Religion vs. Lifestyle

[Tryhard]

This is how I know you're probably a child/teenager and not worth talking to. Not only do you not know the traditional theistic arguments, constantly insult those you talk to, and use frankly outdated and almost laughably worthless age-old rhetoric, but you spend more time specifically searching Google to prove yourself right than actually learning. To be honest you seem to know nothing on the topic and spend most of your time telling others they don't. As a teenager I had a fragile ego as well, so it's forgivable.

Don't waste your time, that's all I can say. Variable manipulation is king.

In fact, there shouldn't even a debate at all, just the sharing of one's spiritual views and how it affects their lives, not a debate to frantically prove or disprove something. Quite sad to see every time it happens.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Tryhard

[feplus]

@Chiki

I hesitate to come to the defense of autodidacts, but are you genuinely unaware of the analytic / Continental divide? Analytic philosophers can't stand Derrida. They ceaselessly accuse him of obscurantism and conceptual sleight-of-hand.

But this is no surprise. Those same objections are levied towards Heidegger, Foucault, Zizek, and most other prominent Continentals. (They used to be levied against Nietzsche before analytic circles did a 180.) There is lingering animosity towards American pragmatism. There is lingering animosity towards theism.

All of these groups qualify as "real philosophy." Some analytics might not like them, but analytic philosophy is only dominant in a few countries. If you talk to a German or French or Russian philosophy professor, you'll probably get the opposite response: that far from being "fake" philosophy, Continentalism (of which Derrida is a major figure) is the best kind of philosophy.

---

A brief comment about your DCT tangent. It is extremely common, bordering on cliched, for atheists to invoke the Euthyphro Dilemma as a knock-down case against some theistic argument. Bear strongly in mind the man who invented this dilemma was himself a committed monotheist; he wasn't bothered by the challenge. Neither was Aquinas. Neither have most top theistic minds been since the days of Plato.

[Chiki]

I hesitate to come to the defense of autodidacts, but are you genuinely unaware of the analytic / Continental divide? Analytic philosophers can't stand Derrida. They ceaselessly accuse him of obscurantism and conceptual sleight-of-hand.

Wtf are you talking about? Copy pasting a link of a letter in which analytic philosophers deny that Derrida's work is real philosophy does not mean that I am unaware of the analytic / Continental divide. Read the letter: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/varia/Derrida_Letter.htm

Continental philosophy is little more than trash. Derrida's work is a level below even that.

A brief comment about your DCT tangent. It is extremely common, bordering on cliched, for atheists to invoke the Euthyphro Dilemma as a knock-down case against some theistic argument. Bear strongly in mind the man who invented this dilemma was himself a committed monotheist; he wasn't bothered by the challenge. Neither was Aquinas. Neither have most top theistic minds been since the days of Plato.

Then go ahead and tell me what's wrong with it.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

I read the letter. It makes the same criticisms that Continentals get accused of most frequently: obscurantism and superficiality.

My problem is your dismissal of Derrida in particular and Continental philosophy at large. It is not "trash." It is the primary approach to philosophy in many parts of the world. It's made valuable contributions in fields where analytic philosophy is lacking, such as aesthetics, phenomenology, and the history of philosophy.

The most common rebuttal to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to claim it's a false dichotomy. Here is a brief overview of that position from a Christian perspective.

Edited June 14, 2015 by feplus

[Chiki]

Don't waste your time, that's all I can say. Variable manipulation is king.

In fact, there shouldn't even a debate at all, just the sharing of one's spiritual views and how it affects their lives, not a debate to frantically prove or disprove something. Quite sad to see every time it happens.

If you think he's right, then why don't you try defending him?

I read the letter. It makes the same criticisms that Continentals get accused of most frequently: obscurantism and superficiality.

My problem is your dismissal of Derrida in particular and Continental philosophy at large. It is not "trash." It is the primary approach to philosophy in many parts of the world. It's made valuable contributions in fields where analytic philosophy is lacking, such as aesthetics, phenomenology, and the history of philosophy.

