Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Yes I agree it's a fact that religious privilege exists but if if it exists due to public political will , then presumably it is not a problem for all its supporters and when they become in the minority the privilege will presumably be withdrawn. In that case I don't see it as being any more problematic or different to any other privilege such as the monarchy or charity status for private schools or lenient sentences for women with children who are convicted of a crime.

It’s problematic I think because it validates faith in the public square and, once you do that, how would you argue against someone who also has faith that, say, flying ‘planes into building is “God’s” will? The privileging of faith at all is the problem, regardless of its objects. Whether enough people would ever agree to do something about it though is a different matter. 

I think the explanation of patience is for those who are alive and it would extend to not just what could be worse for the individual but what could be worse for their loved ones. Also I am not sure what you mean by a loving god - I don't think feeling constantly loved features heavily in Muslim thought if that's what you meant by a loving god, so that part is one for the Christians to respond to.

The point I think is that, faced with a world that looks just as you’d expect it to with no interventionist god (let alone a caring one), if you want to posit a god who both cares and who can intervene nonetheless then you have to come up with casuistry like “original sin”, “testing our patience” etc.

That comparison doesn't really work - the story does not indicate that A&E only have the intellectual capabilities of a labrador. As I said, this is impossible to test so we're both just guessing.

I don’t agree. What would, say, sadness mean to someone who’d neither experienced it nor experienced someone else experiencing it? How would empathy be possible?

I can't answer that as it's their story, not mine. I would have to experience something myself and then see if I could find any mercy in it. The Muslim standard response to adversity is that it is a test - I don't think we really try and tell people that they experienced mercy - we tend to remind ourselves that life and death are unpredictable.

Occam’s razor. Adding the superstructure necessary for “a test” adds a whole level of assumptions that “no god” doesn’t require.

I am not aware of using it to validate an argument - I thought i was explaining a story and that one of the premises of the story and of Muslim belief is the idea of a first cause/ creator.

I think you were, but OK.

I wasn't trying to argue that superstition was a requisite for intellectual capability. I was trying to say that that as we have intellectually capability we are capable of discussing/ pondering abstract ideas such as whether there is a purpose to our existence and explore abstract superstitious ideas.

See above.   

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think that just because someone has a capability, it is unfair to expect them to undertake not to exercise that capability.

If you make someone intellectualy curious, then create a “tree of knowledge”, them tell them it’s there, then tell them not to go there, then punish them when they do what would that say about you do you think?   

Why on other words bother with any of it?

I think we just have different ideas on how fair and unfair it is to expect A&E to exercise self-control and there is no objective line to take for this.

Yes we do. Entrapment though is a fairly “objective line” I’d have thought to use as reference.

Not sure how that situation can come up - I don't know what god's moral conclusion is in any given situation - I might think the conclusion I came up with is close to the morals I interpret from the religion, but it's still only my best guess based on my interpretation of the words, stories and contexts. Or I might think that it is contrary to my best guess of god's moral conclusion - in which case,  like A&E I might follow my own conclusions or I may not or I may do nothing and think about it some more - it would really depend on how serious I thought the consequences of my choices would be.

Exactly! How seriously A&E even could have thought the consequences to be though is the point!
 

No, I agree with you - I am not making a case against pursuing personal desires in general.

Fair enough.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

It’s problematic I think because it validates faith in the public square and, once you do that, how would you argue against someone who also has faith that, say, flying ‘planes into building is “God’s” will?

Bzzzzz Equation of faith in the public square with terrorism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you make someone intellectualy curious, then create a “tree of knowledge”, them tell them it’s there, then tell them not to go there, then punish them when they do what would that say about you do you think?   

It's the tree of knowledge of Good and evil Hillside.

You have to establish that they were drawn to it by intellectual curiosity, given that factual intellectual grasp is a morally neutral thing, rather than say acquisitiveness or sheer ''fuckyouness''.

can I also remind you that the whole story becomes more intellectually and spiritually and ,who knows, aesthetically productive if you lose a wee bit of the literalism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Occam’s razor. Adding the superstructure necessary for “a test” adds a whole level of assumptions that “no god” doesn’t require.

Argumentum ad consequentium?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Clueless,

Bzzzzz Equation of faith in the public square with terrorism

I can’t be expected to educate the uneducable. Try to work out for yourself where you went wrong there.

It's the tree of knowledge of Good and evil Hillside.

Relevance to the point about entrapment?

You have to establish that they were drawn to it by intellectual curiosity, given that factual intellectual grasp is a morally neutral thing, rather than say acquisitiveness or sheer ''fuckyouness''.

I have to establish no such thing. The myth is set up for the poor saps to fail. That would make the god who did it a scumbag.   

…can I also remind you that the whole story becomes more intellectually and spiritually and ,who knows, aesthetically productive if you lose a wee bit of the literalism

I have none.

Argumentum ad consequentium?

Not even close. Try looking the term up in a reputable reference work.

[Enki]

Vlad,

Well we all have something to do with the alienation that exists in the world and the suffering associated with the decisions people make as compared with the decisions which could have been made.

We all have something to do with the sense of belonging too. It's called being human, and both stem from our evolutionary tendencies.

The question for anybody's version of morality is does it adequately explain what we experience? Does yours and if so can we have it?

Yes. Indeed. For a fuller explanation see post 129 in the Forum Best Bits which Nearly kindly put in that section.

In terms of punishment, this is an old testament story. Which kind of ends with an illustration of what humanity makes of the world after Eden is lost. The writers had no conception of eternal punishment

It is indeed an old testament story, but as I have no belief in any original Eden, that's exactly what it remains. If there is no conception of eternal punishment in this story then I must say the writer made a damn good fist of it, unless, of course, there were other humans in Eden who obeyed his command.

The commandment you talk about is in fact merely the warning not to bring the fallen world about. The world and the people that inhabit it are, if you like, the punishment for the decision to pursue the course.

No, it wasn't. It was a command with a warning attached if that command was disobeyed. The punishment then followed.

Can that world ever be ''innocent?'' after a historical choice to pursue ''good and evil''? The implication of any guilty verdict is that an innocent life is notionally feasible but, I think you'll agree practically extremely rare.

Not quite sure what you mean exactly here, but I suggest that the words guilty/innocent are associated with the various moral codes which exist throughout the world according to each individual, and according to the society that each individual finds him/herself in. Certainly, the concept of an individual being able to distinguish what he/she considers right from something which he/she considers wrong has nothing particularly to do with innocence at all. The only truly innocent people in this sense would be those who are amoral, I suggest.

I also think you are alluding to original sin. This hasn't been a fixed feast in Christianity and there are different conceptions of this.

Of course there are different interpretations. There always are. But the 'original sin' part was just one of the points I was making.

One to think about is that we are own Adam or Eve. Another I've alluded to is the question can the world ever be innocent after a route of evil has been plotted?  Yet another has Jesus overturning the work of Adam. That is St Paul's line.

You might consider this to be so, but the story of Adam and Eve, to me, simply describes a way in which people looked at the world they lived in. I don't think in terms of an innocent world at all, so the idea that Jesus gave us a second chance in some way, I find to be a rather meaningless concept.

As I've said Gods forgiveness, forbearance and compassion is partially expressed in the OT but fully expressed in Jesus.

I find there are many other qualities that I could also link to the God depicted in the OT, not all of which I find particularly commendable. As for the Jesus of the Gospels. Yes, I would agree that there are many sayings attached to his name which are highly commendable. Not sure about the compassionate bit, mind you, and I do find the character depicted as rather delusional and very much lacking in humour. Just personal opinions, you understand.

If Jesus has as Paul said overturned the deed of Adam then IMHO any alienation any evil any rebellion and disobedience that remains must be down to us.

As fas as I am concerned there never was any Adam and the probable Jesus of history didn't overturn anything(unless it was the moneylenders' tables). But if you want to believe that, fine. Just don't even attempt to put that burden on me. As fas as I am concerned all the good and evil that we do is down to ourselves.

Finally I see how this story could be interpreted a tale of commandments and celestial dictators, but seeing it that way is IMHO a pretext for wrongly turning evil into some kind of heroism. But it is better to see is as a story an allegory of the breach of trust involved. It is the self inflicted human tragedy of wanting it all and doing stuff just because we can......amongst other things.

Just a few random points to finish:
As I don't have belief in any god, I don't see any breach of trust.
I don't see evil and wrong doing as particualry heroic at all. It never entered my head.
I do see this story as an allegory, and, as such, it deserves its place in a vast mountain of allegories from all parts of the world, and from many different time periods.
Part of human nature is to do stuff because we can and to be innately curious about the world. Long may it continue.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
We all have something to do with the sense of belonging too. It's called being human, and both stem from our evolutionary tendencies.

I'm not disputing that but that does not distract from the palpable sense of alienation. I'm not sure we deserve praise for how we should be living in any case

Yes. Indeed. For a fuller explanation see post 129 in the Forum Best Bits which Nearly kindly put in that section.

I look forward to it.

It is indeed an old testament story, but as I have no belief in any original Eden, that's exactly what it remains. If there is no conception of eternal punishment in this story then I must say the writer made a damn good fist of it, unless, of course, there were other humans in Eden who obeyed his command.

Forgiveness is mentioned in the Bible so eternal damnation is IMHO not a foregone conclusion. Indeed the conclusion of the allegory of Adam and Eve is the expulsion from the Garden. In reality that is being in the world as it is with alienation and evil but having a sense that many things should not be the way they are.

No, it wasn't. It was a command with a warning attached if that command was disobeyed. The punishment then followed.

if you have partaken of evil then there are consequences because of what you have done for example to your conscience and the alienation that ensues. And that is before we even deal with the laws of society and God

Not quite sure what you mean exactly here, but I suggest that the words guilty/innocent are associated with the various moral codes which exist throughout the world according to each individual, and according to the society that each individual finds him/herself in.

And in terms of the alienation and subsequent psychological gymnastics and conscience suppression associated with getting back on an even keel

Certainly, the concept of an individual being able to distinguish what he/she considers right from something which he/she considers wrong has nothing particularly to do with innocence at all. The only truly innocent people in this sense would be those who are amoral, I suggest.

Not sure what you are trying to say here

I do see this story as an allegory, and, as such, it deserves its place in a vast mountain of allegories from all parts of the world, and from many different time periods.

I would suspect you are rating all allegories as somehow equal then

Part of human nature is to do stuff because we can and to be innately curious about the world. Long may it continue.

But we are back to the question should we do something because we can?
Finally the allegory is not about intellectual curiosity since facts are morally neutral.

Enki I read the last comment as an attempt to turn a flaw(evil) into something heroic (innate curiousity). If you insist on evil being useful and celibrating it then you can have no serious complaint at God allowing it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Clueless,

I can’t be expected to educate the uneducable. Try to work out for yourself where you went wrong there.

Relevance to the point about entrapment?

I have to establish no such thing. The myth is set up for the poor saps to fail. That would make the god who did it a scumbag.   

Entrapment?

In the allegory of A and E God makes no bones about who he is and tells them not to do what they end up doing.
In law that would be the equivalent of a uniformed policemen with full warrants telling somebody not to commit a crime......

''Entrapment'' 

As I told Enki if you want to turn evil and disobedience of God into a fine heroic act then you can't logically complain about God allowing it.

[Alan Burns]

Just picked this up from another thread:

Lewis' arguments are for the playground. This is the actual wording of his trilemma point which is so laughably lacking in robustness to be almost sad:

'A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God'

To start with the basic premise can only be justified if it can be verified beyond doubt that the gospels are a completely accurate representation of what Jesus actually said - and there is no evidence to support this at all. So you don't even get off the starting blocks.

Just to clarify what Lewis is saying here, he is stating that a mortal man who makes such claims as having the power to forgive sin should be classed as insane.  By implication Lewis includes the option that if a man does not make these claims there can be no such conclusion.  So the question lies in the accuracy of the implied quote. 

The evidence lies in four accounts which each have sufficient differences in content, detail and style to conclude that they were sourced independently.  But the four accounts have sufficient similarities to indicate that there was a man named Jesus who claimed to have the power to forgive sins.  And there are sufficient similarities in the four gospels to imply that the man named Jesus said and did things which changed the history of this world.  So the question we draw from Lewis is this - Could an insane man be responsible for such profound world changing words and deeds?

[floo]

There is nothing good about a god who creates human nature comprising good and bad, then tells its pawns  not to do something knowing full well they will disobey, then sits back and lets the fun begin.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Strawmanerist,

Entrapment?

