Comments on: On a Common Equivocation

By: Theology Geek NZ » There’s Probably No God? Fisking Atheist Billboards

Theology Geek NZ » There’s Probably No God? Fisking Atheist Billboards — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:00:48 +0000

[...] one familiar with this discussion should know, this retort misses the point (as I pointed out in On a Common Equivocation). Craig, Adams, et al are not claiming that one needs to believe in God to be good (a point made [...]

By: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Infantile Religious Morality « Theology Geek NZ

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:04:24 +0000

[...] POSTS: On a Common Equivocation Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on God, Morality and Arbitrariness Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, William Lane [...]

By: Dominic Bnonn Tennant

Dominic Bnonn Tennant — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:12:00 +0000

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is having to constantly explain this distinction. Conflating epistemology and ontology seems to be what all the cool skeptics are doing these days.

I have a question, though, Matt, with regard to your specific view of moral ontology. You say that the properties of rightness and wrongness do not exist independently of God's commands. This seems very counter-intuitive to me; would it not be the case that they don't exist independently of God's character? Otherwise, what are the commands themselves grounded upon?

Regards,
Bnonn

By: Carl Marks

Carl Marks — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:01:00 +0000

While I don’t think you quite picked up on Mark V’s point (and I consider your opinions about divine command theory and objective morality to be false concerning ontology), your statement about the separation of ontology from epistemology is essentially right.

See also New Zealand philosopher Roy Bhaskar’s discussion of the ‘epistemic fallacy’.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:49:00 +0000

Hi Mark

I am working on a post that addresses your points about the content of Deuteronomy in more detail.

Matt

By: Mark.V.

Mark.V. — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:35:00 +0000

No my point is that Christians today pick and choose the commandments in the Bible they want to obey and those they do not. I mentioned the commandments contained in the Book of Deuteronomy as examples of commandments that no Christian would ever dream of obeying. For example Deuteronomy 22:20-21.

"Mark’s central point here, if I understand him correctly, is that we often know what is right and wrong independently of our beliefs about what God commands, in fact often we use our beliefs about what is right and wrong to help us decide what God’s commands are hence ethics is not dependent on God’s commands."

Actually we use our beliefs about what is right and wrong to help us decide which of God's commandments should be obeyed and which should not. In fact I and many non-theists have come to the conclusion that there are many commanments in the Old Testament that are quite immoral and therefore should not be obeyed.

You quoted:
"In Philosophical Problems and Arguments. James Cornman and Keith Lehrer express the same point.
Consider what we would do if we read that Moses had returned with such commandments as ‘make love to thy neighbor’s wife,’ ‘steal thy neighbor’s goods,’ and ‘take advantage of thy parents.’ We would decide that what-ever was revealed to Moses, it was not the will of God, because these are immoral commandments. We do not justify that something is moral by showing it is God’s will, because the only available way to evaluate conflicting claims about what God wills is by finding which one is in accordance with what is moral."

If the above hypothetical examples are not God's will because they are not moral, what about all the other commandments that are actually contained in the Old Testament that are even more reprehensible? Are they God's will or not?