Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Practical Philosophy » What is racism and what makes it wrong? » 3/28/2017 7:49 pm

AKG
Replies: 19

Go to post

The thing with profiling is that it can easily be abused, and creates a stigma associated with a certain group, which NEVER ends well. As an African-American Muslim I know people such as my dad who have faced unfair situations due to profiling. Also profiling has the potential to be very biased/abused by those unworthy of power, and cause other actions to be overlooked. I mean in the USA white supremacy is considered by the FBI to be the greatest terror threat to the USA right now, but President Chuckles the Ass-Clown, and his Legion of Doom are trying to focus on "Islamic" terrorism, and focus more attention on Muslims due to their moronic prejudice that goes against the facts. This is VERY dangerous,and sends a signal to the white supremacist(well considering President Dumbass surrounds himself with white supremacist, and probably is one it's not surprising but now I'm going off-topic). In fact correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard of any positive benefits due to profiling. We don't want to be Sam Harris or President Stupid Von Evil now do we?

Practical Philosophy » What is racism and what makes it wrong? » 3/26/2017 9:29 pm

AKG
Replies: 19

Go to post

Well racism in itself is inherently wrong so I would say type-5 actions being racist, and wrong would make prejudice inherently wrong and always wrong as well. Also I think all actions done in the name of racism are wrong given that racism is itself inherently wrong. That includes racial profiling.

 

Practical Philosophy » What is racism and what makes it wrong? » 3/26/2017 4:17 pm

AKG
Replies: 19

Go to post

@Greg,

I'd say yes it is still racist to do the things you said regarding racial profiling as it seems to me that it is based off a negative assumption of a person of that race without even knowing them at all, which is prejudice. 

Theoretical Philosophy » Q&A with Rondo Keele » 1/16/2017 4:29 pm

AKG
Replies: 36

Go to post

I think these post seem really relevant as Dr. Feser really catches my thoughts on the matter as he really makes for me a convincing case why Ockham's interpretation of God, and those like it in Divine Command Theory are not really that good for classical theism.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/11/voluntarism-and-psr.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/03/razor-boy.html

Theoretical Philosophy » Q&A with Rondo Keele » 1/16/2017 3:42 pm

AKG
Replies: 36

Go to post

Again thanks for your response Professor Keele:

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you regards to this as I think there are ways to ground morality in God without resorting to Divine Command Theory as I admit that I am not convinced by the response you have given as:

I'm not really sure that resolves the problem as much as simply appeals to the irrational. It's basically saying "oh yeah, well what if God was so super super super suuuuuper incomprehensibly amazing that you're compelled to submit to His arbitrary commands through sheer terror, confusion, and awe?"

Professor as with regards to your interpretation of the Surah I would recommend checking out the comments on this article(not the article itself), along with other points on the website in general which focus on reason and Islam rather than arbitrary wills:


https://asharisassemble.com/2015/08/21/isis-and-the-theology-of-rape-and-the-rubbish-responses-by-muslims/

Also with regards to the issue of Divine Command theory do you know how Avicenna, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, and Averroes dealt with this issue as I know Avicenna/Averroes stood by intellectualism rather than voluntarism but I have trouble finding readings which elaborate on their works.

Thanks and peace.

Theoretical Philosophy » Q&A with Rondo Keele » 1/16/2017 11:52 am

AKG
Replies: 36

Go to post

Thank you for taking your time to respond Professor:

With all due respect I'm not sure if you have really answered my with regards to the issue of "might makes right" as your answer seems to imply that God cannot be disputed about this simply because He is the most powerful, and holds the answer to our salvation, which to me still seems like an appeal of "might makes right" "or screw the rules I make them", and once again we are back to the issue of an infinite Ubermensch.  In fact your description makes me feel even worse/depressed as now I feel like we are in a terrible/impossible situation where we are thrusted in a situation where we literally have no choice in the matter but to submit to God or face infinite torture which to me kind of makes giving us free will useless as in the end there really is no choice. Knowing this makes me see that if I continue to worship God then it will be ultimately not out of love, but just so He won't send me to Hell, and I have no issue in the matter. God it appears can do whatever He wants, and there is nothing to do about it, giving me a sense of great dread. This seems like something out of Greek Mythology where the gods could do whatever they want to mortals, AND get away with it because they decided their fates in the afterlife, and were more powerful than them. In fact this seems to me just to take the things atheism is criticized for(lack of free will, might makes right), and apply them to Islam. It goes against my moral conscience that morality is something that is a matter of "might makes right" and based arbitrarily

I'm not really sure if this is the right way to approach Islam as when the angels ask God why He created Adam, He doesn't answer "don't question me as I'm God", but He shows them why with an example.  

Theoretical Philosophy » Q&A with Rondo Keele » 1/15/2017 11:34 pm

AKG
Replies: 36

Go to post

Professor Keele as a fellow Muslim I'd like to welcome you to the forum.

With regards to Divine Command theory, and God not having to have a sufficient reason for doing this, I'll admit this is something I have severe problems with as for me it paints a picture of God that is one I have trouble accepting. It seems to me accepting this view entails that morality does not really exist in an objective way, and God's commands on us are arbitrary. In fact for me it looks like we are ultimately submitting to the arbitrary will of an infinite Nietzschean Ubermensch, who backs up His commands with nothing more than threats, forcing us to submit most likely out of fear of punishment. Under this view isn't morality nothing more than an issue of might makes right(which is something us theist criticize people like Dawkins for)? 

Another reason why this really bothers me is it's relationship to Hell. If God's actions are not based on reason and His will,then this means that the people He sends to Hell are there because He WANTED them to be there to be infinitely tortured. If God WANTS people to go to Hell in a motivation based on His arbitrary will rather than reason, then doesn't this make Him malevolent, and no different from a tyrant who punishes his subjects for no reason simply because he is the most powerful, and can.

I'm sorry if what I've written has offended you and I did not mean to do so, but I think holding to Divine Command Theory, and God not basing things on reason leaves us with this picture of God:

It should perhaps be noted here that not only the God of Islam but also the God of Christianity was originally conceived on the model of an Oriental despot -- such as Saddam Hussein -- insistent that his subjects should be always obedient to, and forever praising of, their master.

"essentially a cosmic Saddam Hussein -- an egomaniac who issues arbitrary commands and backs them up with nothing more than threats, but who also happens to be disembodied, immo

Chit-Chat » Good News! » 1/04/2017 9:47 am

AKG
Replies: 5

Go to post

Congrats

Theoretical Philosophy » Three Essential Distinctions » 12/25/2016 12:33 am

AKG
Replies: 17

Go to post

@Proclus

Does Lloyd Gerson himself adhere to Platonism actually? My UTM philosophy professor said he's sympathetic to it.

Theoretical Philosophy » Space, Time, and Necessity » 11/17/2016 2:45 pm

AKG
Replies: 5

Go to post

Hmmm, then how could we show that the substance underlying space and bearing its properties itself is ontologically contingent? EJ Lowe really should've written a paper showing why material things, space, and time cannot be necessary or ontologically independent.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum