Bernard Law's concept of the identification of God as essentially evil has been limping from the first day. Plagued by the ontological basis of God being good as a logical consequence of a functional designed universe, the difficulties in the moral argument as being divinely founded over against a core of moral initiatives that lack positive authority apart from natural consequences, Law's premises lack substance. Suspicious of having the capability to understand God well enough to establish His ways as evil, it is equally possible to fail to appreciate His activities to the point of determining their motives. To this I offer the following analogy. Read and ponder.
THE ANALOGY OF THE "EVIL" BANK
You have been led to conclude that the financial entity called "the bank" is evil because of the following facts: It has 1) foreclosed on your home, 2) led to legal proceedings that caused the repossession of your car, and 3) refused to lend you money for your plans and projects. You rail on the deficiencies of the bank to all your friends and colleagues. They sympathize with you, and this heartens you in the knowledge that their disapproval of the bank's actions against you has become their shared viewpoint. But some of your friends have made inquiries on the motivations of the bank, and have discovered that 1) you have refused to make the necessary payments, 2) have made actions that have worked against the reclamation of property purchased through bank money, and 3) have shown a tendency to be reckless with funds and funding procedures. In short, there is a basis for the bank to conclude that dealing with you would not be in their best interests. However, you have personally blocked these reasons from your mind and have warmed yourself with the notion that such banking transactions were founded on a core concept that all bank activity is essentially "evil." In short, it is coming to a grip on the idea of personal responsibility with bank officials that is lacking, and the declaration of "evil" is a rationale that satisfies you, in spite of the factors that you feel must be dismissed from the equation.
Such a declaration of evil is based on anecdotal evidence, a refusal to contemplate the full array of information that would settle the true nature of banking and its way with men and society. A quick estimation of banking as "evil" is adequate because you deem it adequate, and further review of the topic would lead to uncomfortable premises that would soon unravel your position. All factors are not weighed, only the ones you hold. God is far beyond the complexities of economics, and gathering all indicators of His nature would be a perplexing task, much in the same line of comtemplating the universe. Science, for all its achievements, is no closer to that level of understanding.
In line with this disertation on the "Evil God Challenge," I offer this selection from Paul Washer and his defense against the so-called "evil god" supposition. Watch and ponder.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Regionalism, Presidential Politics, and the Pedastaled Argument
In the realm of strawman arguments, the political process is the main consumer. I have found the debates of the Republican candidates a refreshingly different game of "king on the mountain." As political promises shift, the game of perceive the front-runner as prime target deals out re-examinations of the proposals and policies of the most recent winner of any primary, caucus, or debate.
As the primaries shift from state to state, I have noted the winner as representative of a region. Santorum's slender victory in Iowa deprived Romney of a triumph in the Heartland. No tears for the Massachusetts governor, as he crushed all comers in the New Hampshire primary. In his euphoria of victory, his momentum was throttled in South Carolina, where Gingrich eclipsed all comers. Thus I began to wonder if there would be a trend where Romney would fare better in liberal states, Gingrich in Southern states, and Santorum, if he has a ghost of a chance, in the mid-section of the nation. Especially in the light of the radically changing fortunes of the Republican "leader du jour." Could it be possible in a nation that the populace could easily tire of the two main contenders and scan the field for what is left? Time will tell, but in the too easy to ponder milieu of the scarecrow argument, we've been stuck with a choice between a Mormon and a philanderer. Unenticing menu that.
I look forward to primaries that will move towards the West, and definitely in the mid-section of the country, particularly the northern and southern prairie states. A few sorties in the "rust Belt" around the Great Lakes may be an eye-opener. California, with its expansiveness, would contrast its rustic north with its urban south. It could well be that Texas could be Ron Paul's only hope for recognition. It all leads one to ponder why one would wish to vote for a particular person. His region could be the reason. We in the Midwest can't understand the background of the Northeast, and vice versa. We all wonder at the temperament of the Red Staters if we are Blue Staters, and vice versa. But it is from these regions that Americans as a rule pronounce our wishes for leadership, a sense of "one of our own" even if he is not from the neighborhood.
