the_cave

Well, I'm a Christian who isn't a fan of Theo's definition, and I think you criticisms are on target. However, it's also the case that if evolution has produced moral absolutes, then we're servants to its authority. If you don't have a problem with that, then I don't either, I'm just pointing it out.

If you really want to know, most Christians in the US that I know don't in fact assume that the reports of God's commands in the OT (or even in the NT...) are accurate...it's widely assumed that the Bible is a narrative of dawning ethical consciousness, and that it's stories illustrate the level of awareness present within the culture and society of the age.

Wiploc

I love it!
crc

Bill Snedden

It's a good point, however, I think that most non-theists who would agree with "evolution has produced moral absolutes" (of which I am not necessarily one) would also see a differentiation between moral absolutes produced by the blind evolutionary process and those dictated by a rational consciousness.

The first case implies that things simply can't be other than they are; the second that a rational being simply decided that they wouldn't be. Most of us prefer to make decisions for ourselves, when possible.

It would be like complaining that I can't fly through the air like a bird because I don't have wings. In the case of evolution, complaining simply does no good; selection for fitness produced the body design humans now possess, no value judgements involved. In the case of God, he apparently made a judgement that we didn't need them. Unless you accept a priori that God has the right to make such judgements (in which case the entire argument is moot; theo is correct after all), what gives him that right?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

bgponder

Perfect petitio principii.

Merely perfect assertion. I might just as well say, e.g., conniving, bloodthirsty, sadistically whimsical, et al...

Along with the first proposition, perfect circulus in demonstrando.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Cheers, BarryG

doodad

Apparently God was selective about showing his benevolence.
I've been reading the bood of Genesis and for one reason or another most of his people get the shaft. Oh well, we can't have winners without having losers.

In all fairness to the concept that God is merciful, just, etc, we must put the welfare of the community before the welfare of the individual. Religion is very much a social experiment as well as a personal guide. I find parts of it to be more socialistic than I prefer it to be, but the intent is to promote civilized behavior so that people can co-exist. That's why some of His acts may seem unjust to the individual when in fact they are in the best interest of others. It's all based upon the assumption that the rights or freedom of an individual is limited by the rights and freedom of those he lives around. When he pushes the envelope too far he meets resistance from those who have been offended or harmed in some way.

7thangel

I don't think you could be convinced of any answers because knowing that some would not be ressurrested will be enough for you that God is not omnibenevolent, even if they will not be thrown to hell. But the Bible says, "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." So as you can plainly see, God is only good to those whom he had chosen. Cattles are made meat for men, good for men but bad for the cattle. And even in men, God created some to be vessels unto destruction, and some unto glory. But if truly that God is the creator of our very being, our relationship unto God is likened unto a robot-inventor relationship, therefore there is neither a way that you can say God, as inventor of humans, be not benevolent unless He ends up with a good reason of creating. And good reason does not mean that He is responsible to be good to everything He creates.

Cipher Girl

Hi cave, you said
But you are arguing in a circle. How aren't people exactly the way god created them? He could create everyone tolerant and loving and wanting to help their fellow people. If the will to disobey wasn't part of the way someone was created, then where would it come from?

Fiach

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is absolutely whatever he is, e.g., holy, just, righteous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So holiness, justices, and righteousness are not absolute or constistent, but very arbitrary. Justice is good if God is in a good mood, and unjust when God has a burr up his arse. His morality is relavistic, variable, and subjective to God. If God as he once did, says that killiing infidel babies is just fine, they fundies can go out and shoot up catholic and Jewish school yards, because Deuteronomy says it is alright.



Merely perfect assertion. I might just as well say, e.g., conniving, bloodthirsty, sadistically whimsical, et al...

True. God in sudden fits of temper sent a flood, 8 km deep over the earth with 2.3 Billion cubic kilometres of water to deliberately murder millions of babies, infants, children, pregnant mothers, and men plus billions of innocent animals who supposedly can't sin. So it was the epitome of injustice, cruelty, and irrational savagery. There is no question of its sadism as you say.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither can we know what good is apart from him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. Take the topic infanticide. We atheists like me feel that infanticide is wrong at all times and under all circumsances apart from accidents. If we refer to God's view, we have to specifiy at what time in history. During the time Genesis and Deuteronomy were writen, God's edict was to bash the heads of babies against the stone, kill men, women, and childen, and babies in Bashon and Heshbon. The killers were felt to be heros. Heros for killing babies and pregnant women. Yet Christians in 1945 (well, most that I know of) disapprove of Hitlers Holocast, which would have mede Hitler a hero in Deuteronomy.

Evolutionary moralitity, the product of over 3 million years of social and natural selection, has been more consistent and improving to approaching moral absolutes. Christians defend the Old Testament atrocities as moral despite intuitive misgivings, I hope, and now look abhored at infanticide and murder. But extremists kill abortion doctors under a twisted notion that the fetus is a potential future human, and they are saving them. It is all arbitrary and relative. If God is a standard on morality, without an unchangeable absolue standard, then it is arbitrary and not absolute.

Religious morality is more arbitrary and changeable than evolutionary morality without the god hypothesis.

Fiach

theophilus

It's really a mistake to speak of God "being" good as though that were an attribute or characteristic of God (incidentally, God does not have to be good to be God; the two requisites for "godhood" are being and supreme power).

Saying that God is good suggests that goodness is a quality which exists on its own and God can be measured against some objective standard. Since God is self-existent and is the creator of everything apart from himself, there is no independent standard of good by which his actions can be measured.

God's actions are good because they accomplish his eternal purpose. The problem here, as I suggested in another post (The missing concept) is that atheists approach existence as an open system where "anything is possible." God created for a purpose and everything in creation, including every event, is working to fulfill that purpose.

Someone has correctly pointed out that "evil" is not the same as "sin," i.e., wickedness. The evil which God may bring on his creation is consistent with his ultimate purpose.

The question to those who want to put God on trial is "by what standard and why is that standard authoritative."

theophilus

The challenge remains for you to articulate an absolute, objective standard of morality apart from God's law.