The most common rebuttal to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to claim it's a false dichotomy. Here is a brief overview of that position from a Christian perspective.

Those "contributions" are far and few in between, which is why it's trash.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that it's a false dichotomy. But I used it as a response to DCT. Meaning that it's still effective as a response to DCT. So I don't really care about your response.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

Those "contributions" are far and few in between, which is why it's trash.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

And why would a false dichotomy work as an effective criticism of divine command theory?

[Tryhard]

If you think he's right, then why don't you try defending him?

I didn't say I thought he was right or wrong.

[Chiki]

Do you have any evidence to support this?

And why would a false dichotomy work as an effective criticism of divine command theory?

It's really simple. You admitted that those contributions were in phenomenology, history of philosophy and aesthetics. Little to no contributions in ethics, philosophy of language, logic, and so on..

Most BAs in philosophy already have good reading comprehension and analytical reasoning skills. The false dichotomy doesn't work as an effective criticism of my usage of ED against the divine command theory. Because the DCT already picks one side of Euthyphro's dilemma. I brought up ED as a response to the DCT. You said it was cliched and brought up the false dichotomy counterargument. It's completely irrelevant, since the DCT says the false dichotomy response is irrelevant in the first place.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

A question about DCT, as well: If God's will is perfectly good, then how are genocides and other stuff contained in the Bible morally acceptable? Even if ED is a false dichotomy, and God's character, being perfectly good, can't command anything that is evil, then what about his most polemic and morally questionable commandments that contradict our take in ethics?

The answer provided in that link for ED ("God wills something because He is good.") doesn't satisfactorily answer that. If genocides are bad, for example, God can't command them. But these are actually commanded in the Bible. So here is a contradiction.

What's the difference between continental and analytical philosophers? The only continental philosopher I heard about is Alexander Duguin, and it's just a bunch of european supremacist philosophy crap.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

If genocides are bad, for example, God can't command them. But these are actually commanded in the Bible. So here is a contradiction.

well that just means that genocides aren't bad

cuz you know, everyone needs a bit of ethnic cleansing every now and then; it's like a spring cleaning every century.

[Chiki]

A question about DCT, as well: If God's will is perfectly good, then how are genocides and other stuff contained in the Bible morally acceptable? Even if ED is a false dichotomy, and God's character, being perfectly good, can't command anything that is evil, then what about his most polemic and morally questionable commandments that contradict our take in ethics?

The answer provided in that link for ED ("God wills something because He is good.") doesn't satisfactorily answer that. If genocides are bad, for example, God can't command them. But these are actually commanded in the Bible. So here is a contradiction.

What's the difference between continental and analytical philosophers? The only continental philosopher I heard about is Alexander Duguin, and it's just a bunch of european supremacist philosophy crap.

It's not a contradiction. They're morally acceptable because God said so.

Doesn't that sound awful?

The difference between continental and analytic philosophers is difficult to define. It's basically a difference in geography (continental philosophy is based in Europe) and stylistic choices (continental philosophers write obscure garbage and analytic philosophers use formal logic, science and analyze concepts, and write as clearly as possible). More details here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/bridging-the-analytic-continental-divide/?_r=0

[feplus]

@Chiki

1. You misread my earlier post. I did not say Continental philosophy's only contributions were in those fields. I said those fields were examples of Continentals making contributions where analytic philosophy is lacking. Of course Continentals do (great) work in ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. If you need examples I'd be happy to provide some.

2. I'm sure you know that there are several types of DCT. Here are two: DCT by virtue and DCT by definition. The Euthyphro Dilemma is not an effective criticism of either. If God's actions are just by virtue of them being done by God, then one horn of the Dilemma (the Good is good because God wills it) is chosen and the other is discarded. No tension. If God's actions are just because God by definition has a perfectly good character he abides by unfailingly, then the Dilemma is a false dichotomy and is discarded. No tension.

