tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post116312972836998787..comments2024-03-15T03:16:46.386-04:00Comments on Objectivist v. Constructivist v. Theist: A Debate Over HellThe Constructivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1164375535724198662006-11-24T08:38:00.000-05:002006-11-24T08:38:00.000-05:00Dear Constructivist:I don't see Nietzche's point. ...Dear Constructivist:<BR/>I don't see Nietzche's point. It's not clear why it's more interesting to deny God's being alive than his ever existing. Also, it seems that he misidentified the issue since if God exists then he exists necessarily (at all times and under all possible scenarios). Hence, it's hard to see how Nietzche's thesis is plausible.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1164375393863586172006-11-24T08:36:00.000-05:002006-11-24T08:36:00.000-05:00Dear Constructivist:Good point about the transitio...Dear Constructivist:<BR/>Good point about the transition from the possibility of hell to the claim that hell is actual. I think the theist's argument is that sending atheists/sinners to hell is deserved and God must give persons what they deserve. I'm not sure how this fits with God's mercy and forgiveness.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1164097038934135432006-11-21T03:17:00.000-05:002006-11-21T03:17:00.000-05:00Baudrillard in an interview from the '80s suggeste...Baudrillard in an interview from the '80s suggested the Manicheans and Nietzsche started a much more interesting debate--and rhetorical/metaphysical strategy--than pro- and anti-theism. He writes:<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche is not in the least an ordinary "atheist". He is not committed to the denial of the existence of God as an ordinary atheist would be. He is actually denying not that God exists but that God is alive.... [He] challenges the existence of God by issuing a challenge <I>to</I> God. It is just as uninteresting to say "God does not exist" as to say "God exists". The problematic for Nietzsche is completely different. He is challenging the "liveliness", the being, of God. In other words, he is <I>seducing</I> God. (from "The Evil Demon of Images," an interview in <I>Baudrillard Live</I> [Routledge, 1993])<BR/><BR/>Philosophically interesting to those in the Anglo-American tradition or more French b.s.?The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1164096606232001902006-11-21T03:10:00.000-05:002006-11-21T03:10:00.000-05:00Somehow hell has gone from a "sobering possibility...Somehow hell has gone from a "sobering possibility" in The Theist's title and the "what ifs" and "just supposes" that everywhere are signals to suspend disbelief at the beginning of his essay to the wisdom, indeed necessity, of consulting Jesus on how to avoid going to hell, by the end. What better proof that hell and God are stories we make sacred through our faith in them can there be?The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1163630416098393262006-11-15T17:40:00.000-05:002006-11-15T17:40:00.000-05:00Dear Mr. Schraub:I like your second point. God doe...Dear Mr. Schraub:<BR/><BR/>I like your second point. God doesn't take a risk with himself since he is invulnerable.<BR/><BR/>With regard to believers, he takes very little risk since they are guaranteed an eternity of ecstatic life and this is not a bad future. <BR/><BR/>Only with regard to non-believers does God take a risk on agent's free action. However, they deserve hell, so it's hard to see what the risk is. <BR/><BR/>In any case, if theists were to admit that hell is as wonderful as heaven (except for friendship with God), this line of attack would be defused.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1163630002596093832006-11-15T17:33:00.000-05:002006-11-15T17:33:00.000-05:00Dear Mr. Schraub:I like your points. I don't see h...Dear Mr. Schraub:<BR/><BR/>I like your points. I don't see how the preference for autonomy works with regard to sending persons to hell. We often think that we should override someone's preferences when they are blatantly irrational. For example, we might prevent a person from driving over a washed out bridge if he refuses to listen to warnings about the bridge. <BR/><BR/>Even if we shouldn't override it, we make decisions when individuals don't yet have autonomous preferences. This might occur, for example, when they are children or if they are unconscious as a result of a car accident.<BR/><BR/>At the very least, the presence of hell doesn't seem to warrant killing fetuses and infants out of love.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1163576645529389402006-11-15T02:44:00.000-05:002006-11-15T02:44:00.000-05:00The theist also doesn't hit the argument that the ...The theist also doesn't hit the argument that the harms to God (if that is conceptually coherent) are indirect and thus not really deserving of punishment (or at least, not infinite punishment). Also, on the "take away autonomy" point, most deaths (whether violently imposed or not) are not autonomous choices--indeed, the only ones that aren't are suicides, which are generally considered sinful. So that's not a unique point.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I don't give God points for taking the "extreme risk" (wtf?) of letting people reject them, especially when He can rest assured that anyone who makes that choice will be tortured for all eternity. It isn't even clear why that's risky, and in anyevent the backstop of eternal hellfire negates any props I'd give regardless. The objectivist is clearly getting the better of that argument--that <I>is</I> insecure (and belies the view that God is a "just judge"--which, by the way, is not something we can presuppose biblically I don't think--Abraham arguing with God, the 10th Plague, all the other plagues where God hardens Pharoahs heart, and the entire Book of Job make that an assumption that simply cannot be fiated).David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1163130098810864462006-11-09T22:41:00.000-05:002006-11-09T22:41:00.000-05:00Note also that in killing infants we guarantee the...Note also that in killing infants we guarantee they go to heaven and don't affect their preferences since they don't yet have a preference to be autonomous on earth. <BR/><BR/>Since they end up being autonomous in heaven,it's not even clear we cut short the duration of time in which they are autonomous (which is infinite in any case).The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1163129998453291382006-11-09T22:39:00.000-05:002006-11-09T22:39:00.000-05:00Note that an infinitely unjust act and an act that...Note that an infinitely unjust act and an act that causes an infinite amount of bad are not the same. <BR/><BR/>A person might be only finite blameworthy for an act that causes infinite harm if it prevents the existence of an infinite number of persons. <BR/><BR/>This might happen, for example, if a pharmicist diluted a woman's medicine as a way to steal a little money and ended up killing the woman and her infinite number of descendants. It is not clear, however, that he would warrant an eternity in hell.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com