Valmont

From Another Problem of Evil Thread...

It is to tackle the issues above that I have started this thread.

The question that it seems appropriate to start with is the one which I suspect both Yahzi and I have great interest in. This is "Is the Christian God immoral?" Yahzi has previously contended that He is. I maintain that God is beyond morality - Jenseits von Gut und Böse.

The question that I would open with is this, "Why should we be moral?"

There is a simple answer to this, which draws on a deontological interpretation of morality. This is to assert that morality is what we should do. If do not act morally we are not moral. If we do not morally knowing what acting morally entails then we are immoral. This, I think, is a very unsatisfactory moral theory. It reduces morality to a very arbitrary definition.

If we analyse our sense of morality more closely we realise that it is a very emotive thing. We can speak of moral disgust, moral outrage. We suffer a feeling of guilt if we fail to realise our moral obligations. In other words, we desire ourselves and others to be moral.

The Gospel of Matthew says...

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

The first of these deals with the fulfilment of our spiritual desire, the second with our moral desire. Moral desire is an expression of agape - brotherly love. It is precisely agape that Paul wrote of in his letter to the church of Corinth. Precisely, it is the love that one human being bears for all his fellow human beings. Morality is not therefore founded upon a specific love, a specific desire for a specific human being. It is founded upon the sense of fellowship that we feel toward all human beings.

However, our Love for God, we are told, should be greater than this. By "should" I mean to say, not that it is "right" or "moral" that we should love God. We do not owe Him a moral obligation of love. Love of God is beyond moral. It is spiritual. And God, in His part, loves His creation in the same way. Spiritual love, Divine love, the love of God for His creation is therefore a thing entirely separate from moral considerations.

Morality arises from a sense of fellowship. It is, in this sense, an imperfect love compared to Divine love. We love our fellow human beings above the rest of God's creation. But it is, and God intended it to be, stronger. In general, the more specific a love is, the greater the effect it has upon us.

God, however, has no fellows. Certainly we are not His fellows. We are His creatures. As such then, God can have no moral obligation toward us. God, without fellows, has no moral obligation to anyone. He is motivated only by His perfect, encompassing love for the whole of His creation.

Hyndis

Why ignore the practical aspect of morality?

Morality is the thing which allows humans to function in a society. If everyone cared absolutely nothing for their neighbors and took whatever they wanted, civilizations would quickly collapse into anarchy and humans would go extinct, since a lone human cannot survive for long in the wildnerness.

So, in order to stay in a society, we all agree on certain rules. Like don't harm other people through injury, theft, or slander. And if we be nice to other people, these other people will be nice to use, and everyone will be happier and more productive as a result.

Those who have no morals tend to be rather troublesome to soceity as a whole, and as such they are exiled. This means simple exile from the village, execution, or imprisonment. Just something to keep them out of society, since they are unable to follow the rules.


I reject all of this philosophical mumbo-jumbo in that its a vastly more complex answer than what is warranted by the question. The answer to "Why should I be moral?" is actually a rather simple one. If you want to form a society and benefit from said society, then you gotta follow the rules.

TomboyMom

This seems like an easy one to me.
1. The Christian God is the same God as the old testament God.
2. Murdering innocent babies is immoral. Also genocide. And stuff like that.
3. Christian God murders innocent babies.
4. Christian God is immoral.

Rene

Nasreddin

*waits for someone to chime in with "Killing babies isn't immoral if God does it!" and "They weren't innocent anyway, they deserved to die for the sins of their ancestors"*

Agnostic Theist

I think I may see myself siding with Yahzi this time, she I antagonised him in the other thread.

[QUOTE=Valmont] The question that it seems appropriate to start with is the one which I suspect both Yahzi and I have great interest in. This is "Is the Christian God immoral?" Yahzi has previously contended that He is. I maintain that God is beyond morality As has been answered, it facilitates the progress of society. In short it is, or at least seems to be, in our best interests. Without morality we may face political anarchism, even a complete absence of political and social stability. The very fundaments of a legitimate society depend on morality.

Is this circular reasoning? Why should we be moral? Because morality is what we should do. Why? Because we should be moral. Why? and so forth.

Presumably you're going to be attacking this position then? Though you might want to make it clear that the above theory is yours, since you initially give the impression that it is, or at least one you'd accept.

Methinks you're pleading to a case of 'Emotivism'. I'm not sure how well shouting matches go down here, though.

We can also speak of seeing red. Besides, you haven't established why we feel such emotions. Is it a consequence of social conditioning, or is there something inherent within us? Is morality like the political system (eg - The transition to modern politics, when people realised theirs was not the only view of society and that the old teleological principle was wrong), in which case we have no objective reason to be moral (at least not one relating to God)?

There's a lot of questions you need to consider in this thread.

But do we know what our obligations are, or do we assume, from conditioning and whatnot, obligations without justification?

Are you, also, talking about every person? How do you account for the sociopath, for example?

It's purely a social constraint, a liberal necessity.

Quoth the Bible...very brave of you in a place like this, sir.

Ah yes, agape love. Wonderful concept but, quite flawed I'm afraid. You see, this reliance, if I may, upon love implies that intention is all that matters in morality. If I perform open heart surgery, without training, and kill the patient in the process, that is surely agape love, because I wanted to help them. However...they died. The consequence is bad.

A better example - Suppose two people wish to act on conflicting interests. I am caught in the middle. How do I show my agape love to both people?

He also seems to have had an influence on medieval politics. Has anyone else here noticed that the 'unworldly wisdom' of the Bible does not extend past the Middle Ages? Politics, morality, religion, et hoc genus omne, were all overtaken by science and humanity post 16th century.

