Okay Stu old buddy old pal old son, we are getting closer to our point of divergence on this issue (I think).
IF God has already decided that everything will be considered in/ by an anthropocentric viewpoint, including his standards of morality, and moreover a notion of God itself, he may have resolved, will be considered from an anthropocentric viewpoint, then under your own ârules of Godâ (1&2) your proposition Fails.
How did the above ever get conceded? When did God decide that "everything will be considered in/by an anthropocentric viewpoint?"
You canât have it that God cannot be anthropocentric therefore his morality cannot be anthropocentric too. With respect ....you must say in place .... God cannot be anthropocentric AND neither is his morality. But that contains very clear problems for God !!...and would in addition ( more importantly in context to this discussion) confirm axemanâs proposition
I think we have a definition problem here. You seem to be defining anthropocentrism as a necessary consequence of the human condition, however this is not the case.
If it is your contention that anthropocentrism is in fact the same thing as limited human experience, then all you have done is redefined anthropocentrism as limited human experience!
You seem to be confusing identity and regard: if anthropocentrism is a question of experiential identity, then there is no need for a separate term to exist, as it is a tautology to say that man's experience is central to man's experience. Of course my experiences are central to my existence in the identity sense- that's patently obvious.
But
regard is another matter entirely. The key point of anthropocentrism is
regard, not identity- relation of self to another being or concept outside of self. Do I regard myself as
the central element of the universe, or do I not? Do I regard myself (or mankind) as the ultimate source of reason and logic, or do I not? Do I regard man's judgment the ultimate and highest source of judgment, or do I not? Do I regard man the highest being in existence- the key piece of the puzzle- or do I not?
Questions of anthropocentrism are entirely in relation to regard, because questions of anthropocentrism as addressed to identity are tautologies, i.e. pointless repetitions of A = A (experience limits experience). There would be no need to have an extra term in the dictionary if identity was the issue here.
And by this, arenât you also incorrect in saying..... "Proposing God inherently proposes anthropocentrism false" ? btw. I would not accept inherently here in any event. There is nothing in any proposition which makes it an inherent proposition
Propositions inherently propose other propositions on a regular basis through inclusion and exclusivity. And now perhaps you see more clearly why I assert that proposing God inherently proposes anthropocentrism false. If man gives regard to God's existence, then man can no longer regard himself the central element of the universe, regardless of whether personal experience is central to his own identity. To regard an independent and omnipotent creator is to regard one's finite and limited self in relation to that creator- and thus to no longer regard one's self or one's fellows as the ultimate.
[*]3. IF God decided that his morality .... (or he himself, with his morality along with all or any other attributes too for that matter) .... is to be regarded as anthropocentric (my logic [lol] ) ....
your proposition Fails.[/list]By this arenât you now incorrect in saying ..... "God cannot be anthropocentric by definition, Stu, because if God exists then God is the center of the universe and man is not "?
And when did God decide this? Again, defining anthropocentrism as an identity/experience loop cannot stand other than as tautology. If so, then God's relation to birds would be aviapocentrism, to dogs canipocentrism, to spiders arachnipocentrism and so forth.
God did not create morality for man, man stepped into a created world built to standards and specifications that were in place before man existed. Creation is an extension of God's character, as is man himself. So again, the question is one of regard. God created man in His own image, but God did not create the universe for man, God created the universe because He decided it was somethng He wanted to do. Man fits to God's rules and not vice versa.
Man is a finite being who exists at God's pleasure, with no permanent claim on anything- even his own existence- as man is not the ultimate source of anything nor the final arbiter of anything. This view is most definitely not anthropocentric if God exists. Some would still say "a-ha, but if God does not exist then didn't you fashion him yourself, thus making the view anthropocentric after all?" The answer to which would be "Yes, if God did NOT exist that would be true, but if God DOES exist then the statement is not anthropocentric in the least, because it speaks of an actual being outside and above man." And so, to propose God exists, i.e.
to argue that God exists in actuality, even if only as a hypothetical- is to require suspension of the anthropocentric view for the duration of discussion. To do otherwise is to offer a condition without accepting the necessary implications of said condition, which is illogical. And to argue the morality of God, as axeman was doing, one must first presuppose God's existence in actuality as a necessary condition of debate. And thus to argue God's morality from an anthropocentric viewpoint is illogical, as I said much earlier. You see?
Now it appears God indeed can be anthropocentric, if he decided that is how it was to be. However, all this -again unfortunately for the theist - simply reverts back to the same old problem.. which is ....God is anything you want it to be !And doesnât it now seem you must, but to re-read it for yourself ? ..... again ....?Is it still simply wrong ???Sorry for the puff the magic dragon thing darkhorse I was obviously being a little facetious there to make the point. I apologize for that, but I assure you I do not hand wave away what you are saying
God's relation to man has no bearing on whether He is anthropocentric or not- perhaps you are getting mixed up with another term...
...
anthropomorphism, a whole other kettle of fish, deals with human characteristics being assigned to a non-human being or thing, and may indeed come up in a discussion of how God chooses to relate to man and ways in which God communicates with man. Perhaps you were on that trail by mistake?
In relation to God being anything I want it to be, I'm not sure how that applies to the discussion we are having or to anthropocentrism at all... if God exists (which he does) challenge is to discover and better understand His qualities, not invent them.... Perhaps your statement is a last vestige of the identity/experience definition confusion. That experience is central to personal identity is obvious and uncontested by me, but not of consequence here. All personal experience is personal and if that presents a problem then we have a problem with the intake of all knowledge, a' la Kant's famous predicament, and not just knowledge of God.
