Massimo gets testy on a regular basis. In this instance, the comments are more interesting than the rambling, disjointed post. Most of the comments are critical of Massimo's glaring errors. For example, Massimo was chafing at a criticism by co-blogger, Julia Galef. He had said [X], and then turned around and said, "Contra Julia, [X] is not true", mistakenly attributing his statement to her and then refuting it. This gaffe must sting, but he has not acknowledged it.
One thing to note in the post, however, is Massimo’s purposeful continuing thrust against the three O’s that he strawman’s against Christianity. He does this both frequently and even in non-related conversations:
Massimo:
”For instance, the common concept of God in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition is of a being who is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.”While the King James Version does mention the word “almighty” in reference to the deity, there is no usage of any of the three words, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence in any translation, according to the Zondervan Exhaustive Concordance, nor in Vine's Concise Dictionary of the Bible. The three O's are not necessary much less sufficient for the concept of a deity. It appears that it is not necessary for a P.I. to actually study a subject in order to declare to the world what the essence of the subject is. Massimo has previously claimed to fear Christians and Christianity based on their irrational beliefs - beliefs that he, Massimo, apparently makes up to suit his own irrational beliefs.
[emphasis added]
In fact, one of the commenters points out that Judeo-Christianity theology is not based on the three O's, but when I last read it, Massimo had ignored that fact. Being a P.I. must be tough.
4 comments:
The three 'O's are what the lay people typically believe, and priests do naught to dissuade them of this thing that you characterize as a misconception.
Ask any Christian, Jew or Muslim preacher which of the three 'O's their god is not, and I'm sure you won't get a straight answer.
Have asked about the three O's, and the answer is some form of "it depends", which means that it is not an absolute requirement. For example, no one will admit to believing that God can be (much less must be) non-coherent, which is what the three O's demand, and is what Atheists depend upon.
Your approach and response suggests that many have not actually thought much about it. That might be true, but it doesn't mean that the three O's are the basis for Judeo-Christianity in any sense, nor are they necessary for positing a first cause.
Stan-
The fact those three words are not used in the text does not negate that those three words can be used to describe the text.
I might say, "Heartwarming, love story," to describe a play aptly- even though those exact words are not spoken at any time during the play.
With that said- your bigger point (that the three o's are not needed for a God) is valid.
As far as the actual beliefs of the actual people who consider themselves of part of a group-- here it seems that there is great variation. I'm sure you could find groups in which the majority of people believed things that weren't true about the foundational teachings of that group. (Ask Americans about the Constitution- for example).
It seems that a straw-man version of God is often attacked by atheists. Perhaps it is time to agree that there are any number of descriptions of god and gods that have been used, but are not wholly accurate. These descriptions have changed over time and continue to do so.
A scientist could appreciate the situation.
Massimo continually beats on the three O's as if to imply that finding them non-coherent proves the non-coherence of a deity.
I think that most theists would agree that the deity first and foremost is coherent. This means that any other characteristics that might be applied by humans must be within the bounds of coherence.
For example, the deity could be said to be all-pwerful, within the constraints of coherence; all-knowing within the constraints of coherence; benevolent within the constraints of justice and coherence.
The very idea that the deity is non-coherent is contradictory to the idea of the deity having created coherence in the first place.
Regardless of how the three O's are defined, they can only be applied to a coherent deity within the bounaries that coherence demands.
Post a Comment