You can read about this second sense of DCT here.

EDIT: The link you provided on the philosophic divide is interesting. What is most interesting is how even a critic of Continentalism concedes there is room for mutual growth.

"In view of their substantive philosophical differences, it’s obvious that analytic and continental philosophers would profit by greater familiarity with one another’s work, and discussions across the divide would make for a better philosophical world. "

"...there are still important general philosophical differences between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy, in all their current varieties. These differences concern their conceptions of experience and of reason as standards of evaluation."

"Of course, analytic philosophers could often profit from exposure to continental ideas. Epistemologists, for example, could learn a great deal from the phenomenological analyses of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, and metaphysicians could profit from the historical reflections of Heidegger and Derrida."

Gutting's criticism is that Continental philosophy, which has unique contributions to offer, would be improved with greater clarity. There is no talk of it being "garbage," because a respected academic wouldn't say something so foolish.

Edited June 14, 2015 by feplus

[Chiki]

You misread my earlier post. I did not say Continental philosophy's only contributions were in those fields. I said those fields were examples of Continentals making contributions where analytic philosophy is lacking. Of course Continentals do (great) work in ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. If you need examples I'd be happy to provide some.

Feel free to bring up those examples, but if you mention Heidegger I'll just ignore you and won't take you seriously. =_= Heidegger's garbage hasn't been read by any famous analytic philosophers (for example, David Chalmers himself said he didn't bother to read it) so how on earth could that have important contributions if analytic philosophers don't even bother with it?

I'm sure you know that there are several types of DCT. Here are two: DCT by virtue and DCT by definition. The Euthyphro Dilemma is not an effective criticism of either. If God's actions are just by virtue of them being done by God, then one horn of the Dilemma (the Good is good because God wills it) is chosen and the other is discarded. No tension. If God's actions are just because God by definition has a perfectly good character he abides by unfailingly, then the Dilemma is a false dichotomy and is discarded. No tension.

Wtf kind of a reply is this. It's too easy to get a BA in philosophy nowadays. Do you even understand why ED is so bad for DCT? It's not bad because there's a tension. Rather, ED says that whenever you try to base a morality on God, problems arise. The problem arises when you discard a horn of the dilemma. If something is morally good because it is commanded by God (DCT), as Socrates points out, the Gods could command that stuff like genocide is good (the Bible God actually does this, also the Quran God commands Muhammed to have sex with as many women as he likes). That seems morally grotesque and unacceptable. This is why ED is so bad for DCT! Socrates already pointed this out like 3000 years ago, I shouldn't have to point this out again to someone who should have already taken courses in ancient philosophy.

Oh and keep in mind: your false dichotomy crap was still completely irrelevant. Glad to see you admit that.

Gutting's criticism is that Continental philosophy, which has unique contributions to offer, would be improved with greater clarity. There is no talk of it being "garbage," because a respected academic wouldn't say something so foolish.

Gutting is a Continental philosopher, so... yeah. I don't go around writing papers declaring that Continental philosophy sucks. Though a lot of people I know would agree with me.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

Merleau-Ponty's experiential epistemology.

Nietzsche's radical empiricist ethic.

William James on the deceptiveness of language.

Horkheimer on many things. Scroll down to ~p225 for material you'd probably find most engaging.

Introduction to Adorno's robust aesthetic theory.

Hegel on history as dialectic.

Do you even understand why ED is so bad for DCT?

Yes. The God-wills-Good horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is a concern only to those who want to preserve moral intuitions- for instance, that genocide is wrong. Traditional divine command theorists bite the bullet and say that, if God wills it, genocide is not wrong. Hence the Canaanite massacre, for example, becomes morally unproblematic.

The Dilemma is of no consequence to such divine command theorists. It is also of no consequence to modified divine command theorists, since the Dilemma introduces a false dichotomy. You do not appear to understand this.

