As you know, the promised blog did not appear sorry.
Here's a link on the topic: http://www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2011_01JAN/2011JanRespondingToPlatosDilemma.cfm
It's so so.
Anyway I'm taking some time off. Dungy's arguments, while I believe them to be incorrect on many counts, are well crafted and brutal and I don't want to endure the brow beating for a few days at least, maybe longer.
Dungy has done nothing wrong here, he simply defeated me in debate so soundly it should be applauded. I've been wrong before and won an argument, I'm chalking this up to the same. He's more talented, and maybe on some things he's right.
Either way I lack the energy to continue so consider me on hiatus from serious blogging for the time being.
Drat.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what your heresy is.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I don't understand what those people on that message board are trying to say.
Well, I suppose this is better than giving up blogging entirely. We'll see how long you can manage to stay away.
ReplyDeleteWhen John first texted me saying that he was quitting his blog (he's thankfully modified that into an indefinate leave), it inspired a feeling of abject terror and despair in me. No offense intended to Matt (or myself), but John's the wellspring of this conversation exactly because his methods are less refined. John's more willing to wade into conversations with less caution, and he's more willing to generate the quick & easy writings that serve as kindling to the conversation. Without him, the conversation will be less interesting and probably have shorter lifespan. Matt and I don't agree on everything, but we're too similar to make adequate adversaries.
ReplyDeleteI'm making peace with John's [possible] departure. Afterall, if I were debating daily with someone of greater resources then myself (which is what this is really about; I devote more time to logic and philosophy than John, my IQ isn't necessarily higher so intelligence shouldn't factor in), say a graduate student in philosophy or theology, I would probably get tired of constantly being circled, harassed, browbeaten and hammered, and eventually I too would stop.
On the other hand, in that situation I would feel it necessary to acknowledge the soundness of my opponent's positions - I wouldn't continue to claim to be right, whilst admitting I was fairly beaten. Such an acknowledgement would be (and indeed is) empty.
The thing is, John can't acknowledge I'm right without giving up more than his own pride. John has accepted a number of precepts (Like the Triune God exists, and his true Church is the Church of Rome) which are the foundation of his belief system, and thus his way of life. To negate one small point of doctrine is to put the whole thing in jeopardy.
I can accept that. I don't like it. In fact I find it repugnant. I think it's degrading and dehumanizing, and reduces free minded human beings to slaves, for the sake of a comforting lie. However, it is, afterall John's mind to do with as he pleases, whether I find it repugnant or not.
So, good luck and god bless.
Thank you?
ReplyDeleteYou make your points quite soundly. I have no response that I can make except what we both know I will say.
I believe in what I've said. And to me, that comforting truth is much more acceptable than the terrifying lie that you and other atheists choose to believe.
Maybe when I come back to blogging we'll get more into that.
"...that comforting truth is much more acceptable than the terrifying lie that you and other atheists choose to believe."
ReplyDeleteDungy's right. We need you, John.
Getting back to your supposed heresy, here's where I'm at.
ReplyDeleteAfter trying to parse what those people on that message board are saying, it seems like their trying to say that Right is right because God says it, and God says it because it's in his nature. His laws of right and wrong are a part of his nature.
So.. More or less, the Church takes the position that God wills it because it is right. But they tweak it slightly by saying that it's in God's nature, as opposed to being a law that is independent of God. That's, in my opinion an attempt to sidestep the dilemma. But still somewhat sticky. This would be my question to put forth:
Is God capable of changing his own nature, and thus changing the laws of morality?
If yes: Then it seems John is not guilty of heresy. Since, God could, at will, change morality by pronouncement, with only one single added step: changing his own nature.
If no: John is guilty of heresy, because God does not make it right simply by pronouncing some arbitrary rules. However, I would say this is a large error on the side of the Church, because they would be teaching that there is something which God does not have power over: his own nature. Besides the limit on his omnipotence, it would also suggest that he has an essence. He has an essential nature, as we do. Since God is supposed to be a Creator, but not himself created, how did he come by this essential nature? Did he bestow it upon himself? If so, then he should be able to change it, yes? If not, what other, more supreme creator gave him this nature? Or maybe his nature was neither given to him, nor created by him, but it's "just the way things are". That would still mean that there is something above and apart from God, and we would have no explanation of where it came from. So, if that is indeed the correct teaching, I think the Church has some theological problems.
You've presented the correct question. I don't have the answer as my will to bother fizzled out trying to understand that message board.
ReplyDeleteI hope to get back to it. Unrelated note, the blogging time is being used to read "A game of thrones" which is a really good book.
Hmm. Indeed.
ReplyDeleteAre you still blogging on Facebook?
Nope. The fat updates are the only things I've posted since the hiatus, with the exception of course of usual status updates on Facebook.
ReplyDelete