جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
I haven't actually read it, I was commenting on your comment for the obvious reason!Well here are some problems with this awful dialogue.
It is true not every action has a moral value in it.. but generally if you take justice and good away, then it will leave the two other options, evil or neutrality!First, the guy who wrote this seems to think that if you take away Justice or Good you end up with Injustice and Evil. This is plainly false if you think about it. Just because something is not good does not imply that something is evil. It can be the case that action x is NEITHER. Similarly, if something is not Just it does not follow that it is unjust; it can be neutral. So action X is not evil by virtue of the fact that it is not good nor is state of affairs Y unjust by virtue that it is not just.
I haven't come across a philosophy professor who said that indeed but have come across one history chain smoking teacher who has and at the tender formative years, she'd always remark, 'there is no God' 'what does god have to do with it' just for the mere fact that a student would comment with 'Oh my God'.. so to it is quite possible.. it is a hypothetical your pal skaveau is always smitten with inane hypotheticals and expects everyone to build on his empty premises you can do the same hereSecond, the part about science is ridiculous. No reasonable person, let alone a professor of philosophy, is going to claim that God does not exist because we can't hear him, touch him, see him, smell him, taste him(?). The fact that dialogue set the prof up as someone who only believes in things that can be verifiable by this criteria is clearly a straw man argument against a naturalist/atheist. scientists and the like have no problem believing in things they can;t see as long as they have sufficient secondary evidence. That's why we know atoms exist. The argument that the Prof should have made to avoid the straw-man that is contained in this dialogue is "I don't see any direct evidence for God nor do I see any secondary evidence for God"
Again, haven't read it will have to go with your words and there is no reason to distrust you!So all in all, the first part of this dialogue is just a bad answer to the Problem of Evil. The second part is a clear cut straw-man argument in that no atheist that I have ever met would hold the beliefs that this professor does.
Maybe the story is fictional.. but there are nasty professors and nasty surgeons and nasty meat handlers .. surely you have come across some.. When I first came to the U.S and of course I didn't speak English, and couldn't express myself.. my ESL teacher took my book and threw it at me.. at the time I thought that was normal, but she was fired later and not because of me ( I didn't have enough sense to complain) but I suppose most parents who pay nearly Harvard tuition for a private school expect that their children should be taught without abuse.. so frankly you never know!Just to point out, the dialogue is even written in a crappy way. What sort of professor says "how dare you" to a student for saying his premise is flawed? Has this author ever sat in a class? The author is trying too hard to demonize the prof in the dialogue. I mean it's bad enough to give him such a crappy set of arguments but to paint him as jerk too is just a poor attempt to getting readers on the side of the student. And the last bit is hilarious about the Ali Jinnah thing. I don't think Muhammad ali jinnah would quote the Bible...so this should have been edited before being posted. Just looks bad!
I'll have to see the bible quote part, I don't see any reason why Muhammad ali Jinnah couldn't quote the bible? surely there is no law against it?
all the best