Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Theology, Hagiography and Creeds

Theology, Hagiography and Creeds for discussion of religion(s), secularism and related issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-03-2011, 01:52 PM   #1244566  /  #1
SMS
I'm a Sexy and BadAss Catholic
 
SMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: blowmevillle
Posts: 9,925
SMS
Default Classical Theism vs. Theistic Personalism

I was arguing with dumb people a while ago (dan, RP, dlx2) and i brought up the distinction between classical theism and theistic personalism. This distinction is ignored or unknown to many modern skeptics. But skeptics should understand the difference. it's kinda important, for classical theism is often left unaddressed by their criticisms.

Here's one philosopher offering some insight.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010...al-theism.html

and here he lightly delves into the PoE and classical theism. There he also affirms what i said earlier about 'God is evil' is downright nonsensical in classical theism.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010...challenge.html

Please inform yourselves, dumb people.
__________________
Atheists are stupid.
SMS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-03-2011, 10:54 PM   #1245230  /  #2
SMS
I'm a Sexy and BadAss Catholic
 
SMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: blowmevillle
Posts: 9,925
SMS
Default

Soooooooooooooo...what do we think?
__________________
Atheists are stupid.
SMS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-04-2011, 06:01 AM   #1245710  /  #3
woof
-
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,428
woof
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
Soooooooooooooo...what do we think?
It seems you are just as interested in making baseless claims about the intelligence of various members as you are about forms of theism. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that you are not getting any responses.
If I claim the above-mentioned members are smart, then I suppose you will call me an idiot too.
woof is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-04-2011, 02:08 PM   #1245929  /  #4
Brother Daniel
hiding in the tall grass
Mod: HASH, Philo, Math, THC
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on the shore of the North Atlantic
Posts: 14,406
Brother Daniel
Default

That's all very interesting, SMS, but it doesn't save your earlier objections from being irrelevant.

When critics of theistic religion make comments or arguments involving "evil", the word "evil" simply isn't being used in the specialized way in which it is used in the philosophy of classical theism. So the fact that "god is evil" is nonsensical within classical theism simply has no substance as a rebuttal.

I'm not really convinced that classical theism, if held consistently, has any relevance to anything. In particular, notwithstanding the dogmatic status that classical theism has within Catholicism, I'm not convinced that all of Catholic theology is compatible with it.
__________________
Requiem: Everything we humans do is fully deserving of ridicule and mockery. Without a God to laugh, it falls to us enlightened fools to make up the difference.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-04-2011, 02:50 PM   #1245948  /  #5
PerseusOmega9
Saves People From Themselves
 
PerseusOmega9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Piedmont, NC
Posts: 6,322
PerseusOmega9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
...for classical theism is often left unaddressed by their criticisms...
I don't concern myself with whatever metaphysical framework is required for the current religionist raping my ears with his imaginary friend talk. I just point out his story seems silly and then I laugh.
PerseusOmega9 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-04-2011, 02:55 PM   #1245950  /  #6
Species8472
Persistence is futile
 
Species8472's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,440
Species8472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
Soooooooooooooo...what do we think?
We think you're dumb.

And this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
So the fact that "god is evil" is nonsensical within classical theism simply has no substance as a rebuttal.
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
Species8472 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-04-2011, 09:56 PM   #1246371  /  #7
arachnophilia
Senior Member
 
arachnophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 741
arachnophilia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
So the fact that "god is evil" is nonsensical within classical theism simply has no substance as a rebuttal.[re-emphasis mine]
especially when the topic is called "the god of the bible is not 'evil'".
__________________
אָרַח
arachnophilia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-04-2011, 10:41 PM   #1246440  /  #8
SMS
I'm a Sexy and BadAss Catholic
 
SMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: blowmevillle
Posts: 9,925
SMS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
So the fact that "god is evil" is nonsensical within classical theism simply has no substance as a rebuttal.
Of course it does. If some people want to conclude that the classical God is evil, and if 'God is evil' is nonsensical on classical theism, then it's likely that they're using some other moral system when they make that judgement. But if that were the case, they need to explain or even justify their presuppositions. Otherwise, it's not saying much.

Quote:
I'm not really convinced that classical theism, if held consistently, has any relevance to anything.
That's not surprising: Youre stupid.

It renders typical internal PoE arguments moot.
__________________
Atheists are stupid.
SMS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 02:00 AM   #1246632  /  #9
teeth!
trollo trollini trollus est
Commissar
 
teeth!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: talkrationalo trollenda est
Posts: 46,785
teeth!
Default

haha this thread.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
Pro Tipô: I'M A CRAZY OLD BIGOT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dan View Post
I tried [crack] once in September 1990 and it was nasty, it made me think "ew, this must be what bicycle tires taste like."
teeth! is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 02:22 AM   #1246656  /  #10
arachnophilia
Senior Member
 
arachnophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 741
arachnophilia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
So the fact that "god is evil" is nonsensical within classical theism simply has no substance as a rebuttal.
Of course it does. If some people want to conclude that the classical God is evil, and if 'God is evil' is nonsensical on classical theism, then it's likely that they're using some other moral system when they make that judgement. But if that were the case, they need to explain or even justify their presuppositions. Otherwise, it's not saying much.
but again, as i just stated above, the topic was about "the god of the bible" not "the god of classic theism". clearly, they are not the same thing, nor is classic theism the theology from which the bible operates.

rather, in the bible, we are constantly shown someone using their own moral system to judge god, and god has been known to agree with these judgments from time to time. further, even from god's own moral system, he has been known to regret his own actions, and to call future actions evil. and he claims to have created evil. i posted a few examples of these in the thread, of course, as they were sadly lacking.

but with these in mind, it makes classical theism nonsensical in light of the topic. it is a thread derail, moot, and frankly just plain stupid. next time, read the thread title a little more closely.
__________________
אָרַח
arachnophilia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 02:43 AM   #1246666  /  #11
Brother Daniel
hiding in the tall grass
Mod: HASH, Philo, Math, THC
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on the shore of the North Atlantic
Posts: 14,406
Brother Daniel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
If some people want to conclude that the classical God is evil, and if 'God is evil' is nonsensical on classical theism, then it's likely that they're using some other moral system when they make that judgement.
Well, duh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS
But if that were the case, they need to explain or even justify their presuppositions. Otherwise, it's not saying much.
I already acknowledged that any statement about god (or anyone else, really) being evil is vulnerable to criticisms along those lines. Your classical theism line is still a dodge, though -- and a rather lame one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS
That's not surprising: Youre stupid.
I love the way you resort to insults when you know you don't have a case. It's adorably cute. ♥
__________________
Requiem: Everything we humans do is fully deserving of ridicule and mockery. Without a God to laugh, it falls to us enlightened fools to make up the difference.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 04:07 AM   #1246788  /  #12
SMS
I'm a Sexy and BadAss Catholic
 
SMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: blowmevillle
Posts: 9,925
SMS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arachnophilia View Post
but again, as i just stated above, the topic was about "the god of the bible" not "the god of classic theism". clearly, they are not the same thing, nor is classic theism the theology from which the bible operates.
Classical theism is not theology although it is guided by theology. I dont think that the god references between the two are "clearly not the same". I think they have the same reference, and so did many classical theists. So, yeah.

Quote:
rather, in the bible, we are constantly shown someone using their own moral system to judge god, and god has been known to agree with these judgments from time to time.
classical theists have dealt with this. seriously.

Quote:
further, even from god's own moral system, he has been known to regret his own actions, and to call future actions evil. and he claims to have created evil. i posted a few examples of these in the thread, of course, as they were sadly lacking.

i dont know what youre talking about here.


Quote:
but with these in mind, it makes classical theism nonsensical in light of the topic. it is a thread derail, moot, and frankly just plain stupid. next time, read the thread title a little more closely.
fuck you.
__________________
Atheists are stupid.
SMS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 04:30 AM   #1246815  /  #13
arachnophilia
Senior Member
 
arachnophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 741
arachnophilia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
Classical theism is not theology although it is guided by theology. I dont think that the god references between the two are "clearly not the same". I think they have the same reference, and so did many classical theists. So, yeah.
then, perhaps, the appropriate course of action would be to demonstrate how classical theism, where god cannot be evil by definition, is compatible with a bible where god seemingly has little problem even describing himself as evil.

maybe you've done this in the other thread, but i didn't want to read through 13 pages of pointless bickering to find one potentially valid argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
classical theists have dealt with this. seriously.
generally, with a lot of hand-waving, yes. in any case, you are still very much missing the point that the authors of the bible were not classic theists, at least not in the respect that you're using the term. they were bronze-age priests, poets, and scribes from several middle eastern tribes -- and unaware of the traditions that would later be based upon their writings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
i dont know what youre talking about here.
i've noticed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
fuck you.
__________________
אָרַח
arachnophilia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 06:04 AM   #1246907  /  #14
SMS
I'm a Sexy and BadAss Catholic
 
SMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: blowmevillle
Posts: 9,925
SMS
Default

I'm unsure what sort of "demonstration" you're looking for. A proper education in medieval philosophy is enough. Classical theism is an important part of medieval philosophy which was basically, at least in the Christian West, just Christianity penetrating Greek thought. That's pretty much classical theism, too: Greek thought penetrated by the theology and scriptures of the god of Abraham (to a large extent just the christian scriptures).


if you guys dont know this, then...holy shit. What the fuck are you doing here?
__________________
Atheists are stupid.

