How do you like Beckwith now?

[_beastie]

I should have followed up on this thread before posting on cog's meaning thread, because this is precisely the point I wanted to make.

Mormonism traditionally teaches that God is bound by eternal laws, which are fixed outside of his control. If he violates those laws, he, himself, would no longer be “god”.

So where did these eternal, fixed laws originate?

[_Analytics]

According to Ostler, here is Mormonism’s objective grounding for moral obligation. For those of you who think Beckwith is right about atheism and wrong about Mormonism, and furhter who think that unlike us here Ostler understands Beckwith, I’d be interested in why atheists do not have access to the very same objective moral obligation that, according to Ostler, Mormons enjoy.

Good and evil can be defined solely in terms of the law of love. Love itself is intrinsically valuable, for love is the fullest expression of who we are in relationship with one another. In terms of this ethic, good is whatever leads to greater love and unity in interpersonal relationships. Good acts are acts that arise out of and express our love--and our expressions of love are revelations of who and what we really are in our eternal being. A good act is one that leads to healing a broken relationship or growing in intimacy and meaning in existing relationships. I would add that those choices and acts that lead to personal growth are the same as those acts that lead to interpersonal growth. Personal growth entails an increased capacity to love and to be loved. Such personal and interpersonal growth are also intrinsically valuable as ends in themselves. However, there is a byproduct of love that also makes love worth pursuing for its own sake--happiness.

In contrast, an evil act is whatever injures or destroys a relationship. The relationships at issue can be broader than relationships between persons, for it is evil to torture animals just as it is to torture humans. It is evil to destroy the environment. The relationships at issue thus include the broadest array of relationships, the relation we have with each other, the relation I have with animals, with the earth and with myself. An evil act is one that injures relationships or which leads to alienation or separation. The alienation, destruction and separation that result from acts injurious to relationships make us miserable.

[_Analytics]

I should have followed up on this thread before posting on cog's meaning thread, because this is precisely the point I wanted to make.

Mormonism traditionally teaches that God is bound by eternal laws, which are fixed outside of his control. If he violates those laws, he, himself, would no longer be “god”.

So where did these eternal, fixed laws originate?

Excellent question. Coggins would say that they never originated, but rather have always existed in an abstract form (i.e. template), and also in the fabric of the universes that God's have always been creating.

[_beastie]

Excellent question. Coggins would say that they never originated, but rather have always existed in an abstract form (I.e. template), and also in the fabric of the universes that God's have always been creating.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1 - these eternal laws pre-existing even the "first God" (if there is a first god)

2- the "first god" determined these laws

[_Analytics]

Excellent question. Coggins would say that they never originated, but rather have always existed in an abstract form (I.e. template), and also in the fabric of the universes that God's have always been creating.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1 - these eternal laws pre-existing even the "first God" (if there is a first god)

2- the "first god" determined these laws

Coggins would say that there was not a first God. Every chicken came from an egg, and every egg was laid by a chicken.

[_beastie]

Coggins would say that there was not a first God. Every chicken came from an egg, and every egg was laid by a chicken.

That's what I figured.

So no intelligent being created and/or fixed these eternal laws, right?

Anyone see a problem here?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

I posted Ostler's reponse to Beckwith as to give an example of it being well known that Beckwith has written critques of the LDS faith. As for the point of the opening post being that Beckwith uses the same arguments against Mormonism that he did in my thread on Dawkins, how can that possibly be? The argument I linked is different than the one Tarski did. I just linked that one as an example of something more "on target" if Tarski was trying to play a gotcha game. I was not endorsing everything Ostler said in his reply. Other Mormon scholars, such as Daniel C. Peterson, would reject Beckwith's argument against the LDS faith, but not his against atheism. That's because these are, believe it or not, slightly different arguments. Beckwith's argument against the LDS faith hinges on the LDS viewing God as contingent. In his specific argument against Dawkins, he merely requires divinely created purposes. Mormons obviously do not lack this. So there is no inconsistency.

[_Analytics]

I posted Ostler's reponse to Beckwith as to give an example of it being well known that Beckwith has written critques of the LDS faith. As for the point of the opening post being that Beckwith uses the same arguments against Mormonism that he did in my thread on Dawkins, how can that possibly be? The argument I linked is different than the one Tarski did. I just linked that one as an example of something more "on target" if Tarski was trying to play a gotcha game. I was not endorsing everything Ostler said in his reply. Other Mormon scholars, such as Daniel C. Peterson, would reject Beckwith's argument against the LDS faith, but not his against atheism. That's because these are, believe it or not, slightly different arguments. Beckwith's argument against the LDS faith hinges on the LDS viewing God as contingent. In his specific argument against Dawkins, he merely requires divinely created purposes. Mormons obviously do not lack this. So there is no inconsistency.

Mormons do lack this. Mormonism teaches that God lives according to the objective morality, not that he defines it.

I don't think Peterson would accept Beckwith's logic regarding atheism. The thing is, Mormonism requires that objective morality transcend God--God became God by acting according to the objective morality standards. Peterson understands this. He said that perhaps objective morality might exist in a universe without a God, but that it was more "likely" that objective morality would exist in a universe with God. In other words, he was implying, "If there is an objective morality, then there is probably a God."

Personally, I agree with Ostler.

[_Analytics]

by the way, you said,

Mormons have access to an objective metaethical grounding of obligation. That's because he understands what he is replying to.

Interesting how you think he understands what he is replying too and knows what he's talking about, but somehow don't believe his proof which gives atheists every bit as much access to an objective metaethical basis as it gives Mormons.

[_Tarski]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. Beckwith is well known as an

So what am I to make of this thread

The point is this: Beckwith shows with his little "proof" of the impossibility of the Mormon God that his logical skills are lacking. His pseudo-mathematical argument fails to take into acount modern developments in the philosophy of logic amd mathematics.

Now I could have just kept insisting that the logic is correct and refused to listen to reason (like Coggins and maybe you did with the Dawkins thing).
But I know better. His logic is off here and was off in his critique of Dawkins.

If you want to understand the issues surrounding evolution and meaning then a real philosopher like Dennett would be a better bet.