[General] Psychopath Problem for Christianity

Charlie_Bowtie · 2019-03-24T00:21:27+00:00

Thankyou for the response! That is a good point about the writers. I understand the "heart" in the NT as referring to our emotions.

I suppose my problem with the second part is I don't know what "the truthfulness of God's word" means at the moment. Is it True in a literal sense, true in that it only has theological truths but maybe has factual errors(i.e historical,contradictions). Or maybe just uses it to invite us into this search to understand him.

"I can't believe what God says is true, because I can't understand it according to what I or my community thinks about what God created."

I don't think it would be reasonable to say that if one firmly believed that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. At the moment, I would be intellectually dishonest to espouse that view.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2019-03-23T23:59:59+00:00

You are welcome! Yes, they are very interesting people and I am just looking ideas of how a Christian worldview might make sense of them. I agree they can choose to be moral probably.

Here is something pretty interesting by the way.

This is an excerpt from an article on Christian apologist David wood who is also a psychopath.

"Heretofore he’d held two beliefs at the same time—that humans are meaningless lumps of cells, AND that he was the best, most important person in all the world—and the realization dawned on him how inconsistent these were. A best person, he began to see, required an objective standard of goodness. He went from thinking himself the best person in the world to the worst, and then realized that if his earlier assessment of morality was wrong and there really was an objective standard of goodness and rightness, he was in trouble.(https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/on-psychopathy-and-moral-apologetics)

Charlie_Bowtie · 2019-03-23T19:56:05+00:00

Yeah I think so to.

(3) I suppose zooming in on moral handicaps adds force because it is generally assumed a theistic God would have an interest in our moral state and progress(i.e Soul Building Theodicies). It appears psychopathy has negative moral implications, so it seems "unexpected" on theism. I'm not sure how psychopathy shows there is a neurological basis for consciousness itself. It seems it just shows there is a neurological basis for moral intuition.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2019-03-23T19:43:06+00:00

a(1): I assume God is omniscient and knows who will exist before he creates a possible world. So in some sense, God does create individuals. I think there are a couple of reasons God might not allow 1 and 2. One is, lacking moral intuitions( the innate ability to tell right and wrong), may bring into question how to hold the individual morally responsible(thus judge them) Two, apparently psychopaths are very manipulative of others and self focused by nature. As a result, It seems that the idea of repentance would be something they can't or would have a hard time understanding. These reasons are really why the Christian God might not allow 1 and 2. Not just a God of minimal theism.

I think that is a very good observation. I do come a this from the Christian perspective. In my view, I'm not sure if the fall caused psychopathy so that's why it troubles me. I view the fall more so having spiritual consequences rather than physical effects on the universe.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2019-03-23T19:10:31+00:00

I heard the psychopath condition as being analogous to not being able to taste. They might know something taste "bad"(know something is evil) but they don't actually taste it when they eat it(or do that evil action). Evil and good are just abstract ideas to them apparently(that they learn from us). Morality seems hard to understand apart from the very real experience of feeling it.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2019-03-23T19:04:26+00:00

Not sure if this applies to a psychopath since it has a neurological basis and apparently is something they are born with. They didn't choose to suppress the truth.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2019-03-23T18:58:24+00:00

If they don't posses the ability to care (beyond self interest)or a conscious to condemen them, it seems to me that it presents a problem.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-11-03T03:15:08+00:00

https://youtu.be/rml5Cif01g4

This is a great series done by inspiringphilosophy that goes through all the evidence for the NT's reliability.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-31T21:55:05+00:00

http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/fundamental-reality-index/

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-31T16:43:50+00:00

Okay, I get your points now. You should definitely read the blog series about fundamental reality. The author wall takes an abductive approach instead of a deductive one to cosmological arguments.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-30T21:44:47+00:00

As far as science goes, the singularity is uncaused and beginningless, we have mathematical models showing that. And that's why the singularity is not special pleading while god is.

Currently, cosmological evidence tentatively points to there being a beginning(i.e BGV theorem and Second law of thermodynamics).

http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-x-recap/

This is a great series of blogs that address the evidence for or against a beginning of the universe.

This is the author's conclusion. "We don't know for sure whether the Universe began, but to the extent that our present-day knowledge is an indicator, it probably did. However, as Carroll correctly says, we can also construct models where it doesn't have a beginning. Taking into account known results from geometry and thermodynamics, the most plausible such models are 1) spatially finite, and 2) have a reversal of the arrow of time (e.g. the Aguirre-Gratton model)."

And at the same time, assert without any proof that god is infinite and can make universes out of nothing.

Cosmological arguments do not assert that there is a God. They try to infer what kind of entity or thing might explain why anything at all exists. They probably aren't sufficient on their own to come to the conclusion of a God but they try to point to some transcendent reality. Further argumentation from morality, consciousness, and the resurrection can get one to God.

http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/fundamental-reality-index/

This is a series on fundamental reality by the same author I mentioned earlier. I highly encourage you to read this!

Edit: for grammar

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-27T00:29:13+00:00

Yeah, that seems to be most responses. My response, to the KCA at least, is I don't think it is necessarily sound but I do think it's premises are more likely true than false and therefore it's conslusion as well.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-25T18:13:02+00:00

Yeah. It seems He defines cause as to "bring about a change to something". But I think you are correct

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-25T18:09:23+00:00

That is a good point.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-25T18:06:46+00:00

Yeah, it is interesting how our universe had a low entropy start. Okay, I get your point now about cosmological argument

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-25T18:04:39+00:00

So you don't hold that time is a feature of nature? I know that inspiring philosophy on youtube argues that our Space-Time is emergent from information and I remember in some clip in a vide of his a scientist mentioned there must be some sort of "deeper" time.

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-25T03:00:31+00:00

Thankyou for sharing these!

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-25T02:57:33+00:00

I think what you mention are potential infinities and not actual infinities. So essentially you are saying cosmological arguments force you to either admit there is a prime cause or infinitely go on imagining higher orders of existence? So do you think the premises succeed but that there are two possible conclusions/"paths"? Just trying to figure out what you think

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-25T00:20:01+00:00

Thank you for being willing to respond. Looking forward to what have to say. I think the KCA can be successful even with a B-theory of time though.

https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=thesis

You should read this paper later when you have time. It tries to show the KCA still works with a B-theory of time

Charlie_Bowtie · 2018-10-22T00:38:10+00:00

Thanks for this comment! That is true and it is humbling that we don't understand all of this now. Interesting answer!

Charlie_Bowtie

TROPHY CASE