I have written of the pedestaled argument, the position that wins by default due to political pressures on society that would like to establish settled absolutes. The foundation for such acceptance, even downright obedience, is declaring a core group as elite sources of proper behavior, tolerant understanding, and trends to incorporate into the socio-economic community at large. It is a thinly veiled argumentum ad verecundiam, a yield all counter-argument in light of allowing society to function smoothly without dissent. The concept of election is based on the republican idea of representation of the electorate's desire for leadership to be derived from a mandate of voters who have sought a candidate much in line with their own political viewpoints. This is extremely hard in a nation that has become more and more divisive and divided. In the world of politics, compromise recognized the truth that no political solution is easy, but based on a sea of factors that cannot simply be balanced by any social calculus. And yet we persist, happy in the lingo of "neo-cons" and "tree hugger libs" that tends to consolidate a feeling of us vs. them in the political arena, sanctioning negative political ads, seemingly pointless questions aimed to savage political careers, and a general feeling that America will never find its Cincinnatus that will come in, lead well, retire humbly. A career politican may well be our best bet, or our worse nightmare.
The strawmen are fast becoming busy.
As the primaries shift from state to state, I have noted the winner as representative of a region. Santorum's slender victory in Iowa deprived Romney of a triumph in the Heartland. No tears for the Massachusetts governor, as he crushed all comers in the New Hampshire primary. In his euphoria of victory, his momentum was throttled in South Carolina, where Gingrich eclipsed all comers. Thus I began to wonder if there would be a trend where Romney would fare better in liberal states, Gingrich in Southern states, and Santorum, if he has a ghost of a chance, in the mid-section of the nation. Especially in the light of the radically changing fortunes of the Republican "leader du jour." Could it be possible in a nation that the populace could easily tire of the two main contenders and scan the field for what is left? Time will tell, but in the too easy to ponder milieu of the scarecrow argument, we've been stuck with a choice between a Mormon and a philanderer. Unenticing menu that.
I look forward to primaries that will move towards the West, and definitely in the mid-section of the country, particularly the northern and southern prairie states. A few sorties in the "rust Belt" around the Great Lakes may be an eye-opener. California, with its expansiveness, would contrast its rustic north with its urban south. It could well be that Texas could be Ron Paul's only hope for recognition. It all leads one to ponder why one would wish to vote for a particular person. His region could be the reason. We in the Midwest can't understand the background of the Northeast, and vice versa. We all wonder at the temperament of the Red Staters if we are Blue Staters, and vice versa. But it is from these regions that Americans as a rule pronounce our wishes for leadership, a sense of "one of our own" even if he is not from the neighborhood.
I have written of the pedestaled argument, the position that wins by default due to political pressures on society that would like to establish settled absolutes. The foundation for such acceptance, even downright obedience, is declaring a core group as elite sources of proper behavior, tolerant understanding, and trends to incorporate into the socio-economic community at large. It is a thinly veiled argumentum ad verecundiam, a yield all counter-argument in light of allowing society to function smoothly without dissent. The concept of election is based on the republican idea of representation of the electorate's desire for leadership to be derived from a mandate of voters who have sought a candidate much in line with their own political viewpoints. This is extremely hard in a nation that has become more and more divisive and divided. In the world of politics, compromise recognized the truth that no political solution is easy, but based on a sea of factors that cannot simply be balanced by any social calculus. And yet we persist, happy in the lingo of "neo-cons" and "tree hugger libs" that tends to consolidate a feeling of us vs. them in the political arena, sanctioning negative political ads, seemingly pointless questions aimed to savage political careers, and a general feeling that America will never find its Cincinnatus that will come in, lead well, retire humbly. A career politican may well be our best bet, or our worse nightmare.
The strawmen are fast becoming busy.
Monday, January 2, 2012
One Point About Tolerance
Below is a You Tube Video from the One-Minute Apologist. In it, Greg Koukl makes a very wise point about the argument of declaring one side intolerant, as if this strawman strategy is viable. On viewing, one will see the vaprous lack of substance such a blanket statement makes, and the rather invalid contribution to the discussion of ideas.
Watch and ponder.
Watch and ponder.
Perceptions and the Creation of the Strawman
The topic under discussion is the creation of the strawman that shortcuts all possible intercourse that could seek to resolve issues. To do this study in a reasonable approach, I needed to create the situation that I am dealing fairly in this project and not creating the strawman concerning something I disagree with and defeat the purpose of this post. What would be the point of dealing with the creation of the strawman if in doing so I have fully engaged in the mindset that creates the fallacy? It would be no more a demonstration of the fallacy by committing it myself. A type of "watch me screw something up in the field of logics." I wish to examine this unhealthy phenomenon critically.