Last edited by SMS; 01-05-2011 at 06:19 AM.
SMS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 06:06 AM   #1246909  /  #15
teeth!
trollo trollini trollus est
Commissar
 
teeth!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: talkrationalo trollenda est
Posts: 46,785
teeth!
Default

The only thing SMS likes more than classical theism is theistic classism.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
Pro Tipô: I'M A CRAZY OLD BIGOT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dan View Post
I tried [crack] once in September 1990 and it was nasty, it made me think "ew, this must be what bicycle tires taste like."
teeth! is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 06:59 AM   #1246941  /  #16
arachnophilia
Senior Member
 
arachnophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 741
arachnophilia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
I'm unsure what sort of "demonstration" you're looking for. A proper education in medieval philosophy is enough.
the bible i have was mostly written in the iron age and shortly thereafter, not medieval times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
Classical theism is an important part of medieval philosophy which was basically, at least in the Christian West, just Christianity penetrating Greek thought. That's pretty much classical theism, too: Greek thought penetrated by the theology and scriptures of the god of Abraham (to a large extent just the christian scriptures).
i'm glad you clarified. please note that all of the examples i referred to are from hebrew scriptures.
__________________
אָרַח
arachnophilia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 08:00 AM   #1246965  /  #17
hackenslash
Philosophucker
 
hackenslash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 308
hackenslash
Default

Seems to me that the Courtier's Reply is sufficient to address this.
hackenslash is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 08:12 AM   #1246968  /  #18
RossFW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,870
RossFW
Default

SMS,

Have you ever noticed that things which are actually, factually true, like the Helio-Centric Solar System or Germ theory, never seem to require the type of strained logic, endless clarification and obscure interpretation required to shoe-horn a belief in a Deity into observed reality?

Can you think of a reason for this?
__________________
Humber in 2008

Quote:
The vehicle is effectively tacking the wind. The propeller's blade is presented at an angle to the prevailing wind.
RossFW is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 09:16 AM   #1246989  /  #19
Rathpig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21,543
Rathpig
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
Classical theism is an important part of medieval philosophy
Alchemy was an important part of medieval science, and the four humours were an important part of medieval medicine.
Rathpig is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 01:06 PM   #1247059  /  #20
Brother Daniel
hiding in the tall grass
Mod: HASH, Philo, Math, THC
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on the shore of the North Atlantic
Posts: 14,406
Brother Daniel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
Seems to me that the Courtier's Reply is sufficient to address this.
__________________
Requiem: Everything we humans do is fully deserving of ridicule and mockery. Without a God to laugh, it falls to us enlightened fools to make up the difference.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 01:46 PM   #1247088  /  #21
UnderConstruction
Grass fed
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,518
UnderConstruction
Default

I would suggest that stating that one must read obscure texts, just so that they can express an opinion on the attributes of a made up being, is nonsensical in the extreme.
UnderConstruction is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 01:58 PM   #1247097  /  #22
Brother Daniel
hiding in the tall grass
Mod: HASH, Philo, Math, THC
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on the shore of the North Atlantic
Posts: 14,406
Brother Daniel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
I'm unsure what sort of "demonstration" you're looking for. A proper education in medieval philosophy is enough.
Once again, you're mixing up philosophy with history of philosophy. You can't justify an idea by pointing to the role that it played in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS
Classical theism is an important part of medieval philosophy which was basically, at least in the Christian West, just Christianity penetrating Greek thought. That's pretty much classical theism, too: Greek thought penetrated by the theology and scriptures of the god of Abraham (to a large extent just the christian scriptures).
According to the link you provided, classical theism is the idea of God as "absolutely metaphysically ultimate", implying divine simplicity, immutability, impassability, and eternity, as well as divine conservation of the universe. I don't see anything in such a definition to indicate a "penetration" of Abrahamic scripture into Greek thought. Classical theism does not depend on Christianity, or even on Abrahamism generally.

"Christianity penetrating Greek thought" may be a good description of medieval philosophy, but it appears to me that the label "classical theism" should apply to the "Greek thought" term in the equation, rather than to the combined package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS
If you guys dont know this, then...holy shit. What the fuck are you doing here?
Please. Remember when we were talking about miracles, and you displayed your ignorance of the principles of probability? I didn't say "if you don't know this, what the fuck are you doing here" then.