Do you have evidence for this? Can you say the sociopath, psychopath or hardened criminal holds such love? Or, like Paul, are you only considering the educated, the pious, the do-gooders of our society?

It's a valid theory, de jure, but fails in practise.

It's founded on the blatent necessity of fellowship, which is also a reason why ethical egoism fails. Without fellowship, we face a whole range of problems to ourselves and our society.

Regardless, if the consequences of His actions can be called immoral, then they are immoral. The problem of evil is not only about what God is, per se, but what He does and fails to do.

Now I'm not sure that applies to everyone. Wasn't Singer a firm stander against specieism?

Divine or agape?

Nah, I want proof.

Perhaps it may be fair to say, then, that morality should apply to Him as well? In a legitimate political system the ruling powers face obligations according to hierarchy and fairness. To set God above morality removes these obligations from Him. At the very least He should be bound by the most fundamental, universal ethical maxims.

Why then, should any human rulership or government be obligated to serve their own people, or set examples obeying their own laws? Why should there be impeachment laws, trials for international leaders, etc? Why us and not God?

But fellowship and morality are not co-requisite like that. Morality is a part of society, be it communitarian, liberalism, or some legitimate hierarcy (even a 'good' dictatorship). Fellowship is then imposed by the established society.

Can He love us through perfection if His perfection contradicts our ethical and social maxims?

Jabu Khan

I wrote a thesis paper once comparing the morality of god to the moral development of a person. He starts out in the garden kinda feelin his way around changing the rules responding to the way Adam and Eve act and eventually other humans. He eventually forms an identity and concept of self that is projected onto Isreal, Moses, etc. Then he enters a concrete operational stage where he lays down the law and starts military campaigns. Then he becomes more and more abstract and analytical. The interactions with other nations also seem to evolve along the lines of normal human social growth.

Valmont

I do agree to some extent. But, given the question we are, in the end, trying to answer, I still don't think your definition puts God within the purview of morality.

I believe that the Tanakh describes the perspective of God possessed by a particular group of people and how it developed over a particular period of time. Many Christians would disagree with me I know but I cannot bring myself to believe that God would command or perform the murder of infants.

Yes, immoral within human judgement. But we do not think, for instance, a tiger immoral for killing a human. We probably do not even describe the act as immoral. We say that such acts are amoral - without morality.

Sorry yes. I do not hold a deontological view of morality. The description I gave was my characterisation of the deontological position, emphasising what I felt was wrong with it. If someone were willing to make a more favorable presentation of deontology I would certainly be prepared discuss it before moving on.

Morality has certainly progressed along with society. I see this as a result of us achieving a greater understanding of something - agape - inherent within us. This does not directly relate to God. It is a part of who we ourselves are. God would want us to live up to the ideals of agape for it is thus we achieve self-fulfilment.

Sorry. Agape is imperfect but stronger than spiritual love.

The ruling powers of your 'legitimate political system' derive their power from the society they govern. They are not above human society. They are part of it. This is not the case with God. He is genuinely above His creation. His love for it is as Creator, not as ruler. You do not argue that a novelist has a moral responsibility to the characters He writes about.

Yes. Because our ethical and social maxims are an epiphenomenon either of the imperfection of our love, as I have it, or as the result of necessity for the continuation and progress of a community, as you argue. In either case, the conditions that give rise to the epiphenomenon do not exist for God.

Crucifiction

If God is outside of morality, why does he have so many laws that tell his followers to behave in a certain, moral way? Why would a God that is himself outside of morality care whether or not humans behave moraly?

Hyndis

But thats the whole point.

I can construct a reason for why people should be moral without refering to anything relating to religion whatsoever. Its simply a type of social contract constructed in such a way that humans can function with other humans and cooperate to get things done.

Why make it needlessly complex when a far simpler and more mundane explaination will do?

Agnostic Theist

We do not call a tiger immoral because it is, as far as we can be aware, acting according to its nature. Anyway we do not sit back and let the itger kill a human: a degree of defence, or horror, is demonstrated. How, then, should we treat the less benevolent actions of God? Should we pardon Him, claiming He is bound by His nature, or can we defend ourselves against Him? Perhaps we should try to do both. No matter what the case, the very notion of God being bound to His own nature has serious implications on His omnipotence and His omnibenevolence.

That's fine. Any system of morality that claims to be complete or universal is, IMO, suspect at least.

It is actually quite ambiguous as to whether morality as progressed, in the purest sense of the word, or changed as society changes. Compare, if you will, the moral principles of a dictatorship with a liberalistic or communitarian regime. You will notice incongruencies between all three types of political system.

A problem with agape love is that it may well be relative. How can I express agape love to someone who's culture, and therefore beliefs, conflict with mine? If I do what I think is best in my view, it may harm or offend them. If I try to do what is best in their view, my own people may frown upon me.

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic Beast
Divine or agape?


What perfections do You think agape holds, and how can it be stronger than spiritual love if spiritual love is perfect?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic Beast
Perhaps it may be fair to say, then, that morality should apply to Him as well? In a legitimate political system the ruling powers face obligations according to hierarchy and fairness. To set God above morality removes these obligations from Him. At the very least He should be bound by the most fundamental, universal ethical maxims.


How about the dictatorship? The dictatorship sets himself above society, with perhaps a hierarchy or the state below him.

When characters in a novel develop consciousness and apparent freedom of will, I'll ask the novelists to be more considerate.

So, then, it is love when He demands an infant sacrifice, or kills hundreds of people in an earthquake? Your answer here seems to be that we do not see eye to eye, because we operate on different conditions. Accordingly, God is benevolent, yet above morality. He also loves it, but His actions do not have to reflect this.