I did not deny that Gutting was a Continental philosopher. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Edited June 14, 2015 by feplus

[Naughx]

Morality is a human invention... So you cannot really apply the laws of logic to it.

[Rehab]

Just to not leave this unreplied-to:

Well said. But there is another reason why I dont get religious people. They believe in their gods, okay. But at the same time, they deny the existence of the other gods from other religions. Who give them the right to do that? It is even worse than my "slandering" words. My friend is a Christian, I took him to watch Prometheus, the movie about ancient aliens who gave life to us and dear, he's offended because of that ideal. He tried to convert me, even asked me to go to the church to listen to the priest but I told him jokingly that I have a god already and his name is Odin. The first words from his mouth were "But Odin is not real!". Should I chop him down because he dared to slander my god?

The funniest religion debate I have ever heard is between 2 kids, one is Christian, one is Buddhist. They kept screaming "Jesus is more powerful!", "Buddha is more powerful!", "Jesus is immortal!", "Buddha can destroys evil!", ect. And all I did was smiling, they dont know that the true almighty god is Madoka Kaname. Okay, you are right, I will stop posting about religion in serious sub-box. I simply cannot take religion serious at all.

Respectively:

1. Thanks!

and,

2. I guess I have that problem too. A completely idle aside: I wonder what kind of God a computer would make if all the world's known religious texts and oral traditions were tossed into a blender and amalgamated into a single portrait of divinity. I bet somewhere in the world a Unitarian is already on the job.

[Espinosa]

Just to not leave this unreplied-to:

Respectively:

1. Thanks!

and,

2. I guess I have that problem too. A completely idle aside: I wonder what kind of God a computer would make if all the world's known religious texts and oral traditions were tossed into a blender and amalgamated into a single portrait of divinity. I bet somewhere in the world a Unitarian is already on the job.

No computer needed I think; "we" have already done that several times in the past.

[Chiki]

Merleau-Ponty's experiential epistemology.

Nietzsche's radical empiricist ethic.

William James on the deceptiveness of language.

Horkheimer on many things. Scroll down to ~p225 for material you'd probably find most engaging.

Introduction to Adorno's robust aesthetic theory.

Hegel on history as dialectic.

Yes. The God-wills-Good horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is a concern only to those who want to preserve moral intuitions- for instance, that genocide is wrong. Traditional divine command theorists bite the bullet and say that, if God wills it, genocide is not wrong. Hence the Canaanite massacre, for example, becomes morally unproblematic.

The Dilemma is of no consequence to such divine command theorists. It is also of no consequence to modified divine command theorists, since the Dilemma introduces a false dichotomy. You do not appear to understand this.

I did not deny that Gutting was a Continental philosopher. Please do not put words in my mouth.

None of those people you cited are taught in analytic philosophy courses, undergraduate or graduate, in US universities, with the exception of Nietzsche and James, and James isn't a continental philosopher lol. Their contributions are complete garbage compared to the contributions of analytic philosophers.

It's appalling that I'm talking to a supposed BA in philosophy who doesn't understand ED, and even more appalled that I have to repeat myself because they don't understand it despite my attempts at explaining it to them. ED doesn't say that there is a tension. Socrates wasn't trying to raise a tension for the religious person, have you even read Euthyphro?

Socrates criticizes any attempt to define ethics in terms of God. He's not trying to say there's a tension, but instead, he's trying to say the religious person is fucked however they try to define ethics in terms of Gods. Euthyphro script where he does this (it's a tiny bit different from the issue, complicated by people believing in multiple Gods in Ancient Greece, I raised but basically the same fundamentally):

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Soc. Well then, my dear friend Euthyphro, do tell me, for my better instruction and information, what proof have you that in the opinion of all the gods a servant who is guilty of murder, and is put in chains by the master of the dead man, and dies because he is put in chains before he who bound him can learn from the interpreters of the gods what he ought to do with him, dies unjustly; and that on behalf of such an one a son ought to proceed against his father and accuse him of murder. How would you show that all the gods absolutely agree in approving of his act? Prove to me that they do, and I will applaud your wisdom as long as I live.

Euth. It will be a difficult task; but I could make the matter very dear indeed to you.

Soc. I understand; you mean to say that I am not so quick of apprehension as the judges: for to them you will be sure to prove that the act is unjust, and hateful to the gods.

Euth. Yes indeed, Socrates; at least if they will listen to me.

Soc. But they will be sure to listen if they find that you are a good speaker. There was a notion that came into my mind while you were speaking; I said to myself: "Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to me that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how do I know anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for granting that this action may be hateful to the gods, still piety and impiety are not adequately defined by these distinctions, for that which is hateful to the gods has been shown to be also pleasing and dear to them." And therefore, Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove this; I will suppose, if you like, that all the gods condemn and abominate such an action. But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

A defender of Divine Command Theory might respond that an action is morally right because God commands it. However, the implication of this response is that if God commanded that we inflict suffering on others for fun, then doing so would be morally right. We would be obligated to do so, because God commanded it. This is because, on Divine Command Theory, the reason that inflicting such suffering is wrong is that God commands us not to do it. However, if God commanded us to inflict such suffering, doing so would become the morally right thing to do. The problem for this response to Socrates’ question, then, is that God’s commands and therefore the foundations of morality become arbitrary, which then allows for morally reprehensible actions to become morally obligatory.

I'm honestly just going to ignore you after this reply. I think you probably went to a school in Continental philosophy or something, which is why you're so bad at debating and understanding philosophical concepts. I don't really have the patience for this. You and that autodidact have no right to tell me that ED is a cliched and poor response when you don't even understand it lol.

I did not deny that Gutting was a Continental philosopher. Please do not put words in my mouth.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't put words in your mouth: merely responding to your argument doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth. Did you tell this to your instructors in your continental philosophy classes when they responded to a point you made? I guess they wouldn't mind it in continental classes though.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

Your hostility betrays your insecurity. It is acceptable, even admirable, to admit you are out of your element here. Learning from debate is more productive than trying to "win" debates with losing positions.

1. American pragmatism is typically filed under Continentalism. This is sensible, as pragmatism emphasizes experience and downplays the dominance of human reason for understanding The Truth. It is relativistic, phenomenological, and anti-metaphysical. Here is a sample from one of the West's top pragmatists, who is chair of a Continental department. If that's not sufficient, compare this list of American universities with Continental programs to this list of pragmatist professors in America. Pay attention to the overlap.

2. You asked for examples of Continental contributions and I provided several. Calling these examples "complete garbage" is not a counter-argument anyone will take seriously.

3. Quoting (a poor, outdated translation of) the Euthyphro dialogue is unnecessary. This is a superior online translation, although ideally you'd want a translation from the past 10-15 years.

4. I have every right to tell you introducing the Euthyphro Dilemma is a poor, cliched response to DCT. Firstly, because it is indeed a poor, cliched response. Secondly, because I understand the Dilemma better than you do.

To demonstrate this, I will go into detail about what the Dilemma is, what it entails, and how it is handled by DCT. I did not feel this would be necessary, but I was mistaken.

Here is the page on the Euthyphro Dilemma from Iron Chariots, arguably most popular online counter-apologetics resource. This is a useful place to start because it gives us insight into how atheists conceive of the Dilemma as a problem for religion (specifically Christianity). The page argues:

...the Euthyphro Dilemma results in two unpalatable conclusions: 1) God is not the greatest, as he must call upon a standard of good greater than himself. 2) God's commands are arbitrary, grounded on his whims, and thus could be commands that we ourselves find morally abhorrent.

The first conclusion is not only unpalatable, but contradictory; if God is the greatest conceivable being, it is impossible for there to be a standard of good "greater than himself." The second conclusion is not contradictory, but unpalatable to some.