Of course. The set up is that a god manufactured two people equipped with intellect and curiosity. Then for some reason he cooked up a magic tree, and decided to put some bad stuff in its fruit. Then he went to the trouble of telling his playthings that there was a magic tree (apparently through the offices of Hissing Sid). Then he told them not to be curious about that though because he was, you know, Bluebeard sorry, “God”, so – um – provided they took his word for that they had to show blind obedience to his orders. (Oh, and just for good measure he set up millennia of misogyny by making it all that temptress Eve’s fault for leading the witless Adam astray.) Job done!

It’s the iron-age equivalent of putting up a neon sign saying, “You didn't know this, but we’ve left a sports car with the keys in and the engine running just round the corner only if you could see your way to not stealing it that would be, you know, good. Oh, and by the way you just have to take our word for it that “we” exist at all and that bad things will ensue if you disobey. Ta. (PS We’re not going to tell you this bit by the way, but if you do nick it not only will you go to pokey but we’ll arrange for all of your descendants to risk dying of brain cancer and stuff.)”

Can you think of any part of that that isn’t entrapment? 

In the allegory of A and E God makes no bones about who he is and tells them not to do what they end up doing.

And apparently “He” just expects them to take his word for all that. Yet he also felt the need to warn them about false gods and the like. How should they have decided that he wasn’t one of them too if not by testing his claims and instructions?

If you seriously think that holds up by the way, can I interest you in this bridge I have for sale?

In law that would be the equivalent of a uniformed policemen with full warrants telling somebody not to commit a crime......

''Entrapment''

No it wouldn’t – it would be closer to a policeman saying, “I have a warrant only, you know, you just have to take my word for that. Honest injun though".

As I told Enki if you want to turn evil and disobedience of God into a fine heroic act then you can't logically complain about God allowing it.

No-one does that – it was just yet another of your straw men. First, "evil" and "disobedience" aren’t the same thing at all; and second you have first to find a method by which they could have tested the claim “evil”, at least unless you also expected them to take at face value the claims of any other passing deity. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Strawmanerist,

Of course. The set up is that a god manufactured two people equipped with intellect and curiosity. Then for some reason he cooked up a magic tree, and decided to put some bad stuff in its fruit. Then he went to the trouble of telling his playthings that there was a magic tree (apparently through the offices of Hissing Sid). Then he told them not to be curious about that though because he was, you know, Bluebeard sorry, “God”, so – um – provided they took his word for that they had to show blind obedience to his orders. (Oh, and just for good measure he set up millennia of misogyny by making it all that temptress Eve’s fault for leading the witless Adam astray.) Job done!

It’s the iron-age equivalent of putting up a neon sign saying, “You didn't know this, but we’ve left a sports car with the keys in and the engine running just round the corner only if you could see your way to not stealing it that would be, you know, good. Oh, and by the way you just have to take our word for it that “we” exist at all and that bad things will ensue if you disobey. Ta. (PS We’re not going to tell you this bit by the way, but if you do nick it not only will you go to pokey but we’ll arrange for all of your descendants to risk dying of brain cancer and stuff.)”

Can you think of any part of that that isn’t entrapment? 

And apparently “He” just expects them to take his word for all that. Yet he also felt the need to warn them about false gods and the like. How should they have decided that he wasn’t one of them too if not by testing his claims and instructions?

If you seriously think that holds up by the way, can I interest you in this bridge I have for sale?

No it wouldn’t – it would be closer to a policeman saying, “I have a warrant only, you know, you just have to take my word for that. Honest injun though".

No-one does that – it was just yet another of your straw men. First, "evil" and "disobedience" aren’t the same thing at all; and second you have first to find a method by which they could have tested the claim “evil”, at least unless you also expected them to take at face value the claims of any other passing deity.

Doesn't really wash Hillside No court at law would convict God of entrapment.
They wanted what wasn't theirs Hillside so we can throw in theft.
The point is breach of trust that opens the door to everything that follows.
Of course it is an unpopular allegory because it suggests deliberate fault on the part of humanity and as we know that is the hardest thing for people to face up to.

have a nice day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No-one does that – it was just yet another of your straw men. First, "evil" and "disobedience" aren’t the same thing at all; and second you have first to find a method by which they could have tested the claim “evil”, at least unless you also expected them to take at face value the claims of any other passing deity.

I guess I'm in agreement on the evil and disobedience difference. In the allegory evil follows disobedience and it is the disobedience of God which alienates.
In Christianity. This represents the theological difference between what is referred to as Sin and what is referred to as sins.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Gabriella,

It’s problematic I think because it validates faith in the public square and, once you do that, how would you argue against someone who also has faith that, say, flying ‘planes into building is “God’s” will? The privileging of faith at all is the problem, regardless of its objects. Whether enough people would ever agree to do something about it though is a different matter.

