Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Jerry Invokes the Law Again

Jerry Coyne, whose circle or orthodoxy is too small to include atheist skeptic Michael Shermer and the New York Times, to name just a few that are too "accommodationist" for his dogma, is in a tizzy again.

He writes:
Theodicy is the Achilles Heel of faith. There is no reasonable answer to the problem of gratuitous evil (i.e., the slaughter of children or mass killings by natural phenomena like tsunamis), and the will to continue believing in the face of such things truly shows the folly of faith. For those evils prove absolutely either that God is not benevolent and omnipotent, or that there is no god. (Special pleading like “we don’t know God’s mind” doesn’t wash, for the same people who say such things also claim to know that God is benevolent and omnipotent).
Jerry thinks this is a clever argument against theism. This argument is one of the laws of internet atheism:
The Law that Logical Proofs regarding God are like Diodes:  
All logical proofs for God are trivially wrong. However, the construction:  
  P1: God is omnipotent.  
  P2: God is omnibenevolent.  
  P3: Human suffering exists. 
  C1: Therefore P1 and/or P2 is wrong. 
  C2: Therefore God does not exist.
is bulletproof.
and Jerry never tires of using it. That link contains my response to Jerry's "argument." I won't reproduce it here.

And of course there is no point to attempt a comment on his blog. Jerry is mendacious in regards to permitting dialogue on WEIT, even stooping to unprecedented cretin-like tactics of not releasing comments from moderation while using the "absence" of a rebuttal to his acumen to declare victory.

That is:

He does not (or rarely) performs an honest, public banning for cause or even just for the hell of it.

He does not do a silent banning--which would already place him among the pond-scum of bloggers, except..

He doubles-down by coupling a silent banning with a dishonest interpretation that the critic has withered from his irrefutable counter-arguments and Sir Robbined the hell outta there.

Jerry has a great punchline at the end of his pout:
Religion is not just the enemy of rationality, but the enemy of democracy.
   -- Jerry Coyne


Jerry, the lidless-eyed overseer of the planet, has pronounced his verdict.

11 comments:

  1. Your belief that God is not omnibenevolent is consistent with Coyne's point: the existence of gratuitous suffering means either there is no God or God is not omnibenevolent.

    You think the latter is correct, he the former.

    Also, you must realize that your belief in a non-omnibenevolent god is at least heterodox and to many Christians heretical. But as I have said, I will stay out of your hopeless internecine disputes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Belief in an "omnibenovolent" (as assumed by Coyne) God is itself heretical. There's no basis for it in scripture or tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes as a Thomist & reader of Brian Davies the idea of "omnibenovolent" is linked to the idea that God is some type of "moral agent" unequivocally comparable to a human moral agent.

    God given His nature defined classically can't coherently be seen as a "moral agent". God has no obligations to us all his good acts towards us on His part are somewhat supererogatory in nature.

    Jerry's view of God is laughably anthropomorphic to the point it would sicken even the most militant Neo-theist.

    He can't help it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Coyne did not pull the notion of omnibenevolence out of thin air; he got it from Christians.

    Pick any Christian, and there will be some other Christian ready to call her a heretic. Yawn. You guys need to get your epistemological houses squared away. I'm not holding my breath.

    Ben, I doubt David ascribes to your version of Classical Theism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all BI you are a fundie. Your reject philosophy yet mindlessly hold too a Positivist Philosophical viewpoint just like Coyne & you refuse to learn anything beyond that.

      Your statement implies Atheists have their epistemological houses squared away. They don't since there is a wide range of Atheist and metaphysical naturalist philosophical views in Atheist philosophy considered broadly. Thought Gnus like yourself & Coyne all dogmatically define Atheism strictly in negative terms (i.e. Atheism is a lack of god-belief etc) and you can't get beyond that either.

      >Ben, I doubt David ascribes to your version of Classical Theism.

      Well historically Calvinists tend to be Classic Theists for the most part(Paul Helm anyone?). I note David is a fan of James White who is a foe of Neo-Theism and Open Theism. So under the broad tent of Classic Theism I think we might have more in common then not.

      Thought granted outside of what we might or might not have in common in mere natural theology I am convinced the Council of Trent's view on Justification is the Biblical view and David to say the least likely disagrees.

      But such is life.

      >Coyne did not pull the notion of omnibenevolence out of thin air; he got it from Christians.

      I read his lame critique of Brian Davies. The man is without intellectually. For him Atheism is nothing more then an extension of Liberal and Far Left politics. So boring!

      Delete
  5. "First of all BI you are a fundie. Your reject philosophy yet mindlessly hold too a Positivist Philosophical viewpoint just like Coyne & you refuse to learn anything beyond that."

    All of that is false.

    As time progresses, religions splinter and multiple. Does such divergence over time suggest to you a hopeful epistemic method?

    Now let's take a branch of philosophy, such as ethics. Certainly there are legions of meta-ethical theories, but over time there has been an overall convergence of opinion about what is right and wrong. Pretty much everyone agrees that torture and slavery are wrong. Not so 500 years ago.

    So, Philosophy progresses. Science progresses too.

    Theology does not progress. It cannot, because it's all made up. Probably.

    Get your epistemological house in order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it's true.

      You reject philosophy and you refuse to learn even Atheist philosophy because you believe in science alone(aka Positivism).

      You are also ignorant of Science as well.

      You couldn't make a descent Atheist philosophical argument to save your life. You where an epic fail over at Feser's blog and Dangerous Minds. Your whole knowledge of Christian religion doesn't exceed that of Young Earth Creationist dispensationalist Fundamentalism.

      Your Paps without his humor.

      Anyway the brute fact remains God is not a moral agent and Jerry Coyne like you has little knowledge or Religion beyond what he learned when he was 7.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Again I am reminded why meaningful dialogue with BenYachov is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. >Again I am reminded why meaningful dialogue with BenYachov is impossible.

      Yes it requires actually doing some learning or at least be willing to learn.

      That excludes you.

      Delete