Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

Then what do you mean when you say that God is perfect?

When philosophers speak of God being perfect they intend to signify the idea of God possessing the greatest array of compossible great-making properties. The term “great-making properties” is generally used in the literature to signify those properties that it is intrisically better to have than to not have.

Of course multitudinous volumes have been created on this issue and the above is a nut-shell summation.

 

[juvenissun]

My position on theistic claims is irrelevant here.


What is relevant is what the words mean.

Mercy = suspension of justice.

Justice and mercy cannot coexist.
Either justice prevails or mercy is shown.

You can't have your pie and eat it too...

If one is not an atheist, then one can.
Having mercy, so the justice is fulfilled.
Only in Christianity.

 

[anonymous person]

And the first question? Why do you think it is acceptable to do so?

Why do I think it acceptable to deceive someone if it furthers a theological commitment of mine?

One theological commitment that I have is that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such that are as children. Such that were as them that were brought unto Jesus to receive His blessing.

Now, this is one of my beliefs. Given a particular scenario, I am persuaded that it would be acceptable to engage in an intentional act of deception if by so doing, one of these children would be rescued from the evil intentions and machinations of fallen man.

Many of my brothers and sisters did just this during the Nazi era in Germany. They intentionally deceived certain Nazis who, if they had not, would have sought to fulfill their egregious machinations on certain Jewish children. We share the same theological commitment i.e., that children should be protected from the evil that fallen men would subject them to.

I would have done the same.

 

[juvenissun]

For one thing, you don't get to be a Doctor of Philosophy period.

It's "Doctor of Philosophy in _______"

Let's just recognize that the way it works is that PhD's are awarded in many different fields and you don't get to be a credentialed philosopher just because you have been awarded one in some other field--just as you don't get to be a Doctor of Medicine because you earned a PhD in Sociology.

This is the highest level of accomplishment. It's also possible to earn a degree of "Doctor" in some field itself that's not up to the level of a PhD. The PhD is supposed to represent an unusually high level of competence in learning all round and with the recipient having done unique research.

If so, then why bother to put the word philosophy in the degree title?
Why not just say: Doctor in Chemistry?
There are many titles of Doctor that do not have the word philosophy in it. For example: MD for Medical Doctor.
If so, why do we need the redundant title: Doctor (of Philosophy) in Chemistry?
Not only that, when the person show his title, he would omit the Chemistry, but only say: Ph.D. Is that a deliberate cheating?

 

[anonymous person]

What negative character traits that you have would you like to change?

My temper is a negative character trait that I desire to be amended. My tendency to become puffed up by the knowledge I have is another. My tendency to be proud to such a degree and in such a way as to prevent me from giving honor to God where it is due and when it is due is also another.

 

[bhsmte]

My temper is a negative character trait that I desire to be amended. My tendency to become puffed up by the knowledge I have is another. My tendency to be proud to such a degree and in such a way as to prevent me from giving honor to God where it is due and when it is due is also another.

What makes you a Christian philosopher?

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not insisting that anyone have a Ph.D. to call themselves a philosopher. Socrates never had one, and yet he is arguably a philosopher.

I do want to know what someone means when they call themselves a philosopher. Do they have a Ph.D, and where? Or, if not, just what are they claiming about themselves?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am claiming that I am a follower of Jesus Christ who engages in sundry philosophical disciplines by virtue of his interest in said disciplines.

This seems to be in accordance with the five current usages of the term found on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosopher

 

[anonymous person]

Who made that definition?

Ok. Where I come from we call that a premise.


OK. Defining words is ok. But that´s not the problem here.
The problem is: Who or what determined that Summum Bonum includes "cannot lie"?
After all, we learned in the other thread that Summum Bonum doesn´t mean "cannot commit genocide" and means "can do anything, if it serves a greater purpose (which may be beyond our understanding). I´m not seeing how interpreting "Summum Bonum" as "can not lie" is consistent with this line of reasoning.

Except that "three sides" is a factual, concrete, easily veri- or falsifiable trait (a proper definition), whereas "Bonum" is an unspecific (and, as we hear, defined by God) value judgement. So what you have so far are two terms defining each other - which doesn´t allow for the epistemological progress of excluding anything that isn´t provided by that definition.
I think you need to decide whether you want to accept the "Bonum" in "Summum Bonum" to be whatever God does (in which case you can´t exclude anything), or whether you want to apply an exteriour standard in order to conclude what "Bonum" means, practically, concretely.

If you will recall in my OP, I listed certain criteria which must be met in a post if I am to respond to it. I am only addressing questions and one per person in turn as they are presented. The first question you asked was, Who or what determined that Summum Bonum includes "cannot lie"?

The answer to your question is that philosophers determined this.

 

[anonymous person]

How did you determine that lieing is incompatible with being perfect (i.e. something that God cannot do), while drowning millions of people is (i.e. something God can do quite fine)?

It is self-evident by virtue of the deliverances of intuition that lying is not an act that an essentially axiologically perfect being can perform in the same way that the three fundamental laws of logic are self-evident by virtue of the deliverances of intuition.

 

[anonymous person]

There´s something else I find confusing:
When asked "If God would command you to lie...?" you said "I would do it."
You did not say "God, by virtue of being the Summum Bonum (perfect) can´t tell others to lie. So this couldn´t have been God".
So being perfect - by whatever standard you arrive at these judgements - includes "Cannot lie" but not "Cannot command lies".
The question remains the same: How did you determine what a perfect being can and can not do?

Several methods...

Intuition, reason, revelation...

Just to name a few.

 

[anonymous person]

What makes you a Christian philosopher?

Good question.

First I must answer the question, what makes me a Christian?

To this I reply that I have entrusted myself to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and have been justified by faith through grace in the atoning work of Christ on the Cross for the remission of my sins and have been regenerated by His Spirit and follow Christ.

What makes me a philosopher? This is much more simple. I am one who philosophizes.

 

[anonymous person]

A common passage I see a lot of facebook is "every tongue shall confess." What is confessed and by who? And why does it include all tongues?

What is confessed?

Answer...

Jesus Christ is Lord..

By whom?

Answer....

All

 

[bhsmte]

Good question.

First I must answer the question, what makes me a Christian?

To this I reply that I have entrusted myself to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and have been justified by faith through grace in the atoning work of Christ on the Cross for the remission of my sins and have been regenerated by His Spirit and follow Christ.

What makes me a philosopher? This is much more simple. I am one who philosophizes.

Anyone can then be a Christian philosopher, if they are a Christian and they claim to philosophize.

 

[anonymous person]

In what ways does "christian philosphy" actually contribute to the advancement of knowledge of human kind? What is the purpose / usefullness of this "profession"?

The first question is the one I will address. Please reference my OP for why.

Christian philosophy contributes to the advancement of knowledge of human kind in the same way that philosophy in general does, with the added benefit of presenting us with an account of man as one created in the image and likeness of an essentially axiologically perfect being to have rule and dominion over the earth but who through the use of his free will, relinquished said authority and dominion and caused not only himself, but the world wherein he lived, to fall from its original state. It tells us, among other things, that man by virtue of who he is, has intrinsic worth.

 

[anonymous person]

Anyone can then be a Christian philosopher, if they are a Christian and they claim to philosophize.

Is this a question or a statement.? Recall from my OP, that I would only be addressing questions in this thread.

 

[Albion]

If so, then why bother to put the word philosophy in the degree title?
Why not just say: Doctor in Chemistry?
There are many titles of Doctor that do not have the word philosophy in it. For example: MD for Medical Doctor.
If so, why do we need the redundant title: Doctor (of Philosophy) in Chemistry?
Not only that, when the person show his title, he would omit the Chemistry, but only say: Ph.D. Is that a deliberate cheating?

That's not deliberate cheating. It's said to indicate that the person has earned that very prestigious degree. On the other hand, using it as, for example, calling oneself "Dr. Smith," is something that would be done in certain instances but not others. And the terminology varies somewhat with the university and with the passing of time. The reason for the word where it doesn't seem to you to belong is because "philosophy" meant something less specific to one discipline than it does today when we think of the person as having studied philosophers and their theories. Here's Vocabulary.com's definition of this: "The original meaning of the word philosophy comes from the Greek roots philo- meaning "love" and -sophos, or "wisdom." When someone studies philosophy they want to understand how and why people do certain things and how to live a good life. In other words, they want to know the meaning of life."

 

[bhsmte]

Is this a question or a statement.? Recall from my OP, that I would only be addressing questions in this thread.

With no question mark, it is statement, based off of your own position, of what a Christian philosopher is.

 

[quatona]

Several methods...

Intuition, reason, revelation...

Just to name a few.

I was more like interested in a description how, using these various methods, you arrived at your conclusions. But that´s probably a very personal methodology of yours.

It is self-evident by virtue of the deliverances of intuition that lying is not an act that an essentially axiologically perfect being can perform in the same way that the three fundamental laws of logic are self-evident by virtue of the deliverances of intuition.

Ah, self-evident.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11


eudaimonia,

Mark

Hi Eu,

To your examples above, you may want to add 1 Kings 22:20-22, and 2 Kings 19:6-7. In fact, it probably isn't too much to say that it is these two passages, and any other that might be like them, that influenced Paul when writing 2 Thessalonians 2:11.

Also, as to your first example from Ezekial, I find that it reads a little differently when taken in context rather than ... out of context ... as you have it.

So, as you can see, God doesn't need to lie...

2PhiloVoid

 

[anonymous person]

Hi Eu,

To your examples above, you may want to add 1 Kings 22:20-22, and 2 Kings 19:6-7. In fact, it probably isn't too much to say that it is these two passages, and any other that might be like them, that influenced Paul in writing 2 Thessalonian 2:11.

2PhiloVoid

Nice.