Some, not all. To quote myself: "Traditional divine command theorists bite the bullet and say that, if God wills it, genocide is not wrong. Hence the Canaanite massacre, for example, becomes morally unproblematic." It is no problem those commands are morally abhorrent to us, because God willing them is sufficient. William of Ockham is a historical example of a traditional divine command theorist.

Here is a .pdf from an introductory philosophy course (which suits you) that goes over DCT. Relevant snippet:

...it seems that in order to do this he must presuppose facts about goodness: facts about what is better than what... even if divine command theory can explain why some actions are right and others wrong, it cannot explain all the facts having to do with moral value; in particular, it cannot explain facts about what is better for us, or what is good. This undercuts one of the motivations for divine command theory. That was that it is hard to see what could give rise to moral obligations, and other moral facts, other than the commands of God.

To quote myself a second time: "The God-wills-Good horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is a concern only to those who want to preserve moral intuitions- for instance, that genocide is wrong." Traditional DCT denies that any facts about goodness can be presupposed. What is good is what God wills. This is true categorically.

So, to quote myself for a third time (which indicates you ought to read my posts more carefully before responding): "The Dilemma is of no consequence to [traditional] divine command theorists. It is also of no consequence to modified divine command theorists, since the Dilemma introduces a false dichotomy. You do not appear to understand this."

I'm honestly just going to ignore you after this reply.

That is your prerogative. I cannot stop you from wallowing in stubborn ignorance. I have indulged this exchange not just for your own benefit, but for the benefit of others who might be reading, so I am pleased I was able to correct your misconceptions and hopefully prevent the spread of misinformation.

[Balcerzak]

There is far too much of users sniping at each other going on here. The next attack on another user's level of intelligence, subtle or not, will result in warns for flaming.

---

That said, speaking outside of my capacity as a moderator and solely as a user, as I'm reading the latest arguement between Chiki and feplus, I feel like you're doing a classic two ships passing in the night dance here. Please don't.

As I'm reading things, Chiki holds the stronger position, as in the absence of divine commands (and let's face it, God hasn't been issuing any new ones for quite some time), there is no way to extrapolate from an arbitrary set of prior commands for past situations and apply them to an unknown situation in the present or future. Further, there's no way of establishing the validity of an individual who claims to have been commanded by God to do something, provided it was a solely private revelation and not a public one. When morality is unverifiable, it becomes garbage and worthless, in my opinion.

[feplus]

... in the absence of divine commands (and let's face it, God hasn't been issuing any new ones for quite some time), there is no way to extrapolate from an arbitrary set of prior commands for past situations and apply them to an unknown situation in the present or future.

That's fine. As I explained several times in my previous posts, traditional DCT is happy to concede that goodness is arbitrary.

You are also correct about DCT's problem with evaluating future action. If God's will is not bound to an external code of conduct, his will is unpredictable. This makes it impossible to know for sure what God wants or what "virtuous action" means. (There are proposed solutions to this problem, but I don't know if you'd be interested in hearing about them. If so, I could draft something up.)

But this was not Chiki's argument. Chiki claimed that the Euthyphro Dilemma posed a unique challenge to DCT. As my thorough and sourced post prior to this one demonstrates, that is simply not the case.

1. The Dilemma is not a problem to tDCT, since proponents of that view grant that God's will is sufficient.

2. The Dilemma is not a problem to mDCT, since proponents of that view reject the Dilemma as a false dichotomy.

[Balcerzak]

As I'm not Chiki, perhaps I shouldn't speak for him, but I think you're looking too closely at the specifics of his statement "poses a problem for DCT". In the case of what you're calling, tDCT, they accept arbitrary morality: both of you agree. Chiki says this is a problem (for DCT) because it should be rejected as bogus. When he's saying "for DCT" he doesn't mean the people who have already bought into and adhere to it, but rather it is a problem for the theory as a whole for people who are considering it as a possible basis, and who (probably) don't want to throw intuitive morality out the window.