I am pretty sure you are not trying to argue that tax exemptions  lead to acts of mass murder? If you are, looking forward to seeing you explain the chain of causation.

Criminal acts based on faith are problematic - but you have not demonstrated them to be any more problematic than criminal acts based on non-religious belief. As has been demonstrated, it is possible for people of faith to argue that flying planes into buildings is not pleasing god or to argue that fighting for your country is or is not pleasing god. It's no different from arguments for or against based on non-religious moral beliefs.

Your belief that faith is problematic could itself be problematic, based on your argument. How do you argue against someone who also holds your belief from locking up or killing religious people because they believe religious faith is especially dangerous or problematic? How would you argue against someone holding the belief that race is a biological category from burning down churches because they believe black people are an inferior race? How do you argue against someone holding a belief that nation states are necessary  from imposing sanctions on other nations that cause immense suffering, invading countries and killing people because they believe their nation faces an existential threat? Presumably you are not suggesting that we do away with any privilege that protects the government or politicians or political parties because the privilege might validate a problematic political belief that could lead to wars?

The point I think is that, faced with a world that looks just as you’d expect it to with no interventionist god (let alone a caring one), if you want to posit a god who both cares and who can intervene nonetheless then you have to come up with casuistry like “original sin”, “testing our patience” etc.

Well, the belief is actually more like testing our faith as well as patience but ok. Yup I agree. That's the belief that some people hold - presumably because it works for them in some way. That it doesn't work for you is not a problem is it?

I don’t agree. What would, say, sadness mean to someone who’d neither experienced it nor experienced someone else experiencing it? How would empathy be possible?

We're talking about an A&E story here, not ourselves, so accepting that A&E understood the concept of wrong just goes with the story, along with accepting the tree is not your ordinary run of the mill tree - it's part of the story.

Occam’s razor. Adding the superstructure necessary for “a test” adds a whole level of assumptions that “no god” doesn’t require.

Agreed. Lots of assumptions. Some people want to make those assumptions - it works for them to adopt that perspective.

If you make someone intellectualy curious, then create a “tree of knowledge”, them tell them it’s there, then tell them not to go there, then punish them when they do what would that say about you do you think?   
Why on other words bother with any of it?

The tree of knowledge is a Christian concept - in the Quran story it doesn't describe the tree - but anyway, BHS, I get what you are saying, I really do, but I just don't agree with it, though I did when I was an atheist, so no doubt lots of other people do agree with you.

You see God asking A&E to deny their desire and obey commands as being a character flaw and I don't. I think you are perfectly entitled to think it a character flaw - the story just doesn't generate that view in me.

I think you just have to accept that people have different views of what they regard as character flaws or what they like and dislike, and it's unlikely that someone can talk them out of it. There are traits in my husband that some people dislike but I like him for it and I am sure people dislike things in me that he likes.

Yes we do. Entrapment though is a fairly “objective line” I’d have thought to use as reference.

It might seem like entrapment to you, but telling A&E to control their desires and obey the command to not approach the tree does not seem like entrapment to me. You think it unreasonable or impossible to expect A&E to exercise self-control, I don't.

Exactly! How seriously A&E even could have thought the consequences to be though is the point!

Except I was talking about what I would do, not A&E's situation. In the story A&E seem to be in communication with God and have been given a clear instruction to stay away from a tree - they did not have to guess the instruction or guess the consequence of disobeying, which was that they would be committing a wrong.

In my case - examples of easy instructions - stay away from alcohol and pork; eat only halal - there is absolutely no consequence to eating non-halal but i just comply; pray; fast. I could feel sleepy and not want to get up at dawn to pray, I could feel hungry or thirsty and not fast, I could really fancy some dish with pork in it or non-halal meat. They are all just exercises in self-discipline as to whether you follow the instructions or not.

Instructions where I would think of the consequences before deciding whether to comply tend to be where complying risks hurting other people.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Assertionist,

Doesn't really wash Hillside No court at law would convict God of entrapment.

