theophilus

Again, you assume that existence is an open system in which anything can happen rather than a system created for a specific purpose and in which all things "consipire" toward the fulfillment of that purpose.

It does no good to argue why God didn't create things differently. The point is, you can't make sense of life or experience apart from God.

Vorkosigan

Theo, what is this Law's position on:

• river basin management
• infant industry subsidies
• nuclear waste disposal
• emissions standards
• affirmative action
• forced busing
• homeschooling
• the length of the work week
• the United Nations

There is absolutely nothing in the Canaanite Deity's ukases that deals with most urgent issues of public policy.

Of course, there is no need for an absolute standard of morality to oppose infanticide, or take a position on any other moral question. Most people who argue for an "absolute standard" are simply engaging in rhetorical aggrandizement designed to give their own subjective morals a universalizing stance. In other words, absolute morality is a form of authoritarianism, and as such, is unethical.

Vorkosigan

Fiach

I can't because I don't see any evidence for God or that supposed God's Law. God remains hypothetical. You and I cannot prove nor disprove God. "Absolute Objective standard" doesn't exist for theists or Atheists. Morality is what works, Immortality is what harms. What works and what harms may theoretically change.

Prior Quote:

[i]Wrong. Take the topic infanticide. We atheists like me feel that infanticide is wrong at all times and under all circumsances apart from accidents.[/i[

"Feel" is deliberately chosen, but we intuitively are repulsed by the idea of killing babies. We don't have to rely on a priest to say that it is now against God's Law. We have inhibition against theft. However if we are overcome by desire and steal, we feel guilt. We feel this if we never read the Ten Commandments. I believe that Moses engraved the tablets with words from his "inner voice."

It should be plain that your "feeling" doesn't make something right or wrong. What is your standard?

I see your question. Morality is not a physical law. It is a socio-biological adaptation for survival. While morality is not absolute as Plate tectonics is absolute, it is the hard wired circuits that programme us for behaviour that is beneficial, and inhibitory to acts which are not beneficial. It is possible that this morality could change if conditions of human survival change.

Evolutionary moralitity, the product of over 3 million years of social and natural selection, has been more consistent and improving to approaching moral absolutes.

Yes it is close to absolute for humans. We abhor the killing of babies. Yet among certain birds (storks I think) have two chicks but can feed only one adequately. The stronger chick pushes the weaker one out of the nest and gets all of the food. The mother doesn't intervene. It appears immoral to us, but if the birds didn't kll off the weaker chick none would be strong enough to survive. Their morality is different from ours.

How does morality arise from matter? Is matter good or bad? Survival mechanisms which organism may have developed in an evolutionary scenario are neither morality nor aboslute.

Good point. I don't disagree with that. All morality is essentially what benefits a particular animal such as humans, or negatve morality is what impairs human survival. It may be that we are having more a semantic disagreement than truly philosophical.

In fact, like all evolutionary developments, they are merely the product of chance. You may feel more comfortable with certain actions, but you have no basis no call them good or to judge someone who disagrees.

I don't think it is mere chance. I think that the properties of matter in a very complex way determines everything. Poisonous Chlorine bonds ionically to caustic Sodium to form harmless and necessary table salt. I don't have enough time to go from N, O, C, H, P, form amino acids due to the properties of N, O, C, H, P. But the amino acids have properties that led to DNA, nucleotides. Nucleotides have attracting bonds that make if form double strands. That is the double helix. The nature of the bonds of nucleotides make periodic code changes. Codes programme heart, lungs, skeleton, muslces, and brain. This includes complex brain circuits governing movement, speech, thought, emotions, critical thinking in humans, and adaptive behaviours in all animals. From among those adaptive behaviours arise what we call morals. Sorry, but I tried to stuff a textbook into this paragraph. The comfort we feel with certain actions is not simply an opinion. We can study the action to see if it benefits or harms the individual or group. Some may agree and other disagree, but only one side is right. In some cases it may be semantic, as I suspect it is with you and I.

The fact that all men have a moral sense (not that we all agree) is evidence that we are created by a God who has set standards.

It would appear that way. The moral sense is there. We agree on that. We disagree in that I attribute it to evolutionary biology, and you attribute it to your God. Thus our major divide is that you believe in a God while I do not.

Fiach

the_cave

Thanks Bill--I would mostly agree, though I would add as a speculative point that I feel there might be a certain equivalance between statements one could make such as "morals just are the way they are" and "God is just the way he is." Granted one is blind and the other (presumably) is in some way conscious. I think making a distinction like the one you make implies a traditionally free, rational God, who is making decisions about things. But if God is in any way determined (in the same way our universe itself might be determined) this would in some way get him/her off the hook! If you see what I mean...this sort of God would be different from one who is arbitrary. But we would definitely then not be talking about a traditional god. A speculative and perhaps superfluous point, I know, but one worth considering while we're on the subject.

the_cave

Hi Cipher Girl--thanks for writing. Another traditionally knotty question. As far as I can tell, another way to phrase the question might be; why didn't God make us free, but also make us perfect enough to always make the right decision? I'm not here to espouse a doctrinaire answer, but rather to think about these kinds of questions, so let me just try to suggest an answer that could still be seen as a Christian one:

1) God can't create something equal to himself; that's impossible (for a number of reasons.)

