Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

I am enjoying how this thread is going so far. Everyone seems to be attempting to adhere to the requests made in the OP and many good questions have been asked.

Anyone have anything else?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Love is not the only attribute to God. Justice is another very important one. Jealousy is an expression which follows the attribution of justice.

You haven’t helped me understand your position I’m afraid. The following bit below is taken from Hinduism and although I am not a Hindu I can get a vibe for their version of ultimate reality. Hinduism is Polytheistic but it does have a version of an ultimate reality, or God as detailed. You would not call Brahman jealous, but if Brahman sustains all life then it is a level of perfection, as its opposite would be for all life to cease.
If we are just talking about a component of the ultimate reality (God/Brahman or whatever) that can be jealous then that would be polytheistic, meaning a creative entity (of which we are one) can become jealous, and that an aspect of that entity, us, is connected to Brahman (thus perfect) but also a creative entity in their own right. In essence we would be a god, but not God. (G g’s to add emphasis) If we are just talking about that ultimate reality being perfect and jealous then I’m afraid I don’t understand that terminology. Also I didn’t describe God as being love, just that some people do.


In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe

 

[juvenissun]

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."

So, a Doctor of Philosophy does not really know philosophy and is not a philosopher. Right?

 

[juvenissun]

In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe

So, Brahman is the most powerful god. BUT, if I do not worship Brahman, but worship a less powerful Hindu god, it is OK to Brahman. Right?

If that is true, then I agree Brahman is not a jealous god.

But, that is not the nature of the Christian God. He IS jealous. And I think He should and has to. That is what a monotheistic religion is. I don't see anything wrong with this particular nature (definition) of the Christian God.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

So, Brahman is the most powerful god. BUT, if I do not worship Brahman, but worship a less powerful Hindu god, it is OK to Brahman. Right?

If that is true, then I agree Brahman is not a jealous god.

But, that is not the nature of the Christian God. He IS jealous. And I think He should and has to. That is what a monotheistic religion is. I don't see anything wrong with this particular nature (definition) of the Christian God.

No Brahman is the ultimate reality, the sustainer of all life. It doesn't have the capacity to be ok, anymore than it does to be jealous. You worship it by investing in the process of experiencing it, via meditation, Sat-Chit-Ananda. You could worship another God (You would need to explain how and why this is done) but it would not give you this experience. I didn't say there was anything wrong with your description, just that I didn't understand it. As long as you understand it then that's fine.

Satcitānanda, Satchidānanda, or Sat-cit-ānanda (Sanskrit: सच्चिदानन्द)"Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss", is a description of the subjective experience of Brahman. This sublimely blissful experience of the boundless, pure consciousness is a glimpse of ultimate reality

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Yes, why do you think it acceptable to deceive someone if doing so furthers your theological commitments in some way?

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.

I wasn't referring to this specifically. Presumably you would have protected such children from harm even if your theology didn't demand it? (Sadly, however, it appears that you would have subjected them to harm if that's what your theology required).

I was referring more to specific doctrinal obligations, such as the divinity of Christ. Why do you think it is acceptable to deceive someone if it furthers that doctrine in some way?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Given your position (DCT), our intuitions regarding perfection are meaningless as a guide. According to you, whatever God does, he is perfect by definition. I don't see how that precludes him from being able to lie.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

There is a more general question embedded in this: what makes one a good philosopher? I would argue that intellectual honesty is of paramount importance to good philosophy. Sadly, I have serious doubts about your intellectual honesty (1). I am not mentioning this to cast aspersions on your character, but to make you cognisant of how your approach is inimical to good philosophy, and to hopefully encourage some self-reflection on your philosophical praxis.

 

[David Colin Gould]

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.

Better to have under what criteria? I can imagine it better to have the ability to lie than not have the ability to lie - for example, if you want to protect Jewish children from the Gestapo, which you yourself mentioned.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So a Ph.D. in physics can only be called a philosopher?

No, that would be a physicist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

What are you saying here? That God does lie, but that's okay because he told Paul the truth that he had lied?

And no one here is talking about needing to lie, but the willingness and ability to lie in some situations.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

No, that would be a physicist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If so, why does he get a degree called "Doctor of Philosophy"? Why not just "Doctor of Physics"?

 

[quatona]

I am enjoying how this thread is going so far. Everyone seems to be attempting to adhere to the requests made in the OP and many good questions have been asked.

Anyone have anything else?

I am not that enthusiastic about this thread. Being allowed to ask one question and getting a frustratingly non-responsive answer without the opportunity to ask further...
I see, though, how that´s convenient for you. No matter how huge the inconsistencies in your views, they never can be exposed that way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That makes no sense.

That reads like "married, so he is a bachelor".

To "fulfill justice" is to give due punishment.
Showing mercy is the exact opposite.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Christian philosophy contributes to the advancement of knowledge of human kind in the same way that philosophy in general does

You mean... it doesn't?

, 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.

So.... it's just religious preaching?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You mean... it doesn't?

Double-major with philosophy.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, why do you think it acceptable to deceive someone if doing so furthers your theological commitments in some way?

Since this question was one you already asked, I shall answer the next question which you have written below.

Presumably you would have protected such children from harm even if your theology didn't demand it?

The above is an example of a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent. It is not possible that my theological commitments would demand of me to relinquish up Jewish children over to the Nazis in order that they be subjected to their evil and egregious machinations.

In layman's terms, it's a logically impossible scenario.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If so, why does he get a degree called "Doctor of Philosophy"? Why not just "Doctor of Physics"?

Historical reasons. Albion did a reasonable job explaining that in post #96. Wikipedia can fill you in on a bit more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since this question was one you already asked, I shall answer the next question which you have written below.

You ignored this bit:

I was referring more to specific doctrinal obligations, such as the divinity of Christ. Why do you think it is acceptable to deceive someone if it furthers that doctrine in some way?