whether one considers that approach valid depends once again upon how one views both omnipotence and free will. One really can't answer the problem of evil without considering what constitutes a logical limit - the value of various logical conflicts and then the value of various states. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11005.html If you insist that I restate the argument from evil, then I'll take the lazy route and draw it from the http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Note though we're not saying he couldn't do anything about these problems. We're saying he couldn't do anything about these problems without creating larger evils. That is that God is maximizing the amount of goodness. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Oh certainly, so long as one continues to inquire. Just as if ones inquiry leads to a belief in God shouldn't cut off inquiry. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Clark: "a frankly minute difference"? I'd call being unable (or unwilling) to do anything about suffering and/or evil to be a pretty significant difference. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Clark, I think we may be talking past each other. I'm not suggesting that one deny inquiry about God's existence-- I'm just saying that if one's inquiry leads to the conclusion that there is no God, then that does not in itself cut of further inquiry but rather shifts the terrain of the inquiry. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html I agree the definition is wanting. And since the word simply means all-power, it seems ambiguous on its face. Plus even historically there were debates about whether God was even limited by logic. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11007.html Clark: Just for the record, I agree with you that God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of being able to do anything logically impossible. However, that definition is sorely wanting. I also agree with you that the best way to address the problem of evil is to pay attention to the implications of the limits that any loving being in an eternal social setting would confront. However, I wanted to grant both Michael and Jonathan the greatest latitude possible to see if they could construct an argument from evil even without the benefit of a Mormon world-view. However, as I stated on the other post, the logical problem of evil is going nowhere fast for the very reasons that I gave: God may have good reasons for allowing natural evils that are beyond our ken to fathom. If that is logically possible, then no logical argument can be constructed. http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11008.html Michael, to deny the existence of God is a form of dogma.