The Axiology of Theism w/Dr. Brian Ballard

In episode 262 of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined once again by Dr. Brian Ballard. This time we discuss what's come to be known as the axiology of theism, that is considering the existence of God in light of value theory.
Check out the previous episode with Brian Ballard after this one: • How Christianity Makes...
→Sponsors/Discounts
Check out murdycreative.... and use promo code PARKERNOTES at check out for 10% off your entire order!!
Grab a Field Notes notebook or memo book wallet like the one from the video from my affiliate link here to support my work and use promo code PARKERNOTES for 10% off your entire order: fieldnotesbran...
Grab a Saddleback Leather medium Moleskine/Leuchtturm1917 cover from my affiliate link here to support my channel: saddlebackleat...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ parker's pensées
Join the Facebook group, Parker's Pensées Penseurs, here: / 960471494536285
If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here:
Patreon: / parkers_pensees
If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal:
paypal.me/Park...
Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: teespring.com/...
Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees
Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: parknotes.subs...

The research for this podcast is intense. If you guys like this show, help support it by becoming a member here on KZbin or by supporting me on Patreon here: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees

[@dnescodino]

Dude, what an insightful conversation. I'm an agnostic, and actually felt like my worldview was enhanced by this episode. Thank you, guys

[@RandyAndy7373]

Great conversation. Not too liberal and relativistic. But also not narrow minded and self indulgent. Somewhere in between, on the fence looking at all sides, with lots of room to breath and find ones way. Two good hearts with brains. Inspiring! Luv it!🎉❤

🙌🙌🙌🫡 thank you!!

[@tr5676]

Great podcast Parker. I noticed the topic of Universalism had a sort of short spotlight, and of course since it wasn’t directly the topic of the main discussion y’all didn’t need to go too far into it. But I got the impression that you might be interested in the topic in some sort of fashion. If so, I think a podcast discussion with Universalist Andrew Hronich would be very cool.

[@andrewsearle4862]

Keep the content coming!

🫡

[@jake9674]

Really enjoyed this. Thank you.

[@TheJesusNerd40]

I love Brian! He is one hell of a guy!!!

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Pascal's Wager without Descartes' Absolute Certainty > Playing god with cosmic dice

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Faith grasping for reason > Empricism, skepticism, and relativism

[@TheJesusNerd40]

God gives us value, purpose, and meaning.

[@joel8411]

Shout out to your Puerto Rican friends!

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Molinism for the win! CS Lewis was a hopeful universalist but a realist post mortem evangelist.

[@D.E.Metcalf]

6:11 I wonder how this idea dovetails with the conversation about the pre-axiomatic religious age and the return of spiritual but not religious typing? (Taylor and Horton) 12:23 I think Brian would be helped by maintaining a distinction between individualism and autonomy. We have been been crowned as viceroys, not as king of kings. We can rule with individuality; we can’t truly live as laws unto ourselves with fallen natures; our sinfulness should be brought into view… 15:39 “freedom of conscience” The conscience can be skewed and is working well only as far as it’s discerned the will of God. 37:17 “Universalism” This would be an awesome episode or 5. Especially engaging with Unitarian Universalism. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXmveWiqZ9yYmLs 42:16 Universalism and Compatibilism Romans 9! Would be an awesome research project. 49:52 Bavinck/ Van Til modified Cogito > Cogito 55:40 it would be good to consider on this point that God is Himself our “summum bonum;” seems like the safeguard to idolatry in this form of theological reasoning. 1:18:25 “setting aside that kind of Christianity” NO! That’s the best kind! 1:30:10 “no one has explored…” Brian needs to read Bavinck! That is the core of his apologetic! And Vos “ Natural Theology” “The true and the good and the beautiful, which ethical culture means and seeks, can only come to perfection when the absolute good is at the same time the almighty, divine will, which not only prescribes the good in the moral law but also works it effectually in humans himself. The heteronomy of law and the autonomy of man are reconciled only by this theonomy.” Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation: A New Annotated Edition Could also be said to be the Jordan Peterson and Stoic theistic argument to a degree, though in a idolatrous, anti-Christian form.

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Is Omnibenevolence the chief attribute of God?

[@RandyAndy7373]

ECT is a misconception invented by neurotic guys like St. Augustine. I am always surprised how so many people are able to stick to a concept, in which most of their love ones are being tormented for ever. Although being aware of the consequences, they still prefer ECT over the concept of atheism or Universalism. This is not a matter of academics to me. Its about compassion and love. Would be interesting to analyse why such a weird and cruel concept like ECT is so attractive to mankind! Sadism? Coldness of the soul? Lack of phantasy and sensitivity? Peer group? Authority? Shocking to me!😢

[@ultrasignificantfootnote3378]

All is but vanity, so belief in God is vanity.😯😇

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Captain of our own ship leads to nihilisitic despair

[@11kravitzn]

God really ought to exist, ya know?

[@theautodidacticlayman]

Sometimes we’re just surfing the same wave, bro. 😎

[@rogersacco4624]

All this is vanity.There is no afterlife. Heavens on Earth by Michael Shermer,Heaven and Hell byvBart Ehrman

[@Raiddd__]

wow what an incredible argument lmao

[@rogersacco4624]

@@Raiddd__ try reading the books know it all

[@Raiddd__]

@@rogersacco4624 “this entire hour long discussion that I won’t give a nuanced take on is all baloney. Ur belief false! Here’s two entire books to prove it!” Such a useless comment. If you just want to suggest books, then just suggest books. Don’t tag them on as a certain, self evident proof that an entire discussion that you aren’t even directly engaging with is total nonsense.

[@saraathena]

Thanks for the recommendations, just bought the two e books

[@Kenji17171]

​@@Raiddd__ he could have form his argument better but it can be understood this way;beliefs such as hell and heaven(and even trinity) can be attributed to human contingency(in fact considering data they are best understood this way) and this is something you wouldn't expect if christianity were true. I am an ex-christian and biblical scholarship has many findings that are destructive for christianity yet none of these philosophers of religions talk about them. For me these findings are much more conclusive, useful and powerful when one tries to disprove orthodox christianity.

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Every antitheist has to deal with Ecclesiastes 3:11 and Romans 1:18-20 and Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1; Psalm 19; James 2:19. Why is there a God-size in your heart that only God can fill??? Pascal's Wager: If the pro theist is right, we gain everything. If protheist is wrong, you lose nothing and gain nothing. If the antitheist is right, he gains nothing. If the antitheist is wrong, he loses everything.

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Proverbs 14:12= Nietzsche Exegetigal Prooftext Hedonism and Epicurean philosophy Eccelsiastes 8:15; 1 Corinthians 15:32 Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. YOLO!

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

My answer to the question in the thumbnail depends on what exactly you mean by God. Do you mean the more general idea of a perfect being that created spatiotemporal reality? Sure, the world would probably be a much better place if such a being existed. Do you mean YHWH as God? Then I think that the question is meaningless or misplaced because 'should' implies 'can' and YHWH cannot exist due to internal contradicitions. A perfectly good deity that commits heinous actions, for example, is a self-contradiction that cannot be instantiated in reality.

[@williambranch4283]

Should humanity exist?

[@gabri41200]

Axiology= nice name for wishful thinking

[@navienslavement]

gabri41200 = dumb

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

I dunno, speaking as someone who likes and studies philosophy, I'm not sure if I fully get the point of axiology as it pertains to philosophy of religion. Or, more specifically, I've not seen many good reasons for why someone should care much about the value of conditional states of affairs as a field of study in its own right. As the OP says, I think this project has the capacity to devolve into "wishful thinking" type stuff in a lot of cases. ​@navienslavement

[@theautodidacticlayman]

So anti-theism is wishful thinking. 👍🏻

[@gabri41200]

@@theautodidacticlayman it is. Agnosticism is the only rational position

[@11kravitzn]

Axiology about ontology, or "what SHOULD exist?" is wishful thinking, if you think that you can force things to exist (or be rational believing they do) because it would be better if they did.

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Waiting for WLC to demolish anti-theism.

[@Doctor.T.46]

Not one of my favourite epidodes Parker. Two Christian philosophers discussing religion did nothing to add to the debate... a debate that is always welcome. As I've said before, I'm an antitheist and a lover of Nietzsche but I appreciate the need for sensitive and balanced arguments. Sorry my friend, i thought this failed to be balanced.

[@saraathena]

Absolutely right

[@martin2289]

Sorry, but nobody with a flamboyant Commander McBragg moustache can be taken seriously. 🤨

[@suppiluiiuma5769]

Nah; I take him more seriously than most other philosophers But it's not only because of the stache; although that is one of the reasons

[@hiker-uy1bi]

I wish philosophers would just stop

Never

[@TheOtherCaleb]

No 🗿

[@martin2289]

Nothing wrong with philosophizing but attempting to effectively define God into existence by this means - as many apologists do - is a fool's errand. Usually it just ends up being a lot of insufferably pretentious metaphysical twaddle based on dubious suppositions and unfalsifiable assertions, etc.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

I wish non-philosophers would start thinking carefully about stuff.