As with so much else, you have it backwards - entrapment is a defence for the accused, and in the A&E story it would probably succeed because it satisfies the basic criteria that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. That is, there's no suggestion that A&E were already planning or even disposed to the crime: 
 
“Most states require a defendant who raises the defense of entrapment to prove he or she did not have a previous intent to commit the crime. Courts determine whether a defendant had a
predisposition to commit a crime by examining the person's behavior prior to the commission of the crime and by inquiring into the person's past criminal record if one exists. Usually, a predisposition is found if a defendant was previously involved in criminal conduct similar to the crime with which he or she is charged.

When an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established. Although this factor may be considered as evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive. The more important determination is whether the official planted the criminal idea in the mind of the accused or whether the idea was already there.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment

As in the myth clearly "the official planted the criminal idea in the mind of the accused" by inventing the tree and then telling them about it, and unless you think A&E (who apparently "knew only good" to that point by the way) had prior, the defence would probably succeed. 

They wanted what wasn't theirs Hillside so we can throw in theft.

Wrong again - see above.

The point is breach of trust that opens the door to everything that follows.

No it isn’t – see above.

Of course it is an unpopular allegory because it suggests deliberate fault on the part of humanity and as we know that is the hardest thing for people to face up to.

“We” know no such thing, and any unpopularity I’d have though would arise from realising that your “God” is the deistic version of Captain Dudley Smith in LA Confidential.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Vlad the Assertionist,

As with so much else, you have it backwards - entrapment is a defence for the accused, and in the A&E story it would probably succeed because it satisfies the basic criteria that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. That is, there's no suggestion that A&E were already planning or even disposed to the crime: 
 
“Most states require a defendant who raises the defense of entrapment to prove he or she did not have a previous intent to commit the crime. Courts determine whether a defendant had a
predisposition to commit a crime by examining the person's behavior prior to the commission of the crime and by inquiring into the person's past criminal record if one exists. Usually, a predisposition is found if a defendant was previously involved in criminal conduct similar to the crime with which he or she is charged.

When an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established. Although this factor may be considered as evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive. The more important determination is whether the official planted the criminal idea in the mind of the accused or whether the idea was already there.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment

As in the myth clearly "the official planted the criminal idea in the mind of the accused" by inventing the tree and then telling them about it, and unless you think A&E (who apparently "knew only good" to that point by the way) had prior, the defence would probably succeed. 

Are you arguing that telling someone not to commit a crime is planting the idea in their head to commit the crime and they should argue entrapment?

Good one - I'll try that the next time I am issued a parking ticket or if I get a speeding ticket - I'll suggest the officials invented a speed limit, put up a sign telling me what it was, and therefore planted the idea in my mind of the speed to exceed - it was entrapment gov'nor. I'll let you know if it works.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I am pretty sure you are not trying to argue that tax exemptions  lead to acts of mass murder? If you are, looking forward to seeing you explain the chain of causation.

That’s a misrepresentation of Vladistic proportions. Of course I wasn’t. I was merely explaining that, in general, private members' clubs can do as they please, whereas organisations that are effectively part tax-funded should not in my view have exemptions from equality legislation that affects us all.   

Criminal acts based on faith are problematic - but you have not demonstrated them to be any more problematic than criminal acts based on non-religious belief.

Nor do I need to. What you’re doing here is known as “whataboutism”, and it just distracts from the issue on the table.

As has been demonstrated, it is possible for people of faith to argue that flying planes into buildings is not pleasing god or to argue that fighting for your country is or is not pleasing god. It's no different from arguments for or against based on non-religious moral beliefs.

But the point rather was that, “but that’s my faith” can be used to argue for anything. Literally. The only rational response to it then is, “so what?”

Your belief that faith is problematic could itself be problematic, based on your argument. How do you argue against someone who also holds your belief from locking up or killing religious people because they believe religious faith is especially dangerous or problematic?

I suggest no such thing. Regardless of my opinion, such people would only be locked up if they committed crimes. The point rather is that, if they do commit crimes and use “but that’s my faith” as their defence, then that defence must fail.   

How would you argue against someone holding the belief that race is a biological category from burning down churches because they believe black people are an inferior race?

Easily. I’d “argue” that they’d committed a crime, and that whatever faith they happened to have is evidentially irrelevant. 

How do you argue against someone holding a belief that nation states are necessary  from imposing sanctions on other nations that cause immense suffering, invading countries and killing people because they believe their nation faces an existential threat?

