![perry dialogue on good evil and the existence of god perry dialogue on good evil and the existence of god](https://d1w7fb2mkkr3kw.cloudfront.net/assets/images/book/mid/9781/6246/9781624669910.jpg)
Peter labels this basis for morality merely subjective, and hence invalid.We debate whether his theistic or my humanistic standard of morality provides clearer guidance. I propose a humanistic basis for morality: first, the sense of right and wrong that has become almost universal in Western and many Eastern societies and that has been sanctioned by international law, and second, more specifically, the standard of human freedom limited by the need of the community as a whole to survive and prosper. real) a morality must necessarily have its origin in God. Peter replies “Of course, given belief in God (which I think can be supported by various arguments and experiences) it follows that whatever God has done must be justifiable!” He also argues that the morality of God cannot be challenged by anyone who doesn’t accept the theistic position that to be objective (ie. I respond that such defenses simply whitewash the Biblical God and undermine all morality. Peter recommends many book-length studies for a proper understanding of these defenses.
PERRY DIALOGUE ON GOOD EVIL AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD SERIES
Peter responds with a series of arguments evidencing the existence of objective moral values (all of them, to my understanding, equally question-begging) and another series defending the morality of the Biblical God: allegorical interpretation hyperbole in Biblical accounts the victims deserved to be exterminated apparent injustices will be righted in the afterlife progressive revelation the Bible must be taken as a whole moral laws applicable to humans often don’t apply to God it’s not necessary to understand all of God’s actions to have faith in His goodness. I further argue that the God of the Bible cannot be the source of true moral values since he condones, commands or commits almost every conceivable crime against humanity. My position is that Peter’s argument is circular, question-begging, in that "objective moral values" are defined in such a way that they can only find their source in God, and then the alleged existence of such values is used in turn to ‘prove’ the existence of God. (Peter tells me this is how most philosophers use the term.) I chose not to challenge this definition because in our correspondence, when I suggested that "objective" in common usage means other things than "not originating in finite minds" (check any dictionary) the only result was an endless and fruitless wrangle over the definition of this word. Peter gained an immediate rhetorical advantage by defining "objective moral values" in such a way that they are possible only if the God of theism exists and is their source. I’ll begin with a summary view of the chapters of dialogue.įollowing our initial statements which make clear our religious background and present religious beliefs, the dialogue begins in Chapter 1: Objective Morality and the Biblical God.
![perry dialogue on good evil and the existence of god perry dialogue on good evil and the existence of god](https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/qn4AAOSwEoRgAFZU/s-l200.jpg)
So where are we now? What has this dialogue accomplished? At this point I can only speak for myself, as we clearly remain in profound disagreement. Surely, at the very least, we have emerged from this dialogue with special feelings of friendship and respect. But if ever I were accused of a heinous crime, I would want you to be my defense counsel, fully convinced of my innocence. Or perhaps, because you are a most charitable fellow, you see how my sense of reality just differs radically from your own, how an argument that seems rational to you seems perverse or question-begging to me. You, of course, see the problem quite differently and think me to be stubbornly embracing error. That by-and-large you have failed to convince me I attribute to the inherent impossibility of successfully defending theism on rational grounds. In early versions of this manuscript you buttressed your arguments with a huge number of quotations from Christian scholars when I edited them out because I thought them redundant or stylistically inaccessible for most readers (myself included), you cheerfully acquiesced in my judgment. A letter that you sent me in February of 2001 (regular mail) was 98 single-spaced pages long and had 403 footnotes. Less obvious to the reader is your enormous scholarship. I think you have presented the strongest possible case for theism, and you’ve responded to my challenges with the best possible answers. In this dialogue, I have had the privilege of encountering a Christian theist who is not satisfied to be one simply because of the influence of his parents or others that he respects. My sister, a devout Christian, has observed that perhaps 90% of believers and nonbelievers alike have become so without the heavy lifting of serious and sustained thought, many without even much emotional involvement.
![perry dialogue on good evil and the existence of god perry dialogue on good evil and the existence of god](https://promosaik.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SPONSOR-US-300x186.jpg)
Peter, thank you for participating in this dialogue with me.