I admit, I had trouble following what qualified as modified DCT, or why the dilemma suddenly became a false dichotomy, it might have been too buried in the back and forth petty insults. When I read the link, their attempt to explain it as a false dichotomy read to me like they were just doubling back on the first horn "Good is whatever God wills" using slightly different phrasing "God's nature is the standard for goodness". I honestly can't see the difference. Explain it to me like I'm five years old.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Balcerzak

[feplus]

Recall that DCT is just one debate topic; by my count, Chiki and I are currently engaged in three (unless he's abandoned the thread).

1. Continental philosophy is "garbage."

2. Pragmatism isn't Continental philosophy.

3. The Euthyphro Dilemma presents a unique challenge to DCT.

I don't want to speak for Chiki either, so I will quote him directly.

On point one:

"[Continental philosophy has made] little to no contributions in ethics, philosophy of language, logic, and so on."

"Continental philosophy is little more than trash."

"Those 'contributions' [of Continental philosophy] are far and few in between, which is why it's trash."

"Their contributions are complete garbage compared to the contributions of analytic philosophers."

On point two:

"[William] James isn't a continental philosopher lol."

On point three:

"Do you even understand why ED is so bad for DCT?... If something is morally good because it is commanded by God (DCT), as Socrates points out, the Gods could command that stuff like genocide is good (the Bible God actually does this, also the Quran God commands Muhammed to have sex with as many women as he likes). That seems morally grotesque and unacceptable."

"[socrates is] trying to say the religious person is fucked however they try to define ethics in terms of Gods."

Chiki is entitled to his value judgments re: Continental philosophy, but every other point made is false. You can understand why this has been a frustrating conversation. Continental philosophy has made many, many contributions to every field. Pragmatism is typically filed under the Continental school.

Both response claims are true are were sourced thoroughly.

re: DCT. As you can see in the above quotations, Chiki argues that the Dilemma is a problem for DCT because it leads us to treating unpalatable acts as virtuous acts. This is only a problem for those who want to preserve the reliability of moral intuitions. If the divine command theorist concedes that God's will is sufficient, the Dilemma poses no issue; claiming "ED is so bad for DCT" is a confusion. The problems with DCT (one of which you provided) have nothing to do with the Dilemma.

re: Socrates. I explained earlier that both Socrates and Plato were committed monotheists. Socrates does not argue that a "religious person is fucked" because of the Dilemma; considering his religious views, he believes the precise opposite. So this is another confusion.

re: mDCT. The fundamental difference is how God's actions in tDCT are unrestricted, while God's actions in mDCT are restricted. Take this syllogism:

1. God is the greatest possible being.

2. Having a perfectly stable, perfectly just character that aligns with our shared moral intuitions is greater than not having this character.

3. God possesses a perfectly stable, perfectly just character that aligns with our shared moral intuitions.

This is valid, but premise [2] is highly contentious. Nonetheless, this is basically where mDCT finds its footing. God is not free to act however he pleases, and the Good is not determined by his actions.

Edited June 16, 2015 by feplus

[Rehab]

I can at least attest to having heard things said along the lines of what you're distinguishing as traditional divine command theory.

I can't say I knew where I could possibly take that conversation afterwards.

[dondon151]

Continental philosophy has made many, many contributions to every field. Pragmatism is typically filed under the Continental school.

needs evidence and specifics

re: DCT. As you can see in the above quotations, Chiki argues that the Dilemma is a problem for DCT because it leads us to treating unpalatable acts as virtuous acts. This is only a problem for those who want to preserve the reliability of moral intuitions. If the divine command theorist concedes that God's will is sufficient, the Dilemma poses no issue; claiming "ED is so bad for DCT" is a confusion. The problems with DCT (one of which you provided) have nothing to do with the Dilemma.

god tells me that this is bullshit, though