See above. Either an act is lawful or it’s unlawful. The point though is that, while you can argue for anything at all if you call that your “faith”, faith is evidentially (as well as epistemically) worthless.   

Presumably you are not suggesting that we do away with any privilege that protects the government or politicians or political parties because the privilege might validate a problematic political belief that could lead to wars?

Why would I suggest any such thing? “Privilege” is fine, but not as a defence against breaking the law.

Well, the belief is actually more like testing our faith as well as patience but ok. Yup I agree. That's the belief that some people hold - presumably because it works for them in some way. That it doesn't work for you is not a problem is it?

Not for me, no – unless that is such people use their faith to validate, say, driving vehicles into pedestrians.

We're talking about an A&E story here, not ourselves, so accepting that A&E understood the concept of wrong just goes with the story, along with accepting the tree is not your ordinary run of the mill tree - it's part of the story.

Yes I know, but you can’t “accept” that and at the same time accept that they “knew only good”. Doesn’t bother me – it’s just a daft myth from our earliest and crudest attempts to explain the world – but it seem inherently contradictory to me.   

Agreed. Lots of assumptions. Some people want to make those assumptions - it works for them to adopt that perspective.

Yes, and “those people” include I’d have though anyone who thinks there’s a caring god able to stop bad things happening to good people but who doesn’t do that.

The tree of knowledge is a Christian concept - in the Quran story it doesn't describe the tree - but anyway, BHS, I get what you are saying, I really do, but I just don't agree with it, though I did when I was an atheist, so no doubt lots of other people do agree with you.

You see God asking A&E to deny their desire and obey commands as being a character flaw and I don't. I think you are perfectly entitled to think it a character flaw - the story just doesn't generate that view in me.

I think you just have to accept that people have different views of what they regard as character flaws or what they like and dislike, and it's unlikely that someone can talk them out of it. There are traits in my husband that some people dislike but I like him for it and I am sure people dislike things in me that he likes.

I’m not sure whether you’d describe policemen who entrap people who otherwise wouldn’t commit a crime into committing a crime as having “a character flaw” exactly, but they’d still be doing wrong.   

It might seem like entrapment to you, but telling A&E to control their desires and obey the command to not approach the tree does not seem like entrapment to me. You think it unreasonable or impossible to expect A&E to exercise self-control, I don't.

It would seem like entrapment to a court of law too. See my reply to Vlad for details. 

Except I was talking about what I would do, not A&E's situation. In the story A&E seem to be in communication with God and have been given a clear instruction to stay away from a tree - they did not have to guess the instruction or guess the consequence of disobeying, which was that they would be committing a wrong.

Just out of interest do you tell your daughters just to follow orders on trust, or to be curious, skeptical, enquiring?   

In my case - examples of easy instructions - stay away from alcohol and pork; eat only halal - there is absolutely no consequence to eating non-halal but i just comply; pray; fast. I could feel sleepy and not want to get up at dawn to pray, I could feel hungry or thirsty and not fast, I could really fancy some dish with pork in it or non-halal meat. They are all just exercises in self-discipline as to whether you follow the instructions or not.

But would you do any of these things if you understood – really understood – that the consequence would be risking horrible outcomes for your descendants for all time?

That’s the analogy here.

Instructions where I would think of the consequences before deciding whether to comply tend to be where complying risks hurting other people.

And presumably that’s a risk you could weigh up. How would you do that though if you had no concept of what a bad outcome would even be?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Are you arguing that telling someone not to commit a crime is planting the idea in their head to commit the crime and they should argue entrapment?

First, it’s not what "I’m arguing" – it’s what the law says.

Second, the defence of entrapment requires the crime to be induced – ie, the opportunity to be created and the accused to be not predisposed to committing the crime. The A&E myth ticks both boxes pretty solidly I’d have thought.   

Good one - I'll try that the next time I am issued a parking ticket or if I get a speeding ticket - I'll suggest the officials invented a speed limit, put up a sign telling me what it was, and therefore planted the idea in my mind of the speed to exceed - it was entrapment gov'nor. I'll let you know if it works.

That’s not how it works – see above. If you don’t like the legal defence nonetheless, you’d better take it up with your MP.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Assertionist,

 it would probably succeed because it satisfies the basic criteria that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. That is, there's no suggestion that A&E were already planning or even disposed to the crime: 

Firstly the accused had no knowledge of what the crime of evil is. God did not provide any idea of it.
The agent told the accused not to do it. In your logic Hillside the accused of any crime could successfully blame parents and the accused schools for inducing the crime by providing moral standards and guidelines.

