Originally posted by sonship
[quote] What's a good example of this schizophrenia in action? Well, theists often take things as intrinsically valuable in their everyday affairs on the basis of reasons that have absolutely nothing - zero - to do with the subject of God; and yet, when pressed about it, these same theists will claim that such value is merely contingent on God-related consid ...[text shortened]... ry to prove my reasons sophomoric.
Do you have a non-schizophrenic way of considering this ?
You noticed that I was not satisfied with my Mono Lisa example.
No. What I noticed is that you were quite satisfied with the example and the point you made. It made clear sense to you. But, then, when I brought the discussion back to the subject of God and applied
the very same point you had just made, suddenly you just "don’t really get it" anymore. Half of you understands the point just fine and is satisfied with it; and the other half just cannot grapple when natural implications of it are applied against your cherished theological commitments.
This argumentative schizophrenia is nothing new from you. It happens time and time again. For example, here was a particularly egregious occurrence, concerning your argument that an atheist cannot have "objective" foundations for morals. On the contrary, I took your very own points and showed clearly how they actually entail just the opposite: that an atheist can have "objective" foundations
according to your own lights and according to your very own usage of the term. Of course you played dumb when confronted with this, saying you just "cannot see" how that follows:
Thread 158249
Regarding the rest, you apparently still don't get it. Oh well. My responsibility to ensure you understand the point I am making only extends so far. I have already explained in clear language what my argument is and in just what sense I was intending 'schizophrenia' in the current context. Go read the Stocker essay if you're still wondering. In Stocker's phraseology, the schizophrenia manifests when one "cannot embody their reason in their motive" – that is, when one's theoretical justification for their actions cannot be embodied in the practical reasons that actually motivate them in their everyday affairs. And you cannot embody the theory that all human value is merely contingent on our origins from God into reasons that motivate genuine prosocial concern for humans as ends in themselves (such as love, compassion, friendship, etc). You cannot harmonize your theories that human value is merely contingent on God-considerations with reason-giving awareness of
intrinsic human value. Thus, to the extent that you engage in those prosocial activities that affirm human value, you fail to affirm your theory. Kind of like how to the extent that you take the Mona Lisa to be inherently beautiful, you fail to affirm any theory that entails its beauty is merely contingent on its etiological particulars. Of course, somehow you will likely still fail to reconcile in your mind these two particular examples of the same general point. Again: oh well.
I also see that you are content to keep insinuating that I am "biased against theism" rather than substantively addressing my arguments. Perhaps you missed the memo that the OP was explicitly asking about puzzling evaluative statements made
by theists (more specifically, by Christians)? Perhaps you failed to understand that I was defending those theists from the idea that such statements should be taken to indicate that such theists devalue human life to any greater extent than their atheist counterparts who do not make such puzzling claims? My argument has been clear: such statements do not indicate any actual character flaws when it comes to value ascription; such theists probably do not exhibit failure to value human life in practice any more than anyone else, but rather just sometimes fail to square their practice and their theory. That's far more forgivable, isn't it? And perhaps you failed to notice where I already clearly explained and showed that my usage of 'schizophrenia' is not specific to theists? If you do not see how such usage could be oriented also towards atheists, then you have major comprehension problems. Again, read the Stocker essay. He gives good examples, and those examples are silent on the theism/atheism divide.