In doing this, I wish to present two political movements that are poles apart on the key issues, acknowledging that I will tend to lean towards one position, but also pointing out the shabby tendency to vilify the opposition. These movements are the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement. In the study, I would first show images that would positively present the position of the activists with brief commentary, and then images that promote strawman disemblance of the movement. But without commentary. After showing both positions, I would critique the common fallacy committed by both, with a plea for understanding of these contrasting views.
1. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT
Positive images
In review of the pictures, the movement sees as the problem over-sized government, with a zeal to tax excessively. It sees the role of such government as socialism, which has been a noted failure as a system of regulations of nations, economics, and social structure. It holds such government to be tyrannical, unsympathetic to the citizenry, and wasteful of resources. Such government is incapable of sustained growth and management. This is what the Tea Party movement sees as what the nation must fear.
Negative images:
2. THE OCCUPY ... MOVEMENT
Positive images
The Occupy Movement sees that failure of capitalism as the foundation to all the wrongs of America. They seek to define a method of a reasonable and fair redistribution of wealth to alleviate social injustices that have been mandated by a portion of society that controls the economics of the country. The role of government is to establish the necessary programs that would see to the material needs and equivalent rights that a failure to resolve the effects of poverty had for the most part had caused.
Negative images:
THE POWER OF PERCEPTION IN THE CREATION OF THE STRAWMAN
In examining the negative images of each, it is clear that no effort is made to see the reasonings of a given movement if one happened to disagree with the premises of the movement. To the Occupyan, the Tea Party advocate is a pawn of the corrupt 1%, or inconsistent in the basic positions of the movement. To the Tea Partier, the Occupy protester is an unprincipled slacker who is secretly working for enemy governments that would transform America into a socialist state. We have seen all things in the filter of our own perceptions. The opposition is not a disenting view, it has become a hostile enemy that must be destroyed. It is too easy to point out the tacky signs that label Pres. Obama as fascist, or the wealthy individual as a narcissic drain upon the strength of the American worker.
Bottom line. Both are concerned for the future of their country, but at this point, we have not alerted each other to our visions, our fears, our passion for the continuance of democratic systems and the common welfare of the citizens. Until we have this ability to hear we drives our political viewpoints, our desitny is best expressed in one last image:
In doing this, I wish to present two political movements that are poles apart on the key issues, acknowledging that I will tend to lean towards one position, but also pointing out the shabby tendency to vilify the opposition. These movements are the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement. In the study, I would first show images that would positively present the position of the activists with brief commentary, and then images that promote strawman disemblance of the movement. But without commentary. After showing both positions, I would critique the common fallacy committed by both, with a plea for understanding of these contrasting views.
1. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT
Positive images
In review of the pictures, the movement sees as the problem over-sized government, with a zeal to tax excessively. It sees the role of such government as socialism, which has been a noted failure as a system of regulations of nations, economics, and social structure. It holds such government to be tyrannical, unsympathetic to the citizenry, and wasteful of resources. Such government is incapable of sustained growth and management. This is what the Tea Party movement sees as what the nation must fear.
Negative images:
2. THE OCCUPY ... MOVEMENT
Positive images
The Occupy Movement sees that failure of capitalism as the foundation to all the wrongs of America. They seek to define a method of a reasonable and fair redistribution of wealth to alleviate social injustices that have been mandated by a portion of society that controls the economics of the country. The role of government is to establish the necessary programs that would see to the material needs and equivalent rights that a failure to resolve the effects of poverty had for the most part had caused.
Negative images:
THE POWER OF PERCEPTION IN THE CREATION OF THE STRAWMAN
In examining the negative images of each, it is clear that no effort is made to see the reasonings of a given movement if one happened to disagree with the premises of the movement. To the Occupyan, the Tea Party advocate is a pawn of the corrupt 1%, or inconsistent in the basic positions of the movement. To the Tea Partier, the Occupy protester is an unprincipled slacker who is secretly working for enemy governments that would transform America into a socialist state. We have seen all things in the filter of our own perceptions. The opposition is not a disenting view, it has become a hostile enemy that must be destroyed. It is too easy to point out the tacky signs that label Pres. Obama as fascist, or the wealthy individual as a narcissic drain upon the strength of the American worker.
Bottom line. Both are concerned for the future of their country, but at this point, we have not alerted each other to our visions, our fears, our passion for the continuance of democratic systems and the common welfare of the citizens. Until we have this ability to hear we drives our political viewpoints, our desitny is best expressed in one last image:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)