There is no induction to do the crime. ''Don't even consider the crime or don't do crime'' is not an induction by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course they were disposed to the crime because they purposely ignored the Law and purposely committed it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

First, it’s not what "I’m arguing" – it’s what the law says.

Following your argument having a law against something constitutes inducing people to break it. THAT isn't the law
Since there is no induction to do this there is no defence of entrapment. The inclination is their own.

Using your logic any accusation of argumentum ad consequentium is now your argument since you induced me to do it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established. Although this factor may be considered as evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive.

Tool?
They only had what God had provided Hillside. In other words they were completely naked.
What tool could you possibly be referring to?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Confusionist,

Firstly the accused had no knowledge of what the crime of evil is. God did not provide any idea of it.

You do realise that that’s a point against you right?

If they “had no knowledge of what the crime of evil is” there could have been no consequences visible to them, regardless of choice they made.
 

The agent told the accused not to do it. In your logic Hillside the accused of any crime could successfully blame parents and the accused schools for inducing the crime by providing moral standards and guidelines.

It’s not “my logic” at all – it’s just how the law works. 

There is no induction to do the crime. ''Don't even consider the crime or don't do crime'' is not an induction by any stretch of the imagination.

It is if you create the opportunity, tell the accused about it, and those accused have no predisposition to criminality. You’re arguing against legal definitions here, not against me. I’m just telling you what the law says.

If you accept basic legal principle as a reasonable yardstick of wrongdoing, then the god of the A&E myth is a wrong ‘un.

Of course they were disposed to the crime because they purposely ignored the Law and purposely committed it.

It’s pre-disposed – something you told us they could not have been if they “knew only good”. You can’t moreover argue that entrapment didn’t occur because the crime was committed – of course it was committed. The defence though relies on why it was committed. 

Following your argument having a law against something constitutes inducing people to break it. THAT isn't the law
Since there is no induction to do this there is no defence of entrapment. The inclination is their own.

Wrong again. It’s nothing to do with having a law against something – rather entrapment entails creating an opportunity that induces people who wouldn’t otherwise have committed a crime into committing a crime.

I’ve given you a reference source about this already. Try reading it, or if you prefer do some research of your own. Parading your ignorance of it though isn’t helping you.   

Using your logic any accusation of argumentum ad consequentium is now your argument since you induced me to do it.

No, because you misunderstand what “argumentum ad consequentiam” means.

Again, look it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Confusionist,

You do realise that that’s a point against you right?

If they “had no knowledge of what the crime of evil is” there could have been no consequences visible to them, regardless of choice they made.
 
It’s not “my logic” at all – it’s just how the law works. 

It is if you create the opportunity, tell the accused about it, and those accused have no predisposition to criminality. You’re arguing against legal definitions here, not against me. I’m just telling you what the law says.

If you accept basic legal principle as a reasonable yardstick of wrongdoing, then the god of the A&E myth is a wrong ‘un.

It’s pre-disposed – something you told us they could not have been if they “knew only good”. You can’t moreover argue that entrapment didn’t occur because the crime was committed – of course it was committed. The defence though relies on why it was committed. 

Wrong again. It’s nothing to do with having a law against something – rather entrapment entails creating an opportunity that induces people who wouldn’t otherwise have committed a crime into committing a crime.

I’ve given you a reference source about this already. Try reading it, or if you prefer do some research of your own. Parading your ignorance of it though isn’t helping you.   

No, because you misunderstand what “argumentum ad consequentiam” means.

Again, look it up.

IMHO you've blown your credibility on the entrapment wheeze.......Now were you entrapped into doing that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Selectivequotorist,

Tool?
They only had what God had provided Hillside. In other words they were completely naked.
What tool could you possibly be referring to?

It's "tool or a means necessary to commit", and you seem to have forgotten about the tree with a fruit on it. And for that matter about Hissing Sid telling them about it.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Collapsionist,

IMHO...

Your opinion might be humble but it's also worthless, at least until you want to support it with an argument.

...you've blown your credibility on the entrapment wheeze.......Now were you entrapped into doing that?

Collapse of position noted.