TR isn't some kind of nose-in-the-air elitist board where you have to have demonstrable credentials before you're allowed to post here. If you happen to have some important knowledge that others don't have, the decent thing to do is to try to enlighten them, not to sneer at them.
__________________
Requiem: Everything we humans do is fully deserving of ridicule and mockery. Without a God to laugh, it falls to us enlightened fools to make up the difference.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 02:59 PM   #1247159  /  #23
SMS
I'm a Sexy and BadAss Catholic
 
SMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: blowmevillle
Posts: 9,925
SMS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arachnophilia View Post
the bible i have was mostly written in the iron age and shortly thereafter, not medieval times.
Even if this were true, so what? it'd say nothing in regards to whether the god of classical theism and the god of those scriptures are the same god.


Quote:
i'm glad you clarified. please note that all of the examples i referred to are from hebrew scriptures.
So what? christians view those scriptures as part of their bible. They view the god as equivalent to their own in terms of reference. The classical theists, by large, just applied greek thought to those same scriptures. They didnt use greek thought to consider some other god. they used the light of reason to understand scripture, god, creation, etc., or at least as far as human reason permits it.
__________________
Atheists are stupid.
SMS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 03:04 PM   #1247167  /  #24
SMS
I'm a Sexy and BadAss Catholic
 
SMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: blowmevillle
Posts: 9,925
SMS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS View Post
I'm unsure what sort of "demonstration" you're looking for. A proper education in medieval philosophy is enough.
Once again, you're mixing up philosophy with history of philosophy. You can't justify an idea by pointing to the role that it played in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS
Classical theism is an important part of medieval philosophy which was basically, at least in the Christian West, just Christianity penetrating Greek thought. That's pretty much classical theism, too: Greek thought penetrated by the theology and scriptures of the god of Abraham (to a large extent just the christian scriptures).
According to the link you provided, classical theism is the idea of God as "absolutely metaphysically ultimate", implying divine simplicity, immutability, impassability, and eternity, as well as divine conservation of the universe. I don't see anything in such a definition to indicate a "penetration" of Abrahamic scripture into Greek thought. Classical theism does not depend on Christianity, or even on Abrahamism generally.

"Christianity penetrating Greek thought" may be a good description of medieval philosophy, but it appears to me that the label "classical theism" should apply to the "Greek thought" term in the equation, rather than to the combined package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMS
If you guys dont know this, then...holy shit. What the fuck are you doing here?
Please. Remember when we were talking about miracles, and you displayed your ignorance of the principles of probability? I didn't say "if you don't know this, what the fuck are you doing here" then.

TR isn't some kind of nose-in-the-air elitist board where you have to have demonstrable credentials before you're allowed to post here. If you happen to have some important knowledge that others don't have, the decent thing to do is to try to enlighten them, not to sneer at them.
hey dan, we actually disagreed on that miracle stuff. you just claimed victory. i loled. as for the rest of your post, .

it may be of interest to see what the same author said,

Quote:
1. As Aquinas says, the argument from authority is the weakest of arguments when the authority in question is a human one. But it is still an argument. And it is the strongest of arguments when the authority is divine. Consider, then, that many of the great classical theists referred to in my previous post – thinkers like Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (to stick just with the A’s) – were also among the greatest of Christian theologians, and not only saw no difficulty in identifying the God of classical theism with the God of the Bible, but appealed to scriptural passages no less than to philosophical considerations in defending classical theism.
That's the same fellow from the link. From my own studies, i could tell you that these thinkers and many more have used greek thought and scripture to develop a picture of god. neither reason/philosophy nor scripture can give the best picture of God alone. They must be held together. take aquinas for example. here we have a classical theist who used scripture to deepen his understanding of God (largely developed from aristotle) and used aristotle (as well as platonic sources) to deepen his understanding of that which he got from scripture (that god is a trinity, etc).
__________________
Atheists are stupid.

Last edited by SMS; 01-05-2011 at 03:26 PM.
SMS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 01-05-2011, 03:05 PM   #1247168  /  #25
RossFW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,870
RossFW
Default

Quote:
They didnt use greek thought to consider some other god. they used the light of reason to understand scripture, god, creation, etc., or at least as far as human reason permits it.
And what does the light of MODERN reason and knowledge lead us to believe about the Abrahmic god?
__________________
Humber in 2008

Quote:
The vehicle is effectively tacking the wind. The propeller's blade is presented at an angle to the prevailing wind.
RossFW is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  TalkRational > Discussion > Theology, Hagiography and Creeds

Tags
retarded ass thread, shit thread ban the op

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org