demrald

I decided the philosophy forum would be the best place for this topic, but I'm sure I'll get moved if the mod(s) think otherwise.

Basically another formulation of the logical argument from evil, it goes something like this:

<ol type="1">[*]God is (perfectly) moral.[*]God is aware of and can prevent certain evils (eg., rapes and murders).[*]God refrains from preventing these certain evils.[*]It is not immoral to refrain from preventing these certain evils.[/list=a]

Rather than disproving God's existence, this argument attempts to demonstrate an inconsistency in the (conservative) Christian worldview. Christians typically reject 4, but it certainly seems to follow from 1-3.

Any thoughts?

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: demrald ]

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: demrald ]</p>

Ron Singh

Why does God's morality have to equate with our kind of morality?

Armaitus Syn

Demrald (just thoughts),

It appears that, within your argument, you percieve God as a Moral being, whereas other may perceive God as an Amoral entity... either way I perceieve morals themself to be dictated by those perceiving.

Do you see what I mean?

The social majority seem to decide what the rest of us should perceive as right and wrong.

In the specific case of christian ethics then you seem to have touched upon a potential sore spot. The christian God has evolved from the old testament "Death to the First Born" and become a forgiving deity... and yet it is seen to allow events to occur that the Global Social Majority deem immoral.

In this case though, God appears to be exempt from blame... mankind as his creation might be held responsible for their own actions, reactions and lack of action.

Ultimately I feel that morality has little to do with theology... whatever God (for want of a better term) seems to take part in, appears outside the scope of Social Morality.

I feel that I could turn your argument to suggest that either God does not exist or that the christian God is Amoral rather than Moral/Immoral... personally I believe the latter.

demrald

Ron Singh
This issue is why I included "the meaning of morality" in the title of this thread. To say that God's morality is not like our morality is to deny the premise that God is moral (assuming we're moral realists). If it is to be said that God is moral, then, analytically, this claim must conform to the meaning of the term.

Armaitus Syn
I'm not claiming to "perceive" God as anything; I'm simply assuming that the entity (God) being discussed is moral for the sake of argument.
While certainly an interesting metaethical topic, this is a seperate matter, and should probably be dealt with elsewhere.
Which is to deny that God is moral. If you don't accept the premises of the argument, it's not going to faze your position. This argument is only useful against those who contend that God is moral and that refraining from preventing certain evil acts is immoral, a category which you do not appear to fit into.

sweep

5. it is immoral to interfere with or otherwise control others without consent.

We (some people) stop others from destroying lives as best we can. We have been given those choices.

with regard to point 4. perhaps god has a double standard. As far as i am concern he can wipe out our stinking gluttonous selfish pig race- for if god did give us freedom of choice, and created our pain/pleasure mechanisms for our benefit, then it is our own fault for abusing them.

"you bastard, god! I never asked for pain receptors, how about a say in the matter?"

no wonder god has become apathetic. I wouldn't blame god if *it* sits there having a jolly good laugh at us falling into the same holes day after day.

Jamie_L

At it's core, Christian morality boils down to this:

Something is right or wrong for humans because God says so. What God wants is, by definition, right. If God wants people to stop rape, but wants to allow rape himself, there is no contradiction. It is all what God wants.

Human immorality under this definition is obedience, nothing more and nothing less. It's only God's orders to humanity that define human morality. His actions are irrelevant. This only gets thorny for the believer if they insist that God is an omnipotent and benevolent (by human standards).

AE says if God exists, he is either impotent or malevolent. Since most Christians claim God is neither, this makes AE a thorn in their side.

Jamie

sweep

jamie:

is love conditional? no it isn't. that means we aren't expected to behaviour in any particular way, only that god is benevolent. If we aren't benevolent we can't blame god not punishing us.

God is not a favoritist god, it appears- and i don't know squat- and i'd rather not get a hard on because i think i know what god is all about- and i'd rather not worship atheism thinking that i know something and am ultimately smarter than everyone who thinks otherwise.

I am neither fanatical about either- what's in a name?

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: sweep ]</p>

sweep

*ooh! i am a hard atheist and proud to be here with all you other smart sexy god hating atheist. hey! screw god, we've read some books!*

whopie, fuckin do!

brighid

Well, I don't think it is actually possible to hate what one does not believe exists.

Brighid

Autonemesis

What about a person who had never read any books, including the Bible, Quran, Talmud, whatever? If she failed to profess belief, on what grounds would you seek to heap scorn upon her?

Or is it not really about having read any books? Hmmm?