2) Therefore, anything he made is less perfect than him, so it's already potentially flawed.

3) However, that's not a good reason to not make it, since there's at least some good in such a thing. So he makes it anyway, knowing it's imperfect. (I think I read this somewhere in Augustine), because he loves everything that's good.

4) Finally, since he has to make his creatures free in order for them to be of any value, he must accept their freedom to do imperfect things, in order for them to exist.

This argument rests on the assumption that the only thing that could know enough to always choose the good is God; anything less perfect than him that always chose the good would have to be built to always choose the good, which makes it unfree. (Note that I'm leaving aside completely any discussion of whether free will exists or not!)

I freely admit the above might seem wildly implausible, but I think it makes a certain amount of coherent sense, at least. I could try to come up with another response if it's insufficient...

Cipher Girl

Hi cave
You make a number of assumptions, in fact statements 1-4 are also assumptions. I'm not a christian so I'm not especially concerned with a strictly christian answer.
Why, could not god split like an ameoba? It's already known in nature. That's an example of god creating something equal to himself, certainly as logically possible as god not being able to create an equal.
If god is perfect, then everything he would create would be perfect as well. Being only able to create imperfect creations would imply a fault as well. Would imply that god is not perfect as well. And how does #1 imply #2?
But you are saying that he can only create imperfect things (according to #2). He has no choice (according to #1). Are you saying that everthing god make is good? Famine, wars, cancer, etc are all good? He loves them? Simply because they are created?
You're still avoiding the question. Isn't he creating creatures with the desire to do evil or to hurt others or to simply not believe? And for that they all get eternal punishment?
But what about sociopaths who are unable to experience empathy for others? Are they not created being unable to choose the good? How would that be any less free? Any how is someone who is a good and caring person be any less free than someone who is not? We all choose actions that please us or to to avoid pain.

bgponder

7th Angel:

Well, I thought "the quick and the dead" just about covered everybody--

And this purpose is???

Yeah yeah, and Ecclesiastes 8 says " 14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless. 15 So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany him in his work all the days of the life God has given him under the sun."

So what is plain is that it is far from plain.

And I suppose you know what this good reason of creating is???

O, Theophilus:

Yeah yeah, God IS Goodness, Goodness IS God, round and round. Incidentally, you nor your God has demonstrated either of these two requisites.

The objective standard accepted rhetorically in this OP is His Own Word, duh.

Once again, (as I know you are arguing contextually and rhetorically--oh wait, I forgot--you ain't--CP does that) anyway, what good is His Word if we can't tell what He means by "good"?

And this (unknown?) purpose is???

Straw man. Refer to the statement on the II home page.

Please do tell us what it is. You do know, right???

Oh, shit. If anybody else causes evil to come upon the world, it is sin, but if God does it, it's holy. Whatever the Supreme Power does is fine. Do you really not see the problem with this line of willful ignorance? Perhaps you would feel more at home in Iraq, North Korea, etc....

Once again, The F***king Bible!!!

The challenge remains for you to articulate a standard within "God's law".

Well, maybe you can't.

Cheers, BarryG

Albert Cipriani

Dear Barry,
Unfortunately, I have to agree with your hammer strokes. You have correctly smitten 7th Angel's assertions. Tho I share his conclusions, I do not share his arguments.

The essential confusion is between the physical reality of pain or death and the moral reality of evil or sin. Also, there's a hidden assumption that free will is a force when all it really is is an attitude. -- Sincerely, Albert your Bud

bgponder

Halooo Brother Albert,

Glad to see your tech problems resolved (?)

All right, load it on my cornbread head: What is the difference between the physical reality of pain and death and the moral reality of evil and sin, as regards the goodness of God? And weave that free will stuff right in there, maybe I can understand it--

Peace and cornbread ad infinitum, BarryG

Albert Cipriani

Yeah,
Tech problems resolved: my computer buddy built me a new computer. But a new problem has cropped up: I just landed a job today. Will start tomorrow.

Barry: The former is empirical the latter is attitudinal. We're born, we suffer, we die. These are the cards we are delt. Our attitudes about these empirical facts make or break us, allow us to win or fold, are the expression of our sins or virtues.

What's in an attitude? Absoulutely nuthin! They're more than cheap, they're absolutely free. They are another word for free will. So, for example, if your attitude toward the poker hand you hold sucks, then you suck.

People confuse evil with what happens. All that is and all that happens is good. The attitude we have about what is and what happens is what's evil.

For example the legitimate and just execution of a prisoner would be an evil act if the executioner did it out of sadism or hate. Conversely, the illegitimate and unjust murder of a child would not be evil if the murderer did it out of altruism, honestly (or insanely) believing the child was the anti-Christ or Hitler reincarnate. -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic