Technos

I think god is a human construct that may not apply to morality. Justice is meaningless to that which doesn't even exist.

Silent Dave

This is a joke, yes?


Dave

tergiversant

Tossing out logic seems a bit extreme. One might say with a straight face that God is both perfectly moral and yet immoral at the same time in the same way. I would have great difficulty conversing with one who would say such things (and mean them).

If instead you are merely saying that God is not moral, then you accept my conclusion that a perfectly moral God does not exist. Most monotheists would not accept this.

wildernesse

Technos: Our idea of God is most certainly a human construct dependent on the culture in which we were raised. Does this deny the existence of God? I’ll say no—but I’m willing to say that my culture’s view of Him is likely to be incorrect on some points.

Tergiversant: I didn’t mean for my post to really refute your argument, just to ask a question about applying morality to God. I think that logically arguing for the existence of something that people have faith in is a ridiculous pursuit on either side of the fence.

Also, I still don’t believe that there are “fundamental moral norms” for all humans. Just because you say they can exist, doesn’t mean that they do. In western society, the humans might have developed a notion that we exist to live long and prosper, but how do you know that this idea isn’t just part of your cultural identity? Other cultures, and sub-cultures of your own, may value short lives or non-prosperity. I would say that the shared desire to live long and prosper only exists within an individual culture, and only applies to the individuals inside that culture.

Also (to quibble with your argument), while stating that God is able to prevent rape and always acts morally, you never stated that God always acts. Your argument might be stronger if you said that 1) It is invariably immoral not to prevent rape . . . . Then #3 would be true. Or if your #3 was God always acts. Just because you have to power to change things, doesn’t mean you always exert the effort. Of course, there may be logical reasons why you couldn’t state the problem this way. I don’t know very much about formal logical arguments! So feel free to ignore this little paragraph.

--tiba

Synaesthesia

Silent Dave,
Not so much a joke as meant jokingly.

Tergiversant,
Actually my argument doesn't really require "tossing out logic", there are a few semi-plausible ways in which a moral omnipotent being can permit suffering. That being said, God is a case where it is perfectly permissible to throw out logic.

I think G.K. Chesterton hits close to what I'm saying. To quote Gardner's review:

"by a leap of faith we can escape despair by looking forward to a life beyond the grave where God will in some manner, utterly beyond our understanding, rectify the mad injustices of the fields we know. This is the great hope that glows at the heart of theism and at the core of Chesterton's melodrama. "

This 'solution' is a deus ex machina but not one utterly without it's own logic.. What did you expect from transcendant gods, solutions we can emulate and morality we can comprehend?

tergiversant

I must disagree. The desire to survive and thrive is one of the few cross-cultural aspects of human nature. It is a deep-seated instinct from our evolutionary heritage, and has rather little to do with culture.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

wildernesse

I agree that all humans have a biological drive to live and reproduce. My previous comment dealt more with the competitive nature of cultures against each other, and the idea that the wish for survival really only extends to those people who are like you. We’re not wishing for Osama bin Laden to have many safe and happy returns—but those in his sub-culture of Islamic fundamentalism are. So the cross-cultural moral we would gain from this is that it’s not good to kill/harm people like yourself—but those inhumane wackos out there are fair game. Maybe this “universal” moral can be applied to God—after all, humans aren’t like Him. So maybe he is acting morally by not interfering—why interfere with those disgusting beings on Earth?

And human culture often subverts our evolutionary demands—think of those who choose celibacy or to be child free.

--tiba

David Gould

All that is needed to subver the argument is to deny that preventing a rape is always the highest moral act.

If, for example, God could determine that some rapes cause conversion to Christianity and thus save the souls of those rape victims from eternal damnation then it would be morally required for God not to intervene. Of course, this would only be true if that rape was the only way that God could see that would convert this person.

There may even be more to it than this.

If God knows everything and the universe is predetermined then:

1.) If God is moral, the universe will be set up in such a way to minimise those in hell.
2.) Thus, every thing that occurs in the world is a moral necessity. Anything other would result in not minimising those in hell.

If God did not know everything and free will is important morally then:

1.) God cannot know the good and bad consequences of every specific action but may know general laws.

2.) If he knows that rape has a good consequence that outweighs the suffering of the victim in more than half the cases but he does not know which ones, then he is morally obligated to not intervene in any rape.

tergiversant

Indeed so; if one does not accept premise (1) then one would not consider the argument sound.

To someone that rejects this premise I would ask under what circumstances they would consider rape permissible. I would also ask whether they consider God to be morally exemplary and therefore worthy of emulation in this matter.

Do anyone here affirm the truth of this claim? If so, I would be interested in pursing this matter (which Plantinga calls “Leibniz’ folly”) further. The first and most obvious question is why we ought to attempt to prevent any suffering whatsoever if divine Providence is going to ensure exactly the right amount thereof in our world.

What are the implications for those who believe this and claim that God is worthy of moral emulation?

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

David Gould

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by David Gould:
Thus, every thing that occurs in the world is a moral necessity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by tergiversant

Do anyone here affirm the truth of this claim? If so, I would be interested in pursing this matter (which Plantinga calls “Leibniz’ folly&#8221 further. The first and most obvious question is why we ought to attempt to prevent any suffering whatsoever if divine Providence is going to ensure exactly the right amount thereof in our world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this scenario, we do not have free will. Thus, we are the agents through which divine providnece is worked. If you do not prevent suffering, then that is part of the plan. If you do prevent suffering, then that is part of the plan.

Either way, you are fulfilling the destiny that God has set for you. Arguing whether you should prevent suffering or not is irrelvant - if God set you up so that you would, then you will. If he didn't, then you won't.