J: That's exactly right. As I see it, the human mind is compelled to think in terms of teleology. I've yet to hear an atheist successfully dispense with teleological thought. This implies to me that humans intuitively think of events of the world order not only as CAUSED, but as being ultimately due to one or more FINAL CAUSES. Many atheists basically agree with this. IOW, like Dawkins, they may deny the reality of final causes or purpose for events unintended by humans, but they also know they can not consistently think or talk that way. But it proves too much to argue against a category that fundamental. Because if intuitions that fundamental can be erroneous, then we're just epistemologically bankrupt, and no meaningful argument can be made for any claim. 

 

The bottom line, as I see it, is that because we think in terms of teleology, we are compelled to believe EITHER that we ARE designed to apprehend OR that we AREN'T. If we aren't, not only our intuitions, but those modes of inference that depend on them are of no trustworthiness. And thus, all discussion amounts to pontifications of no discernable value. If we are designed to apprehend, however, how could that be unless the designer is competent and benevolent? Throw out either of those two attributes of the designer and you get right back to the implication that we AREN'T knowably designed to apprehend (And by "know," I mean BELIEVE with significant subjective certainty. Knowledge IS a species of belief).

 

To use Lewis' line, if nothing is obvious, nothing can be proved. But without teleology, nothing is obvious to a being that can reflect--there are too many MERELY logical possibilities conceivable to a conceptual, reflecting mind to render any one view probable without teleology. If nothing is obvious about God, nothing can be proved about Him either. Which means nothing is knowable about Him. Which seems to mean that we couldn't possibly know He exists. Which makes perfect sense if teleology is illusory. Because if "God," as most modern folks mean by the term, means anything, it means the DESIGNER of the world order.

 

---

 

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/29/2010 9:08:30 PM (GMT-5)

 

Z: Try telling them that every government is established by God and is a minister to reward good without a heavy dose of irony.

J: First, Rom. 14 does not say or imply that governments are supposed to reward good, much less that they do. It seems to me that it is saying that government OUGHT to PRAISE the good since that's what God authorized government to do. Read Paul's train of thought in that chapter up to his conclusion that we OUGHT to pay taxes and explain to me how to get around the seemingly obvious exegetical conclusion that Paul is implying that, as bad as things are, they are not as bad as they would be in a state of anarchy.

 

Second, if you're waiting on getting a 100% consensus on any religious or ethical duty, you will be in epistemological limbo til the day you die.

Z: Agreed. But that's hardly the reasoning Nero or even Constantine had on his mind. These men took whatever power was available and desirable. They made no claim to the mandate of YHWH. It is more accurate to put it the way that Isaiah, Habakkuk, and Paul do. States do bad things, yet God orders their actions. Chapter 10 of Politics of Jesus nails it (and comes across much more pro-government than I usually do).

J: They don't have to make a claim on the mandate of YHWH to be a lesser of evils to anarchy. That's the point. Analogously, parents can be atheists and still be a lesser of evils to children than if we just outlawed parenting today on penalty of capital punishment. A lesser of evils is a bar. Your job in proving me wrong is EITHER proving that Paul's words make better sense contextually, otherwise, OR showing how anarchy is actually the lesser of evils. I don't think you can argue plausibly for either.

Z: Furthermore, I applaud your use of third-person pronouns. It is "they" who are the governing authorities in Romans 13, never "us." That chapter make no provision for Christians to use force (or to do anything for that matter except remain subordinate). The chapter is about how and why to respond to force without force.

J: That's irrelevant. For there is no scripture that you've put forth that plausibly indicates or implies that a use of force for self-defense is wrong, either. Self-defense or defense of others is NOT vengeance. Vengeance is REtaliation. That's why the other way scripture words it is "RENDER NOT EVIL FOR EVIL." At least, it is certainly not clear that such scriptural language is talking about self-defense, even if it is. There is a reason why virtually all states allow certain kinds of self-defense. It's because they make this very simple distinction. IOW, you are over-simplifying what is not that simple. Thus, it seems obligatory to be tolerant about such matters instead of judging them with dogmatism on claims for which the evidence is, at best, weak.